Expression
In my eyes, there are three kinds of expression. Two are social, one is antisocial (neutral) or individualistic.
The first form of expression is that which is done to look the same or be similar to those around you. It is designed to not separate you from the rest, maybe bury you amongst the masses, so you can belong. On the dance floor, that would be being a member of the "circle," or saying what you think everyone is expecting you to say. Or falling into what other people want you to do.
The second form is expression motivated by the desire to be seen and admired, to be get attention. Even if this is viewed as disruptive, it is not antisocial because it is done to get the attention of those around. The person entering into the circle would be doing this form of expression. Showing off or dressing in the latest fashion can be this too. It is the source of most of the Idols and stars of our times.
The third and final form is that which comes from within, without regard for what other people think. The desire for truly personal art is this. It is probably also the source of many heinous crimes, as well as the greatest change agents of our time. It is the source of the whistleblowers, it is the source of the arsonists. It is the source of both creativity and depravity, freedom and wantonness.
I think any form of expression in life can be divided into these three forms. Can anyone think of something that escapes this trichotomy?
6 comments:
Interestingly, in the class I went to today there was an echo of sorts in the notes from a lecture on Motivation.
There are three types of goal orientation:
Performance avoidance - focus on avoiding failure and ridicule from others.
Performance approach - pursue success in order to better than others.
Mastery orientation - pursue success as a sign of mastery and personal competence.
It follows the same sort of pattern. The top two opposite reactions to interactions with others, and the final being purely from within.
When I asked about the latter, my lecturer said something interesting. He said that it does not correlate with improved performance (Performance Approach correlates highly). BUT Mastery Orientation correlates to those that pursues the same subject in the future, who stick with a subject. Logical I guess, but interesting all the same.
What about a person who does the opposite of what the trend might be, just for the sake of being different. Would their behaviour fall under category one or two?
What about someone who is sleepwalking, or so intoxicated with alcohol that they don't really have any deliberate control over their expression?
I would regard someone doing the exact opposite as the second form. They are reacting to the group, it is not coming from within them, but in response.
A sleep-walker doesn't really express. Although if they say anything (my sister has in her midnightly walkabout) it is likely to be something completely from inside, the third form. That might be the same for a drunk person. They lose the direction of their expression from being controlled by the expectations from the people around them.
From the point where you stand, things certainly seem to be this way.
However, viewing from another perspective, there really are only two categories:
One is driven by the neediness of being accepted by others, and this can manifest in millions of different ways. Since our mind tend to work in duality (black or white, right or wrong…etc), we naturally/subconsciously react in dualistic ways, conform or reject, proactive or passive.
So in my opinion, the 1st and 2nd form you described is conforming to the desire for acceptance in passive and proactive ways.
Some of the 3rd form of expressions can be described as rejecting acceptance from others in either proactive or passive ways, therefore they fall under this same category. E.g. an arsonist may think he doesn’t care what others think, but he may simply be rejecting acceptance, subconsciously his action is still driven by the same desire, just manifested into an opposite extreme.
Since dualism works so well with our mind, the SECOND category, obviously, is simply the opposite of the first category – not driven by the desire of acceptance. Once again, some of the 3rd form of expressions you described can fall under this category. It can be instinct, intuition, or motivated by other desires (physical, mental, spiritual…etc), or emotions.
But honestly, I don’t believe in dualities, because they’re merely the product of a conditioned mind. Besides, few actions/expressions in the world are purely driven by one desire/emotion/motivation alone. Coming out of duality and free one’s mind is pretty much what spirituality is about.
--Edwin--
I don't like duality, because from an individualistic point of view, duality loses significance. But I was not expressing anything about my personal motivations in the world. I was commenting purely on an observation of phenomena.
The observation I was making was concerning three observable groupings. In my practicums, these are observable. In the lecture room, these are observable. In art, these are observable. In fashion, these are observable. Almost anywhere there is expression, there are these three.
In the lecture room, expression could be whether you ask questions, You get the people who want to show their knowledge, the people who will never ask questions or only grudgingly participate (because of "
"social" constraints), and then the people who are self-motivated to ask when they want to ask, and not be influenced by others.
And I agree usually it is a mix of those that control expression, but as with physics, or cultural-anthropology (something I have been thinking about) you should understand the underlying forces rather than the apparent forces. Underlying motivations rather than the apparent motivations.
The stimulus that caused me to post the original was people's different expression at dance class. We were all free to cross the circle in whatever fashion we wanted. Some people completely refused to cross. Some did what they wanted to. Interestingly, very few were in the first form (perhaps maturity reduces this). It is easy to observe all three forms in a primary school classroom.
Perhaps we can discuss duality sometime.
hm...I'm not sure if my previous post was clear enough to deliver the message, I certainly wansn't refering to your personal motivation, and about duality...it is simply how the mind divide things (into opposite directions), I'm not sure if there really is something to like or dislike about it. (nb. the sense of "dislike" itself is a product of duality, since there's also an equal and opposite "like")
I'm not sure if our definition for duality is the same or not though.
For my first post, what I was trying to say is that the reason why these three different form of expressions exist is because of the mind's tendancy to divide things, whether it's divided into two (ie. duality) or three (trichotomy), the drive behind them is the same.
I see the merit in your view, it does offer a simple way to observe people & make analogies, similarily, analogy of any number of divisions will be equally valid.
Beside all the above, there is a totally different way of looking at things though, that is from an undivided awareness/view (ie. oneness, wholeness), and that's the point I want to make.
--Edwin--
Post a Comment