Q I want to understand conceptually how structure is built and what it is exactly. For example you talk a lot about the difference between the contemporary western character and a more disciplined sort of character....is discipline something "inner" or something coming from an outside, even if it's oneself pushing himself?
It seems as if discipline is imposed from the outside at an early age and can't come in the same way later on, it's repelled. Nobody wants to be told what to do, no matter if he is disciplined or not, unless there is a masochistic pleasure involved; in any case the problem seems to be you can't compensate once you grow up for the lack of discipline in childhood on your own - this is the main problem I'm trying to understand how one can deal with, how is discipline possible after childhood is gone.
To make it short and clear, could you also give me a definition for structure and discipline, as you use them in your videos. What you replied to me was important but I was asking about this specifically.
A. I will try to answer your question, but as usual I should remind you that my response is based on conjecture, albeit having thought about these issues for many long years.
Discipline, in the case of an old-fashioned character, largely like mine, is inner. I think mine was based very much on the military style regimented culture of Rhodesia, along with the Victorian (19th Century) British notion that children were to be seen and not heard. I was also, that is to say, brought up in a way that was very detached from my parents from an early age. Adults were real people but children considered more akin to animals. Well, that attitude was paradoxical as it led to an enormous about of libertarianism of spirit, along with very rigid notions of what children had to do whilst being actually observed. Along with this, I also learned an attitude of discipline from my father's rages. I had to be sure to withdraw my own emotions until these storms had passed. That means learning to impose my own emotional discipline from a very early age.
Now, all of my conjectures have come about as a result of being misread by people. They maintain there is a universal character structure, and that I am just the same as them, and yet they insist on misjudging me, which means they are wrong as a simple matter of logical deduction. To be exact: people see the libertarian or wilder side of me and think I must be out of control and can easily be harnessed by their wills. But their own deductions are wrong. At the very foundation of my character is a layer of very extreme emotional discipline. Like turning on or off a tap, I can choose to feel a great deal or almost nothing at will. And even if I feel a great deal of pain, I can express myself in such a way as if I do not.
Now, I think (I conjecture) that having this kind of facility of mind is part of the old-fashioned character. I see that modern people do not assume I have it, which is like assuming I don't have any special gears I can flip to engage with social or emotional terrain that is much rougher than usual. I can, though. Take me on and I can go rugged. One uses less energy when the social emotions are turned off and I could go my whole life like this.
But the modern type has their emotions much closer to the surface of their being. It's a different structural type. They can also be stoical, like me, but there is something qualitatively different about it. They seem to "bear up" under social criticism, whereas I don't take "social" anything seriously, although if I identify a tangible threat I go to war with it.
Now, in a way, we could flip the whole thing over and say that modern types have had too much SOCIAL discipine when they were growing up, at least from my perspective. They seem to be socially embarrassed by many things that would not worry me. I, then, have been brought up extremely libertarian compared to them, except from the authoritarian paradox.
In all, I can surmise that how one is brought up from a very early age has a HUGE impact on who one is -- one's basic characterological structure.
That doesn't mean that all is lost, though, if you happen to have been brought up in a different way from others. They key is to be able to work with what you've got. Can you work with it or not? Do you NEED to have discipline imposed from the outside, or is that just an ideology? Or to look at it in a different way, supposing discipline were to be imposed on you from the outside, now that you are an adult, whom would that serve? It may in fact serve you IF you are looking for structure, but it's not automatically beneficial.
I have another theory, too, which is that in early childhood, we make adaptations that give us a certain functional psychological equilibrium. There are pluses and minuses to every adaptation. For instance, it is likely that I learned extreme emotional control so as not to be present to my father's rages. This has left me with the legacy of being able to control my emotions in a very precise way, especially in situations of extreme hardship. On the negative side, I am inclined to emotional repression, switching myself off without being aware that I am doing that.
In general, then, look for the pluses and minuses of every adaptation and work with it. I have gradually been able to make myself more socially and emotionally aware in relation to myself, but this takes many decades. In the mean time, try to find out what is beneficial about your particular form of adaptation. Good luck.
No comments:
Post a Comment