Conflict and harmonizing-clarifying
It seems odd to me that most people require watching others' conflict for entertainment.
It is said that to sell, an entertainment movie must be about conflict. So how do I, a "harmonizer-clairifier" temperament INFP type, interface with that?
Harmonizing-clarifying actually is related to conflict, because that is what it is doing its thing about. The "conflict" part is implied, because that is what needs the harmonizing-clarifying.
The conflict part is uncomfortable to me; maybe that is because it triggers the harmonizer-clarifier urge to start ramping up to find means to harmonize the forces that had become polarized into conflict's playouts.
Conflict can consist of the energies of nature's forces, spectacularly in the release of earth strains exhibiting in the form of an earthquake; or the thrashing of tornado's twirling wind upon objects it sweeps across on the ground. Conflict can be of social type, such as two cows in conflict over who gets to eat from a particular patch of juicy grass. Social conflict seems to involve at least three items, not just the two who are visible; for example, the entertaining spectacle of two men fighting over a woman actually involve the woman too; the larger form expressing as two football teams in stylized conflict by-the-rules, and the scantily-clad cheerleading women dancing and waving at the sidelines, the women also part of the conflict, symbolizing those who are admiring the hunks romping in the field, hunks they will be mating with as the winners, which will they be? And in the football game, the fourth participant, the audience, the folks on the grandstands, who are enthralled by the conflict going on in the arena. Perhaps the football field, the arena, is also part of the conflict, it symbolizing territory being defended and territory attempted to be overrun, the football being the solitary token of proof of situational status. Even the umpires who work to ensure the rules are followed, to keep it all from becoming an all out brawl resulting in dead bodies scattered about, mess someone will have to clean up, and fewer players remaining to entertain the audience next time. The football game in this example, is also surely a "teaching tool" for the audience, a lesson in how to forcibly attempt to take goodies from others yet have limits on what can be done in that activity, lessons that hopefully will help somewhat civilize them all.
My own response to the "football game" (archetype example used in this rant) exists on several levels. One is the motion and activity gets my attention, neurology for avoidance of collision, kind of function. Another is a bit of resentment that those attractive women are all out there for the romping hunks, none for me and my kind who could have enabled a finer and more abundant life for all. And the most significant one is the puzzlement of why all those people choose to participate in that kind of conflict, instead of using their attentive energy for obtaining similar needs of territory, status, mates, resources in general, to harmonize together in projects like my "KESTS to GEO" centrifugally-stretched hoop around the earth eccentrically connecting ground with GEO orbit, the hoop being a self-supporting lifting bridge for building solar power stations high up in GEO, up there also building total recycling facilities to rid us of terrible toxins now instead being scattered in our nest down here; building high spaceports in GEO efficiently from where to reach out to vast resources in the solar system, and room up there to build artificial gravitied shielded cities just like we want them to be? Resources aplenty, no mere patch of specially juicy grass for which to squabble: the wandering rocks of the asteroid belt have enough raw material to build the equivalent space city habitat surface equal to a thousand whole earth surfaces, for example... does anyone understand that is more than a patch of juicy grass that once munched is gone? And room to build and grow, really lots of that out there in GEO and far more beyond that out further in the solar system. Even some planetary and lunar surfaces on which some kinds of life could be placed and sustained. That is conflict directly with deprivation itself, by striving together so that there is vastly more to be had for all; yet that seems to be an alien concept to those who see only the conflict of who is the stronger and takes all the goodies, loser wilts and perishes, kind of conflict. What ugliness, why do people prefer to choose that kind of path?
Well, I guess my viewpoint is merely my harmonizer-clarifier temperament expressing its functioning. That is the song it plays. And note it also leaves me sitting out here by myself, mateless, the women who are the instigator of it all, still choosing to focus on which hunk shall "win" them through strife against each other, instead of the men who could lead them to build paths to resources vastly beyond all the goodies this planetary surface alone cannot provide.
Ah, a satisfying rant. Something feels clarified to me. I avoid noticing too thoroughly, however, that the world out there is unchanged. No mountains being moved here, no cities to thrive in GEO being prepared, not resulting even in enough wind being stirred up to wiggle a leaf on a tree.
It is said that to sell, an entertainment movie must be about conflict. So how do I, a "harmonizer-clairifier" temperament INFP type, interface with that?
Harmonizing-clarifying actually is related to conflict, because that is what it is doing its thing about. The "conflict" part is implied, because that is what needs the harmonizing-clarifying.
The conflict part is uncomfortable to me; maybe that is because it triggers the harmonizer-clarifier urge to start ramping up to find means to harmonize the forces that had become polarized into conflict's playouts.
Conflict can consist of the energies of nature's forces, spectacularly in the release of earth strains exhibiting in the form of an earthquake; or the thrashing of tornado's twirling wind upon objects it sweeps across on the ground. Conflict can be of social type, such as two cows in conflict over who gets to eat from a particular patch of juicy grass. Social conflict seems to involve at least three items, not just the two who are visible; for example, the entertaining spectacle of two men fighting over a woman actually involve the woman too; the larger form expressing as two football teams in stylized conflict by-the-rules, and the scantily-clad cheerleading women dancing and waving at the sidelines, the women also part of the conflict, symbolizing those who are admiring the hunks romping in the field, hunks they will be mating with as the winners, which will they be? And in the football game, the fourth participant, the audience, the folks on the grandstands, who are enthralled by the conflict going on in the arena. Perhaps the football field, the arena, is also part of the conflict, it symbolizing territory being defended and territory attempted to be overrun, the football being the solitary token of proof of situational status. Even the umpires who work to ensure the rules are followed, to keep it all from becoming an all out brawl resulting in dead bodies scattered about, mess someone will have to clean up, and fewer players remaining to entertain the audience next time. The football game in this example, is also surely a "teaching tool" for the audience, a lesson in how to forcibly attempt to take goodies from others yet have limits on what can be done in that activity, lessons that hopefully will help somewhat civilize them all.
My own response to the "football game" (archetype example used in this rant) exists on several levels. One is the motion and activity gets my attention, neurology for avoidance of collision, kind of function. Another is a bit of resentment that those attractive women are all out there for the romping hunks, none for me and my kind who could have enabled a finer and more abundant life for all. And the most significant one is the puzzlement of why all those people choose to participate in that kind of conflict, instead of using their attentive energy for obtaining similar needs of territory, status, mates, resources in general, to harmonize together in projects like my "KESTS to GEO" centrifugally-stretched hoop around the earth eccentrically connecting ground with GEO orbit, the hoop being a self-supporting lifting bridge for building solar power stations high up in GEO, up there also building total recycling facilities to rid us of terrible toxins now instead being scattered in our nest down here; building high spaceports in GEO efficiently from where to reach out to vast resources in the solar system, and room up there to build artificial gravitied shielded cities just like we want them to be? Resources aplenty, no mere patch of specially juicy grass for which to squabble: the wandering rocks of the asteroid belt have enough raw material to build the equivalent space city habitat surface equal to a thousand whole earth surfaces, for example... does anyone understand that is more than a patch of juicy grass that once munched is gone? And room to build and grow, really lots of that out there in GEO and far more beyond that out further in the solar system. Even some planetary and lunar surfaces on which some kinds of life could be placed and sustained. That is conflict directly with deprivation itself, by striving together so that there is vastly more to be had for all; yet that seems to be an alien concept to those who see only the conflict of who is the stronger and takes all the goodies, loser wilts and perishes, kind of conflict. What ugliness, why do people prefer to choose that kind of path?
Well, I guess my viewpoint is merely my harmonizer-clarifier temperament expressing its functioning. That is the song it plays. And note it also leaves me sitting out here by myself, mateless, the women who are the instigator of it all, still choosing to focus on which hunk shall "win" them through strife against each other, instead of the men who could lead them to build paths to resources vastly beyond all the goodies this planetary surface alone cannot provide.
Ah, a satisfying rant. Something feels clarified to me. I avoid noticing too thoroughly, however, that the world out there is unchanged. No mountains being moved here, no cities to thrive in GEO being prepared, not resulting even in enough wind being stirred up to wiggle a leaf on a tree.
posted by Unknown at
09:06
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home