I've notice my thoughts and tastes take an inward turn as the world around me does the same, sloping down through fall and preparing for the trough of winter. As the leaves themselves slow down from green, to yellow, red, finally to brown before they wither away, I find myself listening to more and more jazz, wanting more organic sounds to keep me warm. This has been the first year I've really noticed how much the seasons affect my mind, and I wasn't aware of it until the summer. Even then, I figured it was a broader shift of my interests, with only small suspicion that the seasons were to blame.
The winter beforehand my thoughts had been distinctly introspective, mulling over ideas like philosophy and metaphysics, and my place in the universe. My actions were in turn very inward as well, composed mostly of writing and music. I was also listening to "cozy" music (like jazz, ambient electronic and acoustic), not wanting to brave the cold of more outward stuff. At the time I figured that was just my new direction, and I embraced it accordingly. My mind and I were getting along quite well when it started to get warmer, and I became gradually less interested in that introspection I had enjoyed before. More and more, I wanted to get out in the world and turn my thoughts and actions both toward it, away from myself. Not really knowing fully that it was just a circle that would come back around in time, it saddened me a little not wanting to think the way I had before.
As summer came I still did the same things for the most part, the writing, the music, the photography, but they took on a distinctly outward quality. My writing began to direct itself at the outside world, to skate faster along the surface of a given topic, rather than slower diving I had done earlier. In thinking - and therefore writing - one can. I was moving more horizontally through the information "grid", between different topics, rather than vertically into one topic. My music became more upbeat and simple, more about sharing energy with its audience than exploring some inner depth. That helped me to discover the dimension of intention in songwriting, with "fun" being one end and "thoughtful" being the other*. The music I listened to became more outward and brave (like rock, metal and house), since the warm weather and active social atmosphere made me feel I could "put myself out there" musically. Eventually, this started to wane, which I didn't really notice fully until today.
I was walking home from working, listening to some Coltrane (pardon the name drop) and deliberately moving at a relaxed pace when it hit me: as fall comes, the ecosystem is slowing down, becoming less outward, and preparing to "die" for the winter. Once it's "dead", it will become completely inward for the most part. It won't appear to be doing anything, but on the inside it's just going through the other side of a cycle, the side that's below the surface of what we can see. Since our bodies and minds are just as much a part of the ecosystem as anything else, we do the same. It was a comforting connection to make, and I get more excited about each season every year it comes. The way I see it, it's just one more reason to not try and hold on, but to know and trust that it all comes around again.
*Those might not be the absolute best words to describe musical intention, but I hope my meaning is clear given the context.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Poles of Personality
There are technical people and there are creative people, neither of which could survive alone in society.
Technical people see the world as being equal to or less than the sum of its parts (reductionism). In their extremes they practice business strictly for the sake of itself, and insist on doing things that have a clear and beneficial physical purpose. Creative people see the world as being equal to or more than the sum of its parts (holism). In their extremes they practice art strictly for the sake of itself, and insist on doing things that have a clear and beneficial psychological purpose.
Without creative people to provide instinct and novel ideas, technical people would just be building a very efficient and practical vehicle to a future that they're unable to imagine. On the other hand, without technical people to provide reasoning and practical ideas, creative people would be imagining a very distant and glorious future, the vehicle to which they're unable to build.
Under the guise of objectivity these groups are sometimes placed into categories called Type A and Type B personalities, but that categorization in itself - ironically enough - is a very "Type A" behavior. Technical people like to simplify things into tangible quantities, to decrease the complexity or "frequency" of information, so its only natural they would do the same with psychology. On the other hand, creative people tend to resist categorization altogether, instead emphasizing intangible qualities and increasing the complexity of information.
Once again, either of these "poles" of personality by itself is not sustainable, and would result in a complete lack of societal progress. However, the best part is that we all have the ability to freely move between them, and that's the key to our success. Being able to strike a balance between these thought processes in our interactions with each other, with the rest of the planet, and with ourselves is what can keep us alive and moving forward. Don't clash, collaborate.
Technical people see the world as being equal to or less than the sum of its parts (reductionism). In their extremes they practice business strictly for the sake of itself, and insist on doing things that have a clear and beneficial physical purpose. Creative people see the world as being equal to or more than the sum of its parts (holism). In their extremes they practice art strictly for the sake of itself, and insist on doing things that have a clear and beneficial psychological purpose.
Without creative people to provide instinct and novel ideas, technical people would just be building a very efficient and practical vehicle to a future that they're unable to imagine. On the other hand, without technical people to provide reasoning and practical ideas, creative people would be imagining a very distant and glorious future, the vehicle to which they're unable to build.
Under the guise of objectivity these groups are sometimes placed into categories called Type A and Type B personalities, but that categorization in itself - ironically enough - is a very "Type A" behavior. Technical people like to simplify things into tangible quantities, to decrease the complexity or "frequency" of information, so its only natural they would do the same with psychology. On the other hand, creative people tend to resist categorization altogether, instead emphasizing intangible qualities and increasing the complexity of information.
Once again, either of these "poles" of personality by itself is not sustainable, and would result in a complete lack of societal progress. However, the best part is that we all have the ability to freely move between them, and that's the key to our success. Being able to strike a balance between these thought processes in our interactions with each other, with the rest of the planet, and with ourselves is what can keep us alive and moving forward. Don't clash, collaborate.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Looking for a word...
I'm looking for a word, basically a perpendicular counterpart for "analogy". What do I mean by perpendicular? Well, imagine a two-dimensional grid, a chart if you will. Along the horizontal axis are separate topics, like "dogs, cats, mice, humans" for example, and along the vertical axis are concepts related to these topics, like "average size, diet, predators, communication". The horizontal axis would be analogy, or sets of analogs (dogs eat kibble, cats eat fancy feast, mice eat cheese, humans eat donuts). If this is so, then what would you call the vertical axis? Topic or subject sort of works, but doesn't quite fit as neatly as I'd like. What I'm really looking for is something with a meaning truly perpendicular to that of analog.
The reasoning behind this is that I have a hard time understanding concepts when they're presented in a linear fashion (like standard-form written language), which can be rather one-dimensional. I'm a visual learner, so I'm always trying to find ways of organizing and presenting concepts in at least two dimensions. Also, this ties in with the philosophizing I've been doing lately about multi-dimensional existence and thought. So, if you think of the word I'm looking for, or anything remotely related to it, send it my way.
The reasoning behind this is that I have a hard time understanding concepts when they're presented in a linear fashion (like standard-form written language), which can be rather one-dimensional. I'm a visual learner, so I'm always trying to find ways of organizing and presenting concepts in at least two dimensions. Also, this ties in with the philosophizing I've been doing lately about multi-dimensional existence and thought. So, if you think of the word I'm looking for, or anything remotely related to it, send it my way.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Big Bad Birthday Balance Blog
So, I'm 23 today, and what have I learned so far? Balance. It's the most important concept to master, from chakras to channel surfing, the key to a happy and fulfilling life is to hover gracefully around the middle. You can and will deviate, and that's where your best - and worst - memories will be, but the point of this whole game called life is to learn everything you can, and to put that knowledge to use. This knowledge will help you control what you can, and accept what you can't, and with a little practice, you'll learn to laugh at life as it flows through you (or you through it, depending on your point of view). There's so much more I could go into about this, but like everything else it's a fractal, and the great thing about fractals is that you don't necessarily have to dive all the way in to get the picture. Just gaze at it from high above for now, and appreciate your place within it.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Cool
What is cool? It can have a lot of meanings depending on who you're talking to, but I'll tell you what it means to me - at least in the context of personality. I would define cool as the level of detachment one has from one's surroundings. Everyone knows firsthand that this detachment can vary immensely between different people, but I strongly believe that the sweet spot is right in the middle.
Too much cool makes you aloof, inaccessible, unfriendly, unable to work as part of a team, and generally cuts you off from society. Also, the more you detach from other people, the less important you perceive them as, relative to yourself. This often causes you to lose sight of the best interests of society as a whole, and to take advantage of others for personal gain. People with too much cool can be recognized by their cynicism and resistance to others' ideas, their negative condescension and humor at the expense of others (in excess), and their general ivory-tower attitude. One place where this shows pretty obviously is in their reaction to other people's humor. A super-cool person would tend to resist smiling or laughter. If they did laugh, it would be in a condescending manner, as if to say "I think it's trite and funny that you think that's funny." I think that's a little funny in itself, and would probably laugh at it. Another risk of being too detached is that nobody can understand you or relate to you, because you place little to no importance on making your ideas accessible and comprehensible for others. You do become very efficient with your ideas, because you need only move forward based on what you know (no translation required), but if individual efficiency were the name of the game the world would be a very different place.
On the other side of the spectrum, too little cool makes you clingy, nosy, overbearing, unable to work individually, and generally tethers you very closely to society. As you become more attached to other people, the more important you perceive them as, relative to yourself. Because of this, you lose sight of your own best interests and are easily taken advantage of. Uncool people can be recognized by their over-emphasis of others' ideas, their fear of abandonment, and their naivety (the counterpart to the cynicism of the super-cool). It seems to me that people or behaviors like this aren't as common as the former, or maybe this side of the concept is still sticking to the toothpick a little, if you know what I mean. I do want to flesh it out some more, so I'll come back to it in later posts.
As you can see, being too far either way causes problems, and like Goldilocks and the three bears, the middle ends up being the way to go. If you're 50% detached, you're still approachable and open to outside ideas, yet capable of generating your own. People exhibiting this level of cool can usually be recognized by their level-headed demeanor, their far-reaching empathy, their receptive attitude toward others' ideas, and their sweet hair and/or sunglasses (just kidding). Another hallmark of these fifty-percenters is their self confidence and security, and it makes perfect sense. When you're half detached, you perceive yourself and others with equal importance, so it's only natural to feel like you can do anything just as well as anyone else.
I'm not saying either of these extremes in behavior and personality are bad, because good and bad is an entirely subjective concept; I'm just stating my observation that dwelling consistently at either end of the spectrum does cause social friction. It's entirely a matter of personal choice how you interpret what I'm saying, and be sure to bear in mind that these descriptions are really just snapshots of personality traits, like photographs; in reality it's more like video, and people's levels of cool are always fluctuating in regards to different environmental factors. Furthermore, because of that pesky bell curve, you probably won't see many people who exhibit the extremes I'm describing for any period of time. Many of us are right around the middle, so the concepts I'm talking about here need only be our guides to keep us there.
Too much cool makes you aloof, inaccessible, unfriendly, unable to work as part of a team, and generally cuts you off from society. Also, the more you detach from other people, the less important you perceive them as, relative to yourself. This often causes you to lose sight of the best interests of society as a whole, and to take advantage of others for personal gain. People with too much cool can be recognized by their cynicism and resistance to others' ideas, their negative condescension and humor at the expense of others (in excess), and their general ivory-tower attitude. One place where this shows pretty obviously is in their reaction to other people's humor. A super-cool person would tend to resist smiling or laughter. If they did laugh, it would be in a condescending manner, as if to say "I think it's trite and funny that you think that's funny." I think that's a little funny in itself, and would probably laugh at it. Another risk of being too detached is that nobody can understand you or relate to you, because you place little to no importance on making your ideas accessible and comprehensible for others. You do become very efficient with your ideas, because you need only move forward based on what you know (no translation required), but if individual efficiency were the name of the game the world would be a very different place.
On the other side of the spectrum, too little cool makes you clingy, nosy, overbearing, unable to work individually, and generally tethers you very closely to society. As you become more attached to other people, the more important you perceive them as, relative to yourself. Because of this, you lose sight of your own best interests and are easily taken advantage of. Uncool people can be recognized by their over-emphasis of others' ideas, their fear of abandonment, and their naivety (the counterpart to the cynicism of the super-cool). It seems to me that people or behaviors like this aren't as common as the former, or maybe this side of the concept is still sticking to the toothpick a little, if you know what I mean. I do want to flesh it out some more, so I'll come back to it in later posts.
As you can see, being too far either way causes problems, and like Goldilocks and the three bears, the middle ends up being the way to go. If you're 50% detached, you're still approachable and open to outside ideas, yet capable of generating your own. People exhibiting this level of cool can usually be recognized by their level-headed demeanor, their far-reaching empathy, their receptive attitude toward others' ideas, and their sweet hair and/or sunglasses (just kidding). Another hallmark of these fifty-percenters is their self confidence and security, and it makes perfect sense. When you're half detached, you perceive yourself and others with equal importance, so it's only natural to feel like you can do anything just as well as anyone else.
I'm not saying either of these extremes in behavior and personality are bad, because good and bad is an entirely subjective concept; I'm just stating my observation that dwelling consistently at either end of the spectrum does cause social friction. It's entirely a matter of personal choice how you interpret what I'm saying, and be sure to bear in mind that these descriptions are really just snapshots of personality traits, like photographs; in reality it's more like video, and people's levels of cool are always fluctuating in regards to different environmental factors. Furthermore, because of that pesky bell curve, you probably won't see many people who exhibit the extremes I'm describing for any period of time. Many of us are right around the middle, so the concepts I'm talking about here need only be our guides to keep us there.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
What's in a name?
So I've been thinking about names, and what they're really for. They're the "logo" for your identity, and in a sense they're the ancient ancestor of business cards*; in many social situations they're all somebody has to communicate with you. They exist for a very simple purpose: to be remembered. Bearing this in mind, it's very important that a name - or people's understanding thereof - be clear, concise, and that it not cause confusion. On the other hand, it's okay to be unique and show a little of your personality in your name. In some situations - depending on your company - it can actually help people to remember your name more easily, which is its main purpose in the first place. So it would appear, like many other things in life, a balance between these two factors seems to make the best names (in an evolutionary sense), and not just for people either.
To use a personal example, I've been in social situations before where I introduced myself in a way that caused confusion about my name. As a result, people who may have wanted to talk to me and make a concrete social connection avoided doing so. Oops. Since learning from that mistake, I now try to make my introductions simple, "Hi, I'm Andy," and that's usually it. I know, it's kind of boring and dry, but it leaves no question in people's minds as to who I am. When they want to talk to me, they say "Hey Andy..." It can be very fun and interesting to mix it up and make some kind of joke, and it's hard to resist the temptation to inject a little humor/irony/sarcasm into every interaction with the world. Everyone does it, myself included, and since all of this depends on the company you're with, it can be advantageous sometimes. Overall though, if you want to express yourself there are plenty of venues other than introductions, and they'll all be much more effective and less prone to misunderstandings.
The same thing applies to anything with a name, really. Companies, restaurants, bands, products; on average people are less likely to do business with / eat at / listen to / buy things if they don't know for sure what to call them. "Hey man, check out this great band, they're called... uh, something fucked up with two umlauts." Yeah, I'm gonna go track them down. Of course, I'm a little more forgiving of this in my own life, but that's not the point of what I'm saying. Public relations are an important part of the life of any organism, if you think about it.
To sum it up, I think names should be used for what they do best: identifying things in the most basic sense, just so you know what they are and what to call them. The rest of your interactions with the world (be you a person, band, company, etc.) are what show people your personality.
*Yes, I do realize that names can be much more than business cards, but that's fodder for another discussion entirely.
To use a personal example, I've been in social situations before where I introduced myself in a way that caused confusion about my name. As a result, people who may have wanted to talk to me and make a concrete social connection avoided doing so. Oops. Since learning from that mistake, I now try to make my introductions simple, "Hi, I'm Andy," and that's usually it. I know, it's kind of boring and dry, but it leaves no question in people's minds as to who I am. When they want to talk to me, they say "Hey Andy..." It can be very fun and interesting to mix it up and make some kind of joke, and it's hard to resist the temptation to inject a little humor/irony/sarcasm into every interaction with the world. Everyone does it, myself included, and since all of this depends on the company you're with, it can be advantageous sometimes. Overall though, if you want to express yourself there are plenty of venues other than introductions, and they'll all be much more effective and less prone to misunderstandings.
The same thing applies to anything with a name, really. Companies, restaurants, bands, products; on average people are less likely to do business with / eat at / listen to / buy things if they don't know for sure what to call them. "Hey man, check out this great band, they're called... uh, something fucked up with two umlauts." Yeah, I'm gonna go track them down. Of course, I'm a little more forgiving of this in my own life, but that's not the point of what I'm saying. Public relations are an important part of the life of any organism, if you think about it.
To sum it up, I think names should be used for what they do best: identifying things in the most basic sense, just so you know what they are and what to call them. The rest of your interactions with the world (be you a person, band, company, etc.) are what show people your personality.
*Yes, I do realize that names can be much more than business cards, but that's fodder for another discussion entirely.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Back in Vermont
So I left my job in Massachusetts, came back to Vermont, and am currently working at a cafe within a bookstore. I'm pretty content right now, and I've been having a great many thoughts race through my head that might interest the digital passerby, so I'll try to post them when I can. Keep an eye out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
