Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site unc.unc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!unc!fsks From: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Jeff S. and the Illusion of Self-Actualization Message-ID: <152@unc.unc.UUCP> Date: Thu, 15-Aug-85 16:26:06 EDT Article-I.D.: unc.152 Posted: Thu Aug 15 16:26:06 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 18-Aug-85 04:09:23 EDT References: <1528@utah-gr.UUCP> <1375@pyuxd.UUCP> <100@unc.unc.UUCP> <1443@pyuxd.UUCP> <2602@sun.uucp> <129@unc.unc.UUCP> <2615@sun.uucp> Reply-To: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) Organization: CS Dept, U. of N. Carolina, Chapel Hill Lines: 71 Summary: Frank Silbermann: >> EVEN NON-CONFORMISTS FULFIL CULTURALLY DEFINED ROLES. >> The question to ask yourself is which of society's roles is best for you, >> taking into consideration your ability to play the role, and whether >> you get from it what you want. Ms. Sunny Kirsten: > None of society's roles is best for me. I cannot get from life > what I want nor what I need by playing only one of the roles > offered to me (with approval) by society. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > This is why I am a non-conformist. This is why I am self-defined. Not necessarily. Most likely, you are merely choosing one of the roles that society offers you with DISapproval. This role may be best for you despite the disapproval, because of other factors. You are not self-defined. You are merely a dissenter. Ms. Sunny Kirsten: > This is why I try NOT to have ANY self image. > This is the Zen suppression of ego. And if you succeed in this, then you are the first since the Bhuddah, himself (and I have doubts about him). I repeat: The self-defined, self-motivated, self-actualized self-image is an illusion. Ms. Sunny Kirsten: > It is not an illusion. _Few_ achieve it, for it takes much effort > and a great deal of willingness to rethink your life.. a scary and > threatening proposition. I think "few" is too weak. Try "Probably nobody achieves it." Ms. Sunny Kirsten: > Further, few have the intestinal fortitude to stand up against > possible or actual rejection from the majority of society in order > to live the way they *really* want to, rather than the way which > is easiest and which causes the least rejection from the surrounding > culture. If this way is, in general, truly better, then what is the advantage in having a society or culture in the first place? Ms. Sunny Kirsten (paraphrased): > It is better to choose which culture you live in to fit the behavior > which is natural for you, than to change your behavior to fit > your culture. Let's get back to specific cases. This discussion arose from Jeff Sargent's attempt to come to terms with society's expectations for male behavior. Many followups recommended that he simply relocate somewhere else (e.g. San Francisco), where these expectations do not exist. The problem is that NO society exists which is completely aligned with Jeff's values and tendencies. Jeff's foremost consideration is his religious faith. This might conflict with San Francisco society. But religious Christian societies in this country tend to hold traditional attitudes about masculinity and femininity. So, no matter what society he chooses, there will be a conflict. In summary, Jeff CANNOT choose a culture to fit what he considers natural because such a culture probably does not exist. Though I may disagree with many of Jeff's religious beliefs, I cannot criticize his decision to put those values first in his life. If this means compromise with respect to other values, then so be it. It's not as though Jeff chose to be insecure about his masculinity. This is merely an accidental by-product of his upbringing. So, if he is trying to adjust to his society in this regard, I can only offer him my sympathy and encouragement. Frank Silbermann