Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Brandyforandy t1_j36qely wrote

So they are saying to accept the fragmentation would make you a stronger person?


leisure-rules t1_j37bcca wrote

Accept that your self image might not be as finite as you think, and the fragmentation and subsequent temptations decrease.


Brandyforandy t1_j37domq wrote

Not be as finite? But, still finite? What do you mean exactly by saying this.


leisure-rules t1_j37e455 wrote

Pulling from the video; he says the most people feel as if their current self-image is how they will be forever, despite the multitude of changes that they went through up to that point. The reality is that we will continue to change based on new experiences and input, and accepting that fact vs. holding steadfast to your current beliefs helps to reduce fragmentation in the mind.


Brandyforandy t1_j37enng wrote

Oh! a growth mindset?


leisure-rules t1_j37f23c wrote

Growth and acceptance to reduce fragmentation while being aware to avoid temptations seemed to be the theme, yeah


Diogenic_Seer t1_j3aat0e wrote

Growth and acceptance definitely lead to the resistance of temptation, but in personal experience the path is not immediate. It isn’t impossible to hit further fragmentation on the route of trying to change yourself.

People tend to not like heretics. Resisting a temptation that is socially normalized will lead to people giving you shit for it. Your very presence now fragments their mind. Some people do not want to have to think about all the ways they can be changing themselves.

A classic example is how often people get peer pressured out of maintaining sobriety.


Talosian_cagecleaner t1_j38mkqg wrote

or openness paradoxically lessens fragmentation. Likely due to openness allowing for many more potential "cohesion moments" than would a closed system.

Travel can be a good time to gather your thoughts. Travel is sticky. People have written books about being on the road. Identity in movement, not so much state.


Brandyforandy t1_j38v7d3 wrote

I can imagine being too open would impede your ability to form coherent beliefs. Openness could also be called naive in the way you are explaining, it's important to use critical thinking so that you are not led astray.


Oh-hey21 t1_j395d6i wrote

This one is making my mind go in circles and I'm struggling to summarize my point, so bear with me please.

I understand the cautious note, but at the same time, don't the times astray feed directly into creating critical thinking?

Without a single time astray all you can go off of is other people. At some point you would assume other people may not see a situation the same as you. How do you form that "you" without being fragmented?

And sorry if I misread yours.


Brandyforandy t1_j39ffna wrote

It's not wrong to go astray, but to go astray and not reflect upon it would lead to repeated actions. There are many who are of the belief that practice makes perfect, I am of the belief that practice makes permanent. And so, if you repeatedly go astray you'll make a habit of it, instead of doing the right thing from the start. In the first place, these are all our perceptions, there is nothing which is right and wrong. So in an absolute nihilistic way of thinking we need to search within us to find what is right for you. In a human with proper upbringing this is often correlated with things which we view as positive values.


Oh-hey21 t1_j3ar4lb wrote

I think I struggle with this due to having a rough upbringing. At the same time, I attribute a lot of myself to the few external positives, as well as the collection of other close ones who were astray.

Both the good and bad have been solid reflection points for myself throughout my life. I was fortunate enough to soak up a lot at a young age, and being curious has helped me form better feelings besides the second-hand initial knowledge. Going astray throughout life up through now has helped confirm some things, but also helped me create new definitions to others.

Linking back to the video, and I believe what you're also saying - if I were to never give in to the temptations I knew were likely bad, I would have never formed a new opinion, or I may never know with certainty to myself that they are bad.

I agree we need to search within us to find what is right for ourselves. I think self-reflection is extremely important to one's growth.


Brandyforandy t1_j3ba6jq wrote

A thought exercise - I've had a thought that upbringing stops at 12, when the child enters puberty. At this point they begin rebelling and take in new experiences. While rebelling they are in fact not 'rebelling', but testing if the knowledge they've gained from their parents hold up in the real world. If it does, they keep it, if it doesn't, it's discarded. They keep up until they're an adult, where they've formed their own opinions.

I believe this is why we 'grow up to become like our parents', but not until we are actual adults, and not exactly alike.


Oh-hey21 t1_j3cu5hm wrote

I have trouble fully supporting this one.

I feel it's a blanket statement, which rarely covers all cases. I would not consider myself to be one that fits, but I do think many may fit the mold.

For a little more context, I grew up with no restrictions. A dysfunctional family riddled with addiction and abandonment, topped off with a few forms of abuse.

I remember my childhood fairly vividly, many memories from 3-4 years old and on. I wouldn't consider all of the memories accurate, but there are times and people that really stand out, both good and bad.

In retrospect, these key moments from an early age up through my late teens helped form my sense of me. It wasn't a single rebellion period, simply because there was nothing to rebel against. I was experimenting with the world before I could even process the outcome of my actions.

A lot of the people who were bad influences and heavily involved in my younger years (pre 12) are not fairing so well in life. Neither is my younger sibling who I tried my best to watch after as long as I possibly could, but that's currently on the up I hope.

This subject is difficult to me, because I tend to put periods and experiences throughout life under a microscope. I analyze a lot of what I went through, how it made me feel, and how things could be different. I also know that not everything needs to change or could be changed, but embracing and remembering has done well for me.

That process hasn't stopped. It's become more of how I approach everything. My opinions of the past are not static, they change with every new experience I find relatable. Sometimes they are reinforced, other times I'm given a new way to think about the situation.

The thing is, there are so few constants in life. Life is also so unique, yet similar. We seem to want to find patterns that hold true for all, but lack the formulas for really proving it.

I think constantly having an open mind and making sense of it is essential to growth. I do not know that you're suggesting this, but I do not think there should be a static point. These opinions can be firm, but not firm to the extent they cannot be changed. I am currently an adult, and while I identify with a lot of my past, it is not me. I have learned, I have become better, I have also become worse. The thing is, I am not the current me. I am the future me, with past me as a reference point.

Now I guess tying in to what I take from your comment - I'd argue puberty isn't THE defining point. Maybe it is for some, maybe it's the spark. I personally am just now learning who my parents are, so I do not have much of an identity with either. That said, the very young experiences with extended family were massive.

I recently connected with an aunt that used to watch me sporadically when I was 4-6. Since then I've seen her twice, the most recent being 15 years ago. It was surreal finally getting to know her better - my sense of her was extremely limited. I could tell you everything about her house, her children, what I did there, but I couldn't tell you much of what I remember about her. I know I didn't have negative feelings, but I couldn't put a finger on the positive.

Seeing her after so much time had passed was surreal. She understood a lot of what I had to say, and I saw similarities in things like her reactions and temperament. We identified with one another.

I attribute myself to the experiences like the short few years of being babysit by her. I'm not implying she is the sole reason, I have countless others that stand out in my youth. My time alone was equally beneficial with simply thinking - I grew up with a lot of thinking, it was the only way to justify my existence at times.

Sorry if I went off a bit too much. More than willing to keep this train going, if the opportunity presents itself. This year has been very profound for me, but I'm struggling to find more outlets to be heard and also hear. I appreciate the extra thought!


Brandyforandy t1_j3g9g81 wrote

Isn't that because you were raised to find that you always need to find your own path, and nothing is constant? So your upbringing, up to 12, consisted of a lifestyle that required constant learning and growth. The reason I am asking is because my upbringing were similar, and I also have a similar mindset to you.


Oh-hey21 t1_j3giiq2 wrote

Yes and no.

Yes to always having to find my own path. I lacked authority and was able to identify at a young age what others experienced at home from their parents. I then took what I viewed second-hand and applied it to myself.

I'm having a hard time with the age part.

I understand and agree that many children will have an idea of the world with help from their parents. I get there will be an age at which a child will get curious enough to make sense of what they think they know and either strengthen it or dismiss it. I just do not identify a period where that happened in myself. I also think there are many layers to it, and there may not be a single period of breaking free from the initial self. To add a little more, society also controls some movements in terms of freedom and change in environments.

If anything, my upbringing has taught me lessons that were impossible to better understand until much older. I associate good upbringing from tiny splashes from extended family, friends and friends' families. Bad with every day life.

I'm sorry if I'm not getting it, but I would like a better understanding.


Brandyforandy t1_j3m208c wrote

I, as well, am similar to you that I always found my own path from a young age, so as a teenager there was no rebellious phase for me because whatever I had learned was already tested and true. I believe you are in a similar position.


Oh-hey21 t1_j3mehrs wrote

I believe you are correct.

This makes it quite difficult to make sense of, however.

How did we find our paths?

I put a lot of credit towards the positives I knew of, and how I also knew my norm was bad, but at the same time my sibling is just four years younger and our lives could not be more different post-childhood.

It also makes me wonder how much of human nature can be controlled. I'm not implying people should be controlled, but I wish it were possible to successfully help those on the wrong path at an early age.

I strongly favor living and learning. You cannot educate people on certain things without them experiencing it first-hand.

I believe this ties in with your idea of the rebellious stage - children who are guided through life, even if what is deemed "correct", will/may begin to question these thoughts. Questioning leads to testing which leads to the separation of what they knew second hand which then turns into their own experiences.

In a way, it may make sense to promote rebellion. A wrong path doesn't have to be wrong; it can be educational.

Thanks for the back and forth.


Brandyforandy t1_j3n814s wrote

Thank yourself, I am having a great time discussing this topic with you. Your questions really make me think in directions which I haven't considered before. My initial thought was very immature, some inspiration I had in the moment. As we flesh it out together it seems to have greater depth than I could have anticipated.

I believe it wasn't so much that we found our paths, as we subconsciously looked at the reactions of the people around us for answers and consequences. Instead of being told what to do, we had to think and gather information from a variety of sources.


Oh-hey21 t1_j3ncg0b wrote

The more and more I dive into the subconscious self the more confused I get.

We are beings consisting of trillions of microorganisms that work hard to maintain the physical us. There is far greater unknowns going on inside with endless communication and cooperation that "we" have next to no control over. I understand I'm limited in my knowledge through science, but I enjoy trying to learn all I can on the biological side. I find myself going down a lot of funky paths thinking about life in general.

I am probably diving a little too deep with the above, but I can't help but wonder and think if there is more going on than we could ever comprehend with far greater implications on the self.

Anyway, I've had a really pleasurable time digging into why I do a lot of things and I enjoy the discoveries. It's fun to slow down common actions and think about them - why I do it, is there a better way, did I knowingly choose the best way or was it by chance, etc.

If you have anything else you want to dive into please feel free to keep it going.


Talosian_cagecleaner t1_j39a8zs wrote

>it's important to use critical thinking so that you are not led astray.

That is a closing move, though. Or can be. We need to better explore what openness does before we set up a watch over it.

A frictionless, permeable barrier would be madness. But movement with some level of surface coherence would, due to the openness introduced by the movement, naturally increase coherence or mitigate fragmentation. Again, paradoxically.

Imagine a surface with a number X of connections and/or connectors. These connections are with the surface itself (endogenic, reflection, or preoccupation I suppose too) and adventitious (exogenic, external). By movement [in the external] the potential connections multiply in proportion to how one (the surface) moves.

But, one can move the surface too fast to enable this virtuous tempo.

Additionally, there are many ways to move the surface. Many people find reading to be a mode by which connections are made bountiful. Others do not. Some find travel nourishing. But again, at a virtuous tempo.

EDIT: what the tempo is, is not universal, certainly. When and how to rest the surface -- to sleep -- varies in its meaning and operation in human societies, for example. I would expect a lot of variation, even at the individual level. Thank goodness for language. It gives us some semblance of a common timeline of "what's happening."


Brandyforandy t1_j39ge5b wrote

I find it curious that you see it this way. There was a study done a few years ago on what makes a creative individual.. creative. They found that it was not intelligence, nor brain size that mattered, but the ability to make absolutely random connections in the brain, seemingly unnecessary connections. In that way, creative people would be able to come up with the most absurd ideas, but not necessarily have the ability to judge the viability of them. Maybe be need both, some people who are 'open' and others who are 'closed'.


WaveCore t1_j37x0wx wrote

But how does this lead to being able to better resist temptation? Like say I have a problem with getting cravings late at night and ordering a ton of food that I shouldn't be eating. Am I supposed to start thinking "ordering a lot of food late at night isn't so bad, there's no reason I shouldn't do it." And that will ultimately lead me to doing this less?


leisure-rules t1_j38binv wrote

I recommend watching the video but I'll try to explain, as it's not so cut-and-dry. He postulates that fragmentation within the mind makes it harder for us to avoid and resist temptations, because the effort of masking the parts of us that have been fragmented or compartmentalized, takes away from the effort required to combat the temptations. So reducing fragmentation allows more energy to be allocated towards avoiding and resisting the temptations.

The fragmentation is caused by you wanting the late-night food, but knowing that you shouldn't eat/order it. Your 'ideal' state is at odds with your 'desire' state, and the effort of that conflict makes it easier to ultimately succumb to the temptation. And after you succumb once, it's easier to do so each subsequent time you feel the temptation.

So it leaves in a conundrum where if we resist we're screwed due to further fragmentation, but also screwed if we yield to the temptations (and end up eating late-night junk food every night) because this too causes more fragmentation. So his thesis is 1. try to avoid the temptation altogether (i.e., go to bed before the late-night cravings hit), and 2. change your ideal state to be less at odds with your desire state - instead of beating yourself up about feeling the temptation, recognize that the ideal state is not fixed, and it in turn requires less effort within the mind to fragment those conflicting states, which leaves more energy for you to avoid and resist the temptations that still arise.

So it's a continuous process to reduce the existing fragmentation so that it in turn reduces the temptations you feel on a regular basis.

For me, it's relevant to my smoking habit. I know I shouldn't do it, and I feel a deep guilt and shame whenever I do. Yet I keep doing it (both due to chemical dependencies and the habit I've cultivated over the years) - the desire and disdain I feel simultaneously around the same action results in fragmentation. That guilt and shame from the fragmented sense of self (am I a smoker or am I not) leads me to want to smoke more (more fragmentation --> more temptation). Which then leads to more guilt. And the downward spiral continues.

He says, if you step back and recognize that a sense of self isn't so rigid, the fragmentation starts to break down. I don't have to feel bad about a temptation if I allow myself to be both a smoker and not a smoker vs. one over the other. Through introducing flexibility and forgiveness into my sense of self, the fragmentation and subsequent temptations seem to diminish. It's not a cure by any means, but it is a new perspective that I personally can see some value in adopting.


Surfac3 t1_j386yqk wrote

Good question. Not sure if this answers it but it got me thinking.

If it's supposed to be a self acceptance thing is that what it means? To tell ourselves that it would be ok to do something we would otherwise try to not do because if your holding yourself back from doing something you think you shouldn't do but want to do ends up with you doing it anyway to relieve stress then you end up feeling worse and the cycle continues.

But if we change the mindset then your not holding yourself back anymore, which when you did almost always ended up with you eventually surging forward past your restraint and doing the thing your trying to resist in the first place. since your not holding yourself back then you also aren't fighting with yourself, preventing that cognitive dissonance and turning an attempt at resisting temptation to one of avoiding temptation, which is easier in the first place, because it's no longer a temptation.

I think it's all in his you see things. Paradigm shifts etc. Changing how you think and view things.


WaveCore t1_j3898jo wrote

I think I'm understanding the theory. The more you're at odds with yourself on things, the more... weakened you are in general when it comes to making executive decisions. Even though it sounds counterintuitive to think that getting rid of self-imposed rules and restrictions will actually help you to better follow them.

An analogy that might fit here is trying to grab a pile of sand. The more you want to hold onto it and the tighter you clench, the more sand that ends up falling out ironically.


VitriolicViolet t1_j39449n wrote

>; he says the most people feel as if their current self-image is how they will be forever, despite the multitude of changes that they went through up to that point


doesnt make any sense to me, obviously we are all different at different points in our lives, an unchanging person is effectively a dead person.


leisure-rules t1_j39938f wrote

he cited some studies on it. Typically people look at the past 10 years and recognize all the ways they changed, but cannot extrapolate that into how they will continue to change in the future. It's an identity thing, like "this is who I am, of course I won't change"


RandomStallings t1_j3aowwn wrote

>most people feel as if their current self-image is how they will be forever

This explains a lot about why people are so okay with their flaws. Everyone is flawed, but if it can be fixed, fix it. You can stop when you die.


Defense-of-Sanity t1_j39rh3w wrote

This makes a lot of sense. In the Catholic philosophical tradition, intellectual activity is understood to be a discursive / categorical type of activity. One seeks to understand the world by breaking it up and putting it together in a logical sort. In fact, it’s also supposed to be extremely joyful activity, like reassembling a puzzle.

Aquinas was a statistically sensitive person. He didn’t see moral behavior as a matter of sheer will, but of mere probability. Based on my past experience and understand of reality, what is the probability that I will be tempted to steal if I am alone in a room with unguarded money? Higher than if I never enter the room.

It may sound “weak” to avoid temptation, but we don’t think that way about other dangers. You’re not “weak” for keeping fire far from gasoline. You’re not “weak” for diversifying investments to decrease risk. You’re smart! The wise people are those who can read the signs of trouble and get out before there’s a chance to fall down.