This is a rather interesting exercise and you're absolutely correct in its being meta. I've always disliked structured reflections such as the one you suggest. I much prefer the stochastic - almost existential-dread-fueled - reflections of myself that come out of the blue, often building upon certain distastes with life and such. The problem, of course, is that when life is going well, these reflections tend not to be so all-encompassing and can be easy to forget about. I can for certain say that your method seems to be much more thought out, but precisely in this way I reject it. It feels too contrived, too self-aware. I prefer my self reflection and criticism to be abstracted away from all structure. I want it to go in all directions, seeking and destructing the stupidities I have accidentally accumulated. Perhaps I'm being childish. Anyway, thanks for sharing, and thanks Pleeb for linking!
I'm kidding in that other comment, of course, but would say that if you already tend to do something habitually then it is not "an exercise" so much as doing what you do. The point is to call what you've been doing into question and interrogate yourself/selves/behaviors/desire/and drive. I agree that Astrid's approach is way too structured, except that, for me, as someone already usually in the mode you describe, it poses a real challenge. Since it is not a forever commitment challenge, but just a sometimes let's get rigorous, that makes it seem more useful as a counter balance. Thoughts?
Perhaps I've been a bit too abstract. Structured reflections are certainly useful, yes, I agree. I secretly do them myself every now and then when I'd like to reflect on life events, minor worldview issues, and so on. These reflections, however, are not the ones that have brought me the most utility. It is only in that Zizekian mode, you know when he describes the breakdown of capitalism.. It goes something like: "only in crisis, at the very worst of it, can we start to understand the position we're in." This is how I imagine my most effective reflections. The ones that occur (and inevitably reoccur) in periodic moments of crisis. The ones that force me out of my comfort zone (literally force me out, I am unable to remain comfortable, it is a sense of terrible existential agony) to reflect on why I have been launched into crisis in the first place.
It is through these stochastic crises that I have found extreme, but unfortunately temporary, clarity. I have understood myself and the world around me better as a result of these crises, and this is specifically why I reject the structured approach. Without the crisis, I can not fully break out of the mode I currently operate in. I can not gain the perspective to examine my "stupidities" as I put it in the previous comment.
I do seriously wonder if I'm simply being childish here though. Would it indeed be possible to critically examine myself without falling into crisis? I somehow see it as a necessary precursor to those beautiful moments of clarity.
Of course, the method in the article is useful for general life reflections, reflecting on relationships and what not, but must we not also consider our very self conceptions too? Our existential reasoning? These seem equally critical to a "happy life".. whatever that means.
So, I don't so much see it as a habitual exercise, but rather an accidental, blind, exercise that I just so happen to engage in whenever these periods of difficulty hit.
Makes sense to me! The crisis approach is probably the best, though while still /in/ the crisis, or too soon after a crisis, your perception is on high alert to certain things and not other things. So maybe next time you're doing one of these crisis analyses you should write some notes to yourself summarizing things and then set that up to be revisited in a few months or years later once you have that hindsight? I'm thinking this through myself. We tend to only analyze things when they breakdown, but if that skews our analyses, then we need to do checks on ourselves?
I never considered checking. I suppose I always considered that the clarity was the final result. It would be an interesting exercise to write it down and to subsequently analyze. It could provide an ongoing self-dialogue to keep on the illuminated path as it were. Thanks!
But is it not precisely in that Heideggerian sense a "breakdown" into drugged-at-hand ;) (I just read the first chapter of your book.. I have no idea what I'm talking about)
This is a rather interesting exercise and you're absolutely correct in its being meta. I've always disliked structured reflections such as the one you suggest. I much prefer the stochastic - almost existential-dread-fueled - reflections of myself that come out of the blue, often building upon certain distastes with life and such. The problem, of course, is that when life is going well, these reflections tend not to be so all-encompassing and can be easy to forget about. I can for certain say that your method seems to be much more thought out, but precisely in this way I reject it. It feels too contrived, too self-aware. I prefer my self reflection and criticism to be abstracted away from all structure. I want it to go in all directions, seeking and destructing the stupidities I have accidentally accumulated. Perhaps I'm being childish. Anyway, thanks for sharing, and thanks Pleeb for linking!
I'm kidding in that other comment, of course, but would say that if you already tend to do something habitually then it is not "an exercise" so much as doing what you do. The point is to call what you've been doing into question and interrogate yourself/selves/behaviors/desire/and drive. I agree that Astrid's approach is way too structured, except that, for me, as someone already usually in the mode you describe, it poses a real challenge. Since it is not a forever commitment challenge, but just a sometimes let's get rigorous, that makes it seem more useful as a counter balance. Thoughts?
Perhaps I've been a bit too abstract. Structured reflections are certainly useful, yes, I agree. I secretly do them myself every now and then when I'd like to reflect on life events, minor worldview issues, and so on. These reflections, however, are not the ones that have brought me the most utility. It is only in that Zizekian mode, you know when he describes the breakdown of capitalism.. It goes something like: "only in crisis, at the very worst of it, can we start to understand the position we're in." This is how I imagine my most effective reflections. The ones that occur (and inevitably reoccur) in periodic moments of crisis. The ones that force me out of my comfort zone (literally force me out, I am unable to remain comfortable, it is a sense of terrible existential agony) to reflect on why I have been launched into crisis in the first place.
It is through these stochastic crises that I have found extreme, but unfortunately temporary, clarity. I have understood myself and the world around me better as a result of these crises, and this is specifically why I reject the structured approach. Without the crisis, I can not fully break out of the mode I currently operate in. I can not gain the perspective to examine my "stupidities" as I put it in the previous comment.
I do seriously wonder if I'm simply being childish here though. Would it indeed be possible to critically examine myself without falling into crisis? I somehow see it as a necessary precursor to those beautiful moments of clarity.
Of course, the method in the article is useful for general life reflections, reflecting on relationships and what not, but must we not also consider our very self conceptions too? Our existential reasoning? These seem equally critical to a "happy life".. whatever that means.
So, I don't so much see it as a habitual exercise, but rather an accidental, blind, exercise that I just so happen to engage in whenever these periods of difficulty hit.
Makes sense to me! The crisis approach is probably the best, though while still /in/ the crisis, or too soon after a crisis, your perception is on high alert to certain things and not other things. So maybe next time you're doing one of these crisis analyses you should write some notes to yourself summarizing things and then set that up to be revisited in a few months or years later once you have that hindsight? I'm thinking this through myself. We tend to only analyze things when they breakdown, but if that skews our analyses, then we need to do checks on ourselves?
I never considered checking. I suppose I always considered that the clarity was the final result. It would be an interesting exercise to write it down and to subsequently analyze. It could provide an ongoing self-dialogue to keep on the illuminated path as it were. Thanks!
DDD acid trips do not count
But is it not precisely in that Heideggerian sense a "breakdown" into drugged-at-hand ;) (I just read the first chapter of your book.. I have no idea what I'm talking about)
lmaoooo LSD-to-hand 😂😂😂