Today in my English class I was told that the best thing you can do for your creativity (and though it wasn’t said, it was implied, for yourself) is to “remove your inner censor”. You should “release your censor from the mind’s logic, statutes, and judgments, in other words, the do’s and don’ts that direct your life”. Ughh. I’m sorry but this is perhaps the worst thing that the PC movement has caused. Note: I approve of many of the PC ideas and disapprove of many others. I like to pretend that I decide on a case by case basis instead of general sentiment; but then again that’s logical .
Many people are telling us, these days, that instead of trying to change ourselves we should just accept who we are and be comfortable with it; which is not an entirely bad sentiment. After all, if your body chemistry or genetics or whatever makes it impossible for you to become a professional athlete (i.e. Asthma) then there’s no point in spending your life trying to be something you’ll never attain.
Also, the goal of being an athlete is a good goal for a career (if you can do it) but it does not need to be sought to the exclusion of other goals. By which I mean that a career path shouldn’t define who you are, and if you can’t do well in one career you shouldn’t agonize over it, you should move on.
That’s where I think this movement started from (not the whole PC movement, just this aspect of it). If you can’t do what you want, that remission shouldn’t define you as a person, rather just be another experience to help you grow. This is a healthy and sound message, but it is no longer the message being proclaimed. The message now is that your present emotions and self-esteem is more important than your growth as a person. The message that says if you’re a jerk then you should be comfortable with being a jerk. “Don’t change yourself, love yourself” is the latest slogan (my words).
I can not adequately explain how angry this makes me. That instead of constantly challenging yourself and analyzing what you want and why (a.k.a. growing ) you should accept your failings to be part of you. That your future will always have the same light as your present and you should never look for the dimmer switch in case you turn it the wrong way. I have had to analyze every emotion I have, try to logically explain all events in my life and decide what the absolute best course of action was every moment. I’ve tried my best to improve my actions and logically change my base emotions (on which I’ve had partial success) to stop me from doing stupid things.
It’s a lot of work to change yourself. It takes a lot of energy and a lot of time and a lot questioning. But now we should stop it, stop trying because trying is hard and it might lead to people being unsatisfied with themselves. Which is apparently the worst possible outcome. We should support people who insult random strangers on the street because those people are clearly “comfortable with who they are”.
Our highest goal now, is to have no goals. Shoot for nothing and that way we can achieve it. I know people whose goal really was to become a bum, and everyone was OK with that because they knew what they wanted to be.
My goal is to be perfect. I don’t know about the rest of you, but that’s what I’d like most to be: perfect. Not that I think I can achieve it, not in this lifetime; but every step I take towards it that goal is a meaningful step, and one that makes me happier to boot. I’m not comfortable with who I am, my self-esteem is pretty low, it’s true. But maybe one day I’ll take one step and see how far I’ve come and exactly what being happy means. I’d like it if everyone could look forward to that with me.
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
As a side note, the same teacher who gave us these instructions "helped" us mediate, which at one point included aking us to breath through our shoulders and foreheads. I literally had to ccause myself physical pain to stop from laughing or shouting in anger, which actually was really disappointing. I thought I had better control of myself. Just more proof that imporvment is needed.
(I actually ended up grabbing my arm so hard I drew blood )
Hobbes
[ September 05, 2003, 01:07 AM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I know what you mean - I hate that attitude. I was co-teaching a literature seminar with a professor who kept telling the students to trust in themselves and do what their hearts tell them to and not to listen to what society says you should do. Unless of course the student was religious or conservative, in which case they should do exactly what the professor and the authors tell them to do by "liberating" themselves from their shackles.
It's like Jubal in Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land - blaming everything that's wrong with the world on society's constrictive morals, yet being the "good guy" out of an unselfish concern for Mike's well being. What?
Selfishness is not an answer to anything; in fact, to quote Mad Magazine, "If you were to kick the person responsible for most of your problems, you wouldn't be able to sit down for a week!"
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
That's terrible. Most of my mental capacity is taken up by filtering who I am into easily understandable, socially acceptable, bite size bits. If you could just be who you were at the core of you, and nothing more or less, how would anyone improve? If I did exactly what I wanted to, I'd be on Hatrack instead of writing my essay or doing my precalc homework, and...
...
(runs away rather quickly)
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Relativism.... I've warned you guys about relativism. "I'm not wrong. I'm just different."
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Try that one on him, Hobbes.. tell him by not turning in your assignment, you're "removing the dos and don'ts that direct your life."
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
<grin> Good thinking, though my teacher is a she...
Tres, what exactly did you mean? Sorry, it's late here.
Hobbes Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
I TOTALLY related to that, Hobbes. Thanks for posting it! Nothing to add, really, besides my appreciation for the post! Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Also, this thread title sounds like a James Bond movie to me.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
You know, it is possibly to have high self-esteem and still seek to improve yourself. I love me. I think I'm just fabulous. I don't think I'm perfect, but I'm a pretty good work in progress. Of course, I have a lot of trouble working on anything I don't like, so if I didn't like me, I doubt I'd bother...if that makes any sense.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Hobbes, I think you missed the point, but I wasn't there so, I'll refrain from commenting.
However. . .
quote: “remove your inner censor”.
quote:As a side note, the same teacher who gave us these instructions "helped" us mediate, which at one point included aking us to breath through our shoulders and foreheads. I literally had to ccause myself physical pain to stop from laughing or shouting in anger, which actually was really disappointing.
Now see, you silly boy, had you actually laughed or shouted in anger, you could have showed the teacher how you already had removed the "inner censor" from your head. Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
Thanks Hobbes. Eloquently put.
The only thing I would disagree with is the asthma thing. World champions have been athsmatic in the past. They put their will to change themselves into action as well...
The human will, when channeled is the most powerful force I know. And don't stop trying to be perfect. You'll never get there, but the journey is worth the time.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:the best thing you can do for your creativity (and though it wasn’t said, it was implied, for yourself) is to “remove your inner censor”. You should “release your censor from the mind’s logic, statutes, and judgments, in other words, the do’s and don’ts that direct your life”.
emphasis mine
I think people, Hobbes included, are missing the qualifier here. While I would not be suprised if the context of the statement implied a more universal meaning, all the teacher actually said was that "removing your inner censor" is the best thing you can do for your creativity. She did not say that it was the best thing you could do ever or that creativity is the determining factor for a good life or fits every situation. Again, the only thing said was that less dos and don'ts -> more creativity.
I've been trained as an improv actor. This is the first thing they teach you and damn if it isn't just about the most important part of achieving genuine improv. Viola Spoilin, the founder and still the most respected figure in the american improv tradition, constantly talked about the traps of "approval/dissaproval" and of "success/failure".
Other religous/philosophical traditions have also latched onto this. Whether its Taoism, Buddhism, Transcendalism, or certain brands of humanism, all of these traditions have talked at length about the problems with internalizing restraints, especially as it relates to creativity and freshness.
In another area, the psychology of creativity is one of my main areas of study. While it's still very difficult to say what causes creativity, we have plenty of evidence that your teacher's statement is exactly right. There are plenty of different names for this "internal censor", but in every instance where it is talked about and scientifically investigated, we have found that it reduces creativity.
One final note, I found people's responses here extremely ironic, as they showed exactally what the statements were talking about. Rather than reading and giving consideration to the actual statement, your "internal censors" provided you with the fixed response. It was "PC" or "relativism" or "pinko commie liberal" and could be dismissed with canned mockery.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Regarding the meditation, while I disagree with the professor introducing it in the way she did to the audience she did, instructions like "breathe through your forehead" are valued parts of ancient religious practices and recent improv exercises. However, in both caes, it is a very advanced and difficult topic. I would never expect an untrained audience to understand it. I don't even understand it.
Sometimes, when an idea seems silly to you, the deficiency is in you, not in the idea.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I would never expect an untrained audience to understand it. I don't even understand it.
Sometimes, when an idea seems silly to you, the deficiency is in you, not in the idea.
You're so cute when you're condescending.
------
Hobbes, that's college. Whatever you think of her ideas, apparently a lot of people believe them. What does that mean? What's up with these people? If the ideas are such obvious crap, why do they believe them? What part of you was rebelling/snorting at them?
But then, this thread is you already doing that.
[ September 05, 2003, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
I dont care what any of you say. i do TOO have bushy eyebrows.
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
I think TM is wonderful. However, wasn't Hobbes paying for an English class here?
I'd expect it in drama, but that's a little off-topic, don't you think?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tres, what exactly did you mean? Sorry, it's late here.
I meant that the source of that particular aspect of the PC movement is relativism. If we eliminate the idea of any sort of fixed right or wrong thing to do with life then there is no basis for claiming anything is wrong and needs to be changed, and conversely there is no basis for claiming any given direction is "growth". No goal is objectively any better than any other, so naturally the easiest solution to achieving your goals is to change them to fit whatever you have already accomplished. Why bother becoming someone different if you can simply declare yourself now as your own personal ideal? Why bother try to become perfect if there is no objective reason you now should be considered any less perfect than other possible person you could become?
It all sounds good when put a certain way, but in truth it ultimately downplays or even eliminates the idea of being flawed, and hence inhibits growth.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
On a mostly related note, in singing, one is often taught to sing "through your forehead" for high notes, or if you are flat (as I know from much personal experience).
It's a visualization tool, plain and simple. And it works (for me).
I agree that you probably missed the point, Hobbes. After all, stopping your inner censor will most certainly boost creativity, but most of the creativity may well be garbage. You can then hone your creativity accordingly. However, there may be the occassional insight you gain from ignore presuppositions. But unless you test and overstep your boundaries, you can't honestly say where they are.
-Bok
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Hmmm. I can't understand why meditation can be "encouraged" in a classroom, but not praying.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Because in it's most basic form, meditation is a focusing tool, not a ritual for religious devotion.
-Bok
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Squicky, I appreciate the whole "flow" idea. But it reminds me of this arts core class (meaning folks took it to be well rounded but majored in something else). Every discussion about "flow" wound up a discussion about what an excellent basketball player Michael Jordan is. It was really kind of funny.
I would say the trouble is expounding the idea of letting go in a lecture. I think it is right for everyone who is seeking it, and who can be tutored in a relatively intimate and personal way.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I've been reading Card's "How to write Sci Fi/Fantasy" and I love how he says, in essence, if you don't suck you will succeed. Ouch! I guess that's why I never go through with writing anything. Part of it is being afraid people will see into the fearful recesses of my troubled mind, but I'm also afraid that I will fail and it means I suck.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Because in it's most basic form, meditation is a focusing tool, not a ritual for religious devotion.
Yeah, and in it's most basic form, praying is talking to yourself.
Seriously, meditation has obvious religious roots and things like "breathing through your forehead" and "letting your crown float" are not just meant to be visualization, even though you can think of it that way.
I think if meditation can be accepted as "focusing yourself", so can praying.
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
Meditation being practiced in class is not like religion being practiced in class. It's more like wearing funny hats, or practicing the perfect "sit" on a whoopie cushion, which, incidentally, has as much bearing on learning English as Meditation!
Edit: my hat fell off before I could check my spelling!
[ September 05, 2003, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: Erik Slaine ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Hobbes, you're a freshman, right?
Many freshman english classes are designed both as english classes and as general introductions to college. They are also often given to grad students with vague directives and little supervision.
What this results in is experimental methods of teaching designed to help students adapt to college.
Even if it's not a grad student, if it is a freshman class similar things could apply.
And meditation will prove to be valuable throughout college, most likely.
Basically, (under the assumption that this is a freshman class), the teacher was given directives about teaching you how to deal with writing college papers-- not just how to write them, but how to deal with writing them. Hence the meditation .
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
Still sounds like it would be better practiced in Psychology. (Parapsychology) Don't get me wrong. I meditate regularly. But I think that Hobbes had a point, and I would have sat there rolling my eyes at the teacher.
And practicing the perfect "sit".
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Praying has a completely different motive, even if it does boil down to the same thing (which is an assertion yet to be proven by anyone in this thread).
And I disagree that "breathing through your forehead" is anything more than focusing/visualization tool. Care to show me otherwise?
-Bok
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
How does one breathe through one's forehead anyway? It seems to me that this teacher has unrealistic expectations. My forehead has no orifice nor is it tied in any direct way to my respiratory system.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm glad you cleared that up. Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
Unless you had a blowhole in your forehead. Yeah, a blowhole! That'd be cool!
You could snorkel without a snorkel!
Oops. My hat fell off again.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
kat- Just wanted to make it clear that I'm not one of these genetically modified freaks they are producing to teach college these days.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Meditation itself isn't linked to one particular religion. "Breathing through your forehead" is linked to Hinduism, i.e. getting oxygen to your "Atman".
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
quote: You should “release your censor from the mind’s logic, statutes, and judgments, in other words, the do’s and don’ts that direct your life”.
Why? Aren't these things valid subject matter for writing? How far would have Mark Twain gotten in Huckleberry Finn or George Orwell in 1984 without judgments?
You certainly would be using the do's and don'ts in most cases anyway. That is your basic ethos. Even if you try to get away from it, it is a decision arrived at by what you think is right or wrong.
Oops. Excuse me while I blow this up.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
This is directions for how to write for the New Yorker, except it needed to read Jacare's article from Slate.
That is not a compliment.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Today in my English class I was told that the best thing you can do for your creativity (and though it wasn’t said, it was implied, for yourself) is to “remove your inner censor”. You should “release your censor from the mind’s logic, statutes, and judgments, in other words, the do’s and don’ts that direct your life”. Ughh. I’m sorry but this is perhaps the worst thing that the PC movement has caused.
Just so you know, it's pretty clear to me that the teacher wasn't advocating lighting fire to the local church. She/He was trying to get the class to relax and not stress out about writing, to not worry about whether or not it's good or bad but just to write. I think she meant censor in this case not as a moral censor, but artistic censor.
Helping people to relax and release their fears so they can get to a point where they aren't inhibited by a 'I can't do this' attitude is standard advice given by everyone from martial arts instructors to business motivational speakers.
So, as Squicky said so well, the problem isn't the idea, the problem is you--which is to say, that you are not actually hearing what the instructor is saying. You are adding your own context to it and distorting the intent and efficacy of what she's proposing without even trying it. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I'll add that this is especially true when writing a first draft. You can go back to "censor" and edit later, but if, when you start writing something, you're constantly thinking to yourself, "Can I say that? Should I say that? Is this any good?" you probably won't get much writing done.
So she's right. Turning off your inner censor is (at least one of) the best things you can do for your creativity.
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
Sorry, I can't agree with that. But I can agree to disagree. This discussion goes nowhere.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Personally, I find that increased regulations, rules, etc. increase my creativity. If someone tells you "write a poem," your finished product is generally of a lot lower calibur than if someone tells you "Write a Shakespearean sonnet in iambic pentameter."
Constraints are designed to push our creative output by removing extraneous loopholes. It's like pruning a tree.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Just more proof that imporvment is needed. ![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
)![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)