Discussion Questions (please add your own)
- Do you often, or ever, experience a state of mindless meditation? Are you happy in those moments? Or must such moments recur regularly over the course of a lifetime before such a judgment would be appropriate?
- How often do you find yourself fully engaged and absorbed in what you're doing? Do you think you could learn to experience such a state of being more frequently and reliably?
- How much attention do you pay to your posture and bodily presentation? When striding confidently do you feel more confident, when sitting erect do you feel more competent? Can acting happy make you happy?
- This isn't how most philosophers would define "rationality," but what do you think of it as a description of happiness? "When enjoying plenary freedom either in the way of motion or of thought, we are in a sort of anaesthetic state in which we might say with Walt Whitman, if we cared to say anything about ourselves at such times, " I am sufficient as I am." This feeling of the sufficiency of the present moment, of its absoluteness, — this absence of all need to explain it, account for it, or justify it, — is what I call the Sentiment of Rationality. As soon, in short, as we are enabled from any cause whatever to think with perfect fluency, the thing we think of seems to us pro tanto rational." William James
- Do you ever experience "flow," when your absorption in a task makes the experience of the passage of time drop away? Did you experience that more when younger? (Could that be what the poet Wordsworth was talking about when he referred to intimations of immortality in childhood?)
- How do you manage your bad moods? Does it work for you to try and ignore them, and just get on with your day? Or have you learned the Stoic/Vulcan art of distancing yourself from all moods? Is it possible to achieve selective distancing, drawing closer to happy moods and away from bad ones?
- Who's the happiest person you know? What have you learned from observing them?
- Do you agree that there's never been a better time to be alive? 1 (Steven Pinker in Better Angels of Our Nature, for one, says life's never been better.)
- "Life is good" - agree? What hypothetical circumstances in your life do you imagine might reverse your opinion?
- Do you think many poor communities are happier than the average college student? 3
- How important is health, and healthcare, in your conception of happiness? 7
- Do we need a theory or definition of happiness? 10
- What do you think of Aristotle's approach? 11
- Do you have views about eastern (eg, Buddhist) approaches to happiness?
- Can you be a genuinely happy individual in an unhappy society? 13
Study Questions
ch1
1. Who has frequently been held up by philosophers as a paradigm of happiness?
2. What nation did Gallup find to be happiest in terms of daily experience?
3. What does Haybron say will most likely NOT be on your deathbed list of things you'd like to experience again before you go?
4. What was Aristotle's word for happiness, and what did he particularly not mean by it?
5. Which of Haybron's three happiness theories is not mainly concerned with feelings?
6. Why does Haybron consider "subjective well-being" unhelpful?
ch2
7. How does the author's Dad describe existence "on the Pond"?
8. What does Big Joe the commercial fisherman feel at the end of his working day, and how does he feel generally?
9. Your posture or stride reveals something deeper than what?
10. The author says moments like the one depicted in the photo on p.18 involve no what?
11. Who developed the notion of flow?
12. Tranquility, confidence, and expansiveness are aspects of what state of mind/body?
13. Though your temperament may be more or less fixed, your ___ may be more or less prone to change with circumstances.
14. What famous western Buddhist says happiness is an optimal state of being, much more than a feeling?
1. Who has frequently been held up by philosophers as a paradigm of happiness?
2. What nation did Gallup find to be happiest in terms of daily experience?
3. What does Haybron say will most likely NOT be on your deathbed list of things you'd like to experience again before you go?
4. What was Aristotle's word for happiness, and what did he particularly not mean by it?
5. Which of Haybron's three happiness theories is not mainly concerned with feelings?
6. Why does Haybron consider "subjective well-being" unhelpful?
ch2
7. How does the author's Dad describe existence "on the Pond"?
8. What does Big Joe the commercial fisherman feel at the end of his working day, and how does he feel generally?
9. Your posture or stride reveals something deeper than what?
10. The author says moments like the one depicted in the photo on p.18 involve no what?
11. Who developed the notion of flow?
12. Tranquility, confidence, and expansiveness are aspects of what state of mind/body?
13. Though your temperament may be more or less fixed, your ___ may be more or less prone to change with circumstances.
14. What famous western Buddhist says happiness is an optimal state of being, much more than a feeling?
More (from 2019)...
I was delighted to be reminded of the idea of flow when reading the provided text. It has been quite sometime since I have given it any sort of thought, which is funny in the face that I experience "flow" numerous times within any given week. My ability, or at least propensity, to be overtaken by this phenomenon has roots as far back as I can remember. Albeit, it was not until recently, when watching a video on the subject, that I had learned the proper terminology to refer to such a state.
ReplyDeleteAs for when I most often find myself inflicted with this seemingly instinctual practice, it is in response to a large or overwhelming task, where the mind decides that it is better to check out rather than deal with the stressful situation at hand. While this unconscious choice may seem detrimental at first, the productivity gained by this coup of the mind on behalf of the motor skills far outweighs the potential errors that may arise from the lack of attention. When I have returned to my faculties and the bulk of the work has been completed, that is when the refining process may take place. After all, my mind is much more at ease while chiseling features into the marble slab than mining away at the marble quarry to produce said slab.
What Dr. Oliver said!!! Tips, please!!!
DeleteI must admit that it is not simple to give tips on something that comes naturally, especially since I have no recollection of the first time I began to experience flow. It would be similar to advising a person on how to blink. It's not hard. As Dr. Oliver put it, "just do it."
DeleteNow, I realize that's a cheap way out of answering this question and does not really help anyone who asks it. However, I believe Kathleen's contributions may provide some valuable insight. While I spoke on flow in relation to large tasks, it must be said that the easiest form of flow manifests through simple tasks that are repetitive in nature. This is even more true once you get the muscle memory of a trivial task down. So, perhaps a practice model for mastering flow may be found in the simple rather than the complex.
Another interesting tidbit that may be added is that the flow state seems to be a secret to multitasking. For instance, there has been many nights where I spend my free time grinding away at a mindless videogame while listening to some entertaining or educational video or podcast. The repetitive nature of the game does not take much effort on my part, letting me put far more focus into digesting the arguments or comments of the video or podcast. In other words, flow allows me to partake in multiple tasks at once without overtaxing the mind.
I suspect that those fortunate folk like yourself who can slip easily into the flow state generally do not give it a lot of thought. Just do it. Don't overthink it.
ReplyDeleteBut those of us for whom flow is not so readily attained probably need to ponder the process of "checking out" from stress and immersing in a task, project, or experience.
So, tips welcome!
Some things that helped me along that path were crocheting (extremely mindless once learned), weeding in a garden, jig saw puzzle, I'm sure there are more. They helped me learn to zone into a flow so much that I can do it easily without those tasks now (many years later). Yoga is my go to today.
DeleteThanks for the examples of activities which help you enter flow . I certainly need to think for myself activities which can allow me to enter flow, it would undoubtedly be helpful.
DeleteI find question 13 fascinating because right now in my English class we're reading "Things Fall Apart" by Achebe and the intense role that community plays in that story is a strong reminder of the communal nature of humans and just how important the well being of those around us is to our own personal happiness.
ReplyDeleteA question I considered while reading the chapters was is it possible to be truly while at great personal peril or some of your material needs are not yet met? For instance could Socrates or Boethius be happy while they are awaiting happiness knowing soon that they'll never be able to experience any sort of physical pleasure again, or could they as Viktor Frankl contends find happiness in the light of a greater meaning or purpose?
Additionally in the light of considering Eastern thought and thinkers like Rumi and the Buddha (and western mystics like Meister Eckhart) does mystic aestheticism offer any unique insights into human flourishing and happiness that would otherwise be inaccessible? And depending on that answer what implications does that hold to view the material world as a help or hindrance to happiness?
I'd say mystic asceticism works for those of a mystic temperament. The rest of us must look elsewhere.
DeleteMysticism and asceticism are not connected. Asceticism can be secular just as much as religious. There was traditionally an asceticism as part of all martial training. Nietzsche was an ascetic and despised religion, mysticism and anything associated with the spiritual. European Chivalrous knights were ascetics, Buddha, was a ascetic, Samurai were ascetic, notice the massive range of cultures and belief systems among those listed here.
DeleteAs far as mysticism, it is is merely a deviated form of religious exotericism. Mysticism is also exclusively western, there is no eastern mysticism. They have nothing equivalent to it. Mysticism is mainly a Christian phenomenon. Eckhart is the perfect example of a mystic, he typifies arguably the whole type. He was radically deviant from the religious norm of Germany in his time and was persecuted for being so, and yet still was highly pious. He needed something not sanctioned by the church. This is mysticism exactly.
There is nothing mystical about Buddhism or Buddha, it is just an ascetic doctrine within Vedic civilization. It offers liberation for those ascetics who fall outside the caste system. It as a rational as any scientific process, but what it seeks is inward rather than outward, which I suppose for modern western people means it is somehow a religion or a philosophy or mysticism when in fact it is none of the above. A pathway to transcendence does not need to fall under any of the above. I mean look at Ray Kurzweil, he is the CTO of google, he is the inventor of Synthwave technology, and he is a hyper materialist, and rationalist as well as atheist. He does not have a spiritual bone in his body. Anything not explainable by engineering is deeply invalid and worthless to Kurzweil. Yet he found a movement called Transhumanism whose sole goal is the biological transcendence of our species, and the achievement of immortality, and other goals which could easily be described as mystical. When in fact this is all just science, highly rational, and even just the logical development and conclusion of several hundred years of moves in the west toward increasing rationalism, scientism, materialism. He is a logical and natural development perfectly aligning with prescedent and yet he falls outside the norm so he is considered almost a mystic of science, a magician of technology.
I would argue Zarathustra the father of the Persian religion of fire Zoroastrianism, was a philosopher, if not perhaps the first philosopher. I would argue him and Heraclitus were the true founders of "western" philosophy, both whom are Persians btw. Which makes the whole idea of Iran as eastern and that which comes from Aryan Imperium or better known as the Persian empire/Iranian civilization, as Eastern, all the more funny. Rumi was as western as Kant, or any other European philosopher. Linguistically, culturally, even anthropologically Iran and Iranians are historically Western. They found philosophy, the oldest churches of Buddhism and arguably Buddhism itself is Iranian, or western.
DeleteThis would make Rumi western. However Rumi's religion of love was Islamic. The Quran was foundational to his poetry and thought. He was considered by those of his time to be perfectly in line with Exoteric Islam, although with massive stipulations. His drinking, extramarital sex and so forth do not seem in line with Islam, but in the Persian variety of Islam at that time he was considered a sort of outward degenerate but inward saint. Doing things externally violating, but in keeping with a heart of incorruptible purity. His poetry is indeed beautiful and insightful and his heart filled with almost endless compassion.
Also Buddha's doctrine of liberation was simply a Tradition of Vedic Civilization, which I would argue by the way is also not Eastern. The Veda's were written by people from modern day Ukraine, the Vedas are western, the evidence is ample in the fact Sanskrit is a European language. It is closer to the root of all European languages than what almost anyone in the west speaks now, which is funny. Funny enough Indians inherit a culture and religion which is closer to our original culture than our current culture, they are closer to our root than we.
Asceticism is filled with insights, but in practice it is a personal affair same as mysticism as well. Denying worldly pleasures is not something you can learn from watching someone else do, it has to be done yourself. As far as mysticism, it is subjective experience with subjective insights. Neither of these offer sources of universal truth, if that is what you are looking for. Only a living tradition can do that, whether that's Sufism or what have you and can only be offered by a working Priest or Sheikh. The process of Initiation is long and arduous one not available to most westerners.
Also Phil is right, the pathway suited for you is dependent on your own temperament. A soft, loving, sensitive person would probably have more to gain from Rumi's religion of love, a stern serious person of structured, orderly personality, seeking total submission and devotion to a doctrine in which he can experience ego death and liberation is looking for a Tradition. Whether that is Sufism or Zen is anyone's best guess. For some mysticism, for some asceticism for others Tradition, for others pure philosophy.
After such a double-flurry of words it may sound ironic, but my definition of "mystic" is simply someone who does not believe that words capture all of reality. So yes, you can be a secular mystic. Or a naturalist mystic. Or an atheist mystic. Etc.
DeleteAfter reading the Introductions posted so far, I would ask if contentment and gratitude are part of happiness, or something apart from it. Can you have any without the others?
ReplyDeleteWould contentment fall under the attunement type of happiness in which acceptance plays a large role? Gratitude may fall under engagement, attunement, or even both? I like what Haybron says about the different types of happiness - it makes sense in that it is inclusive of many feelings.
DeleteI play contentment near neutrality on a scale to happiness. I'm unsure if gratitude is on that scale. I'd wager it is a byproduct of being content or more.
DeleteSemantics aside, my observation is that grateful people seem both more contented and happier.
DeleteWhen I think of contentment I think of acceptance. You can be content with a bad life, or better you can accept it, but I am not sure the standard is high enough for that to be considered happiness. Since your life might still be quite bad. Haybron talks at length about this better than I can.
DeleteI am not sure where gratitude falls, I just know it as a corollary of humility.
Phil do you think they are happier because the pendulum swings in their favor because of their own biologically regulated temperament. Or because the gratitude itself brings more contentment and happiness? In my experience people who are less grateful also have temperaments for heritable reasons which predisposes them to moods which make contentment and happiness almost unavailable altogether. Their temperamental median is so low that even all the gratitude in the world would seem to just make them more weary. I am unsure either way. Thanks for any response.
DeleteShort response: there are all kinds of temperament, hence all kinds of ways of assimilating gratitude, contentment, and happiness. But the happiest people I've known have been grateful to be alive, grateful to know and love the people closest to them, grateful for the opportunity to make a contribution to "the continuous human community in which they are a link" (in Dewey's phrase).
DeleteI'm intrigued by this notion of happiness being linked to rationality. If emotions were on a spectrum from euphoria to depression, rationality would play the middle field, somewhere close to contentedness. Happiness surely accounts for more than being "sufficient" with your current state as the prompt suggests.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I take the concept of happiness too seriously and thus create my own confusion.
I do not believe that we truly need a definition of happiness. We can all experience it, sure, but it is too unique to capture in a small sum of words without being a mere paraphrase needing thorough explanation.
DeleteAgreed. A working hypothesis might be useful, but a nailed-down invariable definition seems likely to distort our perception of the various conditions under which that butterfly might come and perch.
DeleteTrue. The second we are handicapped yo linguistic formulation we are unable to gain pure experience of the thing pure and simple. Happiness needs no defintion when the person is right in front of you, to use an allegory, who needs a phone when who you want to talk to is always with you. Happiness being the person in this analogy and the phone being the defintion or indirect experience. Love needs no reference, for when it is felt, one is made whole. This is how I would put it.
DeleteIs our time the greatest to be alive? There is no other era in history where there were more recreational avenues than what we as a race possess now. We have videogames, movies, libraries within our hands, and a plethora of other modes of entertainment. Furthermore, the internet serves as a "great equalizer" in the way that it provides an almost endless source of peer-reviewed studies, firsthand historical documents, and even simply the amateur input of billions of onlookers. There would be no reason that a person could not know everything they wish to know. Moreover, long gone is the suffering and anxiety of everyday survival. We have air conditioning, DoorDash, and healthcare of which no ancestor of ours could ever dream. It seems that we have every tool at our disposal to make life as simple and stress free as possible, so the answer to our question should be obvious. However, the truth is that I do not know, and I do not think there would be any way of confirming an answer. It is quite difficult to assess the emotional state of the dead whose present existence is nothing more than a few words to a page. Although, I do not think the analysis ends there.
ReplyDeleteHappiness is not a new phenomenon, not by any means. The definition of happiness, in one form or another, has been contested for as long back as I have researched. Perhaps more importantly, debates on the acquisition of happiness has roots just as deep. The very fact that these debates far precede all such inventions listed here should give some clues into what happiness is not. After all, I have not seen the likes of PlayStation or Google in the philosophical works of the Greeks on happiness. My point being here is that happiness must lie somewhere else. In fact, this endless list of options may hinder it. That brings me to one point that I wanted to address that may shine some light on why it may seem that our ancestors were a happier bunch than us.
There is a phenomenon that many of you may be familiar with. It is called the paradox of choice. To give a brief explanation for those of you that have not, it proposes that the overall happiness of a person can be affected by the amount of choice they have within their life. Of course, we all know that having no choice in one's life can be a miserable experience; however, is there a possibility that a person may have too much choice? The paradox of choice doctrine asserts that there is.
Having too much choice can manifest in multiple ways for the indecisive person. To start, let us take the example of entertainment within one's life. Now, think of all the possibilities that you as an individual have when in comes to your recreation. Just to name a few, there are videogames, movies, sports, television, reading, writing, woodworking, and even underwater basket weaving if that is your preference. Let it also be said that in our society there are also countless versions of or ways to partake in each one of these "Categories." How could a person ever choose one? In the end, you find yourself arguing over which version of your chosen hobby you wish to entertain yourself with and never actually find the time to simply be entertained. At any sign of boredom, a person may find their self switching from hobby to hobby without ever being satisfied. Even when all possible avenues within a hobby have been exhausted, "I can always take up another one" a person may tell their self.
Anyhow, I could continue, but I have rambled long enough. I will leave it at that. Just thought I would give some thoughts on a topic that I have dabbled with here and there.
I recall a scene in one of the novels of the Russian dissident Solzhenitsyn, in which a recently-released former prisoner of the Gulag finds himself overwhelmed by the superfluity of brand choices in a supermarket. This is what the Epicureans were on about, and Thoreau: simplify, simplify.
DeleteAccording to current estimates it is believed the average paleolithic forager spent 2 hours a day in active labor, aka looking for food. And the entire rest of his day for his entire life was dedicated completely to leisure, conversation, and fun, more or less. It also has been found the reason for the low life expectancy rate was entirely because of high child mortality rate, basically if you lived past early childhood your chances of living into your seventies were high in Paleolithic society.
DeleteThe avenues have expanded and believe me I find lots of fun in these avenues: but more or less everyone has no time to explore those avenues. Rates of stress are high, depression and suicide rates are ballooning, I am not sure increasing entertainment, conveniences or other distractions can compensate for the loss of all of our time, all of our time which would otherwise spent with one another, caring about each other. Living with full embodied empathy for our fellow humans, and the planet, living harmoniously with the other species of this planet. Not involved in activities which in no way help each other or the planet, or aid to our own survival. They merely contribute to making capital and aiding to a system predicated on the destruction of community, and the planet. People speak a lot about being practical and being pragmatic, the great irony of this is none of their practicalities matter if the human habitat is destroyed making it impossible for us to survive on this planet as a species. All of their practical ideas do nothing but propagate the existing industrial system. I can think of nothing less practical than extinction. Beliefs are meaningless if the bare minimum condition for survival are not meant. Which they are not if we render our habitat uninhabitable.
Does any of this newly and wildly available information: whether medical, academic, technological actually improve the quality of human life, or said in another way: improve quality of life? Or even better, are people happier, less lonely, less stressed, because their is peer reviewed information which are widely available to everyone? All information on all of human history is available to nearly everyone, and yet suicide is the leading killer of young men, my demographic. And life expectancy is declining in America.
I am not sure how daily survival is at all tantamount to suffering. Europeans studied pre colonial American Indians living in a forager lifestyle and found they were overall in terrific spirits, laughed, smiled more than Europeans, they were in incredible health, and fitness, they had sense of belonging, purpose from their tribe. They did not miss out on anything, except perhaps disease which they were welcome to from our civilization. They were free from hard labor, and intense industrial stress. Spending two hours a day looking for a snack sounds pretty easy to me, spending the day with my buddies having fun outside, with my loved ones instead of at a desk job. Easier certainly than planning a industrial life in post modern society with rapidly accelerating complexification of every facet of life. The very basic definitions and concepts for understanding and perceiving life and reality are being changed and re-written. The very line of reality is not clear anymore, what is real and not real, between social media, and the infinite digital and virtual realities which accompany modern life I am not sure any longer what is real and what is not. Orienting ourselves with place and purpose seems harder than ever. In this world of nearly infinite nauseating flux of information, options, where everything is possible and available except simplicity, direct to face to face existence, stress free daily lives, and mindless fun.
DeleteThe paradox of choice is certainly interesting, I would argue it depends on your views of free will, the question is negligible unless we have free will. If we have free will than almost nothing is more important. And than probably a select amount of quality options is probably the right compromise, you aren't overwhelmed by the volume or crushed by the monolith of no choices.
However there is also a possibility there is a certain amount of free will that is possible but we are deprived of it by universal conditioning which comes from culture and so forth. We are conditioned from the moment we are born to the moment we die to make certain choices, and we are scolded or punished for not making the perceived right choices. There is a military industrial complex, global media system, justice system and standardized obligatory educational system all dedicated to that very goal.
I quite enjoyed reading what you described as rambling, the length of your writing allowed for a great expounding of ideas. Thanks for your contribution and expressing your thoughts. I hope to read more of what you have to say.
Haha also I forgot to mention I am one of those indecisive people you speak of, I hate the fact I have to make decisions and try my best to wiggle around making them continually.
"People speak a lot about being practical and being pragmatic,"--
DeleteI assume you mean the people who speak casually and colloquially about being practical and pragmatic, as opposed to actual philosophical pragmatists. THEY have a great regard for the human habitat and the conditions of its sustenance.
I loved the reading and the class discussion about flow. It is a thing that I feel I have taken for granted practically my entire life. The ability to be completely and utterly consumed by something is such a beautiful thing. I've honestly even come to realize that it doesn't even always have to be something that I entirely enjoy doing, it has to be mentally engaging JUST enough to the point that I can go through the motions and the steps (of whatever it is that I am doing, this happens the most to me when I am at work at Starbucks), but also allow my brain to drift off into thought.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't aware, until after our classroom discussion, that this was a rare occurrence for some people. I'm not quiet sure the first time I experienced flow or even how to explain how I achieve it. At this point it is almost like switching into auto-pilot and getting to go inside your brain, shut the blinds, and think leisurely thoughts while your body keeps the plane in the sky.
I love that description of flow, I find the same with me. I had no idea when working out or playing video games while listening to something I enter flow state. I used to say I need to decompress perhaps what I really meant is I needed to flow.
DeleteI used to experience flow reliably when reading books. That experience is much less frequent now, alas. Writing sometimes flows. And walking, for a peripatetic (when his legs function correctly). Auto-pilot is a good metaphor. "Switching to glide..."
ReplyDeleteFlow is fascinating indeed. I think the natural state of humanity is flow. I would go so far to say perhaps 99% of human history took place in flow state.
DeleteI guess it would also heavily depend on the reading itself. If it is something intense which requires intense concentration too comprehend than flow would probably be impossible, but if it is a light, fun read than flow is more likely. At least I would guess, since the thing to enter flow needs to be engaging enough, but not so intense you have to think too much.
DeleteI've flowed reading philosophy. And great literature. I think it's less about the triggering object and more about the state of receptivity and engagement with which we approach our reading. And about our habituation to the practice, which is greatly challenged these days by our many digital distractions.
Delete"Do you agree that there's never been a better time to be alive?"
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with Pinker, however I also have to enjoy his optimistic attitude and tone in an age of immense negativity and pessimism. I would argue he only presents the evidence which supports his optimistic thesis, and interprets or omits evidence which runs contrary to this thesis which I would call a dogma. This dogma of moral progressivism is not only not a truism, I would go so far as to argue the idea of all encompassing absolute progress as a totalitarian notion which is incompatible with real freedom. Real freedom not to get too far into it being local. He never at any point even takes seriously the argument or evidence that paleolithic life also known as almost all of human history which was not recorded, was peaceful, without disease, without famine, without warfare. It appears he finds justification for tens of thousands of years of horror, to humanity, to the ecology of the planet in increasing comfort, and safety in the present. Basically, because I have things easy compared to humans of the recent past that somehow forgives the unforgivable destruction of the planet through civilization which he sees as not just moral, but even an obligation to be celebrated as "progress".
We read Pinker's Enlightenment Now very closely last summer in my MALA class. I don't think Pinker is dogmatic or overly neglectful of the vicissitudes of history or of our present. I know he doesn't intend to "justify tens of thousands of years of horror. He's simply inviting us to take a longer view, and appreciate our good fortune in having been born at a relatively-enlightened and progressive moment in human history so far. Still a long way to go, to vanquish ignorance and suffering and "horror," but to do that we've got to move forward and not pine for a romantic past that never was.
DeleteThe question about posture and bodily presentation really stuck out to me. I grew up doing pageants and this is something that was not just taught, but basically burned into your brain. From as early as I can remember, I remember my mom telling me to pull my shoulders back or tilt my head up and how I just didn’t understand how much of a difference it made. Given it was preached so heavily, this is something that carried into my personal life well after I stopped doing pageants. I didn’t actually think about it until I was much older, and I realized that my mom was completely right, I hadn’t understood it at all. It wasn’t about my head being held high or my shoulders being pulled back, it was about conveying the look of confidence. That realization was very comforting in the fact that I no longer felt as insecure because I figured most people were faking it (at least to some extent) anyway.
ReplyDeleteI like that you also included the question “does acting happy make you happy?”, because I do think these two run hand and hand. I’ve heard my mom say my entire life, “fake it till’ you make it”, and that is all I could think of when I read this question. If I was down or going through a hard time, she would say this me in attempts to be a pick me up, but it never really worked for me the same way that it did for her. The idea of just pretending like everything is okay when it’s not, isn’t a very comforting thought for me. I think this kind of goes back to a point someone made in class, we don’t have very good colloquial sayings that are accurate or even helpful. Nonetheless, I don’t think that having good posture or walking with a nice stride makes you confident just as much as I don’t think acting happy makes you actually happy. They both make you appear a certain way or create this image you want to portray, but they don’t actually change how you feel.
ReplyDeleteI like that you included questions about both flow and mindful meditation because I feel like sometimes these two can get mistaken for each other. Although now I would consider myself pretty advanced in my flow skills, I absolutely never experience mindful meditation. It is practically impossible for me to make my brain be quiet. I have tried countless amounts of times to meditate, whether it be with music, frequencies, or someone guiding you through, I can never manage to get my thoughts to slow sown enough to have a moment of peace and quiet. It actually got to the point that sometimes I would attempt to meditate, and I would try so hard to quiet my brain that I would literally get a headache. I talked to my therapist about it, and she said that it was surprisingly common. She said a lot of people find themselves getting headaches, dizzy spells, or even lightheadedness when attempting to meditate. She recommended to me that I try meditating for extremely short periods of time every day, like 2-4 minuets before you get out of bed every morning or before you go to bed every night, it’s like slowly releasing all the built-up pressure to where it will finally go flat. I can’t completely answer if I am happy in those moments yet because I haven’t completely gotten there, but I will say that the quieter it gets the more I enjoy it.