Enlightened Living

I loved this post. I have long wondered if it wouldn't be better to promote self-potential than self-esteem. Self-potential could acknowledge a person's ability to do better and achieve more while accepting personal limitations and still acknowledging inherent goodness. The empty self-esteem movement has seemed to promote an idea that everyone is perfect right now, just as they are and that the most important thing is that others recognize such perfection. Instead of striving for self-betterment, people waste thier time striving for total acceptance. Future goals go unrealized as teens assert the beauty of thier flaws and thier right to not work towards improving themselves.

After reading your article I know for a fact your intentions are good but I couldn't help but notice a few things that raised red flags within me. Overall though you do make a valid point of how some people are stubborn to better themselves due to a flawed self perception of themselves as perfect. To this I say - let them be! Why? Read below...

If self-esteem becomes an evidenced based measure once again then aren't we directly correlating someone's worth to their ability to perform? If so then we are judging those who perform more as better and judging those who perform badly as worse. Thus this sets the stage for more division in the world and the perils of ego as one person is deemed "better" than another. In ultimate reality I do believe the yoga quote that we are all perfect the way we are. In this I mean we are perfect even in our errors!

One of the big beliefs I currently hold is, "you have the right to be wrong." And I wholeheartedly believe people have the right to be wrong since by being wrong eventually the wrongness sows disharmony in their life and this disharmony will make them seek what is true. Thus by correlating someone's self-esteem to their performance we are not giving people the right to be wrong. Instead we are making a moral judgement that "johnny is good because he gets good grades and timmy is bad because he cuts classes". Let timmy cut his classes, let the criminals inflate their egos, and let the children be narcissistic. The results of their actions will be reflected on them in time and from that point the perpetrators of the actions can decide what they want. If they want truth they will be better people and if they don't want truth they will continue being the same types of people. What won't help is making moral judgements that one is good and one is bad. This will only give a sense of superiority to the better and a sense of inferiority to the lesser. This division will always lead to conflict as we then birth the world as a competitive instead of a cooperative place where all abilities and forms are respected. In competition there will always be a loser. No one wants to lose. In harmony no one loses. Either way though the johnny and timmy examples are both perfect the way they are and by calling someone less worthy because they underperform is a form of Optimalism in my book.

I also write about Optimalism in my blog:

http://truthseeker1234.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/theres-no-wrong-way-to-e...

Hi Again,

I know the idea that there is no good/bad seems very revolutionary but maybe if I rephrase it my original intention will become clearer.

Once a person reaches a certain level of consciousness and character they will need no military, police or law to babysit them because they themselves will become self regulating. The choice between good/bad will always exist but a person on a high level of development will always choose good out of their own willingness and love alone and not because of fear of punishment or moral guilt. A person of that high level of development knows that a life lived doing bad things will always yield bad results (or suboptimal results) and thus will not choose to do them. Most of human growth then is just "touching the stove" so to speak and learning why things done under the context of evil always yield negative results. By being wrong we are only harming ourselves - we are only robbing ourselves of the riches we could have given ourselves by doing right. Thus I think in essence nobody wants to do wrong because everyone always wants the higher payout. The only exception to this rule is Optimalism in which I think people want to be evil just for the experience. After all - can one really master evil without experiencing it? Does the true master of things shy away from one side of a subject, or do they delve into the entirety of it all and come out the victor?

One of the books that really helped me flesh this out was, "Power vs. Force: The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior" by David Hawkins. Basically the book's premise (in my interpretation) is all human behavior is motivated by either power or force. Power comes from making a decision within - making a conscious decision out of your own free will motivated by love disregarding all external factors. Force comes from making a decision motivated by things external from yourself and is usually a decision based on fear. If I diet because I love my body (internal decision, love) that is an act of power but if I diet because I want other people to like me (decision based on external factors, fear) that is an act of force. The book claims motivations of power totally blow away motivation by force and that given two people who have to make the same decision the one which is motivated by true power will always come out better.

Anyway once again thanks for reading. I will tend to misinterpret things because I am on the journey back myself. Always nice to spar ideas with people to recalibrate my path :D.

Hi TS 1234,

I don't agree with your statement:

"Thus this sets the stage for more division in the world and the perils of ego as one person is deemed "better" than another."

Performance is used to plan personal, educational and employment strategies. It is not about winning and losing, more about establishing options. Better concerns "better personally informed and placed to seek meaningful and realistic directions in life".

As an educator I see this as crucial. Let me give you a (lengthy) overview.

In Denmark we have a incoming demographic timebomb. I teach Gymnasium students from 15-20 years old in science and maths in an International Program (IB Diploma). In fifteen years I have seen an incredible change within the students. They all have high self-esteem yet there is an increasing appearance of "happy pills", obsessive slimming, lack of excercise, materialism, a general sense of entitlement and lack of curiosity. Pupils attribute low performance in their studies to teachers and ignore the fact that others in the same class are performing a great deal better. They will not ask why or seek advice. Even when I ask a student who is successful to explain what they are doing, the problem pupils find every reason to justify why they can't do the same. The complaining is irritating and constant. These pupils couldn't possibly be "not good enough". That is their right, without interest or commitment. To say this straight out is a recipe for rebellion.

However, as I teach (poorer, less priviledged) international students I see less of this. The danish students tend to be the problem pupils and it appears limited to them. Danish teachers are giving up. Parents often defend their underachieving children,hand out cash, take them out of Gymnasium for trips and allow absenteeism.

I have returned to the past. I test regularly, set demanding assignments and use numbers rather than qualitative measures. The standard is high. I do not accept excuses, lateness, absenteeism and poor effort. The students, who tend to be a pleasure to engage with, respond and enjoy their studies. Parents are happy. I find it quite straightforward despite the minority of, dare I say, indulged, cossetted and deluded pupils. I was well-educated and simply apply the same approach as in the 70's. Clearly we have lowered our expectations but industry, commerce and the professions have not done so. Nor have the emerging economies. At some point the stubborn ones will have to change to meet their goals or become very disappointed. Some do, the (often) bitter entitled ones do not.

The disturbing aspect is that the government is now changing policy to force students through education earlier into work. The easy cash, endless time years have gone. Students seem to be unaware of this change in progress. Danish teachers are reluctant to challenge the pupils due to the resistance and anger they receive but the realisation is there and they know it will have to be done. What they do not do is communicate reality to the students. I feel we have a duty to make it clear what is required from them and the consequences of lack of commitment and motivation - a broken society of depressed and bitter people always looking to a welfare state for (diminishing) cash handouts. Being unemployed in Denmark is unpleasant and many are finding this out too late. It will get tougher. This self-esteem issue seems to be about honesty and courage, two key elements we seem to have lost along the way.

When I questioned four students levels of commitment recently they were enraged. Their committed peers were dismayed as they agreed with my assessment. The following week one of the less committed went for a holiday and missed classes. She saw this a acceptable!!! I see a tough time ahead for many. My lower self-esteem seems more realistic.

Kind regards,

Stewart

I think the real problem is the toxic mix of high self-esteem and individualization and exceptionalism. High self esteem in itself is not a problem if it is accurate and not delusional. And isn't there a positive correlation between personal responsibility and high, but healthy not narcissistic, self-esteem, anyway?

"yeah, I think I'm special, don't you think you're special?" High self-esteem doesn't have to breed entitlement in a *cooperative* culture or nature.

Looking at my current group of kids Kayle, I would say that we can all be better people and I teach some great youngsters. Most have lived elsewhere- a very valuable experience in the teenage years. The problem kids tend to be wealthy, have single parents in many cases and have been rewarded for mediocre performance and achievement. Their travel is hotel holidays.

Kayle, I think that that high self-esteem is not an issue- the more the better and, as you state, accurate and based on action and the experience of engaging in challenges and achieving to some level. Maybe being an individualistic personality is essential to self-esteem as this requires courage.

Entitlement is a habit bred of excessive generosity in the face of minimal demand. Respnsible people are not entitlement types and they have become responsible by accepting personal responsibility for their actions. The danish government is moving towards personal responsibility and it is struggling!!!

Regards,

Stewart

awesome article. Thanks a lot for sharing all your advice.