11/1/2009 10:20 pm
Last Read:
11/7/2009 9:16 am
|
In the process of job search, I have been reflecting on what I've done in the past, and what I am going to do now to be myself to the greatest extent possible. At one point, I came to a realization that I may not have been myself in most of the jobs I've had, and, in the choice presented to me now, I might not be fully myself either. Is there such a thing where one can be fully oneself? I don't know that. Of course, one may argue that there is no such thing as being absolutely yourself, and that, regardless of what we do, we are being ourselves somehow, too, because that's all we can be. But the latter is not a convincing argument for me.
Among those fortunate people who can say, "Yes, I am fully myself in what I am doing now, and I have always chosen that," are probably artists, writers, musicians. And what about the ordinary mortals who have not been able to realize their talents, and who are forced to always compromise on who they really are? What if any activity in which they are involved puts them in conflict with themselves?
I feel a little conflicted right now, even though I've been fortunate enough in the past to have a job that brought me satisfaction. Yet, it has also made me question whether I belong in it...
As the Universe's response to my question, I have bumped into my lovely neighbors, the actor and his wife, and they have validated my feelings. They say they've been asking themselves the same question lately, and it may be because of the city we live in, Los Angeles, that projects that strange energy on us, as many people who come here want to get something big, and it's about take, take, take, and all the billboards tell people who they should be, and how they are supposed to look, and one has to grow a protective skin... I love my neighbors, I've already mentioned that
Do you question whether you belong where you find yourself right now? And, if the answer is "no," do you tell yourself that that's the way things are, and asking for more is asking too much?
|
5462 posts 11/2/2009 12:13 am |
What exactly is 'ourselves'? If we didn't push 'ourselves' to the next step, how can we find out exactly who we are? If we didn't take a chance with 'ourselves' could we really see into 'ourselves'?
Maybe we can ask ourselves if we are who we truly think we are or are we what someone else decided long ago for us who we were supposed to be?
The Slug
|
611 posts 11/2/2009 3:25 am |
It can make for yearning, forever burning. Or resignation, and sadness.
|
|
736 posts 11/2/2009 4:17 am |
This is a question I've been pondering a fair amount lately. There are a lot of people who send signals to me that I'd be better off revealing less of my true thoughts around them.The people who send signals that it is safe to "be free to be me" are few and far between, especially as I run the treadmill of daily routines -- work, home, gym, home.
I agree wholeheartedly with Slug's question:
Maybe we can ask ourselves if we are who we truly think we are or are we what someone else decided long ago for us who we were supposed to be?
Do you like my hat?
|
|
15527 posts 11/2/2009 9:24 am |
Shabs, good to see you, I like your new picture!
"The people who send signals that it is safe to "be free to be me" are few and far between, especially as I run the treadmill of daily routines -- work, home, gym, home" - yes, it's the routine that makes me think whether that's all there is, and if I was made to do just that and be around the people who don't get me It's a constant compromise between what needs to be done, and what I want, and things that drag us into the "need to be done" category take us away from who we are, methinks. And, of course, I don't have any solutions
Glad we are on the same wave length with you.
|
|
15527 posts 11/2/2009 9:26 am |
Slug, I like this question-suggestion, "If we didn't push 'ourselves' to the next step, how can we find out exactly who we are?" Great point!
As to asking ourselves what it means to be ourselves - I think the answer lies somewhere on the continuum curve between the two extremes you suggest. Because, ultimately, we are both - it's just that sometimes it seems to me that one aspect (we are who others tell us we are) takes up more space than it should. That's when I start questioning myself.
|
|
455 posts 11/2/2009 2:29 pm |
once again this situation is the subject of writing
when we live in a culture that rewards dishonesty
and punishes honesty, what can we truly expect in
the area of 'free to be...'?
not a lot i reckon
then, there is the concurrent question:
what do we know about our own selves?
not much since no one ever sees the self
the way others do...consider the first time
you ever heard your own voice in a recording
90+% respond with something in the nature
of 'that aint me' or the like...so when we
have 1 or 2 persons whose judgment we truly
trust about the self that is presented, then
we are some of the fortunate few who have some
insight into the self...and that is a rare thing
to have indeed
"Liberty lives in hearts and minds ..once it dies there no laws, no government, can save it" L Hand
|
|
15527 posts 11/2/2009 4:44 pm |
G-Angel, great points you are making.
a) yes, the culture is at cross-purposes with what one's self needs
b) a self eludes definition, and so does the knowing of the "self"
...but there is something that resonates with the deepest of depths, and if that is not satisfied, then that's what the self needs...
|
|
122 posts 11/2/2009 6:16 pm |
The question is based on a false premise, as I see it. It seems to assume that: 1. who we "are" is constant, and manifests as "character", and 2. who we "are" (as we see it, which my be very different from what others see) is somehow Good. Actually, we are constantly changing, and our range of thoughts is far less benign than we think.
I also think it's wrong to characterize certain occupational groups as somehow less conflicted. I suggest you read "Working" by Studs Terkle, or "Flow" by Mihaly Csikszentmihaly. Terkle especially debunks the notion that only certain rarified elites can take meaning in their work.
|
|
122 posts 11/2/2009 8:59 pm |
I will say that I have some doubts about my psychiatrist asserting I should do manual labor intead of trying to return to my former profession. Attention and listening is required everywhere.
After the last two weeks I can take mover and carpenter off the list. It seems the ability to find meaning in different types of work is intrinsic. I wonder if that means I'll fuck up everything I try.
|
|
15527 posts 11/2/2009 9:30 pm |
Pentiment, I disagree that my question is based on false premise. You assume that I assume that self is a constant. I never said that. My question is in regard to who I am right now, mainly. And that includes all the bits and pieces from the past that have formed me, too, but not only. Long story and long list of what it includes.
Nor do I agree with or state that who we are is always good. However, if there is a yearning to be oneself, that means one wants to feel better in life, freer, more authentic (yes, that wretched worn-out word again), and more comfortable and at peace. So being who you are, to me, means feeling better - not necessarily being better. At the same time, yes, I do assume that I am a good person, and the more I am being myself, the better I am towards others Because I am then inwardly content. Content people treat others better, don't you think?
I do agree that creative groups are also conflicted, but those who choose that occupation often choose it as a calling. And that's different. If you have a calling, nobody says it's easy to follow it, or be in it, but at least you are not conflicted about whether you should be doing what you are doing, or not. Your conflicts are narrowed down to a certain area. And, again, I am not saying that those people have it easy. But their choice (not everybody's, but many more than in other occupations) is made more firmly. No wonder they say that one should write when one cannot NOT write. What creative people do is satisfy their major need by pursuing their calling. Again, I am not saying it applies to everyone, but it does to a few.
|
|
15527 posts 11/2/2009 9:36 pm |
Penti, my guess is that your psychiatrist is following a theory that getting out of your "comfort zone" is always a good thing. I don't agree with that, not in all cases. Why he suggests manual labor only he knows, and maybe it's a good idea to change psychiatrists If you felt satisfied with your former profession, there is no reason not to return to it. But it depends on the context in which the two of you have been discussing that.
I remember my life coach telling me a few years ago that I should quit doing what I do well (!) - she was talking about learning - academic learning, or other forms of study, that is. She made me mad. That's when I started beading however, she was hoping that I would change my profession completely and do something similar to manual labor (it's funny, I am speculating, but I don't think I'm too far off). I suspect it's a trend among counselors, but it's so last year, given the economy and how many options we have at trying something new for which jobs do not exist.
|
|
736 posts 11/3/2009 12:59 pm |
Thanks for the kind words, Gypsy 
I rarely feel a strong sense of belonging in my place of work or in my neighborhood, but I think that I am part of the equation. What I mean is that I do not invest my energy into getting to know people in either place since I don't feel that I "click" with any of them. People don't go out of their way to include me, but then again, I don't go out of my way to make them want to.
I am glad you brought this question up...
Do you like my hat?
|
|
15527 posts 11/3/2009 2:46 pm |
I understand, Shabs. I used to feel that way a lot, too. Then it kept fluctuating. Some places are better than others. I find myself going back and forth between the search for belonging and accepting the impossibility of its fulfillment.
|
|
15527 posts 11/3/2009 3:53 pm |
Paradox, "It can make for yearning, forever burning. Or resignation, and sadness.' - yes, it can.
|
