laughing because I think of optimal human growth or development as a Western 
idea rather than Eastern.  Western as in Maslow and Piaget for example, though 
I would imagine there are other psychologists who speak of that.  Probably some 
educators too.

What happened when I was replying to your previous post about belief is that I 
suddenly became aware of a meta belief in me:  that optimal human development 
is always good.  Maybe similar to the Western thinking that economic growth is 
always good no matter what the consequences are to the environment.  That's 
partially what made me question my belief about optimal human development.

So, what do I think it is?  First of all I'd say it's different for different 
people though society may have general beliefs and guidelines.  And I agree 
with you that it's more about moving in a progressive direction rather than 
arriving at a goal.  I also agree that a person can be progressing more in one 
area of their life than they are in another.


The people who I think of as well developed, and yes these are simply my 
opinions, I do think of them as well developed in the major areas of life.  
They have a way to contribute their gifts to the world.  They sustain healthy, 
loving relationships, especially with intimate partner, parents, children and 
siblings.  Well with all people, but those listed are the ones wherein our 
shadow material can hide (-:

And this is the crucial part for me:  their energy FEELS as if they are living 
in the zone most of the time.  Meaning that they are living a sustained balance 
of what I'm calling settledness and lively engagement with the world around 
them.  This is a very subjective call on my part and I recognize that I can be 
wrong.  But I'll add this to make my point:  I've only seen Mr. Girish Varma on 
tapes and live feeds.  But I have NEVER been comfortable with his energy.  

OTOH, I have been in Dr. Nader's presence a few times.  His energy to me feels 
healthy, balanced, strong and expanded.  A well developed mind with a well 
developed heart and strong connection between the two.  I've also been at 
celebrations where his wife has been present and the feeling between them comes 
across to me as loving and healthy.  He works as a doctor in Paris and together 
they are raising two daughters.  For me he is a good example of optimal human 
development and one that I can speak of from a more direct experience.  

And I also see him the way I see all of us:  a work in progress.  How about 
you?  Is there anyone you think of as very highly developed?


________________________________
 From: curtisdeltablues <curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com>
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 12:04 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Race and the blues. to Curtis and Xeno
 

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote:
>
> Curtis this and previous posts made me realize that we all, even scientists, 
> have meta beliefs about beliefs and these are the ones that at least need to 
> be recognized.  Why do they need to be recognized?  Well, for sure that's 
> another belief.  It got me thinking that in Western cultures there's a 
> deeply buried meta belief that optimal human development is always good.  In 
> the spirit of questioning ALL beliefs, I ask: is it.  Is optimal human 
> growth always good?  And with that we have to ask:  good for what? 

Hey Share.  I like the idea of challenging presuppositions that lie at the 
often unconscious roots of our beliefs.  I think you would need to define what 
you mean by "optimal human growth".  I'm not sure this concept has a place in 
Western thought as stated. It seems more like an Eastern concept.

And if we look at it in a more limited way as growth in some specific area, I'm 
not sure we would see that much difference between East and West. Especially 
now that the East is appearing more and more Western in its economic value 
system. Artists all around the world are always engaged in improving their 
craft.  Athletes grow in skill everywhere.  Scientist try to push knowledge 
ahead and educators help students learn more,in the East and West. 

For me the concept of "optimal" human growth has the irrelevance of a concept 
like personal salvation.  I haven't run into anyone that I would label with 
this perfectionist standard.  The only person I ever met who tried to set 
himself up as if he had attained such a state would be Maharishi, and I don't 
see much evidence for term to be relevant with him.  He did laugh a lot and was 
pretty rich.  He seemed to enjoy his job. But "optimal"?  That seem a bit 
overstated. 

So I am left with increments of growth in different specific areas of my life.  
We all seem to choose our focus for growth and it seems difficult to get even 
all the ones we choose always moving in the right direction. I know people who 
don't exhibit much interest in growth in any area.  Their lives appear 
passionless to me. I suspect it is a combination of nature/nurture factors that 
makes me get out of bed and go after one dream or another. To get better at any 
of the arts I am focusing on for example.  Optimal doesn't seem too relevant to 
those missions.  I think of it metaphorically as if I am just moving my pawns 
ahead each day.  That seems like enough of a goal.

Thanks for the writing prompt. 

So what does the concept of "optimal human growth" mean to you?

> 
> Xeno, what do you think?  Are there meta beliefs?  How can they be dealt 
> with?  And why should we even bother with that?  Thank you.   
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
>  From: curtisdeltablues <curtisdeltablues@...>
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 9:23 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Race and the blues.
> 
> 
>   
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@> wrote:
> 
> I really appreciate what you wrote Ann.  I know you have a deep appreciation 
> for the arts and people who try to live by their art.
> 
> As I'm sure you know every artist just has to follow their own inner muse.  I 
> play music the way I like it, to please my own tastes.  It can only be that 
> way for the kind of blues I play.  So I am really not too vulnerable to 
> anyone expressing something here.  I have put in too much time in front of 
> people actually listening to my music without some agenda, so I know I am not 
> the only one who hears the music as I do.  And musical taste is so personal.  
> I would never hold it against anyone who hated my musical style.  There are 
> some I don't like.
> 
> And it is the same with philosophy.  I don't care if someone doesn't share my 
> beliefs or lack of beliefs here.  I seek out people who see the world 
> differently.  Good intellectual boundaries means that I can accept that we 
> can agree to disagree about our beliefs and not feel threatened if someone 
> thinks I am crazy for my choices. 
> 
> Your points wer a sensitive ones and it was very cool of you to lay it out in 
> such detail.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> 
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > Or maybe, shock horror, Nabby just doesn't like Curtis because
> > > > of his opinions about Marshy and so tries to insult him whenever
> > > > he can in whatever way he can.
> > > > 
> > > > Perhaps you want to quiz him about the term Hillbilly why you're
> > > > about it?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Very funny.  Nabbie has never heard my two CDs so he is basing his 
> > > opinion on a few random videos on the Web. 
> > > 
> > > And of course he is welcome to not liking what I do for any reason.
> > > 
> > > I just objected to the racist term he used in his latest putdown so that 
> > > was what my post was about.  His previous insistence that I am not 
> > > playing black music but instead "hillbilly" music showed how deeply he 
> > > has thought about the whole thing.
> > > 
> > > He obviously does resent that I think his whole gullibility routine 
> > > concerning how crop circles are actually mating beds for bigfoot is very 
> > > silly.  Or is it aliens or Maitreya running around sideways on the ground 
> > > like Curly in the Three Stooges?  It is so hard to keep up with all his 
> > > foolishness.
> > > 
> > > It is funny that people think that saying they don't like your art is 
> > > going to hurt an artist. As if everyone is a pop star who needs to be 
> > > "liked" by millions for their income.  I just need to be liked by the 
> > > person who signs my check for my next gig or who buys my CDs.  That is 
> > > the freedom of Indie music.
> > 
> > Well, I would like to say a couple of things here. I do not think that 
> > others should criticize the art of another because of something they do not 
> > like about the artist unrelated to his art. I think the mere fact of making 
> > art, and music is definitely in this category, is something that, among 
> > other things, can bring out the vulnerability of someone. I believe that if 
> > one is willing to stand up in front of a group of one or one thousand then 
> > that person has opened themselves up to those people in the very act of 
> > making their art/music. I feel that it is a very poorly-aimed punch to go 
> > after Curtis, or anyone, by targeting what they do as their passion, as 
> > their creative thrust and as their "gift" to the outside world. And because 
> > of the passion and the love behind your desire to make and share music you 
> > obviously put yourself out there and it gets heard. 
> > 
> > No matter how much I may agree or disagree with your position on various 
> > subjects or how we may jibe at each other I would never attack you by 
> > belittling your music, Curtis. I respect you for what you do on the streets 
> > and in your paid gigs. It is not easy. I have seen some video of you 
> > performing and you are givin' 'er. You give your body and your voice and 
> > you exude the knowledge and love you have for your genre of music. I 
> > applaud you in this. You add something good to this planet with your art. 
> > When someone attacks that they attack some of the most sensitive part of a 
> > human being and they should have a care. As far as I am concerned that area 
> > of your life is off bounds unless it is relevant to what is being discussed 
> > or explored. 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > I appreciate the intention behind your post. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Issues concerning race and the history of the blues is
> > > > > > one of my favorite topics, personally and professionally.
> > > > > > Thanks for the writing prompt Nabbie.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Translation: Thanks, Nabby, for providing something I can
> > > > > use to get back at you (by shifting the context) for
> > > > > insulting me.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Nabbie's  use of the them  "wannabe Negro" joins a long
> > > > > > dark history of racist terms
> > > > > 
> > > > > Unless, of course, it's not a racist term.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > disparages not only black people, but the whole human
> > > > > > endeavor of the arts. If we identify any form of art by
> > > > > > the race of the person who invented it, we are denying
> > > > > > their brilliant artistic ability to express feelings
> > > > > > common to all races.
> > > > > 
> > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlem_Renaissance
> > > > > 
> > > > > > If we ridicule a person who performs a style of music as
> > > > > > being a "wannabe" of the race who invented the style, we
> > > > > > are saying two things.  That only the people of the race
> > > > > > who invented it can legitimately express themselves in
> > > > > > that art form, and that races are simultaneously shut
> > > > > > out of certain art forms because of their race.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Or maybe "we" are saying the person so designated isn't
> > > > > very good at performing that style, that they don't meet
> > > > > the standard established by the folks who invented it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Whether accurately or not, that seems to have been what
> > > > > Nabby was saying:
> > > > > 
> > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/338208
> > > > > 
> > > > > So how about it, Nabby, are there some white performers
> > > > > you would consider "genuine negroes" in this sense, who
> > > > > *do* meet the standard?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Or maybe, shock horror, Nabby just doesn't like Curtis because
> > > > of his opinions about Marshy and so tries to insult him whenever
> > > > he can in whatever way he can.
> > > > 
> > > > Perhaps you want to quiz him about the term Hillbilly why you're
> > > > about it?
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


 

Reply via email to