Tiny bits of brave

A year ago my life seemed too big to handle, and someone told me that I am brave. Until then I had never thought of myself as brave. Contemplative and strategic, always. Scared and risk averse, ... Unfortunately, yes. But definitely not brave. It was the most lovely compliment I could imagine .. and I immediately rejected it.

But then I started to think about what it means to be brave. And I've thought about it a lot. 

Some say I am brave because I enjoy sky diving and roller coasters, public speaking and engaging in debates I may not win.

But I think bravery is much more consistent than the occasional terrifying activity. Also, it's much smaller and less visible. 

Bravery is truly tiny. Tiny daily decisions to face whatever unknown life may bring with quiet confidence. To accept that "past me" knew what she was doing when she set in motion whatever series of decisions led to where I am now. And to trust in "future me" to carry forward. 

The adrenaline inducing, hugely exciting moments are perhaps indicators of bravery, but a brave heart is quiet and steady, resolute but open, confidently still while hopeful and ready to move forward. 

Am I brave? Maybe. I hope so. I'm starting to think I am, or that I can be. And maybe that is enough - just enough - brave for today. 

Not a victim

This year I have become sensitive to the notion of victimization. I was listening to a morning news talk show the other day and heard the anchor/host describe a group of people who have been affected by some negative circumstance. I don't recall what the circumstance was, but what I noticed is that the anchor referred to these individuals as 'victims'. The thought I had in that instant was "these are not victims, these are survivors."

Instances of "victim" classification like this have struck me as devaluing the human capacity to survive and thrive in difficult circumstances and through challenging experiences. I would love to empower my friends, family, and society to cling to the notion that the label of "victim" fails to account for three basic truths: first, things happen; second, those things that happen don't define you; third, you define you.

Things happen. People experience them. People have both physical and emotional responses to those things. Sometimes people act heinously at and upon each other. This is deplorable and I empathize with people who have endured much at the hands of others. However, here is my perspective on this ... Whether it is a personal matter like a car breaking down, illness or abuse, or a community or even national matter like corporate shift or acts of terror, these things are not directed at the core human being who is me - or anyone else. They may be acts by another person or by the laws of physics that I happened to be in the way of. Or they may be intended to manipulate someone physically removed from the situation. It is often difficult to figure out why a certain chain of events occurred, or what a person's motives may have been in harming another, but I want to start by acknowledging that horribly painful things do happen. 

The part that is more difficult to accept is that those painful things that happen do not define me. I have heard it said that someone was a victim of their circumstance. This can be sort of true ... the position that someone is in may be nigh unchangeable from a logistics, power, relational, or personal perspective. But I am struck by the level of non-choice that comes with the "victim" mindset.  Comments like "x happened to her," or "He can't help y behavior" feed a wrong understanding of how much we, as people, have both power and responsibility for our paths. To be defined as a 'victim' of any circumstance is to declare the person as having no rightful place or power in the situation which, if extrapolated out, speaks to a lack of power overall. 

But, as people, we have all kinds of power to define ourselves. It take real work, but it is worth it. It requires understanding and accepting myself and knowing my potential. When I choose to evaluate myself and my societal contribution, when I actively look for ways to repay evil for good, when I give my feelings healthy stimuli and outlets ... these are ways I choose my definition. When I see myself responding poorly to a situation and I proactively either remove myself or change my thinking, I am defining myself. I posit that every person and community has both the privilege and responsibility to define itself. We are not victims of circumstance or others' deplorable actions. We are survivors, individuals, and people whose definition is our own.

Question Series: Hurt

Every so often, something that someone says or does hurts my feelings (I am sort of human, I do have feelings).  A "first response" when I feel emotionally slapped is to slap back - harder, so they learn a lesson.  This is all verbal, of course, not actual slapping ... but you know what I mean.  I am not opposed to confrontation - some say I seem to enjoy it - but I do "vet" myself before letting someone have it. Here is the series of questions I ask myself (and answer truthfully) before saying anything about my hurt to someone:

I.  Where does my hurt come from?

   A. From the person.

     1. Is s/he intentionally hurting me?

     2. Is s/he aware they are hurting me?

     3. Does s/he have other issues preventing an understanding of the depth of the hurt?

   B. From the person's actions separate from me.

     1. Is s/he intentionally hurting me?

     2. Is s/he aware they are hurting me?

     3. Candidly, does s/he have a legitimate reason for engaging in the conduct despite the fact that I am hurt?

II. What do I want to accomplish in confronting them?

   A.  Emotionally break him/her

   B.  Gain reconciliation him/her

     With either of these goals, you may need the support and guidance of a help group or professional.

III. Could confrontation rationally bring about that goal?

     Generally .. if "no," analysis ends, I reassess my goal, or I look for resources to get to my goal.

     If "yes," make a plan!  Leading to:

IV. What specific action can I take to meet my goal (which may include direct confrontation, or may not)?

"thinking" vs. "planning"

The greatest skill I have is to think.  The way I attack academic projects has been vastly altered by learning the difference between "thinking" and "planning."  I am writing today to talk about the freedom of life that comes with thinking vs. the detriment that comes from excessive planning.

I, like many people, am in the midst of life change.  Mine is primarily career-focused, but yours may be career, family, geography, or something else.  We want to attain those goals we set before ourselves ... but our forward motion is so incrementally slow that it feels like no movement at all (or, worse, backtracking), and we become frustrated.

I posit that this lack of forward movement could be the result of resting on the existence of "planning," rather than "thinking."

To "plan" carries a connotation that you have some way to predict, perhaps even determine, the circumstances you will face in the future.  Before anyone thinks I am anti-plan, let me say, I love a good plan.  I like to make plans, talk about them, critique, change, execute, and scrap them.  But, speaking only for myself, I do not have the kind of foreknowledge it takes to "plan" for everything ... or anything larger than a finite event.  To mitigate this, I have gone through periods of endless planning:  coming up with innumerable if/then "plans," many of which were no good for the situations I actually faced.  The concept of the "5 or 10 year plan" is especially endearing.  I am okay with "long term goals," but to call that a plan is overreaching.  Planning is based on a skill set - organization, scheduling, and budgeting are all aspects of "planning."  And, let's face it, not everyone is good at these things.

On the other hand, to "think" can include input from all aspects of myself (emotions, feelings, beliefs, etc.).  The vast majority of thought life revolves around thinking through problems, issues, etc. for the purpose of understanding and appreciating the finer details, more than organizing them into a different construct.  Thinking requires a different set of skills than planning:  patience and honesty top among them.  The good news is that people were made to think - all of us were.

We put a lot of pressure on ourselves to have a "plan" before we do anything ... and because we lack (or think we lack) skills as "planners" we end up doing basically nothing.  Here is my challenge to you:  Think about those changes you want to make in your career, family, etc., then set about doing them.  I am not suggesting you attempt wild and odd activities for the sake of being active.  I am advocating for the idea that we can accomplish goals that are bigger than ourselves, and more important than we may ever know, simply by taking a step.  If your world doesn't fall apart after that one step, take another step.  Be thoughtful.  Engage with the world around you.  Don't borrow trouble, but take calculated risks when you need to ... And get out there, and DO.

Question Series: Morality

Recently I had a fantastic and very long conversation with a friend. In the midst of our hours (or days ...) of talking around, within, and about our chosen topic, she said that some action was "immoral." I am a thinker (and a bit of a skeptic), so I began rolling through a series of general questions about the concept of morality.  I posed these questions to her in an email - and here they are. 

1. When you ponder the morality of an activity, what parameters (rules) do you apply?
2. Where do those rules come from (all one source, or a synthesis of multiple sources)?
3. If an activity could be considered amoral (no ethical basis for action or inaction; or different sets of parameters could mean varying principles for "moral" or not), do you tend to label that activity "immoral" or "moral"?  (simply:  what is your default setting?)
4. Does "moral" = "right"; does "immoral" = "wrong"?  Examples of each?
5. Should "moral" activities be pursued with rigor?
6. Should "immoral" activities be avoided?
7. If an activity is immoral and if immoral action is "wrong," what could prompt the actor to continue in the activity?  (or, more simply, why engage in acts that are wrong?)
8. Who is responsible for determining whether an act is right or wrong?
9. If a person engages in immoral acts, or fails to engage in moral acts, should that person be liable only for the outcomes of the act, or should (or do) others have authority to attach a liability to the actor?
10. From where would such authority come?
11. What type of liability could that be?

Beside the fact that I need to get a life, and probably sleep more, I would love to hear any feedback.