Does Face Make Creative Thought Impossible?

[autonomous_unit]

My first objection to the original post is that I don't think it is useful to conflate taboo with face. A taboo is something that (for the holders of the taboo) really is a form of denial. It is not just a social norm not to talk about it, but a social fear of the very concept. Face is just about embarrasment and pride; for example, not wanting anyone to notice you stink. The person saving face might try to open a window to get some fresh air, or sneak away to bathe... I suppose it could be related to taboo if there is a taboo against washing certain body parts.

A prototypical taboo is not being able to question the existence of god without crossing yourself and asking forgiveness, or stifling your child and praying for forgiveness if the child asks you the question, even in private. This is a much more severe psychological condition than mere face-saving.

The original question and discussion also wandered regarding whether face-saving inhibits creative thought. I agree with someone who said it encourages more subtle communication skills, but this says nothing about creativity either way. I suppose it might discourage creative thought through reduced opportunities for reward, but I suspect that effect would just steer creative thought into different areas rather than out of existence.

Another implied question is whether a society which avoids discussing certain topics will prevent its members from thinking about such topics. I reject the idea that thoughts require communication, either before or after the thinking. What I will agree with is that by supressing discourse, you reduce the "input" materials and therefore might reduce the frequency with which certain thoughts re-emerge. This is NOT a suppression of creativity, but merely a statement that without discourse the ideas will have to emerge via creative thought from a more distant origin. The main effect of discourse is allowing a society of people to develop a thought process together, rather than one person thinking it all the way through. That sounds LESS creative to me, i.e. it is like improvisational work instead of full-blown composition.

The other thing about this thread that ruffles feathers is the drifting between the individual and the statistical. Our anecdotal experiences can act as counter-point to any overly generalized claim. But any claim that is qualified with "a trend" or "a tendancy" requires statistical models and data to even discuss objectively. Otherwise, we are just pushing our agendas and personal beliefs and couching them in more scientific terms than they deserve.

[johna]

I believe George Orwell wrote The Prevention of Literature at the end of WW2 and nowhere in the essay does he mention Thais, his argument was that the greatest threat to freedom was the very people who should be defending it, the newspaper proprietor the movie maker and writer. That a writer could not truthfully report the facts and be free of his own bias, ignorence and his political affiliation. One example he gave was the Molotov Ribbentop pact in 1939, prior to the signing of this pact the Brit Communist Party (BCT) line was that the Nazis were the most evil people on earth and following the signing of this pact the BCT line was the Germans are really good fellows, again after the German invasion of Russia in 1941 the BCP line went back to the Nazi are the most evil people on earth. This essay was written at a time when Stalin loved by the Brits through out the war as Uncle Joe was relegated by Churchill back to the rank of tyrant at its end. The word Taboo entered his essay in the political sense not cultural.

OK, I have probably made a few mistakes in this but look forward to your corrections.

[elkangorito]

.

Maybe this is why Thais don't have alarming rates of Diabetes, Cancer, Obesity, ADS, OCD, Coronary Disease as Westerners do have? I'll stick with their "don't worry, be happy" attitude...it's healthier. I'm beginning to appreciate the "you think too much" phrase.

Also, I do know many Thais who are more than capable of being interesting participants in topics of discussion. These wonderful people are mostly my students & some of my friends.

I'm not following you here. At first you seem to imply that because Thais don't think too much, they are healthier, and you appreciate the attitude. Then you imply that many Thais are perfectly capable of thinking clearly and participating in discussions.

I'm sorry, but which is it? They can think? They can't? They can but choose not to?

You're quite correct. I should have made my post easier to understand...so here goes;

When I say that I appreciate the "you think too much" phrase, this to me indicates that my thinking is a little different compared to a Thai's way of thinking. Remembering that I am a Westerner, I can see how this is somewhat correct. I have been "programmed" to 'watch clocks', be 'on time', live in the future & the past (somehow, at the same time) but never the present & as a result, learn all about 'worry' very well. I certainly did not come to Thailand to teach these people how to be a worrying, clock watching & punctual person. I would not want to pass on these 'leg irons' (from which I have partially escaped) onto anyone.

If one lives in the linear world of 'cause & effect', one will always be the loser as the world is not a mathematical equation or some machine that goes into perpetual & unchangeable operation (ergo, not linear or predictable). Further, one will always blame one's situation upon something/somebody else because one believes that it was' not my fault'. When one realises that he/she lives only in 'this moment', one has complete control of their lives (complete with one's decided beliefs...FACE included) & that there is no living in the past or the unpredictable future, then one may be able to find 'happiness'. Consequently, the only thing that one has complete control over is the 'thought that one is having NOW'.

My ultimate suggestion is that a life without worry is simply a life that is healthier. If 'Face' is so bad (by the way, I don't think it's very good), then why are Asian countries generally healthier than Western countries? And isn't 'free thinking' being able to think what you want? If so, what is wrong with people believing in taboos etc? Surely placing a rule upon what one thinks is therefore contradictory to the notion of 'free thinking'.

My last point...the attempt to control what others think is a hallmark of a control freak who is very lazy. For this reason, the lazy ones created 'laws' to force others to do their bidding...primarily because the lazy ones did not want to change. Make the others change instead...it's easier.

So, can you change? Can you accept the fact that you can't change a culture to suit yourself?

Mind you, I accept & respect the fact that you have an opinion albeit one with which I disagree.

Edited April 18, 2006 by elkangorito

[the gent]

In reading Elkangorito's babblings I was reminded of Huxley's Doors of Perception when he stumbled over what he considered to be the true significance of " istigkeit " or the concept of Is-ness. A concept further developed by Dr.Timothy Leary and made fashionable by Ken Kesey and his Merry Pranksters back in the late 60s when ' living for the moment ' and appreciating the ' nowness' was a totemic goal of enlightenment

Trouble was, comprehension of what they were all on about could only be achieved after consuming loads of acid or Huxley's preferred hallucinogenic, mescaline.

Perhaps Elkan's drivel might assume a greater significance under similar conditions? Probably not but it was nice taking a trip ( excuse the pun ) down memory lane.

May the "oneness" be with you.....

[jbowman1993]

Seriously.... Don't you guys have anything better to do than play the "whose intellect is superior" game? Go help out someone less fortunate than yourself. Much more productive than comparing mental penis sizes.

[Donz]

Seriously.... Don't you guys have anything better to do than play the "whose intellect is superior" game? Go help out someone less fortunate than yourself. Much more productive than comparing mental penis sizes.

Correct.

Some people are insecure about themselves they have to bring up articles which make them to be a superior race to another and try to get people to agree with them so they can walk outside with there head high.

[autonomous_unit]

Thank you for becoming defensively anti-intellectual and illustrating a point I wanted to make to the original poster! I don't think anyone is trying to be superior or playing a game, unless the original poster is really just playing the troll game.

Reading his comments in this thread and others, one can conclude that he is unhappy with the level of intellectual stimulation he gets from people he has met in SEA. He seems, to me, to be trying to find all sorts of cultural explanations other than the most obvious: without the familiar backdrop of his own culture, he has not been able to find the like-minded people here. It is as if he lost all judgement and wandered around his own country, trying to associate with all the people he currently manages to avoid by circumstance or subconscious discrimination. Much like we all wander into this forum and correspond with random people who often do not appreciate our viewpoints.

What this forum illustrates is that a randomly selected community will end up with a normal distribution of members with all manner of interests, values, and abilities. Unfortunately for anyone who is not statistically "average", the default mode is dominated by the most numerous and can become boring. To complain about it is pointless, as it would be to complain that the daily newspaper isn't intellectually stimulating (or that it doesn't have enough coverage of the barfine scene, etc.). Instead, you need to seek out a better publication to satisfy your specific interest.

I found it ironic that he complained about people saying he "thinks too much" here. That is what I hear even in my own culture, and I know I am just a middle of the road academic... I've met many people in school who bewildered me with their intellect and knowledge. There is nothing really to be proud of or embarassed about either way; but it is foolish to pretend such differences do not exist. He has either been very lucky in avoiding all dead-end conversations "back home," or he is lying to himself in thinking things are so different here in SEA. The only sane response is to try to better judge your social peers and find a level of discourse that all are comfortable with. The corollary is to find new social peers if the common discourse is too boring.

And before someone accuses me of being some kind of elitist, my point is NOT that he should avoid all people who aren't just like him, and my point would apply equally to someone complaining about boredom for other reasons than he has complained. My point is simply that he obviously has worse discriminating skills here than at home, if his comments truly reflect his experience. I think we miss out on a lot of the richness of life if we over-discriminate or under-discriminate. No matter what, we have to discriminate... you cannot go through two doors at once. Getting it just right takes a lot of cultural experience to judge the better way and a lot of plain dumb luck to make up the difference.

[jamman]

.

Maybe this is why Thais don't have alarming rates of Diabetes, Cancer, Obesity, ADS, OCD, Coronary Disease as Westerners do have? I'll stick with their "don't worry, be happy" attitude...it's healthier. I'm beginning to appreciate the "you think too much" phrase.

Also, I do know many Thais who are more than capable of being interesting participants in topics of discussion. These wonderful people are mostly my students & some of my friends.

I'm not following you here. At first you seem to imply that because Thais don't think too much, they are healthier, and you appreciate the attitude. Then you imply that many Thais are perfectly capable of thinking clearly and participating in discussions.

I'm sorry, but which is it? They can think? They can't? They can but choose not to?

You're quite correct. I should have made my post easier to understand...so here goes;

When I say that I appreciate the "you think too much" phrase, this to me indicates that my thinking is a little different compared to a Thai's way of thinking. Remembering that I am a Westerner, I can see how this is somewhat correct. I have been "programmed" to 'watch clocks', be 'on time', live in the future & the past (somehow, at the same time) but never the present & as a result, learn all about 'worry' very well. I certainly did not come to Thailand to teach these people how to be a worrying, clock watching & punctual person. I would not want to pass on these 'leg irons' (from which I have partially escaped) onto anyone.

If one lives in the linear world of 'cause & effect', one will always be the loser as the world is not a mathematical equation or some machine that goes into perpetual & unchangeable operation (ergo, not linear or predictable). Further, one will always blame one's situation upon something/somebody else because one believes that it was' not my fault'. When one realises that he/she lives only in 'this moment', one has complete control of their lives (complete with one's decided beliefs...FACE included) & that there is no living in the past or the unpredictable future, then one may be able to find 'happiness'. Consequently, the only thing that one has complete control over is the 'thought that one is having NOW'.

My ultimate suggestion is that a life without worry is simply a life that is healthier. If 'Face' is so bad (by the way, I don't think it's very good), then why are Asian countries generally healthier than Western countries? And isn't 'free thinking' being able to think what you want? If so, what is wrong with people believing in taboos etc? Surely placing a rule upon what one thinks is therefore contradictory to the notion of 'free thinking'.

My last point...the attempt to control what others think is a hallmark of a control freak who is very lazy. For this reason, the lazy ones created 'laws' to force others to do their bidding...primarily because the lazy ones did not want to change. Make the others change instead...it's easier.

So, can you change? Can you accept the fact that you can't change a culture to suit yourself?

Mind you, I accept & respect the fact that you have an opinion albeit one with which I disagree.

Low stress is something I also appreciate here. But I don't associate it with not thinking, exactly. It isn't thinking that is stressful, it is worry and being overly ambitious that causes stress.

You say that if face is bad, why are Asian countries healthier. First of all, I am aware of a few types of disease that are less in Asia, such as heart disease and some cancers. But others are more prevelant. As far as I know overall life expectancy is not higher in Asia. Secondly, there are many factors involved in health, including of course foods and genetic pre-dispositions, as well as feelings of being emotionally supported, as well as overal stress. And since the idea of face being directly related to either higher or lower stress is unknown, I don't think we can say anything meaningful about how the idea of face affects the health of Asians as compared to westerners.

I agree that a life without worry would be great, but I disagree that the road to happiness is having complete control over ones thoughts Now and not blame others and to make no comments about what others think. I think that's an extremely self centered, ego centered view, that places ones own thoughts and self at the center of the universe as omnipotent. If only we could fully control our thoughts now, all would be right and well, worry would disolve, and all the petty problems of the world would no longer matter. Mystical oneness is not about transcending pain and opening up the skull and cutting out problematic parts of the brain. Those with frontal lobotomies are not transcendent mystics, even if they don't think to much, and don't blame others.

In order to be fully human, as human as possible, it sometimes helps to see the places that people (not just ME) get stuck. One place people get stuck is on obsessive worry about embarassing others or being embarassed. It's good to be respectful of self and others, but respect based on kindness can easily get overblown and become repression based on fear. Silence is not always golden, sometimes it is plain stupid ignorance.

The great mystics have all been highly critical of their own cultures. So oneness and acceptance has nothing to do with being uncritical.

Can I change? Can I accept that I can't change a whole culture? Are you really talking to me? What are you telling me, that if I see anything negative worth commenting on, it is really only MY fault for noticing? If I am ever critical, it is because I have personal problems that cause me to care, and am over active in my brain which causes me to speak? Sorry, I see no flaw in being critical, nor does it show that I am unable to change or that I overestimate my ability to change others or that I have an overblown need to change others.

Edited April 19, 2006 by jamman

[jamman]

Thank you for becoming defensively anti-intellectual and illustrating a point I wanted to make to the original poster! I don't think anyone is trying to be superior or playing a game, unless the original poster is really just playing the troll game.

Ya, a lot of people are not much interested in having discussions that may challenge some idea using anything other than emotional games. Some types of conversations bother and bug and bore some people, and they think that the only reason anyone could possibly be interested in such persuits is to either put themselves up or others down. Those people insult those who like to think about ideas with the word Pseudo. They then turn around and complain that you are getting too serious for a lite forum, a forum they come to after work to relax with a beer. As if in the first place a Real thinker should be more credentialed and good at thinking, and not a Pseudo-thinker. And in the second place, this is neither the time nor the place to have any discussion about anything that requires logic.

Thinking is fun, for some - those that don't like it seem compelled to insult those that do - to claim that those who like to think are trying to be superior. It never ends.

Reading his comments in this thread and others, one can conclude that he is unhappy with the level of intellectual stimulation he gets from people he has met in SEA. He seems, to me, to be trying to find all sorts of cultural explanations other than the most obvious: without the familiar backdrop of his own culture, he has not been able to find the like-minded people here. It is as if he lost all judgement and wandered around his own country, trying to associate with all the people he currently manages to avoid by circumstance or subconscious discrimination. Much like we all wander into this forum and correspond with random people who often do not appreciate our viewpoints.

What this forum illustrates is that a randomly selected community will end up with a normal distribution of members with all manner of interests, values, and abilities. Unfortunately for anyone who is not statistically "average", the default mode is dominated by the most numerous and can become boring. To complain about it is pointless, as it would be to complain that the daily newspaper isn't intellectually stimulating (or that it doesn't have enough coverage of the barfine scene, etc.). Instead, you need to seek out a better publication to satisfy your specific interest.

I found it ironic that he complained about people saying he "thinks too much" here. That is what I hear even in my own culture, and I know I am just a middle of the road academic... I've met many people in school who bewildered me with their intellect and knowledge. There is nothing really to be proud of or embarassed about either way; but it is foolish to pretend such differences do not exist. He has either been very lucky in avoiding all dead-end conversations "back home," or he is lying to himself in thinking things are so different here in SEA. The only sane response is to try to better judge your social peers and find a level of discourse that all are comfortable with. The corollary is to find new social peers if the common discourse is too boring.

And before someone accuses me of being some kind of elitist, my point is NOT that he should avoid all people who aren't just like him, and my point would apply equally to someone complaining about boredom for other reasons than he has complained. My point is simply that he obviously has worse discriminating skills here than at home, if his comments truly reflect his experience. I think we miss out on a lot of the richness of life if we over-discriminate or under-discriminate. No matter what, we have to discriminate... you cannot go through two doors at once. Getting it just right takes a lot of cultural experience to judge the better way and a lot of plain dumb luck to make up the difference.

Yes, when I lived in the States, I was often quite critical of parts of that culture. And yes, I did my best to gather around people with like interests. I took poetry writing classes, chi-kung classes, sat in meditation and took various philosophy and meditation courses, energetic healing courses, and hung out with some folks of a quality that was deeply inpiring. In Asia I also look for where the interesting people group, and I have asked many people many times - where? I have not found similar groupings. In Asia people seem on the whole disinterested in anything other than what leads up to getting married, and then after that making kids and fostering family.

My motives for being critical about parts of SE Asian culture are not to put the culture down - it is what it is regardless of where I put it - but to see more clearly myself and others, in order to be able to love both better. Last year I dated a woman with borderline personality disorder, and stuck it out for longer than most would, because I want to understand that part of being human so well that I can love even that and deal with even that. In the end though, it was too damaging - no Saint should stay with someone with heavy BPD traits. But I believe that understanding pathological need for not embarassing self or others is to understand one self and others better, and being critical about it is one good way to start to understand it.

[jamman]

My first objection to the original post is that I don't think it is useful to conflate taboo with face. A taboo is something that (for the holders of the taboo) really is a form of denial. It is not just a social norm not to talk about it, but a social fear of the very concept. Face is just about embarrasment and pride; for example, not wanting anyone to notice you stink. The person saving face might try to open a window to get some fresh air, or sneak away to bathe... I suppose it could be related to taboo if there is a taboo against washing certain body parts.

A prototypical taboo is not being able to question the existence of god without crossing yourself and asking forgiveness, or stifling your child and praying for forgiveness if the child asks you the question, even in private. This is a much more severe psychological condition than mere face-saving.

The original question and discussion also wandered regarding whether face-saving inhibits creative thought. I agree with someone who said it encourages more subtle communication skills, but this says nothing about creativity either way. I suppose it might discourage creative thought through reduced opportunities for reward, but I suspect that effect would just steer creative thought into different areas rather than out of existence.

Another implied question is whether a society which avoids discussing certain topics will prevent its members from thinking about such topics. I reject the idea that thoughts require communication, either before or after the thinking. What I will agree with is that by supressing discourse, you reduce the "input" materials and therefore might reduce the frequency with which certain thoughts re-emerge. This is NOT a suppression of creativity, but merely a statement that without discourse the ideas will have to emerge via creative thought from a more distant origin. The main effect of discourse is allowing a society of people to develop a thought process together, rather than one person thinking it all the way through. That sounds LESS creative to me, i.e. it is like improvisational work instead of full-blown composition.

The other thing about this thread that ruffles feathers is the drifting between the individual and the statistical. Our anecdotal experiences can act as counter-point to any overly generalized claim. But any claim that is qualified with "a trend" or "a tendancy" requires statistical models and data to even discuss objectively. Otherwise, we are just pushing our agendas and personal beliefs and couching them in more scientific terms than they deserve.

In answer to your clarifying the meaning of taboo, firstly, according to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taboo the term can sometimes be used loosely, as Orwell seems to have done, and secondly the overall argument is not changed by either disagreeing or agreeing with Taboo being precicely the same as Face. The question is not if it is precicely the same, but if it has a similar effect. Does the need to not cause embarassment have the effect of making certain thoughts and actions off limits and repressed?

Getting back to what off limits subjects and taboos can be, here is a quote from Wikipedia:

"When an activity or custom is classified as taboo it is forbidden and interdictions are implemented concerning the topic, such as the ground set apart as a sanctuary for criminals. Some taboo activities or customs are prohibited under law and transgressions may lead to severe penalties. Other taboos result in embarrassment, shame, and rudeness.

Taboos can include dietary restrictions (halal and kosher diets, religious vegetarianism, and the prohibition of cannibalism), restrictions on sexual activities and relationships (intermarriage, miscegenation, sex between people of the same sex, incest, animal-human sex, adult-child sex, sex with the dead), restrictions of bodily functions (burping, flatulence), restrictions on the use of psychoactive drugs, restrictions on state of genitalia (circumcision, sex reassignment), exposure of body parts (ankles in the Victorian British Empire, women's faces in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, nudity in the US), and restrictions on the use of offensive language."

Orwell used taboo in his essay when talking about political and ideological allegiances - a socialist is not allowed to think negative thoughts about socialism. It is taboo to say bad things about your own party.

Face is all about not getting slighted, and not causing others to be publicly offended. It is a teenage concern with not having pimples, a fear of not insulting the higher ups who have power over you, and an emphasis on the visible - gold or cars or other symbols of status. It is having your place, and not rocking the boat and moving someone down from their place (if they have power over you). So you have to watch your step, and watch your mouth. Don't even think bad thoughts about the king. Ever. That is taboo!

And as for thoughts requiring communication, many people have said that they think it really does. We don't actually think in isolation. Firstly, all our words were taught to us. Secondly, we think *about* things. Maybe about something we heard or read. There is only so much thinking you can do about trees and rocks - we think about other peoples thoughts. By nature it is a communal effort - the very building blocks of thought are borrowed and stolen from others. And then together, on forums and by publishing books and by casual conversation, the back and forth inspires new questions and new building blocks get introduced. Thinking is a social act - so social prohibitions hinder it. What good book about sexuality has come out of a sexually repressed society?

Edited April 19, 2006 by jamman

[jdinasia]

why do you keep equating thinking with speaking?

[meemiathai]

Jamman, what exactly is this "creative thought" that is lacking in asia as a result of this "face" thing?

Are there any examples?

Say if I, or people here give you the answer 'yes', what's next? Is there a problem? Is there something that should be done? Is creative thought a 'must' in life? Different people need different things to be happy. You might need stimulations to the brain whilst I need only money.

What exactly are you trying to point out? Care to enlighten me?

[elkangorito]

In reading Elkangorito's babblings I was reminded of Huxley's Doors of Perception when he stumbled over what he considered to be the true significance of " istigkeit " or the concept of Is-ness. A concept further developed by Dr.Timothy Leary and made fashionable by Ken Kesey and his Merry Pranksters back in the late 60s when ' living for the moment ' and appreciating the ' nowness' was a totemic goal of enlightenment

Trouble was, comprehension of what they were all on about could only be achieved after consuming loads of acid or Huxley's preferred hallucinogenic, mescaline.

Perhaps Elkan's drivel might assume a greater significance under similar conditions? Probably not but it was nice taking a trip ( excuse the pun ) down memory lane.

May the "oneness" be with you.....

Is that all you can say? And you accuse me of babbling

Seriously.... Don't you guys have anything better to do than play the "whose intellect is superior" game? Go help out someone less fortunate than yourself. Much more productive than comparing mental penis sizes.

I hereby declare you a 'non-thinker'. Go & find another post to which you can add irrelevant comments.

Seriously.... Don't you guys have anything better to do than play the "whose intellect is superior" game? Go help out someone less fortunate than yourself. Much more productive than comparing mental penis sizes.

Correct.

Some people are insecure about themselves they have to bring up articles which make them to be a superior race to another and try to get people to agree with them so they can walk outside with there head high.

Who is insecure here? You & Jbowman are the only ones to have commented upon 'intellect'. Why is this? Maybe you can't think of anything relevant to say? I hereby declare you a 'non-thinker'. Go & find another post to which you can add irrelevant comments.

Low stress is something I also appreciate here. But I don't associate it with not thinking, exactly. It isn't thinking that is stressful, it is worry and being overly ambitious that causes stress. Similar to what I said.

You say that if face is bad, (I actually said that it wasn't very good.) why are Asian countries healthier? First of all, I am aware of a few types of disease that are less prevalent in Asia, such as heart disease and some cancers. But others are more prevelant. What diseases, apart from the ones that I have mentioned? As far as I know, overall life expectancy is not higher in Asia. You confuse 'life expectancy' with 'quality of life'...2 totally different things. Secondly, there are many factors involved in health, including of course foods and genetic pre-dispositions, as well as feelings of being emotionally supported, as well as overall stress. And since the idea of face being directly related to either higher or lower stress is unknown, I don't think we can say anything meaningful about how the idea of face affects the health of Asians as compared to westerners. If you live in a place where 'burying your head in the sand' is normal, why would you opt for a clock watching, ever planning lifestyle?

I agree that a life without worry would be great, but I disagree that the road to happiness is having complete control over ones thoughts Now and not blame others and to make no comments about what others think. I think that's an extremely self centered, ego centered view, that places ones own thoughts and self at the center of the universe as omnipotent. Would you not agree that YOU are the most important person in your world/life? If only we could fully control our thoughts now, all would be right and well, worry would disolve, and all the petty problems of the world would no longer matter. Are you suggesting that you do not control your own thoughts? If so, who does control your thoughts? Who is holding a gun to your head & FORCING you to think certain thoughts? Mystical oneness is not about transcending pain and opening up the skull and cutting out problematic parts of the brain. Those with frontal lobotomies are not transcendent mystics, even if they don't think to much, and don't blame others.

In order to be fully human, as human as possible, it sometimes helps to see the places that people (not just ME) get stuck. Yes, I think that you are stuck. One place people get stuck is on obsessive worry about embarassing others or being embarassed. It's good to be respectful of self and others, but respect based on kindness can easily get overblown and become repression based on fear. Silence is not always golden, sometimes it is plain stupid ignorance. I agree...but this is about 'reaction'. Everyone has a choice about how they can react to any given situation...as long as they are willing to fully accept the consequences of such reaction(s).

The great mystics have all been highly critical of their own cultures. So oneness and acceptance has nothing to do with being uncritical. It has everything to do with it. 'Onesness' is about being at 'one' with yourself...fully accepting that the self is fully responsible for everything that happens to one. 'Oneness' is about being able to be 'you' without FORCING a change in others so that you can be 'you'. This does not preclude differences of opinion, since such differences generally are not a FORCED thing upon another...unlike a law that FORCES things upon people. People are free to think as they please (if they only knew this). It is irrelevant to try to FORCE a change of anothers way of thinking to suit yourself. THIS is egotistical & self centred. I think that you are mistaken about EGO. The ego is a voracious feeder. It's hunger can never be satisfied, if one submits to ego. If one is concerned about what others think about them, then one is a victim of ego. This is why I think that FACE is 'not a good thing'. It is very egotistical but the victims will be the people who CHOOSE to buy into this facade. Besides this, if one doesn't hold oneself in the highest esteem, how can one be of any use to another? Do you not wish to be the best that you can be for yourself as well as others? Do you wish to be helped by someone who relies upon other people to validate their lives? EGO is about 'profit', not 'self' as you suggest. Why would you help an old person, whom you don't know...or even know? Is it because you want others to think that you are a 'caring' person or is it that you will get something 'non profit' from the experience? I do things for people because I get enjoyment from doing it. The by-product is that the other person may also get something out of it. Their life is NOT MY BUSINESS. If I don't want to do something, I say 'no' & accept the consequences. Basically, I don't give a toss what others think about me. It is not consequential in my life.

Can I change? Can I accept that I can't change a whole culture? Are you really talking to me? What are you telling me, that if I see anything negative worth commenting on, it is really only MY fault for noticing? No. I am asking you if you can 'change'. It's that simple. If I am ever critical, it is because I have personal problems that cause me to care, and am over active in my brain which causes me to speak? Sorry, I see no flaw in being critical, nor does it show that I am unable to change or that I overestimate my ability to change others or that I have an overblown need to change others. You are correct but CAN YOU CHANGE?

[jdinasia]

amazing

[elkangorito]

amazing

Thank you

[Donz]

No I already explained it a few pages back.

elkagaroti, you just dont get it, you just keep making no sense at all.

I declare you a dribbler.

[jdinasia]

The whole topic was a wind-up ... but it is funny to see how people think (or don't)

[the gent]

Elkiedoritos,

" To babble or not to babble, that's the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or........ are we all just face queens? "

Frankly, I haven't a clue but I think Jamman is going through a cathartic moment and may be seeking solace in the esoteric.

Chap obviously needs a good rub down and to get out more. Orwell is not appropriate inspiration for the impressionable since his main contribution to the matrix was measuring the distance between what should be and what actually exists. No help at all to those striving for solutions. Bit like Blake measuring infinity.

I'm sure Donz is a chip off old Wes Turner's block?

Edited April 19, 2006 by the gent

[Donz]

who is wes turner

[Erwin1011]

why do you keep equating thinking with speaking?

Very simply because speaking is an expression of your thinking. Until you speak up and express what you think, confront it with with other thoughts expressed, your "silent" thinking is useless to the society in general. your becoming an internalized moron.

[GuestHouse]

Some of the greatest English literature of the 20th Century was written by Catholics who used the moars and taboos of Chatholosism as a backdrop to their writing.

So, while the OP's point has some validity in that cultural conditioning affects thought and creativity.

The argument that it must necesseraly hamper creativity is, to use a well know expression utter <deleted>.

[jamman]

Jamman, what exactly is this "creative thought" that is lacking in asia as a result of this "face" thing?

Are there any examples?

Say if I, or people here give you the answer 'yes', what's next? Is there a problem? Is there something that should be done? Is creative thought a 'must' in life? Different people need different things to be happy. You might need stimulations to the brain whilst I need only money.

What exactly are you trying to point out? Care to enlighten me?

I'd like to answer to my best - apologies, I'm under the influence of a favorite liquid.

I love your question. I have to answer with stories. There are times in life when one doesn't know everything, and those are the times when people are open to change. Usually it happens in traditional formative years. Anything up to teen, and then especially teen, as concerns laying down foundations for mental world views. But we get lots of cracks in our substrates and foundations. Many of us have to have a nervous breakdown - our foundations can't hold us up any longer, and we have to crumble, for a time. Usually we regroup in a way that is more resiliant.

So I love your question. There is a theory that if life is easy and affordable and understanble, it will be predictable and constant. But that there are sometimes possibilities of seeing the world in new ways, that are not important to our ways. Sometimes we have to get totally f-ed up or lose everything that we thought was important or otherwise have our viewpoint so disturbed, such that we are forced to either regress to a child like state or move up to a new way of seeing the world. For instance, as children in diapers, we were happy to poo everywhere. Then we got spanked for pooing wrong. What?! How can I poo wrong?! I poo perfectly. So we had to learn that our body must be controlled. Then we started to get in trouble for speaking wrong. What?! But all I did was to tell Auntie that she smelled bad. So we have to learn the rules and control our minds. Wow - now we have minds to be controlled. Then as teenagers we learn subtle social rules - we can be accepted socially if we look cool and play parts.

At any place you can get stuck.

Then we learn that our close friends are those that take interest in us, and we in them, and this reciprosity is love. We care for each other. This means a lot to us.

Then we try to expand on this meaning. We read books, meet inspiring people, and try our best to plant seeds in our internal garden.

Some around us remain stuck as teenagers, and plant all their seeds in an external garden.

We meet people who have cultivated themselves, and they are inspiring in their wisdom, knowledge, courage, and love. They have something to say, or to simply be.

And we meet successful people who give us the shivers. Or who seem sidetracked. Or boring.

So we give it a shot and plant seeds internally - as if the best investments are the ones that may eventually change our insides.

And as to what such investments yield, I can't push that upon you. I'm no evangelist. We are human, and have potential, that we can discover. Curiosity drives us to more than we used to be, and the price is always death of what we were.

You say "You might need stimulations to the brain whilst I need only money." And a heroin addict needs only heroin. And a pig needs only food. Is none more fullfilling than the other? Happiness is over rated, and the subltle pleasures can't even be rated until you experience them.

Intellectual fun is fun. But don't confuse a mental map with a human territory. You can talk about the vastness of human potential with ideas - but to explore that potential is more than mental game play. Still, mental game play is required - to speak well is a craft.

In summary, every thing that causes passion, seize. And every thing that causes aversion, seize. And every thing that causes indifference, seize. Seize the day. I'm not trying to be cute - I mean it. Paying attention to all details as if they all mattered, regardless of how much they matter, won't in itself change who we are, but can bring us good fortune, and then with good luck we may change into a person more capable of love, more deep in vision.

Edited April 19, 2006 by jamman

[jamman]

Some of the greatest English literature of the 20th Century was written by Catholics who used the moars and taboos of Chatholosism as a backdrop to their writing.

So, while the OP's point has some validity in that cultural conditioning affects thought and creativity.

The argument that it must necesseraly hamper creativity is, to use a well know expression utter <deleted>.

I didn't read it, but if Catholicism was the backdrop, then it was not a taboo. A taboo is foredrop. A taboo is so close to your eyelids that you can't even see it. Perhaps the writer saw Catholicism clearly and could describe it, therefore not being under the sway of a taboo, which would proscribe any negative descriptions of Catholicism. If you can see and describe a subject, it is not a taboo.

Edited April 19, 2006 by jamman

[jamman]

Elkiedoritos,

" To babble or not to babble, that's the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or........ are we all just face queens? "

Frankly, I haven't a clue but I think Jamman is going through a cathartic moment and may be seeking solace in the esoteric.

Chap obviously needs a good rub down and to get out more. Orwell is not appropriate inspiration for the impressionable since his main contribution to the matrix was measuring the distance between what should be and what actually exists. No help at all to those striving for solutions. Bit like Blake measuring infinity.

I'm sure Donz is a chip off old Wes Turner's block?

I appreciate your trying to get to know me, but guessing at my thoughts and life is not any sort of friendliness that I can condone. I get laid very regularly, and get more than rubbed down.

As for Orwell's main contributions. Well, I can't say, as I never read any of his books - only his online essays. What I took from him is his attention to his craft. That's an abstract thing to take. He has written on the subject of writing, and in general he writes on thinking itself. He tells me how to watch out, how to pay attention.

Some music, some writing, seems eternally fresh. Ten or a hundred or a thousand years later, relevant. Some of Orwel's stuff is that to me. It's not just my "subjective" (as if that meant merely pertaining to me) interpratation. Some stuff is classic.

Edited April 19, 2006 by jamman

[talatnat]

Jamman:

You're extemely articulate, and thank you for starting and maintaining a thought-provoking thread.

Given that, I'd like to see you "argue" the contrary: Put yourself in the other person's shoes. After all, that's what life's all about.

Maybe another post?

[jamman]

Jamman:

You're extemely articulate, and thank you for starting and maintaining a thought-provoking thread.

Given that, I'd like to see you "argue" the contrary: Put yourself in the other person's shoes. After all, that's what life's all about.

Maybe another post?

Hi Talanat.

I'm sorry, but this is not a game to me. When I make love with a woman, I am in her shoes and her body, but I can not imagine that I'm making love to someone who is not her. It is not a dress rehearsal - it is meaningful and powerful because of who she is and who I am and how we mix. It is not a play date. I mean, we can do role playing, and explore our hidden corners, but we embody that and mean that. It isn't fake.

I say what I mean, and have no passion to do otherwise.

To take another person's point of view does not mean that our own is diminished. We can be behind them both, and still embody one as the most whole. Clitorectamies suck. Some things are better, some are worse. To see the big picture is to know the best part of it.

As for being articulate, I honor your compliment, thank you. I'm 40. That comes with effort.

Edited April 19, 2006 by jamman

[talatnat]

<<I'm sorry, but this is not a game to me.>>

Sorry, I did not intend to imply that -- putting yourself in the other person's shoes and (cutthisword: being) posting and being argumentative. That would be trolling.

I meant when re-read all you've told us, and all that others have told you, and can come up with another considered post as fine as this one. Time (for me) to sleep.

Edited April 19, 2006 by talatnat

[cdnvic]

I don't see how face suppresses creativity. When face is involved, being blunt or brutally honest is out of the question, forcing people to instead think of a face saving way to deal with the situation.

I think if anything, rote learning in schools suppresses creativity, and the need to be creative sometimes in order to maintain face offsets that handicap somewhat.

cv

[GuestHouse]

I didn't read it, but if Catholicism was the backdrop, then it was not a taboo.

I assure you that the litterature to which I refer did use taboo as a backdrop, and the issues were real taboos. But to continue that discussion would drift of the Thailand subject.

So back in the Thailand camp, we have.

If Thais are excluded from creativity of thought by Taboo, why then is the Thai language so expressive?

Is the expressiveness of the Thai language a result of a need to circumvent taboo, and if so the possibility arrises (I would argue certainty arrises) that the problem at hand is not the problems Thais might have with creativity and expressiveness due to taboo, but that the fault lies in the basis of the question.

Perhaps the problem is ears that are deaf to Thai creativity, lacking perhaps the liguistic or cultural tools to understand what is being said and expressed by Thais.

Put another way, perhaps a value judgement is being made on something that is not understood, all the while using non Thai, language, culture and learning as the basis of that value judgment.

[jdinasia]

or maybe the OP just isn't in Thailand .... hasn't met anyone educated ... and is just basically bonkers!