Let's talk about ... control

[Huckleman2000]

I've been pondering this recently, and I've reached the conclusion that all stress stems from the loss of some form of control ... and the need for control is rooted in fear.
I agree that stress sometimes stems from a loss of control, but I don't feel any great need to actually assert control, only to flee it. I'd make a really good independently-wealthy dissolute.

When faced with change or turmoil in one aspect of your life, do you seek order/organization in another?
No, I tend to hasten extreme circumstances and create crises, actually. See below.

Do you become ultra efficient during a crisis?
Not ultra-efficient, but I finally reach a point of self-focus that's exhilarating. I think that's why I really resist control as long as possible.
It's one reason I really love acting on the stage. Being in front of a live audience gives me that adrenaline focus, but there's a high degree of control for me since I've rehearsed and know the material, so I can manipulate the levers of emotional control and everyone goes along with the game. I'm simultaneously 'in the moment' and also having an out-of-body experience, as though I'm a puppet-master of myself.

Do you push some people away if they get too emotionally close for comfort?
Yes. Doesn't everyone? I have no desire to be emotionally close to very many people.

Do you pull some closer when you sense your influence (control) over them waning?
I might try, but I'm not very good at manipulation. I totally suck at it. When people defer to me, I have little immediate understanding why they do so, or why they don't at other times. By the time I figure it out, I put people off, I guess. I can't seem to simply 'react' unless I know where the scene is going.

Do you control your impulses? Eating? Finances? Life? What control issues give you the most stress?
I'm actually not very good at impulse control at all. I can go for awhile, but then it all bottles up inside me and I burst at some point. Or else, maybe I just have some strange impulses that I've really HAD to learn to control. Either way, I just don't have a good feel for when to indulge my impulses and when to contain them, so the only ones I indulge readily are the ones that I know will only hurt myself.

 

[impressive]

*bump*

Any more thoughts on the subject?

 

[rgraham666]

Over all, I believe the Western idea of control is a bad one. There's actually little we can control. And our attempts to control things will succeed only until the energies we lay our hands on build up and explode.

Because so much of our egos as individuals and a society is founded on 'strength', that is our ability to control, we're woefully unprepared for the times when we can't control things. At that point our panic over our lack of control causes us a lot of problems.

I believe our wish to control has driven us just a little bit, and in some cases a lot, nuts.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I think people don't employ personal control enough. I think we're developing a society that finds it too easy to blame others or circumstance for personally controllable factors.

 

[impressive]

I think people don't employ personal control enough. I think we're developing a society that finds it too easy to blame others or circumstance for personally controllable factors.

I agree completely.

So, what about those who exercise TOO much personal control -- to the point that their lives are regimented and the only thing that brings them any semblance of joy is order?







Rob - yes.

 

[Chantilyvamp]

okay i change all my answers...i have no control period.

 

[rgraham666]

I agree completely.

So, what about those who exercise TOO much personal control -- to the point that their lives are regimented and the only thing that brings them any semblance of joy is order?







Rob - yes.

I've had an idea bouncing around in my mind for a couple of years now, for a play.

It starts with a single man in a completely blank white room. Other people show up in it and act out little vignettes.

My goal is that by the end of the play it become plain the vignettes are the man's memories. And that he is a control freak who has gone catatonic because he couldn't face the fact that life is uncontrollable. In the blank white room that represents his illness he now has perfect control.

Not sure I have the skill to pull it off. But I pull the idea out every so often and play with it some more.

Joe, our idea of freedom precludes personal control because it generally precludes personal responsibility. 'Do what thou wilt, that shall be the whole of the law' is what we mistake for freedom. How can control have any place in such a philosophy?

Thanks, imp.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I agree completely.

So, what about those who exercise TOO much personal control -- to the point that their lives are regimented and the only thing that brings them any semblance of joy is order?

Those people have problems.

 

[rgraham666]

From my favourite book.

CONTROL, BEING IN Ideal of managers and housewives. The enemy of creativity and growth, whether economic, social or individual. One of the most destructive characteristics of modern society.

What is it exactly that they are trying to control? See FEAR and MANAGER

The Doubter's Companion - John Ralston Saul

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Joe, our idea of freedom precludes personal control because it generally precludes personal responsibility. 'Do what thou wilt, that shall be the whole of the law' is what we mistake for freedom. How can control have any place in such a philosophy?

Hmmmm... let me put a brain on it.

First, neither the US Constitution, its framers, nor the philosophers I am aware of that predate them ever said that freedom precludes personal control or personal responsibility. I can find much and many to the effect that freedom precludes external controls and external notions of responsibility (more of the former than latter, but to be fair the latter is represented often).

So, right off the bat, I have no idea where you're coming from. I think freedom (little "f") appears to be our idea that one is able and unconstrained to choose to do something or not do something... so, then, Freedom (capital "F") would be something to the effect of: The ability to do or not do, without predication or constraint, anything.

So, someone chained up would not be free to walk around--and someone unchained would be free to walk around or not walk around as they saw fit. More largely, someone in a tight socialist dictatorship with 1984-style surveillance and stuff going on would not be free to talk in particular ways or not-participate in certain things. And assuming everyone on Earth vanished except one guy in New York, that guy would be in a truly Free society--he can do or not do whatever he wants.

I think that's a good working framework for "F/freedom". And it includes the ability to do and not do, which is entirely a matter of personal responsibility and control. I am free, presently, to smoke as many cigarettes as I want--I apply personal control to that in an effort to be healthier and maybe quit soon. Were I unconcerned with those effects, I might freely choose to smoke more (because I like it) or less (because I don't like spending money). Freedom, then, appears to be an uncontained ability--with personal control a huge part of it.

Second, "do what thou wilt, that shall be the whole of the law" didn't ring a bell with me. I had to Google it. Alestar Crowley? Magic? Some mysticism stuff? I'm not sure why this is relevant.

I do not mistake that phrase for "freedom". I would venture to say that many, many people don't mistake that phrase for "freedom". I can say that some do. I can say that some don't.

But as for control being a part of a philosophy of freedom... well, it always has. Even Epicurius said "and much wine will bring one to ill health".

. . .. ... .....

From one of my favorite quote selections:

"The difference between wars and death and ignorance and outbursts and flashes of hatred and poor decisions and, most strongly, between children and adults... and monkeys and men... is the ability to control our passions enough to further our lives and generations."

--A.J. Grayson

 

[CharleyH]

I think we're developing a society that finds it too easy to blame others or circumstance for personally controllable factors.

I don't agree. We aren't 'developing' such a society. Such societies have always existed.

 

[CharleyH]

*bump*

Any more thoughts on the subject?

Actually - yes. I find it fascinating that as fiction writers we all ultimately have a desire to be God - to create worlds, events and characters and to have control over everything within those worlds. Perhaps the word author is simply another word for control freak?

Seriously, I would be interested in thoughts about writers/ artists as the ultimate example of people who love to control things that some might say (not me) there is no real power in.

 

[impressive]

Actually - yes. I find it fascinating that as fiction writers we all ultimately have a desire to be God - to create worlds, events and characters and to have control over everything within those worlds. Perhaps the word author is simply another word for control freak?

Seriously, I would be interested in thoughts about writers/ artists as the ultimate example of people who love to control things that some might say (not me) there is no real power in.

I'm not entirely sure we (as authors) really have that control, though. So many of us have said, at one time or another, how characters talk to them, refuse to cooperate, etc. And, truly, that's when we get the most depth.

It's almost the opposite. We have to relinquish control in order to write. We set the stage, toss in the conflict, and watch.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I don't agree. We aren't 'developing' such a society. Such societies have always existed.

That such societies have always existed doesn't mean they can't also come and go. Societies that bigot-edly kill of sections of their own people have always existed--but Germany did "develop" one in the early twentieth century.

Selfish and hoarding societies have always existed... but that waned a great deal during the war effort in the forties, leaving one to develop in its wake.

Come on. You're not /actually/ claiming societies can't develop EVER because such things have already been developed in history--and once done, locked in forever.

?

 

[Liar]

I don't agree. We aren't 'developing' such a society. Such societies have always existed.

I think it's kind of a natural flipside of the whole 'society' thing. A society is a unit of you and other people, collaborating, co-dependent, coordinating each other. It opens up for the possibility to dodge responsibility and load it onto others. And some will do just that. Corruption in a society of one is kinda pointless.

 

[impressive]

I don't agree. We aren't 'developing' such a society. Such societies have always existed.

Naw. There were times when personal responsibility was a matter of life or death -- survival of the fittest. Technological advances have redefined "fittest" in such a way that that sort of responsibility has shifted away from the individual.

 

[CharleyH]

That such societies have always existed doesn't mean they can't also come and go. Societies that bigot-edly kill of sections of their own people have always existed--but Germany did "develop" one in the early twentieth century.

Selfish and hoarding societies have always existed... but that waned a great deal during the war effort in the forties, leaving one to develop in its wake.

Come on. You're not /actually/ claiming societies can't develop EVER because such things have already been developed in history--and once done, locked in forever.

?

I am not arguing the flux of history or the rise and fall of societies. My fave short story is Aldous Huxley's 'Usually, Destroyed' after all (great short story that I highly recommend). You used the phrase "I think we're developing a society ..." I simply don't think that there has ever been a society that didn't lay blame elsewhere.

I claimed nothing other than I disagreed with you and I know you know it. You do raise a good point, though. Can societies develop when the culture of that society is locked into a certain mind set?

But lets qualify the terms we are discussing here. I don't recall any post regarding Germany, but I am very happy to discuss Germany from the first World war through the 30's and 40's if that's what you want.

 

[CharleyH]

Naw. There were times when personal responsibility was a matter of life or death -- survival of the fittest. Technological advances have redefined "fittest" in such a way that that sort of responsibility has shifted away from the individual.

There were times, Imp. I beg you to give example, please.

Let's narrow down the subjects. Are we discussing personal control, any more? Or the societal, techno or political aspects or the hierarchy of control in general, which could relate to domestic and sexual. Narrow the field.

 

[CharleyH]

I'm not entirely sure we (as authors) really have that control, though. So many of us have said, at one time or another, how characters talk to them, refuse to cooperate, etc. And, truly, that's when we get the most depth.

It's almost the opposite. We have to relinquish control in order to write. We set the stage, toss in the conflict, and watch.

I believe that an author is the auteur of his/her world. Any writer (and I know this seems harsh) that articulates that their characters rule them is, well, to make a long story short - not an author.

 

[impressive]

I believe that an author is the auteur of his/her world. Any writer (and I know this seems harsh) that articulates that their characters rule them is, well, to make a long story short - not an author.

Oh, bite me, Charley.

 

[CharleyH]

Oh, bite me, Charley.

Why would you not think that, Imp? Seriously.

 

[Guest]

Why would you not think that, Imp? Seriously.

Not that Imp needs my help in answering, Charley, but wouldn't you think it was because few people sit down to write knowing exactly what their characters are going to say or do?

Don't you think it is in the development of the story that the characters emerge, and it is the true author/writer who allows their imagined characters that freedom to become?

And I have to go, I have characters becoming at this very moment.

 

[CharleyH]

Not that Imp needs my help in answering, Charley, but wouldn't you think it was because few people sit down to write knowing exactly what their characters are going to say or do?

Don't you think it is in the development of the story that the characters emerge, and it is the true author/writer who allows their imagined characters that freedom to become?

If a writer has no direction, Sarahh, what good is a character to that story? You are muddling the issue my love.

 

[Guest]

If a writer has no direction, Sarahh, what good is a character to that story? You are muddling the issue my love.

No, you were not specific enough in your previous post.

Direction, certainly. But the characters often decide upon detours before they reach the end.

It's the journey, love, not the destination that makes the writer, is it not?

(And I must go again - more characters becoming.)

 

[CharleyH]

No, you were not specific enough in your previous post.

Direction, certainly. But the characters often decide upon detours before they reach the end.

It's the journey, love, not the destination that makes the writer, is it not?

(And I must go again - more characters becoming.)

Characters decide nothing, only writers do. Authors do something else.