Egocentrism

The more I learn about postmodernism, the more of an acrid aftertaste it leaves in my mouth. I guess my biggest problem with much of this postmodern progression is how very egocentric it is. Me me me. I want, need, think, feel. It is not ignorant of this, the postmodern Self knows exactly what neurosis and idiosyncrasies plague it, and this makes it jaded.

It would be a lie to call this calling out purely observational, hypo-critical even if I did not include mySelf among the masses I have a problem with. Despite my distaste of postmodernism, I revel in it. These explorations of thought: radical feminist, deconstructionist, Marxist, post colonial, et al. are the academic waters in which I swim. The ocean has lost its salt and I have a hard time seeing the humanity in these humanities.

Jaded in this academia, disillusioned by the yo-yo movements of what it means simply to exist (see Martin Heidegger's Being and Time or any offshoot related work for how complicated that can get) it seems like they forget to exist. Action versus Intention, Cause vs. Effect, I'm not advocating this. To exist with no thought, to act with no consideration of the consequences is irresponsible, but so too is the converse.

It's a balancing act. 

But that's classic me.

"ace you have a formula for answering questions and it kinda bugs me the 'well lets think about it intelligently and use logic while respecting difference."

Reading that hurt, but I refuse to be offended by Cody's comment because it's true. I wouldn't be me if I didn't answer questions like that. If it makes me boring, makes me predictable, makes me infuriatingly passive, rational, what-the-hell-ever, so be it. I'm being the me I choose to be. I could have answered the original question (should I migrate to twitter) with a straight up no, but where's the fun in that?

To give my opinion as such is pseudo-altruistic. Pseudo because it is my opinion, but still somewhat altruistic in that it tries to provide something beyond that opinion. It allows for the possibility of other options.

This whole post is "respecting differences." I cannot simply dismiss something just because I disagree with it. I can't even make myself want to without first considering it as fully as I can.

I've talked a lot with theLittleBirdChelsea about introversion/extroversion in the last few weeks. ChelseaDagger and quite a few of our mutual friends are introverts. I'm very clearly an extrovert. It's a fundamental difference that I feel leaves me at a disadvantage since I cannot identify with certain thought processes and facets of what it means to be an introvert.

It's too incompatible for my sense of empathy to process. It is other not in the Heideggerian sense, the inclusive other, so much as the Sarterian reference. I am the exclusively excluded other from the introvert paradigm, and it is a symptom of society that this results in the ostracism of introverts unless they are willing to adapt and conform to a predominantly extroverted society.

At one point, in one of my conversations with Chelsea, I mentioned how in retrospect, I'm very clearly drawn to introverted personalities because -- and I think this is the exact wording I used -- as an extrovert, I can help bring them out of themselves. She went on to comment about how this is a common misconception and that most introverts don't actually need to be brought out and indeed, putting them in social situations where they're surrounded by people actually can cause them a lot of stress.

Much as I love her, I really just wanted to tell Chelsea to shut up right then. Ego time! I wasn't talking about socially. The way she was talking about the dynamic, I might as well have told her that introverts are broken and as an extrovert I can fix them. No.

As an extrovert with a desire to be more empathetic and therefore open to listening and attempting to understand the other side, whether I can or not remains to be seen, I have the ability to provide the kind of balanced social interaction that would not be overwhelming more so than general company. I am an outlet and a catalyst, a doorway that always remains open. I pressure you in that I am a presence you cannot forget or ignore. I include you only as far as you want to be included and resist the kind of pressures that make the introvert feel like there is no choice.

Put another way, I can act as a buffer. You can be yourself around me and I can bring that self with me. In short: Use me.

This life isn't about me. I don't want it to be about me. Screw ego. Screw "me/I." But to do this, to move beyond this ego, I need to create or perhaps recreate myself  as something, as someone that is beyond ego, that is altruistic: marked by selflessness.

But as my friend JoeJack would probably say, "That isn't real though. That's false altruism. It's another damn performance, another role you make for yourself, it's not the real you."

I am whatever the hell I want to be and anyone who tells me differently can shove it. If you care, if you want it, if you have a genuine, sincere, authentic heart behind whatever you project to the world, that is what you are.  Because that is what you make it, and it is what others perceive. Identity is not static. Who I am changes, so why can't I choose how it changes?

I fill these roles. Constantly I fill them and I shift from one to another to another. Seamlessly so that you would not notice the difference. Why aren't they who I am? Why aren't they a part of what makes me me? No one else fills the roles I do the way I do. Exist, let yourself exist. You're filling roles, you're always filling roles and you can't always change that, you can't always break out of those roles. I understand this.

To change roles has consequences. That's another thing Chelsea and I talked about. The consequences sometimes remove your choice or ability to change roles. As Chelsea stressed to me, for the introvert, to exist outside of your role is to ostracize yourself because unlike the extrovert, you cannot relate to people outside these roles that form around you and that kind of exclusion is tantamount to death. It feels like the world is attacking you.

I understand and disagree with this. Change has nuances and options, always. You can't change the way you think, not on the fundamental level, not in a way that will keep an introvert from being paralyzed by the consequences and locking them into the role they fill. But there is still the possibility for change. It just has to be subtle and there have to exist the kinds of supports that will remind and reassure you that the consequences will be dealt with.

Saying this is easy, but to put it into action is hard. Instead of changing yourself, your role, this requires changing the circumstances that put you in that role. And it's just as big, just as painful. It's constant, because change is constant but it is possible. You have to act where you do feel like you have control.  You have to ask for help.

I wonder if I could make those kinds of changes. Somehow I don't think so. But I also think that to an extent, I am those kinds of changes, they are constant, they themselves are changing and I am integrated. I adjust, I react, I don't need to make those kinds of changes because I don't feel that conflict. I'm not threatened by the consequences because by the time I notice them, I'm already taking action for them.

This is me existing, taking them in stride. This is me reaching out and offering my help. This is what postmodernism needs. From one self to another, Acelessthan3 at your service.