Tuesday, August 17, 2010

BANGING YOUR HEAD ON THE WALL THEORY

Theory: We all do what we must – by compulsion or by choice.

All that we ever do falls under two categories:

What is our choice (i.e who we are)
What is not our choice (i.e not who we are)


If we don't do what is our choice, we end up doing what is not our choice.

Stipulation 1:

When we do what is our choice, we choose to be compelled to do it because that is who we are, lest we end up banging our head on the wall.

When we do what is not our choice, we are compelled to choose to do what is not who we are and we end up banging our head on the wall.

Stipulation 2:

When we do what is not our choice and we can afford the option to do what is our choice, we end up banging our head on the wall.

When we do what is not our choice and we can't afford the option to do what is our choice, we have a reason for banging our head on the wall.

So, how do we avoid banging our head on the wall? Knowing who we are and doing that.

Stipulation 3:

When we do not know who we are, we choose to be compelled to do what is not our choice.

We must figure out who we are indeed and give ourselves the liberty to choose to be compelled to do what is our choice.

In short, we do what we must, by compulsion or by choice. Everybody does, by default. How we work with the rule makes our life such that we don't end up banging our head on the wall.

In between choosing to do what is our choice (who we are) and being compelled to do what is not our choice (who we are not), we should also realize that we need to maintain our sanity.

While we, sometimes, survive on doing what is not our choice, we must make sure we survive long (and strong) enough to get to enjoy being who we are when we can afford to. Therefore, we should do what we must, by compulsion or choice – for our own good.

P.S:- An alternative name to the theory is the Ensuring No Sleeplessness Theory.

6 comments:

  1. i thought you were quoting Francis Schaffer who says (in either Christian Manifesto or How Then Should We Live) something like this in the context of i think trying to believe there is no evil, is like "Banging one's head against the wall"

    i doubt it breaks down so easily to be

    What is our choice = who we are
    What is not our choice = not who we are

    Who we are vs who we think we are are a continuum that revisits everybody (in my opinion)


    Stipulation 1:

    If this is a question of responding to God's call in our lives, i guess we could be called to go against everything we hold to be find a pearl of priceless value. Which might include banging your head on the wall a bit, until you find easier ways like walking through the door.

    Stipulation 2:

    Being able to afford your calling or not, is not in your hand but in the hands of who called you, a carpenter cannot afford to be nailed to a cross.

    Stipulation 3:

    Is just a long way of saying as Gandhi said "i've got to do what i've got to do"

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Who we are vs who we think we are are a continuum that revisits everybody"

    So who we are or who we think we are is not really definable by any measurable standards, that whether it fits. Otherwise surely you suggest a standard to that. Only you can really tell who you are, the only measurability to it.

    Even if you discard the notion of who you are on that premise, you still battle the question every other day. Do you suggest any other way of figuring it out apart from whether it fits. It is always a continnum but yet it must fit. That's the best clue we can have, unless you suggest any other.

    S. 1:

    Yes, banging our head on the wall is a part of the process which helps us realise our calling. But not something that should be an intended mainstay.

    S. 2:

    Regardless, banging on your head on the wall happens, hence the stipulation.

    s. 3:

    We all do what we must. Gandhiji stands as good as any one of us in that respect.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Only you can really tell who you are"
    i semi partially agree - i wrote the line "your calling is all you know of it, Eternity set in your heart (SingVocation Part 4 - The Bard)"

    Only semi partially because it is a context of eternity and not in the context of you being the final arbiter for you and yourself
    ~
    "Do you suggest any other way of figuring it out apart from whether it fits." (?)

    I detest figuring it out, even figuring out that i detest figuring it out.

    I prefer to celebrate the continuum, with no requirements of "it" that "it must fit".

    The absence of a better clue is no reason to call a signpost the destination, further down the road of this signpost you might find another that seems to say the opposite of what this one told you.

    S. 1:

    "not ...mainstay", i have my doubts if we are ever a 100% in line with our callings, by grace i guess yes, not necessarily by our choices.

    S. 2:

    "Regardless, BOYHOTW happens," if conviction is the currency - afford-ability is a non entity... what happened to the budget committee for feeding a multitude vs the boy with bread and fish

    s. 3:

    I doubt if any of us come close to doing what we should do.

    ReplyDelete
  4. To celebrate the continuum and it thus having to fit is just one thing that prevents you from banging your head on a wall. The basic foundation of the theory is the fact that there are compulsions - specifically in this case like the ones you and I have which in the right contexts are greater or lesser (by consequence). The compulsions are the ones that make you want to bang your head on the wall. The continuum must go on but it fitting is what gives you non-sleepless nights and is also a concern when you sit back and think about what you are doing with your life. "It's just not me" types.

    If we claim to try to understand something, we can’t start at saying that is not understandable. It defeats the purpose of the exercise. If it indeed is, we can only but speculate. We’d just end up going around in a vicious circle that only satisfies our intellectual senses and cause for absolutely no addition of knowledge that is useful, than what we already knew. You may say don't even try to understand and I know I can only go so far. The theory is only a result of keeping myself sane while the journey takes it's twists and turns - an aspect which I want to keep in my life as much. It's not IT. I doubt anything is IT. This is he best I can do. The moment it fails, it fails. I rather try than not try.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "To celebrate the continuum and it thus having to fit"

    Here we diiffer, for me to celebrate i cannot expect that it has to fit.

    "... is just one thing that prevents you from banging your head on a wall."

    BOYHOTW is a good thing, it may break the wall but it builds charecter and can give you a big fat swollen head to boot.

    Losing sleep is not a bad idea, i fear tranqulizing work/thought-substitutes more.

    "If we claim to try to understand something, we can’t start at saying that is not understandable"- ha but but what if you only understand that you do not understand!

    "It defeats the purpose of the exercise."

    Here, we differ- you are purpose driven, i am driven by what i see to be an intrinsic value in it's own sake regardless of any tangiable purpose.

    "You may say don't even try to understand"

    No i don't - but i understand that i doubt my ability to understand.

    "The theory is ... keeping myself sane ... which I want to keep in my life as much. It's not IT. I doubt anything is IT."

    Sanity is an imaginary (no-skill) game invented to appreciate and offer some form of validity to being mediorore, i say "just be your self or die (BOYHOTW) trying."

    No kidding, define your choice state of being "sane" and you will find it to be quite insane, if i know anything of you, i mean that as a compliment.

    I say, why be insane in moderation when you can have the whole carnival to yourself?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Compulsion is the key driver to all the things that I said - both in the theory or the comments. I am far less compelled by my choice of career of lifestyle than I am by the fact that there is a journey to be travelled. I, at least me for one, do not bang my head on the wall when the journey is allowed to happen undeterred. I enjoy the travail. Banging of the head on the wall is something that happens when that journey is deterred. Sanity, in this case, is going with the journey and unsanity when in it deterred.

    Intrinsic value for it's own sake is the root of the theory (better put understanding of the matter as best can be had). But when you run around in circles and indeed it troubles you that you run around in circles, one can at best recogmise the factors that make it a crazy (and enjoyable) ride and not arrest them (and the ride) - that if you have the desire.

    Breaking your head on the wall is a good thing when you don't arrest the happening of the journey (being yourself) that is to be had.

    It fitting is not something that is intended towards. Even I don't consider it at all, I will end up doing what I must anyway - whether it fits or not. When it fits, it only means that I know as much of myself as I do (or think I do) and if I don't choose accordingly, I am not allowing the journey take root. But if this section of the journey is indeed a part of the journey, I suppose then there is more learning to be had of the self. That line really can't be drawn pucca - each one for him/herself but is a factor none the less.

    ReplyDelete