![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Did a meditation this morning via the Headspace app, entitled "Defining Ourselves" - which was halfway successful, my mind kind of filtered off to think about the Magicians through part of it.
But, the meditation's theme was that our actions, our thoughts, and our words don't define us. Nor do others for that matter, and we mustn't let them, although they will try to.
The need to define, label and categorize is human. Whether it is a flaw or gift, I've no clue.
But I've learned most things aren't so easily defined, labeled or categorized and to do so - is limiting and foolhardy.
I'd have made a poor librarian or indexer.
I used to sit behind them at my first major adult job. The one with the benefits, the salary, the fixed hours, the office, etc. They'd argue for hours on what word or phrase to categorize a journal article under. Sometimes it was a book. Sometimes a publication. They'd fight over the whether it should be under insect, bee, hive, wasp, honeybee, or beekeeping. In some cases, in regards to the more obscure works - it would be days. I'd chuckle to myself listening to them go at it through my tall cubicle walls, watching the barges drift by on the river below. Often thinking, no wonder I can't find things in the library.
I've lost count of the number of times someone or other on the internet has said the following:
* This individual is terrible person because they did this and that. (They can be a fictional character or an actual person. It's more alarming if they are an actual person, because I doubt the fictional character cares? I saw a list of famous writers with a headline - "Writers that are Terrible People" not, "Writers who have done terrible things that should be questioned and called out on those actions, and learn not to do them". )
* We are all defined by others. And fictional characters are also defined by the opinions of other characters and the readers.
* People never change.
It's a good thing that I don't define people by what they say or write at various points in time, isn't it?
Just in case you skimmed, or I wasn't clear? None of the above statements are true or even in the realm of legitimacy. They are all false.
It is the height of arrogance to think that our perception or view of an act or person defines that person solely and to think that strangers people who have never walked our path, can remotely determine who we are? Just no. You can't define me anymore than I can define you. We haven't read each other's entire stories, and even if we did, our perceptions are limited by our bodies, our minds, ourselves. We can never know another person well enough to ever come close to defining who they are. I am not even sure we know ourselves well enough to do that. In regards to fictional characters, if well developed, then the same holds true - we cannot fully define them either outside of their roles in a story, or within the framework of that narrative. We want to judge them, but too often the judgement is just a projection of our own hopes, fears, wishes, failings, foibles, and irritants. And not about that character at all. Our judgements more often than not tell us more about ourselves, and what triggers us, than about the character or person we are judging.
The Magicians kind of plays with all three ideas or statements provided above the last paragraph, and smacks them on their butts. Sideways. Then does it again. In various ways. And now that I think on it, various other works of art do the same. They show us how our perception of something is not necessarily the only version, and how living things are highly complicated, and not one thing and cannot be easily defined or defined and categorized at all.
( vague spoilers for The Magicians and Buffy )
I remember getting in a fight once with a novelist, when she was just writing fanfiction and on Live Journal, before she got published and was successful at it. She insisted that others define who we are. And I argued no, they don't. She told me I was an idiot, obviously wrong, and this was fact. I wonder if she's changed her mind since then? I hope so, since she has children. It would be tragic if she pressed that belief upon them. If so, I foresee lots of therapy in everyone's future.
The world, in this case the internet, has this desire to define people, and other living and non-living things. To neatly categorize, and put in indexed slots, like a library, so you can find stuff. But people aren't definable. Their works may be to an extent. It also wants to neatly state - okay these people are "bad" - we should cancel them and block them, while these people are "good" - we should praise them and support them. Which is problematic, because often the good people will do bad things, and the internet gets confused as to what to do with them? This leads to a kind of cognitive dissonance. Our media outlets also try to do this - tell us how to perceive information, facts, people and place them into categories.
There's a clever interaction in The Magicians, S5.
( vague spoiler )
So can we trust the media outlets, which very well may have alternative agendas, on the crimes and actions that they report? And if not, why would we trust them on how to perceive others? Or others works of art? And why would we judge and deem someone not worthy based on stories told to us by someone else?
Granted there are exceptions. I mean Trump kind of trumps all of that, pun intended. But likewise, he also has duped the media and the internet into spreading his hate and his worldview to the point in which he's managed to obtain a following, which is often exaggerated in its importance by said media. But, in that case - the sum total of actions and behaviors, positive and negative, demonstrate that in the case of that person - cancellation is the best alternative. Much like in The Magicians, they had no real choice but to do away with The Beast, even if at one time he was just a scared boy trying to do good, the alternative was their termination. Or in Buffy, she
has little to no alternative then to kill Angel in the second season, since the alternative is hell on earth. Or in WWII, there was little to no alternative then to declare war on the Nazis and Hitler. In some cases, the preponderance or totality of the others actions leads to a specific judgement. But these are rare.
And even then, I remain uncertain that people can be defined so neatly. There's so much going on inside and out to affect how we think and act on things. Undefinable things. Things outside of our control. Cravings often caused by what we eat, ingest, smell, or breath. Who knows what motivates people to do what they do? The gut has brain cells - so if you eat the wrong thing...it could result in you doing something horrible? Medications have side-effects, and if you take together...I could go on.
I think, the meditation is correct, we are not defined by our actions, thoughts, or words. This post doesn't define me. And how you react to it, doesn't define you. And I find comfort in that.
But, the meditation's theme was that our actions, our thoughts, and our words don't define us. Nor do others for that matter, and we mustn't let them, although they will try to.
The need to define, label and categorize is human. Whether it is a flaw or gift, I've no clue.
But I've learned most things aren't so easily defined, labeled or categorized and to do so - is limiting and foolhardy.
I'd have made a poor librarian or indexer.
I used to sit behind them at my first major adult job. The one with the benefits, the salary, the fixed hours, the office, etc. They'd argue for hours on what word or phrase to categorize a journal article under. Sometimes it was a book. Sometimes a publication. They'd fight over the whether it should be under insect, bee, hive, wasp, honeybee, or beekeeping. In some cases, in regards to the more obscure works - it would be days. I'd chuckle to myself listening to them go at it through my tall cubicle walls, watching the barges drift by on the river below. Often thinking, no wonder I can't find things in the library.
I've lost count of the number of times someone or other on the internet has said the following:
* This individual is terrible person because they did this and that. (They can be a fictional character or an actual person. It's more alarming if they are an actual person, because I doubt the fictional character cares? I saw a list of famous writers with a headline - "Writers that are Terrible People" not, "Writers who have done terrible things that should be questioned and called out on those actions, and learn not to do them". )
* We are all defined by others. And fictional characters are also defined by the opinions of other characters and the readers.
* People never change.
It's a good thing that I don't define people by what they say or write at various points in time, isn't it?
Just in case you skimmed, or I wasn't clear? None of the above statements are true or even in the realm of legitimacy. They are all false.
It is the height of arrogance to think that our perception or view of an act or person defines that person solely and to think that strangers people who have never walked our path, can remotely determine who we are? Just no. You can't define me anymore than I can define you. We haven't read each other's entire stories, and even if we did, our perceptions are limited by our bodies, our minds, ourselves. We can never know another person well enough to ever come close to defining who they are. I am not even sure we know ourselves well enough to do that. In regards to fictional characters, if well developed, then the same holds true - we cannot fully define them either outside of their roles in a story, or within the framework of that narrative. We want to judge them, but too often the judgement is just a projection of our own hopes, fears, wishes, failings, foibles, and irritants. And not about that character at all. Our judgements more often than not tell us more about ourselves, and what triggers us, than about the character or person we are judging.
The Magicians kind of plays with all three ideas or statements provided above the last paragraph, and smacks them on their butts. Sideways. Then does it again. In various ways. And now that I think on it, various other works of art do the same. They show us how our perception of something is not necessarily the only version, and how living things are highly complicated, and not one thing and cannot be easily defined or defined and categorized at all.
( vague spoilers for The Magicians and Buffy )
I remember getting in a fight once with a novelist, when she was just writing fanfiction and on Live Journal, before she got published and was successful at it. She insisted that others define who we are. And I argued no, they don't. She told me I was an idiot, obviously wrong, and this was fact. I wonder if she's changed her mind since then? I hope so, since she has children. It would be tragic if she pressed that belief upon them. If so, I foresee lots of therapy in everyone's future.
The world, in this case the internet, has this desire to define people, and other living and non-living things. To neatly categorize, and put in indexed slots, like a library, so you can find stuff. But people aren't definable. Their works may be to an extent. It also wants to neatly state - okay these people are "bad" - we should cancel them and block them, while these people are "good" - we should praise them and support them. Which is problematic, because often the good people will do bad things, and the internet gets confused as to what to do with them? This leads to a kind of cognitive dissonance. Our media outlets also try to do this - tell us how to perceive information, facts, people and place them into categories.
There's a clever interaction in The Magicians, S5.
( vague spoiler )
So can we trust the media outlets, which very well may have alternative agendas, on the crimes and actions that they report? And if not, why would we trust them on how to perceive others? Or others works of art? And why would we judge and deem someone not worthy based on stories told to us by someone else?
Granted there are exceptions. I mean Trump kind of trumps all of that, pun intended. But likewise, he also has duped the media and the internet into spreading his hate and his worldview to the point in which he's managed to obtain a following, which is often exaggerated in its importance by said media. But, in that case - the sum total of actions and behaviors, positive and negative, demonstrate that in the case of that person - cancellation is the best alternative. Much like in The Magicians, they had no real choice but to do away with The Beast, even if at one time he was just a scared boy trying to do good, the alternative was their termination. Or in Buffy, she
has little to no alternative then to kill Angel in the second season, since the alternative is hell on earth. Or in WWII, there was little to no alternative then to declare war on the Nazis and Hitler. In some cases, the preponderance or totality of the others actions leads to a specific judgement. But these are rare.
And even then, I remain uncertain that people can be defined so neatly. There's so much going on inside and out to affect how we think and act on things. Undefinable things. Things outside of our control. Cravings often caused by what we eat, ingest, smell, or breath. Who knows what motivates people to do what they do? The gut has brain cells - so if you eat the wrong thing...it could result in you doing something horrible? Medications have side-effects, and if you take together...I could go on.
I think, the meditation is correct, we are not defined by our actions, thoughts, or words. This post doesn't define me. And how you react to it, doesn't define you. And I find comfort in that.