Miscellaneous
Before I start writing on the subject, I wanted to mention the purpose of reading (Re-reading? I’m not sure whether I’ve actually read this before!)
I’ve heard good things about it, and I particularly like the cute simple way I’ve heard it recommends a schedule be ordered. Off the top of my head, I remember it looking like this:
| Urgent | Not urgent | |
|---|---|---|
| Important | Do | Schedule |
| Not Important | Delegate | Don’t do |
How neat and succinct! Hopefully, this book will have other things just as good or better than this advice.
The book
First chapter: INSIDE-OUT
The first part seems to mostly be an argument for something I must agree with for the alternatives are deplorable — that the deeper thing (Character, in this case, aspects of personhood like Courage, Integrity, and Honesty) are better, primary, and much more important than “quick fix” advice given in many more modern(At the time of his writing) self-help books.
The second, as I’ve read so far, is a discussion on paradigm. It is an argument that ‘the way you see things’, your perception of everything(Not as in sight, but as in understanding) is like a map, and that if it’s faulty then no matter how hard you ‘try’, you’ll be frustrated as ‘a Chicago driver trying to navigate with a map of Detroit’.
He divides ‘maps’ or ‘paradigms’ into two primary categories: Realities, maps of what is, and Values, maps of what should be.
He also talks a lot about development; both of himself and his child. One of my favorite quotes is this:
Perhaps a sense of possessing needs to come before a sense of genuine sharing. Many people who give mechanically or refuse to give and share in their own marriages and families may never have experienced what it means to possess themselves, their own sense of identity and self-worth.”(Italics added by me).
In the paragraphs prior to this, he describes a situation he had with his daughter where he forced toys away from her on her birthday when she refused to share, and considered it a regretful parenting choice. His argument for this is well-thought-out, although the subject is nuanced. Here’s what he has to say on the matter:
I borrowed strength from my position and authority and forced her to do what I wanted her to do. But borrowing strength builds weakness. It builds weakness in the borrower because it reinforces dependence on external factors to get things done. It builds weakness in the person forced to acquiesce, stunting the development of independent reasoning, growth, and internal discipline. And finally, it builds weakness in the relationship. Fear replaces cooperation, and both people involved become more arbitrary and defensive.
Essentially also reinforcing a point he has been making throughout: That in order to learn, you have to acknowledge ignorance. In order to grow, you have to acknowledge your faults. Similarly, if you want you daughter to learn, it’s best to let them be ignorant. Of course this isn’t something that applies to all scenarios(It’s best your child has some sort of preparation for emergencies — you’d better not give them time to be ignorant in the middle of a highway) This isn’t a point he made directly, but it seems to me that there’s nothing to be gained from taking toys away. No generosity is practiced, and the value of kindness to your friends is not at all demonstrated.
Whereas some of the problems caused by greed would readily become evident as soon as she would hope to enjoy another kid’s toy, a different time. As someone with siblings, this kind of lesson happens regularly. A mutual agreement to ‘share’ isnt the only reason to do so, but it’s at the very least a motivation to start and find out the other reasons.
Dependence, Independence, Interdependence
He argues for ‘interdependence’ as the most mature paradigm out of the three, describing dependence as the need for someone else (Whereas without their help, you’ll be unable, and they’ll be to blame), independence as the lack of any need for anybody else, a reliance only on yourself, and interdependence not as reliance but as an enthusiastic acknowledgement that things are so much better, and much more can be accomplished, with other people. It’s independence plus cooperation.
There are two things arguable here. First of all, that a truly independent person can exist. Without support, nobody could have reached toddlerhood. Assuming everybody were to reach adulthood in normal society and then be cast into an endless wood, hardly anybody would live, and nobody would live well.
The second is what I consider a simple mistake. He says:
Interdependence is a far more mature, more advanced concept. If I am physically interdependent, I am self-reliant and capable, but I also realize that you and I working together can accomplish far more than, even at my best, I could accomplish alone. If I am emotionally interdependent, I derive a great sense of worth within myself, but I also recognize the need for love, for giving, and for receiving love from others. If I am intellectually interdependent, I realize that I need the best thinking of other people to join with my own.
(Italics are my own) I do not think it’s reasonable to assume any need for love as someone whose interdependent, (Especially considering he refused this requirement for the independent person), but instead that everything improves with love. Perhaps this shift in how he’s talking represents that not only do your abilities and beliefs improve with the difference between independence and interdependence, but also your standards. Perhaps the interdependent ‘needs’ the love of others not because they have grown more dependent on others than the “independent” person, but because what is required(“Needed”) for an independent life is smaller than what is required for an interdependent one.
I’m having trouble putting this — I think that phrasing I just used is a little misleading, in fact, as it makes it sound like it’s simpler and more convenient(In some ways, more efficient) to take the position with fewer ‘requirements’, but in fact, the more the merrier. We need more to do more, and the more we can do, the better things we can do.
P / PC
He introduces these terms “P” and “PC” meaning “Production” and “Production capability” — I’d perfer terms like potential and actual, or even referencing “The egg” and “The goose”, as he introduces this with and regularly references the “Golden goose” story. Regardless of my preferences, though, the actual advice he gives is simple and good: Don’t sacrifice too much ability for results, don’t sacrifice too many results for ability. It’s a balance.
Too much focus on PC is like a person who runs for three or four hours a day, bragging about the extra 10 years of life it creates, unaware he’s spending them running.
Too much focus on PC is like a person who runs for three or four hours a day, bragging about the extra 10 years of life it creates, unaware he’s spending them running.
He gives numerous examples, but honestly, I think this subject is simple enough that coming up with examples after hearing a description of terms is trivial, so I’m not going to go through them all here.
The social mirror
This chapter starts out with a practice of self-awareness, where Steven walks the reader through looking at themselves as an outside observer, thinking about their own thoughts.
He explains this is what makes them human, and goes on to explain that:
If the only vision we have of ourselves comes from the social mirror — from the current social paradigm and from the opinions, perceptions, and paradigms of the people around us — our view of ourselves is like the reflection in the crazy mirror room at the carnival. “You’re never on time.” “Why can’t you ever keep things in order?” “You must be an artist!” …
He explains three common ‘social paradigms’ telling us we’re determined by conditioning and conditions — “Genetic determinism”(Your genes control how you act and think), “Psychic determinism” (Your upbringing and childhood experiences control how you act and think) and “Environmental determinism” (Your current situation control how you act and think)
Then he turns to the story of Viktor Frankl, someone who at once believed in “Psychic determinism” and who was Jewish, later imprisoned in nazi death camps.
One day, naked and alone in a small room, he began to become aware of what he later called “the last of the human freedoms” — the freedom his Nazi captors could not take away. They could control his entire environment, they could do what they wanted to his body, but Viktor Frankl himself was a self-aware being who could look as an observer at his very involvement. His basic identity was intact. He could decide within himself how all of this was going to affect him. Between what happened to him, or the stimulus, and his response to it, was his freedom or power to choose that response. … They had more liberty, more options to choose from in their environment; but he had more freedom, more internal power to exercise his options. … In the midst of the most degrading circumstances imaginable, Frankl used the human endowment of self-awareness to discover a fundamental principle about the nature of man: Between stimulus and response, man has the freedom to choose.
Circle of Concern, Circle of Influence
Interestingly, here Stephen makes exactly the same distinction the Epictetus made in “The Enchiridion” (And elsewhere) — things we have control over, and things we don’t have control over. Here, Stephen calls those we have control over in the “Circle of Influence”, and those we have emotional or mental involvement with as in the “Circle of Concern”.