Is it Zen or is it Memorix?

[moimeme]

A person could be 'too nice'. A person could also have become so lacking in worldly desires that many of the motivations which often serve to get people in motion may be missing.

 

Supposedly we're aiming at becoming people with such peaceful inner lives that we become very easygoing. However, that very quality can translates as 'too nice'. Here's a nice dilemma with a couple sharp horns; continue to work on being peaceful and content with your lot in life and all that's around you or hang on to some of the desires so that you don't appear passionless?

 

Are the folks who are most self-actualized also boring?

 

If I reach a stage in my life where I find myself to be perfectly content at all times with exactly what I am doing, no matter how modest that thing might be, have I become unspeakably drab?

[Tony T]

"Are the folks who are most self-actualized also boring?"

 

People who are most self actualized would not be concerned about how they are viewed by others. They would be at peace with themselves. They would not desire to be motivated just because that's what others expected. They would not seek to be exciting solely because that would gain them greater acceptance.

 

Whether or not somebody is without passion is a judgement. If one's life is content, happy and fulfilled in the absense of it then what meaning would passion have? Passion is a value assigned by society but it certainly isn't a requirement of a happy life. The spiritually evolved have a passion for inner peace and enlightenment and that's where their passion exists. This would not be easily recognized by the masses whose passion is keeping up with the Joneses, having the biggest cars and houses, and dressing in the latest styles. Doing those things requires a great level of energy to drive the passion. Being self actualized requires little energy and the spirit, therefore, goes much further on a much smaller battery.

 

Most people have a passion to be happy and their efforts are often misdirected. However, for them happiness can perhaps be a part of the journey in some direction. But, as Richard Bach said in "Jonathon Livingston Seagull," "Perfect speed is being there." Perfect passion is not having a requirement for it.

[moimeme]

So, Tony, ought the ladies who find some fellows 'boring' or 'too nice' then look a little deeper, do you think?

 

I was pondering this 'too nice' business and thought perhaps some tremendously peaceful people may be mistaken for people who are without backbone and consequently overlooked.

 

What would you say to any 'too nice' guys who still retain the desire to find a lady but who are actually the sorts of folks I described above? Or do you figure the point is moot because they wouldn't be reading this anyway?

[Tony T]

"So, Tony, ought the ladies who find some fellows 'boring' or 'too nice' then look a little deeper, do you think?"

 

You have posed two entirely unrelated questions in this post. Ladies who find some guys boring should not waste their time with them but rather find guys who stimulate them in some way....or they can, of course, do whatever they want. But I seldom find the motivation to dig around for something if I don't find an attraction or some other features about a person that give me the desire to dig deeper or pursue further.

 

My post above should answer your other question.

 

Different people react to different people in different ways, according to their age background. The majority of people coming to this site will not related to this question as you have posed it, I don't think.

[midori]

Originally posted by moimeme

Are the folks who are most self-actualized also boring?

 

If I reach a stage in my life where I find myself to be perfectly content at all times with exactly what I am doing, no matter how modest that thing might be, have I become unspeakably drab?

 

I just don't buy this at all. "Self-actualized" is one of those terms that I've never really bought into. Self-aware: yes. Self-motivated: yes. Self-confident: yes. (And let's not forget self-centered!). But, without getting into a debate about it, I think the very notion of being self-actualized is a short-hand for the first three things I mentioned, a short-hand that seems to imply (maybe not to all but to me) that it is a state in and of itself.

 

But anyway, being a person who has a high degree of personal contentment and self-confidence should not make a person boring. On the contrary, such people tend to be people who, in my experience, are much more interested in other people. Because they don't need to be self-absorbed. They aren't a mystery to themselves, so they've got the mental space to focus on other people.

 

I've chimed in on the "nice guy finishes last with women" debate before, but I'll give a recap at least here. I think that different guys put themselves into the "nice guy" category for different reasons, but being "too nice" is rarely the real cause of their failure to find a woman to love. There are guys who pursue women for whom they are utterly ill-suited practically speaking (a woman who's far above them in looks, who is socially well-connected and he isn't, whatever), yet they attribute their failure to their own niceness. There are guys who target a woman as a potential partner without there being a real connection between the two of them. Instead of taking the direct approach ("Hey, Kim, any interest in getting a drink with me sometime?"), such a guy tries to win her over by showering her with favors, being overly solicitous, etc. -- but it's artificial, because the guy has an agenda. He's trying to fly in under the radar, expecting that his "niceness" will pay off, and compensate for the fact that he and the object of his affection have no connection.

 

When the woman in question instead feels uncomfortable around him and doesn't want to date him, he assumes that she must like jerks instead of nice guys like him. In short, I think that people who aren't in touch with themselves, who don't understand who they are and how they can relate to other people, are the people who pursue partners with whom they have no real connection. They select potential partners based on superficial criteria (of course they don't admit that to themselves). To compensate for the lack of real connection, they resort to flattery, being way too eager to please, and just generally come across as being desperate and pathetic. These people are most definitely not "self-actualized." When they are finally forced to admit defeat, they bitterly conclude that "nice guys finish last."

 

I think it's generally a load of crap. Sure, there are some nasty, conniving women out there who will take any opportunity to use a man (or a female friend, for that matter) to their own advantage, with no intention of reciprocating. But those women are relatively few and most of us easily recognized them as gold diggers, or more generally as plain old b*tches. I think there's no good in perpetuating the bogus "nice guys finish last" myth, because what the guys who subscribe to it really need to do is work on themselves, and not continue to think that their current bag of tricks will work sooner or later.

[Tony T]

I'm not sure either of us have properly addressed whatever moimeme was driving at in her original post. However, I'm glad you did your thing on nice guys again....always a favorite topic of mine.

 

YOU WRITE: "There are guys who pursue women for whom they are utterly ill-suited practically speaking (a woman who's far above them in looks, who is socially well-connected and he isn't, whatever), yet they attribute their failure to their own niceness."

 

There are people who were ill-suited for us but I'm not sure looks and connections come into major play here. I have found many very beautiful women who were attracted to and had great relationships with average or below average men. With regards to the social connections, you may have a point there but it's not a hurdle that can't be overcome. Generally, these two would not find each other in the first place, however.

 

Perhaps moimeme can come back and clarify exactly what she mean. Meanwhile, the self-actualization concept which you seem to reject was one advanced by many psychologists in the 60's and 70's. It's been replaced by other terms which you accept more readily. I can understand that. However, we can't reject cucumbers (or anything else) as being invalid just because we personally don't like them or don't believe they exist.

[midori]

Originally posted by Tony

There are people who were ill-suited for us but I'm not sure looks and connections come into major play here. I have found many very beautiful women who were attracted to and had great relationships with average or below average men. With regards to the social connections, you may have a point there but it's not a hurdle that can't be overcome. Generally, these two would not find each other in the first place, however.

 

Perhaps moimeme can come back and clarify exactly what she mean. Meanwhile, the self-actualization concept which you seem to reject was one advanced by many psychologists in the 60's and 70's. It's been replaced by other terms which you accept more readily. I can understand that. However, we can't reject cucumbers (or anything else) as being invalid just because we personally don't like them or don't believe they exist.

 

To respond in reverse order to the points you raise: as I said, I'm not going to get into a debate about self-actualization, but of course there's a significant difference between accepting the validity of a fuzzy conceptual construct, and accepting the reality of a concrete object that is part of the natural physical world. Just because psychologists 30 years ago (operating under paradigms that many in the field have long-ago questioned or even dismissed) proposed a psychological mechanism, concept, or phenomenon, does not mean it's real. If you like the concept of self-actualization, and it helps you process things that go on in your life and that you observe in others, that's great.

 

And while you make a good point about people not needing to match in looks or in social connections, I was just using those as obvious examples of cases where the person in question is pursuing an unrealistic hope for a relationship that stands little chance of coming to fruition. Sorry if the examples were too obvious and open to challenge, but I didn't want to get into the nitty gritty nuances. The main point is that some people get their hearts set on others not because they have a real, meaningful, emotional connection that they share with the person, but because they imagine that there is a connection -- for whatever reasons they have for wishing there to be one. It's rather rare, I find, that you hear one of these supposed "nice guys" moaning about his unrequited love for a Plain Jane who never gets asked out on dates by other guys. Generally speaking, the woman in question seems to need to be rather physically attractive, and have other outward qualities in order to trigger the "niceness" in some guys.

 

Anyway, as you say, perhaps neither of us have addressed moimeme's question. I questioned "self-actualization" because I think it's a false construct, much as the "nice guy" is -- it's an easy term that disguises what's really involved and it can deceive people into overlooking where the real problems lie.

[moimeme]

My post above should answer your other question

 

You're right, of course. Someone who might judge the sort of person I was talking about to be 'boring' is unlikely to appreciate why that person is not, actually, boring. If they are not astute enough to figure out that they may have found a treasure, then there's no point in trying to hand them a map.

 

Midori wrote:

they are utterly ill-suited practically speaking

 

Really, I'm not speaking practically at all.

 

Tony wrote:

I'm not sure either of us have properly addressed whatever moimeme was driving at in her original post.

 

Oh, you hit the nail right on the head, Tony, though I don't think it was immediately apparent that I was pondering the problems of 'nice guys'.

 

Midori wrote:

 

I think the very notion of being self-actualized is a short-hand for the first three things I mentioned, a short-hand that seems to imply (maybe not to all but to me) that it is a state in and of itself.

 

I think of it with an additional nuance; really almost a Buddhist influence layered over top.

 

Self-aware, Self-motivated, Self-confident

 

In my nuanced apprehension of the term, there's quite a bit more involved.

The majority of people coming to this site will not related to this question as you have posed it, I don't think.

 

I suspect you are correct, but there are a few people who I thought might weigh in. I'll not hold my breath, though.

 

Midori, I wasn't really meaning that sort of 'nice guy' discussion though I appreciate your weighing in. I've been in a whole bunch of those and I share many of your views on this, although this made me uncomfortable:

 

As for the There are guys who pursue women for whom they are utterly ill-suited practically speaking (a woman who's far above them in looks, who is socially well-connected and he isn't, whatever

 

This is little too pragmatic for me; these concerns seem very superficial and I'd have trouble empathizing with a woman who turned down a perfectly good man based on them.

 

While I was writing, Midori posted:

It's rather rare, I find, that you hear one of these supposed "nice guys" moaning about his unrequited love for a Plain Jane who never gets asked out on dates by other guys. Generally speaking, the woman in question seems to need to be rather physically attractive, and have other outward qualities in order to trigger the "niceness" in some guys.

 

I see what you're getting at now.

 

I think it's a false construct much as the "nice guy" is -- it's an easy term that disguises what's really involved and it can deceive people into overlooking where the real problems lie.

 

I agree completely with this.

 

This wasn't the sort of 'nice guy' I meant. I wasn't talking about the self-proclaimed 'nice guy' but the guy deemed 'too nice' by the observer, though. I should have made that clearer.

[BlueHeavens]

ok...I know, slightly off the original post. But...I feel compelled to explore this.

 

I've been told since early childhood that I am "too nice". I believe I strike a good balance between looking out for myself and my own needs while being kind and caring to others. I find that many people don't respond well to being cared for in a kind way...respected... it's hard to explain I guess. Do others find this to be a problem in their own lives?

 

The last guy I dated also appeared to be a very nice guy...and he is...but I think there is a lack of motivation element that can also be present. He was SO easygoing that if he got the wrong meal delivered to him at a restaurant, he would not want to send it back or complain...even if it was food he didn't like, he'd "just eat it"! One of the few times he actually got angry at me was an evening that he was sitting there moping over his wrong entree and I flagged down the waiter and politely said, "hey...I know you're busy...could you please check to make sure this is what he ordered?" Of course it wasn't, and an apology and fresh entree were delivered...but my Ex got mad! Go figure. (He did eat the 2nd entree). What I started to notice though was a pattern of someone not standing up for himself even for simple tiny problems. I started to wonder what he would do when something serious happened in his life...didn't seem like a good survival skill to me.

[moimeme]

See, now there's what I was talking about. You saw him as 'too nice' but did he refuse to dispute the meal because he was cowed, or did he decide that he didn't really mind what he was eating and was perfectly content to eat the 'wrong' meal? If the latter, is that such a bad thing?

[midori]

OK, seems pretty clear we're talking about different things. Sorry I misinterpreted your original question.

 

Knowing nothing about Buddhism, and states of higher-order contentment/harmony, I do think that, regardless of self-knowledge and whatever other components go into the state you're talking about moi, people who are living in the world are never fully content. I don't think we're supposed to be content. There is always something to strive for -- if not for yourself, then for others. To be so detached and unaffected by the world... well, maybe it works for monks, but I don't think it allows one to fully participate in others' lives. I'm only speculating of course, because it's a philosophy that I don't know much about. So really I can't comment in a meaningful way.

[moimeme]

No problema, Midori. As I say, I could have been clearer.

[BlueHeavens]

He didn't like the meal...was just eating a bit of it. I think he was afraid to speak up. That was actually kind of disturbing to me, partly because if I had made that meal for him, he would have done nothing but complain...you know?

 

If he had been willing to eat it anyway, I would have let it go because sometimes things are "happy accidents" after all...

[moimeme]

He didn't like the meal...was just eating a bit of it. I think he was afraid to speak up

 

Then your assessment was probably correct.

 

Maybe I'm not giving people credit for being able to distinguish 'easygoing' from 'timid'. Perhaps I'm turning cynical

[bluechocolate]

But is this even attainable? Is it not the case that self-actualisation ( z or s, z or s ?? ) is more a process rather than a state of being?

 

I have always remembered the answer that David Bowie gave when asked by an interviewer if he was content - his answer was ( I'm paraphrasing here ) "No, I'm never content because to me that is an end, to be content means I stop learning and experimenting and challenging myself".

 

To me that sounds very much like a person who is in the process of self-actualisation and if you're continually growing, learning and challenging yourself how can you be boring?

[Tony T]

"z or s, z or s ??"

 

In America, "z". in UK and other parts of Europe, "s". Lots of words are treated similarly on each side of the ocean...without losing meaning.

[Tony T]

""No, I'm never content because to me that is an end, to be content means I stop learning and experimenting and challenging myself"."

 

Being self-actualized or self-aware is a state that genuine people in that state are unaware of. It's just the way they are. They don't roll over and die. The continue to pursue whatever they care to. The journey takes on a new perspective, however, and attaining goals or having them at all seems unimportant. There is no definition of or qualifications for being self-aware. It's just something a person is. I think Donald Trump is there, as a matter of fact. I think he plays the ego game and the money making game for fun...to play with the world...because he wants something interesting to do in between meditating.

 

And old Zen saying: "A good traveler has no particular destination...and is not intent on arriving."

[moimeme]

to be content means I stop learning and experimenting and challenging myself

 

Gracious! Definitely I needed to take a page from Red Flag Rick and post enough words to be clear. I should have said something that meant content with what you have; not content with who you are. I don't think anybody should say 'There. Now I'm as good as a human can be so I'll not seek to improve myself another minute'

 

It is more a sense of not needing or craving things material - that 'lack of earthly desires' business.

 

I think Donald Trump is there, as a matter of fact

 

Oh, help! The thought of Trump as Zen master is a little more than I can digest before breakfast! It's an interesting perspective, and you may be right, but my sense of the man is that he is driven to keep 'winning'. I don't think he does it just for sport. I'm sure he is the sort of self-actualized that Midori defined, and I'm equally sure he never stressed for a moment about whether he was confident enough if that's what you mean.

 

I think that it is possible that some self-actualized people just got there without knowing it, I'm pretty sure the Dalai Lama has a goal in mind he's trying to reach, and between him and Trump, I'm thinking the Dalai Lama would be my preferred prophet. But maybe I've added too much nuance that's not meant to be there! Yes, I'm sure we're speaking of two different things, though one certainly can beget the other.

[Tony T]

You will never know what goes on in the mind of Trump. Each time he says "You're fired," he makes a better person out of someone. He makes them stronger. He does a service. And if you read my post that mentions him very well you would see that I truly believe he sees it as a game. Some people just could stand being a monk, 24/7. Some of them have to build buildings and do TV shows. Self actualized people don't have to stop living.

[moimeme]

Some people just could stand being a monk, 24/7. Some of them have to build buildings and do TV shows. Self actualized people don't have to stop living.

 

Nope, I agree, and I read your post and I do see how you think that of him. I concur that a self-actualized person could certainly do such things for entertainment. I think I'd be more inclined to think of Gates as that kind of person than Trump is all. But I don't know the man and have never been close enough to take his measure for myself and it's entirely possible that you're right about him.

[Tony T]

"I think I'd be more inclined to think of Gates as that kind of person than Trump is all."

 

I don't know anything much about Trump or Gates. I'm just exploring possibilities. I do think there are a lot of people who appear to be extremely ambitious and worldly yet have a mind which is in a much different place yet it's a possibility. People can be complex.

[moimeme]

people who appear to be extremely ambitious and worldly yet have a mind which is in a much different place yet it's a possibility. People can be complex.

 

You're quite right, Tony I recall seeing Russel Crowe on Oprah. Quite the spiritual fellow, he was. I was surprised. And should not have been.

 

I've always been very fond of Shaw, BTW.

[moimeme]

Some people just could stand being a monk, 24/7.

 

Forgot to mention that I saw an interview with the fellow who was the Dalai Lama's translator for years and who was himself a monk from childhood. Until he met a lady from BC and fell in love. He said that monks have it easy - they don't have to deal with all the difficulties that everyday life brings! If I've made it sound flip, it wasn't but he was definitely making the point that monks have a fairly easy life, all things considered. I found it very interesting!

[bluechocolate]

And old Zen saying: "A good traveler has no particular destination...and is not intent on arriving."

 

I guess that is all I was trying to say

[moimeme]

I guess that is all I was trying to say

 

Understood