|
Author
|
Topic: How Successful People Remain Successful
|
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 1877
From: acousticgod@sbcglobal.net
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted November 23, 2009 10:22 PM
 
I picked a random link from my favorites folder called Cool Stuff:How Successful People Remain Successful An excerpt:
Thompson: We found that three fundamental principles drive lasting success; these need to interact with one another and also to be integrated and aligned. We describe them in our first chapter in a diagram with three intersecting circles -- meaning, thought and action -- and the bull's eye is where they all come together. We found that individuals across the spectrum of professions were striving to find something that mattered to them in a very fundamental way. This prompted them to drive their thoughts to frame a way of producing those results -- and then acting on those results.
If you take any one of those principles away -- for example, if you take meaning away from thought and action -- you might be successful in the short term. This is because you have a plan in your head and execute against it. But if your plan is disassociated from meaning, it might not matter. And it wouldn't have the meaning which sustains you through the inevitable challenges and difficulties of trying to create a career. That fundamental step of finding meaning, finding the passion that matters to you and that drives your behavior, is often skipped.
When we interviewed people for our book, we learned that whether you are Jack Welch or the Dalai Lama, it is dangerous not to do what you love. If you don't have a level of passion that drives your thinking about what you're doing day in and day out, there will be others out there who are passionate who will overtake and outrun you. People who care will take the initiative away from those who are half-hearted. So loving what you do is a competitive imperative, not simply a nice thing to have.
The whole article's a good read. I'm tempted to post the whole thing. IP: Logged |
Unmoved
Moderator Posts: 1142
From:
Registered: May 2009
|
posted November 24, 2009 04:09 AM
 IP: Logged |
Valus
Knowflake Posts: 1823
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted November 24, 2009 04:59 AM
quote:
it is dangerous not to do what you love
quote:
People who care will take the initiative away from those who are half-hearted. So loving what you do is a competitive imperative, not simply a nice thing to have.
This is misleading in a number of ways. First of all, competition is only an imperative if men, and man-made systems of social organization, make it one. It is clear that people in power will want to maintain it, and will tend to promote an agenda which favors dramatic ascendancy. But "we the people" don't have to be gullible enough as to swallow this vision of reality whole. Not if we are willing and able to re-vision the world, in the light of, but not according to the patterns of, history. I agree with the first part of the article, where its said that, in order to be successful, it helps if a person can "drive their thoughts to frame a way of producing those results -- and then acting on those results". The only way I know to act on the future, is to live in it. Second of all, it is unfair to call a person "half-hearted" simply because he does not put his whole heart into a thing. Are we not counselled to love many people and many things? Aren't we told to be careful not to place all our eggs in one basket? Why, then, is it so good to put one's whole heart into a single endeavor or occupation? I agree that it is fortunate, but only because the current organization of society has made it so. I think it is just as fortunate, if not more so, to be a person who puts his heart into many things, and is not consumed with any one, whatever the material or worldy success it may bring. We must agree not to love so many things, in order to love any one thing perfectly. If that one thing is not God Himself, then I see no reason to place "it" above all other things. But I think, perhaps, the real disagreement here is with the definition of "success". Success in one's career is only one form of success, -- and not the ultimate form, in my humble opinion. There is also success as a partner, in a relationship. And success as a father, or mother, if you choose to be one. Or as a son, or daughter. Or as a brother, or sister. Or as a friend. Or as any number of things. A painter. Or explorer. Someone with hobbies, and dreams more amazing than the most amazing things that can be accomplished. It has always seemed to me that wordly accomplishment, for the vast majority of those who seek and attain it, is nothing but an overcompensation for a dim and underactive imagination. They make things happen, in part, because they cannot envision it. Not to their satisfaction. Not to their own astonishment. They crave the limitations of matter, which are actually more lenient than the limitations of their own minds. I would argue that a great many of the deepest dreamers and the loftiest thinkers are never heard from. They set out into the most distant and uncharted waters, never to return. Who knows what new worlds and little sunny paradises they may have discovered and kept to themselves, while all of mankind competes for fifteen minutes in the sun. If you ever receive bottled messages from such an adventurer, don't wait for his return to publish them. 
"A man has honor if he holds himself to an ideal of conduct
though it is inconvenient, unprofitable, or dangerous to do so."
~ Walter Lippmann
The sea is raging; everything is in the sea.
Well then, old sea dogs! What of fatherland?
Our helm steers us toward our children's land!
Out there, stormier than the sea,
storms our great longing!
~ Friedrich Nietzsche
IP: Logged |
Node
Knowflake Posts: 410
From: Nov. 11 2005
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted November 24, 2009 08:19 AM
It really makes sense that unconscious behavior might lessen your probability for success if you are not doing something that you like. If I applied it to doing something I loved then, I might not be so focused on being successful in the way society defines it.So, how the individual defines success might be key. What I first thought when reading the opening line of your post AG was *relationships* that is a good recipe for sucess no matter the level of emotional envolvement. IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 1877
From: acousticgod@sbcglobal.net
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted November 24, 2009 09:13 AM
I agree with you, V, that one need not specialize in one single thing in order to be successful. I think that is probably too often considered the best course of action despite the fact that most of us naturally have more things that we're interested in.Regarding the definition of success, the article had this to say:
Emery: The question you asked earlier was about how these people think about success. The answer is that they don't. People don't start out to be successful -- they start out to be very good at what matters to them. And when timing and circumstances come together, then they end up with success.
One of the issues we are very clear about is that success needs to be redefined. This is because if you read the definition of success in the dictionary, it sounds like it was written for sociopaths. If you go to Oxford or Webster -- whether you take a dictionary from either side of the Atlantic -- they define success in the same way, as the accumulation of influence, power, wealth and accolades. We see a lot of people chasing that kind of success. What's remarkable is that a few people whom we talked to have achieved that kind of success, but it was never their goal.
A lot of people are experiencing incredible success. Although they don't think about it per se, they have rich lives and they are having an impact that will probably benefit the world way beyond their lifetime. The traditional definition of success doesn't fit their lives at all. What we have here is an historic opportunity to start a global dialogue about success. That's our intention -- to challenge Webster to alter its dictionary definition. That is why we decided to do a global success survey.
IP: Logged |
Yin
Knowflake Posts: 925
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted November 24, 2009 09:50 AM
My favorite part: quote:
One of the issues we are very clear about is that success needs to be redefined. This is because if you read the definition of success in the dictionary, it sounds like it was written for sociopaths. If you go to Oxford or Webster -- whether you take a dictionary from either side of the Atlantic -- they define success in the same way, as the accumulation of influence, power, wealth and accolades. We see a lot of people chasing that kind of success. What's remarkable is that a few people whom we talked to have achieved that kind of success, but it was never their goal.
Do what you love and hope for the best? No. Do what you love. Period.  IP: Logged |
wheels of cheese
Knowflake Posts: 1091
From:
Registered: May 2009
|
posted November 24, 2009 11:18 AM
One of my colleagues has a poster over his desk with a quote on it:"Success seems to be largely a matter of hanging on after others have let go"
William Feather. The first thing I thought when I read that was "******* creepy". IP: Logged |
katatonic
Knowflake Posts: 2687
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted November 24, 2009 11:24 AM
this part sounds like my life...and close to my definition of success:"A lot of people are experiencing incredible success. Although they don't think about it per se, they have rich lives and they are having an impact that will probably benefit the world way beyond their lifetime. The traditional definition of success doesn't fit their lives at all. What we have here is an historic opportunity to start a global dialogue about success. That's our intention -- to challenge Webster to alter its dictionary definition. That is why we decided to do a global success survey." BUT i happen to know someone who decided to quit the music business because he "had enough of poverty and wanted some money". first he got a job. then he got promoted because he's a very bright guy with a lot of energy. then he left the company and started his own (with a lot of the old co's clients!!). first company tore out of the gates and made a really good showing. the profits were eaten away by his and his partner's spending on things to enjoy with their newfound wealth. a market crash and recession put them flat on their backs because they'd spent all their reserves. two years later, new partner and new business, starting while he was on unemployment! not such an instant success, but the guy is now worth a good deal in cash and assets and the company is strong enough to withstand THIS recession. he learned to love what he does as a by-product of seeing it as a road to the life he wanted. when he started he planned to retire at 40 and travel the world on a permanent vacation!! (very realistic, right!)as of now he is nearly 50 and HE LOVES HIS BUSINESS and the actual DOING of the business. i doubt he will retire anytime soon. i would also call him a success even though chasing/making money for it's own sake is something i'm not even capable of. if i can't find meaning in my work, the money seems to run away from me! IP: Logged |
Yin
Knowflake Posts: 925
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted November 24, 2009 11:29 AM
kat, he did what he loved though - working for money, building his own company. Right?IP: Logged |
katatonic
Knowflake Posts: 2687
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted November 24, 2009 12:10 PM
my point exactly, yin. for some people being a success is "what they love"!on the other hand i know a woman who has been in business for 30 years and considers herself a success because a) she is still in business! and b) she has brought in a LOT of money over the years. trouble is it is never enough to really cover the expenses of her business. the number of people who have walked because she wouldn't/couldn't pay them is huge. only a few have sued her for back pay. she lurches from one crisis to another. her energy is amazing usually, and she never admits that things are precarious. so she is still in business, but a success? not by my book. more like a rat on a wheel with a good attitude.... IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 1877
From: acousticgod@sbcglobal.net
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted November 24, 2009 01:28 PM
Sounds like she may be trying to convince herself of her success as much as anyone else.IP: Logged |
katatonic
Knowflake Posts: 2687
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted November 24, 2009 02:29 PM
yes she has made a career of convincing people she is a success. i know quite a few people who credit her with teaching them to stand up for themselves! - and not a lot else. still it works in a fashion...for her! though "delusional" is a word that crops up frequently round her...!whatever floats your boat i guess! IP: Logged |
Valus
Knowflake Posts: 1823
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted November 24, 2009 02:31 PM
...People don't start out to be successful -- they start out to be very good at what matters to them. And when timing and circumstances come together, then they end up with success.
One of the issues we are very clear about is that success needs to be redefined. This is because if you read the definition of success in the dictionary, it sounds like it was written for sociopaths. If you go to Oxford or Webster -- whether you take a dictionary from either side of the Atlantic -- they define success in the same way, as the accumulation of influence, power, wealth and accolades. We see a lot of people chasing that kind of success. What's remarkable is that a few people whom we talked to have achieved that kind of success, but it was never their goal.
A lot of people are experiencing incredible success. Although they don't think about it per se, they have rich lives and they are having an impact that will probably benefit the world way beyond their lifetime. The traditional definition of success doesn't fit their lives at all. What we have here is an historic opportunity to start a global dialogue about success. That's our intention -- to challenge Webster to alter its dictionary definition. That is why we decided to do a global success survey.
IP: Logged |
Valus
Knowflake Posts: 1823
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted November 24, 2009 03:08 PM
We all must craft our individual visions of reality in such a way as to emphasize our own strengths and de-emphasize our own weaknesses. This happens naturally (unconsciously, if we are unconscious of it; or consciously, if we are conscious of it), since, as Nietzsche writes, "the bowels of existence do not speak unto man, except as man", and each individual perceives the world, as it were, through the glass of his or her own bowels -- if you'll pardon the tastelessness of the expression, and of the truth. It's only natural that we present an image of the world which corresponds to our own "spiritual physiognomy", and the more unique this is, the more unique our vision will be. Nothing is more common than for people to dispute over their visions and interpretations of reality, and to call a man "deluded" until he proves himself (in accordance with standards reflecting their values, and their visions). There is no success you can ever achieve which will not be called "delusional" by somebody. That's just the nature of subjectivity, and what it means to share the earth with people who see and think differently from ourselves. A man who thinks differently from you will always interpret your reasoning as an attempt to justify yourself; since he can only accept a line of reasoning which justifies his own "bowels". We do reason with the purpose of justifying ourselves -- but this is the thrust and thrill of Nature; every thing produces and promotes after its own kind, and the conflicts that arise between individuals, their visions, and values, are part of Life. We ought to embrace it, and, while making an effort to be open to the perspectives of others, crusade for what is nearest and dearest to our own hearts; without apologizing for a love that is "merely" subjective. Subjective and delusional are not the same thing. It would appear that most of the people who stand out in a crowd do so because they have fashioned an identity, and vision of the world, which sets them apart in some way. They build themselves up by "justifying" and believing in themselves, and they do the same with their visions. Pretty soon, you find a lot of people believing in them and their visions. That's how it works. People who are too diplomatic, or too eager to justify views which devalue and disempower themselves, cannot be leaders or creators. They lose all their steam, and all that makes them human, or individual, in trying to achieve an objectively moderate view. Creators must have within themselves an appreciation for ruthlessness, and a will, steadfast almost to the point of obstinacy, to tune-out or negate whatever does not support the realization of their personal vision.
"We must make up our minds to be ignorant of much,
if we would ever know anything at all."
~ Cardinal John Henry Newman
"All effective action is unjust."
~ Maya Angelou
("unjust" to somebody)
IP: Logged |
Dervish
Knowflake Posts: 370
From:
Registered: May 2009
|
posted November 24, 2009 08:59 PM
Anton LaVey was such a man. Forming the Church of Satan with his own vision (with a lot of influence from Nietzsche, among others), he drew countless followers, even among the elites (frightening amount of government agents, too). But he didn't feel successful. He felt frustrated that his philosophy of being a true free thinker who defied society's conventions (or at least the reason for them if not the convention itself) instead drew people who wanted to be led. Even worse, some even wanted to sacrifice them for the cause of satanism (ie, his philosophy) which was like blasphemy in a way since his philosophy was about stopping sacrificing yourself for others. He had vainly hoped that his philosophy/antireligion would wake people up from being sheep and complained quite bitterly of all the followers he had who just couldn't get it and were the very sheep he despised. So I wouldn't say he was successful. Hey, I'm just being a typical Libra here.  IMO, success is ultimately measured by the one who feels it more than the "eye of the beholder." IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 1877
From: acousticgod@sbcglobal.net
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted November 24, 2009 10:18 PM
That's what Valus was saying, too, though it's ironic that you preceded that by pronouncing Satanist-guy unsuccessful.I think the talk of whether we judge others to be successful is a bit beside the point I was introducing in the thread, which is that these writers found that where meaning, thought, and action intersect people find success. It seems like a very simple idea that can bring a lot of focus. IP: Logged |
Dervish
Knowflake Posts: 370
From:
Registered: May 2009
|
posted November 24, 2009 10:43 PM
Just to be clear, I don't call "satanist guy" unsuccessful, but rather that seems to be what he felt himself. Not that he ever said that outright, but he did display a huge amount of dissatisfaction in what he'd accomplished, and how it was skewed from what he really was trying to accomplish.But he DID stand out from the crowd with uncompromising revolutionary ideas, and he did draw people to ride on his coat tails. In the post above mine, Valus seems to define that as success, but I didn't get the impression that someone who achieved that agreed that he was successful by doing so. So I threw that out there to "balance the scales" so to speak. IP: Logged |
Valus
Knowflake Posts: 1823
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted November 25, 2009 06:37 PM
Hey Dervish,Jesus, Emerson, Tolstoy... These men exercised tremendous influence and people gathered to hear them speak. Why would you automatically assume that, when I praise these attributes, I have "satanist guy", and not Francis of Assisi, in mind? Or that I think these are the only things needful for success? Or that these are even needful for success? They are possible ingredients of a successful life; that is all. I'm not so much in sympathy with "satanist guy", or "free thinker dude", as you think, although I do sympathize with him. He ought to have expected slavish readers and misunderstandings of all kinds. If we are to judge the success of a man on the basis of how many people have been negatively influenced by his work, we may have to consider that more violence has probably been done in the name of Christ than any other man. Fools misunderstand geniuses, and sinners hate the light. It's the oldest, and saddest, story in The Book. Still, I believe it is well to speak the truth, when the truth is threatened; uncompromising and revolutionary though it may sound to some ears. But you make a good point when you point to happiness, and, specifically, the happiness felt by the man who succeeds. I am not sure whether it is more significant than the happiness he arouses in others, but it is worth considering. I'm reading a book right now, "The Saints' Guide To Happiness", which tries to make the case that true happiness and holiness are the same thing. It emphasises the joy experienced by many saints, and claims that holiness is characterized by a deep and abiding satisfaction with God. And it's true, so many monks submit themselves to the most rigorous and unrelenting schedules of prayer, study, contemplation, rites, and fasts, and yet they are perfectly happy and have no desire for a life which leaves them time and liberty to wander from the focused presence of God. Still, the book I'm reading makes no mention (yet) of Mother Teresa's abiding doubts and recurrent depressions, or of the demonic forces that assualt, with ever-increasing ferocity, the soul aspiring to God, -- or of the dark nights of the soul which color and shade the holy life and often coincide with the aforementioned ecstasy:
"God placed high spiritual delight in my soul. I was completely filled with confidence, and resolutely sustained. I dreaded nothing. It was such a happy spiritual feeling that I was totally at peace. Nothing on earth could have disturbed me.
This lasted only a short time. Returning to myself, I became depressed and was weary of my life. I almost lacked the patience to go on living."
~ Julian of Norwich,
Reflections On Divine Love I would define the inner accomplishments of so many mystics, -- even the ones whom history does not record, and whom nobody took much notice of, -- and even the ones who experienced no abiding reassurance in this life (but only in the next), -- as great and profound successes. Perhaps there is no single ingredient which we always find in a successful person. Maybe success is a combination of things; things which may differ, remarkably or only slightly, in every one of its manifestations, -- and which, taken as a whole, make a life worth living.
IP: Logged |
katatonic
Knowflake Posts: 2687
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted November 25, 2009 08:25 PM
"its a wonderful life" keeps cropping up in my mind here...of course our hero was not particularly saintly or religious but he was a man who thought he was a failure until he had a chance to see his life through someone else's eyes...at which point he realized he was VERY successful...IP: Logged |
Dervish
Knowflake Posts: 370
From:
Registered: May 2009
|
posted November 25, 2009 09:01 PM
Why did I think you meant Satanist guy? I didn't, really. I thought you meant everyone, as you said "we all" and went on to describe finding your own true vision and inspiring others with it (instead of them finding their own visions apparently), the successful in this case those who can inspire the masses to see the world in a new way. And Satanist-guy wasn't disempowered, he was a leader and a creator, as you described. Nor was he willing to be moderate about it, though I have a hard time as seeing him as the fanatic you described as necessary for success ("Creators must have within themselves an appreciation for ruthlessness, and a will, steadfast almost to the point of obstinacy, to tune-out or negate whatever does not support the realization of their personal vision" is what I would call an excessively fanaticism or zealotry, in my book, and is more scary to me than admirable, but I skipped that for the moment as it's a minor point, it was how you defined as necessary for success, so I went with it.)Or do you think your own way of seeing it would be the "default" model for everyone else who dared to think differently? There are many, perhaps infinitely varied, ways to see the world. Satanist-guy is just one more model along with Jesus. But if you mean that we must all craft the "CORRECT" vision, as you yourself believe--rightly or wrongly--you have done, then you should be clearer. And if you hold such a view, then that would explain why there need to be followers of a visionary, rather than seeing the followers themselves as failures instead of leaders & creators (as long as they follow YOUR vision, of course) as you described. Take it as an opportunity to be clearer. That's what I do, when I take time to consider someone else's ideas to see how much merit I can find in them. I weigh them on the scales to see how well they hold up, and that's what I've done with your words. If you need to be clearer, then be clearer. But yeah, people need to define for themselves what success is. To me, winding up some nun or something would be the height of failure for me, but that doesn't mean I think all nuns are therefore failures (some are, some aren't, and it largely depends on how much fulfillment they find in what they do, IMO). 'Course people who decide truth is too painful and instead live "in the moment" in endless revery, bliss, and intoxication can be successful in my book, too. It all depends on how much happiness they get out of it. If they live in a cardboard box, bathe irregularly, and get beat up by cops on a regular basis, but their heart soars at being alive and they are happy (as opposed to bitter and in constant addiction/hunger), then they are a success in my book. It's certainly preferable to being a bitter, miserable (but drug free!) wage slave on a bunch of psyche meds (ok, not entirely drug free then), betrays the spouse & kids, and who finally suicides or kills his/her entire family. If they find tremendous happiness in being moderate, then that's their success, as much as they can hold on to it. "People can take everything away from you
But they can never take away your truth
But the question is..
Can you handle mine? "They say I'm crazy
I really don't care
That's my prerogative" --Britney Spears, My Prerogative IP: Logged |
Valus
Knowflake Posts: 1823
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted November 26, 2009 01:42 AM
Wow, okay, Dervish, quote:
Take it as an opportunity to be clearer. That's what I do, when I take time to consider someone else's ideas to see how much merit I can find in them. I weigh them on the scales to see how well they hold up, and that's what I've done with your words. If you need to be clearer, then be clearer.
LOL. You can buy my book, when I'm done with it. How's that? It's important to be clear, sure, but no matter how well you speak, there's always more to say. I have a lot to say, and its difficult to condense what I see into post-sized bits, but I struggle to keep my posts short. Some people "get me" right away, and others need things explained. If you show an interest, though, I'm happy to elaborate for you. quote:
Why did I think you meant Satanist guy? I didn't, really. I thought you meant everyone, as you said "we all" and went on to describe finding your own true vision and inspiring others with it (instead of them finding their own visions apparently),
Well, like the Satanist guy, I promote finding one's own voice, and, like Nietzsche, I think the people who truly understand me will ultimately reject my teachings. If they do not reject me, I have been a poor teacher (for them). But followers will follow, so you had better learn to lead. The best and the least you can do for them is give them something to follow which tries to direct them to the deepest and highest parts of themselves. It's inevitable that there will be teachers and students, leaders and followers, speakers and listeners, etc., -- but the best teachers will know how to undermine the expectations of their students. What I aim for is seeing my truth embraced by people with whom it resonates, so that it will assist them in tuning into their own truth. Listening to people who have found their truth can help us tune into our own, especially if their truth is a spiritual relative of our own. quote:
the successful in this case those who can inspire the masses to see the world in a new way. And Satanist-guy wasn't disempowered, he was a leader and a creator, as you described. Nor was he willing to be moderate about it,
I'm sure he fits the description I gave well enough, Dervish, but, like I said, so does Gandhi. So does Hitler. But I see where you misunderstood me and thought I was condoning something more sinister than I was. The confusion is largely semantic, as I'll explain... quote:
though I have a hard time as seeing him as the fanatic you described as necessary for success
I didnt say success.. I said being a leader and a creator. There are forms of success which do not entail creative leadership, just as there are forms of creative leadership which do not entail success. And I did not describe a zealot or fanatic, although you read my words that way. I'll explain... quote:
("Creators must have within themselves an appreciation for ruthlessness, and a will, steadfast almost to the point of obstinacy, to tune-out or negate whatever does not support the realization of their personal vision" is what I would call an excessively fanaticism or zealotry, in my book, and is more scary to me than admirable,
First of all, steadfastness is generally understood to be a virtue. Christ was so "stubborn", he allowed himself to be crucified, rather than compromise his teaching (i.e. his personal vision). I, for one, dont think it was fanaticism that guided him. Secondly, my definition of a creator stopped short of obstinacy -- though many would call Christ's actions obstinate. Thirdly, if Christ had taken an interest in cartography, or geology, or music, or a thousand other perspectives which clamour for his attention, demanding to be valued and validated, do you think he would have had the time and the singlemindedness of purpose to become the Messiah? Or if Rembrandt was at all eager not to offend the value system of a Benedictine monk, do you think he would have become a painter (or a Benedictine)? If Gandhi were as understanding of violence as he was of pacifism, would he have led his people to peacefully resist British rule? At some point, he stopped listening to, analyzing, and weighing the views of others, and started acting on his own principles. The word "ruthlessness" is harder for me to defend, but I chose it for meaningful reasons. What I call ruthlessness goes unnoticed by most people. It's only my sensitivity to it that makes me see it as ruthless, and, at the same time, as necessary for the sake of carving out a distinct identity. Every time we take a position, we are being a little bit ruthless. Somebody, somewhere, is forced to defend herself against the views we so casually profess. Without a glimmer of empathy, or the merest inkling of what another person's reality consists of, we pass judgement on him, like its nothing. Everyone does this, many times, every day. The person who gets distinction for his perspective does it in a more radical, extreme, or unique way. The views he asserts are scandalous for these reasons, but, all the more so, because he asserts them with the same "ruthlessness" with which others repeat the common prejudices of the crowd. We call it ruthless only because we know it's not universal -- that nothing is universal, -- and that somebody, somewhere, is always shortchanged when we emphasize the value of qualities which they do not possess; or when we lack appreciation for qualities which they do. It's only on account of my compassion for people who are not empowered by my philosophy, that I'm able to admit where my philosophy is "ruthless". I think its important to recognize the ruthlessness of our positions. So many people don't see it, and take it for granted that their view is not ruthless, simply because it is the popular and established view. But, in reality, how much more ruthless are the views which come down on us with all the leverage of authority, and all the wieght of tradition? Moreover, such ruthlessness, because it is so respected, often goes unopposed. People just accept the judgement -- or, if they argue, they argue that they are innocent of the crime; not that the so-called "crime" is innocent. On the other hand, the man who stands out and proposes something new, or in a new way, quickly becomes acutely aware of how "ruthless" he must be, to continue speaking words which upset his contemporaries, since they are encouraged, by all of history, to vocalize their sense of injustice and disapproval. quote:
Or do you think your own way of seeing it would be the "default" model for everyone else who dared to think differently?
I'm not sure what you mean. quote:
There are many, perhaps infinitely varied, ways to see the world. Satanist-guy is just one more model along with Jesus.
You just voiced a chief principle,
or theme, in my own view of the world. IP: Logged |
Valus
Knowflake Posts: 1823
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted November 26, 2009 01:42 AM
quote:
But if you mean that we must all craft the "CORRECT" vision, as you yourself believe--rightly or wrongly--you have done, then you should be clearer.
When did I say I believe I have crafted the "CORRECT" (in quotes, as if you are quoting me) vision? Like everyone, I work with the views which seem the most correct, reasonable, or appropriate for myself, at any given time. Of course, I'd like to encourage everyone to seek the most correct, or appropriate, views for themselves. quote:
And if you hold such a view, then that would explain why there need to be followers of a visionary, rather than seeing the followers themselves as failures instead of leaders & creators (as long as they follow YOUR vision, of course) as you described.
Followers are not failures. Ideally, they are people who respect superior insight, or insight of a specific nature, and who, having discovered someone who appears to exercise such insight, proceed to humble themselves and recognize that person as a teacher for them. Ideally, they collaborate with this teacher without sacrificing their essential autonomy, and, eventually, they take the teaching in a new direction, and become a teacher in their turn. I would consider myself a student of many teachers, and many teachings, which I struggle to weave together into a tapestry reflecting the patterns of my own developing soul. I don't think of it as a failure, but, rather, as a great distinction, to be a student, or follower (though the word has unfortuneate connotations), of Nietzsche and Christ. I'd encourage people to read and learn from them before me. Or, better yet, do some thinking for themselves. Nevertheless, I'll continue to write, and to enjoy being read. quote:
But yeah, people need to define for themselves what success is. To me, winding up some nun or something would be the height of failure for me, but that doesn't mean I think all nuns are therefore failures (some are, some aren't, and it largely depends on how much fulfillment they find in what they do, IMO).
Exactly.
This is part of what I tried to say. quote:
'Course people who decide truth is too painful and instead live "in the moment" in endless revery, bliss, and intoxication can be successful in my book, too. It all depends on how much happiness they get out of it. If they live in a cardboard box, bathe irregularly, and get beat up by cops on a regular basis, but their heart soars at being alive and they are happy (as opposed to bitter and in constant addiction/hunger), then they are a success in my book. It's certainly preferable to being a bitter, miserable (but drug free!) wage slave on a bunch of psyche meds (ok, not entirely drug free then), betrays the spouse & kids, and who finally suicides or kills his/her entire family.
LOL. Well said.  And I think, as long as they are not doing serious harm to others, its "all good". Only God knows how much their souls are gratified or lifted on account of the way they have lived down here. We speculate, and bet our lives on the probabilities we calculate, but none of us really know. A point worth remembering. quote:
If they find tremendous happiness in being moderate, then that's their success, as much as they can hold on to it.
Definitely. There are many people who are not cut-out to be leaders and creators, but who can still be successful and happy. Often, these people make the best students and followers. And this is not a mark against them, by any means. It may only be a stage in their soul's larger journey, or it may be a basic attunement to moderation, mediation, receptivity, and the like. None of these things are bad. In Christian terms, the body of Christ is a unification of many different members. The head, the heart, the hand, the eye, the tongue, the stomach, the foot... all rely on one another, and each executes a unique and specific office in the service of the Lord. My point is "do not let the right hand know what the left hand is doing": Each member, while working in harmony with the other memebers, must attend to the business which is natural to it. The heart must not attempt to think, or the mind to walk, or the eye to grasp. Each member must have a "ruthless" concern for its own operations. If the members are too respectful of one another, there is confusion and homogeniety. The parts must be united, but also well-defined. The hand carries out the business of the heart, not by being like the heart; but by being itself, and by letting the heart be the heart. In human terms, let yourself be yourself; let yourself love what you love; and don't worry so much about validating everybody else's value systems for them. This is what I mean by being "a little ruthless", and why I dont think its necessarily a bad thing to be.
IP: Logged |
Valus
Knowflake Posts: 1823
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted December 09, 2009 12:02 PM
"Have I been understood?"
~ Friedrich Nietzsche IP: Logged |
cpn_edgar_winner
Knowflake Posts: 1646
From: Toledo, OH
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted December 09, 2009 03:20 PM
.IP: Logged |
Lyra
Knowflake Posts: 135
From: London, UK
Registered: May 2009
|
posted December 09, 2009 05:15 PM
Well I have everything I want (I don't actually want for much - I don't desire a partner or children or a car or a house of my own or lots of possessions or trimmings; I only desire to be able to do the work I love. However, I am cr*p at making money, always have been and probably always will be, there is just no requirement for what I have to offer (although I actually have lots to offer, it doesn't seem to fulfil most people's immediate, say, physical or material needs). So I just have to withdraw from the world, it seems, and forget about other people. Most of them seem so greed- and possession- or sensuality-obsessed that it actually disappoints me. I can't understand them and I doubt they'd probably understand me. BTW I like your point about ruthlessness, Valus. I get the feeling I am coming into a time where my life is more about *me* and less about other people's expectations. IP: Logged | |
Lindaland
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
