MasterSelf Year One Read online

  What really happens when you break the threshold of Dunbar’s number is that you end up splitting the tribe into a camp of ‘us’ and a camp of ‘them.’ While this is bad in a business, it’s worse in the highly connected world we live in today. With the advent of social media, it’s incredibly easy to find people that agree with you completely (other members of your tribe). These people who share your views end up becoming a means for you to validate your identity. This presents a problem, though, because identities are tricky things. If you’re familiar with my earlier article, The Wisdom of Solomon, you’ll know that what the self actually is is quite different from what most people construct their identities from. Because we aren’t identified with the silent observer in our mind, we have our egoic (which is not an inherently bad thing) identities- constructed from experiences, culture, and a variety of other elements.

  For example, because my mother’s side of the family comes from Pittsburgh, PA, I was brought up as a Steelers supporter. Now, I have the benefit of being able to justify that the Steelers have more Super Bowl Rings than any other team, so they’re objectively better than your team, and your team sucks.

  [Editor’s Note: I don’t wanna talk about it now.]

  I’ll let that sit for a minute…

  If your team isn’t the Steelers, you probably felt something between a twinge of anger to full-on outrage at my statement- and the degree to which you felt something is representative of the degree that you have incorporated that group identity of being a fan into your own individual identity. However, if your team is the Steelers, you’re not off the hook either- the degree that you felt good about hearing that is the counterexample here. If you felt nothing, or some sense of superiority, like “oh, I’m better than those football fans, I’m not a victim of tribalism,” actually, you are, too. The difference here is that your identity is based on not liking football (and to be honest, I don’t particularly like football, either.)

  Now, take that example and exchange football teams for any other divisive system of groups- to name a few obvious ones, politics (left vs right), music genres (rock vs rap), economic systems (capitalism vs socialism), racism (black vs white), nationalism (USA vs everyone else), sexuality (gay vs straight), philosophy (individualism vs collectivism), and comic book franchises (Marvel vs DC [Marvel is better, by the way.]) There are an infinite number of possible socially generated divisions in which we can classify and segregate ourselves, but the important thing to understand here is that the primary issue is the degree to which these tribes are incorporated into our identity.

  The root of the entire issue is essentially this: when we lack individual identities rooted in personal achievement, dignity, and self-knowledge, we need to find another source of esteem. This source of esteem varies, but the end result is the same- tribalism. The great irony here is that because it’s this singular driving need to develop a valued identity, there’s not much difference between those on either side of these tribally based debates. Because these people aren’t basing their sense of self-worth on their own achievements, they look to whatever is available.

  To paraphrase Robert M. Pirsig, author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, there is a concept in Zen Buddhism called “mu,” which means nothingness. When one comes to a question that has two opposing answers, he says that we have actually found a mu answer- a non-answer, or the answer is nothing. This indicates that the question we’re asking is bad. As a result of this, whenever we find that there are two tribes saying the opposite from each other, realize that it’s very likely somewhere down the line, the forces that created the two groups missed a step and got a question wrong- mu.

  Instead, consider the possibility that the real answer between which tribe is better is really mu- no tribe at all. To quote Ayn Rand, “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.” Be one, know yourself, and avoid the dangerous trap of tribalism by letting your identity be just your identity.

  Poppies, Crabs, and Prometheus: Why We Hate The Great

  Legends tell of the Titan Prometheus (which means Forethought), who is sometimes said to have been the one who fashioned the race of Man from clay. In other versions, the Gods made all the creatures of the Earth, while Prometheus and his lesser-known brother Epimetheus (meaning Afterthought) were tasked with giving talents and skills to everything in the world. Epimetheus, being understandably shortsighted, gave out all the gifts like scales, fur, and feathers randomly, and when he had come to Man, had nothing left to give.

  Prometheus, however, took pity on Man in his naked state, and proceeded to raid the workshop of Hephaestus, the god of fire and metalworking. In the forge he stole fire, and, hiding it within the hollow of a fennel stalk, brought it back to Man as a gift. He showed the new race the way to use it, and, with it, how to work with metal. When Zeus, the king of the gods, discovered this theft, he was enraged. Furious, he captured Prometheus and chained him to a rock in the far east. An eagle lived on the rock, and would descend to devour Prometheus’ liver. However, because he was cursed by Zeus, each night it would regrow, simply to be eaten again. Eventually, Hercules would show up and kill the eagle, but that’s another story.

  What’s the take away here? Do mankind a favor, teach them the hidden knowledge that has the power to dramatically improve their lives, and receive nothing but cruel punishment. Not a great deal, huh? Unfortunately, because myths are meant to (among other things) instill the cultural morals of the time, this one teaches us that the Greeks actually demonized a certain degree of aspiration- “don’t take what belongs to the gods.” This is demonstrated similarly in the myth of Icarus and Daedalus (Icarus burned and fell when he flew too close to the sun), as well as the tale of Helios’ son Phaethon (who tried to drive his father’s sun chariot and was struck down by Zeus before he burned the world to a crisp).

  This phenomenon is often called “Tall Poppy Syndrome,” which originated from a story that famed historian Herodotus recounts in his book, Histories:

  “[Periander] had sent a herald to Thrasybulus and inquired in what way he would best and most safely govern his city. Thrasybulus led the man who had come from Periander outside the town, and entered into a sown field. As he walked through the wheat, continually asking why the messenger had come to him from Cypselus, he kept cutting off all the tallest ears of wheat which he could see, and throwing them away, until he had destroyed the best and richest part of the crop. Then, after passing through the place and speaking no word of counsel, he sent the herald away. When the herald returned to Cypselus, Periander desired to hear what counsel he brought, but the man said that Thrasybulus had given him none. The herald added that it was a strange man to whom he had been sent, a madman and a destroyer of his own possessions, telling Periander what he had seen Thrasybulus do. Periander, however, understood what had been done, and perceived that Thrasybulus had counselled him to slay those of his townsmen who were outstanding in influence or ability; with that he began to deal with his citizens in an evil manner.”

  This story was retold by Aristotle, and eventually began to include poppies specifically in the story of a Roman king, Lucius Tarquinius Superbus. However, this phenomenon isn’t limited just to the Greeks and Romans- it appeared in the English language as early as the 1700s, and in the United States by the 1800s.

  The story represents a larger issue: far too often, we demonize the successful and hate those that we think are better than ourselves. Now, there is an argument to be made that it’s not the success itself that we hate, but the superiority expressed by those that have succeeded, but I would bet that it’s simply a cop out. For an insecure person, the success of others is perceived as an attack on one’s self worth. On the other hand, a person who has a strong sense of self-value, the success of others serves as inspiration- “a rising tide lifts all ships.”

  There is something similar that we can see with crabs. If you were to take a decent number of
freshly caught crabs and throw them in a bucket, the crabs on top can easily crawl out. However, because the crabs in the middle are jealous (or, dare I say, crabby…), they will pull down the crabs at the top and ensure that they all die together. It’s almost as if they were saying, “if I can’t get out, neither can you,” and when you think of that sentiment, you can draw the conclusion to humans fairly easily.

  Fundamentally, there are two opposing philosophies at work here:

  The strong man says, “I will build myself up to be something great, and perhaps others will see the heights I have reached and know that they, too, can manage the climb.”

  The weak man, however, says “I cannot bear to see anyone above me, let us tear down anyone who thinks that they are better than we are here at the bottom.”

  The great irony of this second ideology is that it makes everyone worse off- and this has been demonstrated scientifically. Researchers in New Zealand conducted a study regarding “how students perform when their position in a class is reported with different levels of perceived privacy.” The study showed that as many as 70% of students were concerned with their results being private. Worse, this concern actually caused them to do as much as 20% worse than when their scores were kept private. These students were so worried about their peers that they, intentionally or unintentionally, dumbed themselves down

  Understand this- either you will choose to shine as a beacon that lights the way for others to follow, or you will cower from the light and curse that it shows you for what you are. Like attracts like- will you stand on the shoulders of giants or tear down the statues of great men past?

  Choose strength- and go steal the fire from the gods.

  “Thousands of years ago the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burnt at the stake he’d taught his brothers to light, but he left them a gift they had not conceived and he lifted darkness from the face of the Earth.”

  -Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead

  The Chains Unseen: Lies, Ties, and Attachments

  “Because if you can’t see the chains- tell me, what use is a key?”

  Crushed – Parkway Drive

  We are all, in one way or another, bound. There are many things that bind us- our relationships with others, our connections to things, and the thoughts we hold so dearly, to name a few. This is normal, and unless you’re a monk in a monastery, unavoidable- it’s just the nature of life. However, it’s very easy for our attachments to things to hold us back from doing the things we’d like to do- and that’s when it becomes time to start breaking chains.

  Imagine yourself as a dot. Next, imagine every person you know as a dot as well. Add all your things as dots, too. Now, imagine a chain connecting all of these dots to you, and imagine that the more you interact with any of those dots, the thicker the chains are. You’re probably completely tied up, right? At the very least, it’s a pretty big web that you’re caught up in.

  In Buddhism, this network of connections is the result of upādāna, which means “clinging,” (more commonly translated as attachment). However, you can’t cling to something you don’t have, but you can crave that thing. Before clinging, we have taṇhā (craving, more commonly translated as desire)- and this is where problems arise. Buddhism views craving and the subsequent clinging to what we crave as the cause of dukkha (unsatisfactoriness, more commonly suffering). Basically, we chase after impermanent things that won’t satisfy us, and when we get them, we desperately cling to them, even though they will fade and go eventually. To top it off, these things are fundamentally unsatisfying, only giving us temporary pleasure that eventually leads to more craving. That’s pretty bleak, if you ask me.

  This is where the Buddha and I diverge, however. Buddhism believes that if you want things, you end up getting reincarnated and life is inherently unsatisfying and suffering so that’s bad, and instead you should want nothing and let go of all your attachments. Fair enough, however, I’m not so much a nihilist. While it’s true that much of life is hard and cruel, I believe that the right choice is not to run from the suffering, it is to embrace it and overcome it by choosing to live despite the pains- because we are not defined by pain. However, that debate could be an article in itself- we have chains to break.

  How do we do this? First, we need to analyze the nature of the chains we are bound by. The tricky bit is that every chain is different- they’re made out of your relationship to the thing on the other end of the chain, and every chain is different. Family ties, for example, are often the strongest and most complex of all chains- “blood is thicker than water.” To your parents, even as well as they know you, you are fundamentally different in their eyes (and vice versa) than you are in reality. Their concept of you is distorted between their feelings for you, their hopes, and their limited perspective of you. This is what builds the chain.

  Imagine your parents wanted you to become a concert violinist, while you actually wanted to play sweet electric violin solos in a folk metal fusion band. (I can’t play violin, but if I could I would totally choose the latter.) In this instance, your freedom to choose between the two is limited to the battle between the pressures being exerted by your family combined with your desire to please your parents versus your willingness to potentially damage your relationship with your parents combined with your desire to shred some brutal e-fiddle riffs.

  A great example of this is the case of Arm and Hammer heir, Armie Hammer (yes, that’s his name). He’s famous for playing the Winklevoss twins in the movie The Social Network (and also for playing the AI hotel Edgar Allen Poe on Altered Carbon, which I highly recommend.) However, when he chose to leave school to become an actor, his parents “effectively disowned” him. I, for one, have a great deal of respect for him as a result of that. How many people, when offered the choice between their passion and their family, would be able to make that decision?

  As we touched on earlier, however, attachments aren’t limited to relationships with people. We are also attached to things, sometimes even more so than with people. Consider a person who stays at a job they hate because it pays well, or someone who is afraid to chase their dreams because they’ll have to give up the standard of living that they’re accustomed to. If you were offered the chance to live the life of your dreams, but it would require you to live in your car for a year, could you do it? If not, the chains that bind you to your possessions are inhibiting your freedom of movement.

  We can be attached to thoughts as well (which is where ideologies come from). This, in a large part, is what ends up obscuring the chains. When we try to move and feel one of the chains hold us back, we have two choices- confront the painful choice between our conflicting desire and attachment, or justify our fear of conflict with some kind of rationalization. “I’m a nice person, I don’t like to argue.” “I always get stepped on, I never get what I want.” There are an infinite number of rationalizations, but generally they serve the purpose of simultaneously defending us from cognitive dissonance while also making us feel morally superior somehow.

  In other words, we lie to ourselves to prevent us from dealing with the fact that we aren’t prepared to do what we have to do to get what we want.

  This is fundamentally the issue with all attachments- they restrict us from moving and conflict with our goals. Here’s a troubling number- 37% of people have never left their hometown, and another 20% have never moved out of their current state. While there are likely many reasons for that, I’m certain that most of them can be tied back to the chains of attachment.

  Are you actively chasing your dreams? Too many people make compromises and avoid the little battles that end up building a nigh-unbreakable network of chains. Then, one day, they will wake up and realize that they have wasted their lives and never saw what they could have been.

  Break your chains before they break you.

  What’s Your Frame? How to Build a Strong Foundation

  There are many uses for the word ‘frame.’ You can frame someone for a crime,
you can put a picture in a frame, or you can frame a house- just to name a few. However, for our frame of reference, we’ll be using the psychological definition- the context in which we view our world.

  Every person has a frame. It encompasses our own identity, how we see ourselves in the world, how we structure the world in relation to ourselves, and how we relate to others. Some have fairly simple frames, and some are more complex. One person’s frame could be incredibly strong and resistant to external influence, and another’s could be weak, and easily reshaped by the frames of others. On top of all that, we may also have different frames for different situations- at work, with family, in relationships, and so on.

  Your frame is, in some sense, your perception of yourself and your place in the world. If you have a low level of self-knowledge, you’re more likely to have multiple frames, as your personality is more situation-dependent. On the contrary, if you have a high degree of insight into the nature of Self, the number of frames you have approaches one. This is called ‘integration’- the degree to which we have integrated personalities is the degree to which we have overcome cognitive dissonance and internal conflicts.