Eccentric: Unusual, peculiar, odd, or strange; distinctive in nature or character.
Normal: Regular; conforming to the standard.
I am divided. I would like to be distinctive, but not peculiar. I don't mind being a regular guy, but I don't want to conform. I want the freedom of eccentric on the level playing field of normal, but I too often end up on the sideline. And I don't like the bench; especially the end of the bench; the end all the way opposite the water cooler; lonely; desolate.
In recent years I have practiced uncertainty and argued its necessity for learning and growth. I still do. But more and more frequently, (likely due to self-inflicted, increasing uncertainties), I struggle with diminished confidence and its resultant self-consciousness. There are occasions where this mixture of conflicting dynamics turns volatile; i.e. angry. This in turn drives me inward, only to (potentially) erupt later, catching some perhaps less-deserving innocents (and/or not-so-innocents) in its molten surge.
Uncertainty followed by insecurity followed by anger. Some self-confidence would curtail, (and possibly waylay much of), the anger. But if I practice more self-imposed self-confidence, I am, in a sense, also giving others permission to do the same, which is not consistent with my insistence on uncertainty. I look around and see that self-confidence is flourishing and, (like a fast-growing weed), threatening to choke out creativity, skepticism, and tolerance; as well as widen the (already-gaping) power and wealth gaps.
I don't believe additional self-confidence is the answer.
Yet, uncertainty makes me peculiar. Or does it simply make me feel peculiar? Perhaps it makes others see me as distinctive. Or is that wishful thinking? I know it does not make me normal. Look... "I know" something; that's Self-Confidence.
I missed a step above...
I missed two steps above...
Maybe more...
Yes. At least three...
Uncertainty should be followed by skeptical questioning. Skeptical questioning should be followed by mutual validation. Validation should be followed by rational argument. Rational argument should be followed by periodic agreement. The agreement must be periodic because this will also (periodically) create some degree of uncertainty, insecurity, and (possibly) self-consciousness, thus curtailing anger and avoiding damaging or dangerous. self-confidence. Consistent agreement, (for example by using one's power to surround oneself with "YesMen"), results in a surplus of self-confidence, thus eliminating all steps except agreement. I have the uncertainty, and I put forth many skeptical questions, but it is seldom that I am validated through rational argument and debate with another; hence, validation is replaced by insecurity and anger.
So I should amend my previous statement to say, "I don't believe artificial self-confidence, (i.e. Self-confidence sans extensive, legitimate, rational argument and debate), is the answer."
So if I cannot find a forum for debate, and if I cannot artificially inflate myself, then it appears that to tame my anger, I must somehow be okay with little or no validation; or I must stop asking questions, (rhetorical though they may be). I don't believe I am capable of quiescent acceptance; skeptical questioning has become habit. And by saying "I must somehow be okay with little or no validation," I believe I am actually saying "I must somehow be okay with insecurity."
We need two contextual definitions.
- Validation: Equitably serious, voluntary acknowledgement and consideration followed by a mutually volitional desire for rational argument and debate.
(Validation is NOT flattery, praise, compliments, acclaim, or having one's ego stroked. Validation is not agreement.) - Insecurity: Lack of confidence; self-doubt.
(I believe that insecurity should be inevitable. I believe that anyone claiming complete or even comfortable security is delusional; perhaps functionally so, but still delusional.)
Looking at the clarification above, I AM okay with insecurity. I guess what I really mean to say is that "I would like to more frequently find a way from the sideline to the game on the field." Or perhaps what I really, really mean to say is that "I would like to find a playing field where the game is not rigged." But I believe this last hope is unrealistic for me in this Lifetime. Regardless, I will continue to actively pursue this end, and perhaps contribute to a push toward a day when the game is not rigged; or at least, less so.
This week I am reading "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind" by Yuval Noah Harari. In his chapter "The Scent of Money" he says, "Christians and Muslims who could not agree on religious beliefs could nevertheless agree on monetary belief, because whereas religion asks us to believe in something, money asks us to believe that other people believe in something." Extending this thought beyond religion and money, this is how the game is rigged. It is easier to believe that others believe in something and agree to go along, than it is to autonomously question and argue. Conformism is the great leveler of playing fields, whether the game is religion, politics, philosophy, business, education, career choice, social connections, cultural norms, job loyalties, family loyalties, or any number of other connective dynamics that influence our daily existence and/or define a purpose. Even seemingly simplistic beliefs such as obtuse entertainment choices often appear to largely be a result of groupthink.
At the risk of being redundant, I need this reminder: It is easier to believe that others believe in something and agree to go along, than it is to autonomously question and argue.
So even though I am okay with insecurity and I believe discomfort is necessary, I still feel the pressure to get out on the field and conform. Or more accurately, conform so I can get out on the field. I may claim to believe, and I may claim that I go along because I believe, but unless I precede my agreement with skeptical questions and validate the claim through rational argument and debate, it is not belief, it is conformity. And like it or not, I cannot go through this process of questioning and argument one time and then for the rest of my Life claim a belief; I must be uncertain, question, and argue on every occasion that the belief may have influence. For some beliefs that may be every waking moment of every day. When I do this on the field---(I do occasionally get on the field)---I frequently get flagged for Delay of Game, which ultimately, (one way or another), forces me back to the sideline. But if I do not question and rationally argue, I am (again) not consistent with my insistence on uncertainty; and all the steps that should follow.
Alack and alas. It seems I must to the sideline go.
But in this process of shuttling forth and back---(mostly back)---have I resolved anything?
Perhaps...
Ultimately...
I have a better understanding of why, at minimum, a consistent low thrum of insecurity, and periodic pokes and prods of self-consciousness are natural and necessary. And if my nature tends toward the eccentric anyway, perhaps this understanding will alleviate some stress of self-consciousness, and diminish some anger.
Perhaps...