control - various perspectives

[Nocapszy]

i was thinking on control lately, as i always do - control, and the upper-hand, and general tacticianship are fascinations of mine, when i was startled by a post by that lady, ladyjaye

he was all over the place, foaming at the mouth, and I never once felt like I was out of control.

well this was interesting for me.
not really that it's anything new, but something about the glisten of this sentence was attractive to me.

so i'll write a little bit of stuff and anyone who wants to can post their relevant somethings.

i'll try and break it up so it doesn't get to be really long and unreadable - you guys can just scroll through to find the parts that interest you the most and write about that.


firstly,
self control vs. control of environment:
which do you prefer?
it seems to me that the parallel here yields two obvious outcomes - both the passive approach and the active approach are used to achieve or maximize the desired effect

1] maintaining self control inevitably means only reacting to what happens to you
2] controlling your environment means predicting the reactions of the constituents of your environment and acting based on the tangential possibilities

despite my usual tendency to avoid talking about "life" [which is a waste of time in my opinion, vast as it is, but that's a discussion for another time] i can't help myself.

we're required by life to employ both approaches to to get the most out of... whatever the fuck it is we're doing. that applies globally as well as personally as well as holistically as well as currently.

no control at all:
such a thing exists - i've seen people let go everything and let their unconscious take them wherever it takes them. that's sort of vague... i hate leaving it so undefined, but i want to leave that to the vagaries of my varied customers.
i will provide examples from which you the reader can mold their own interpretation.

ex: a couple dancing, but with no care for the consequences - a completely stress free dance - where they allow their impulses to control them.
they relinquish control to the conscious mind's superior; the unconscious.

a lot of people like an experience like this. it's thrilling. not knowing what's going to happen is dangerous, and as everyone who was once under the age of 25 knows, danger plus survival equals fun.''

there's a similar contrast between the topic above and this one.
on the one hand we have voluntary release of control, and we have involuntary release of control.

involuntary forfeit of control is when one has their very capacity to control rendered inviable by their physical circumstances.

each of Dexter Morgan's 'victims' being taped up on his kill-table is an example of someone who's involuntarily lost their control.

this doesn't account for everything - i mean you can control people by words sometimes, but again [for example if your brain is too fried from a drug] then your physical circumstances have taken your control from you.


the stress of control:
controlling things [at least effectively] means work. maintaining control means even more work, and planning, and keeping yourself alert to prevent leaks.

all works is stressful. that's how we know it's work.
that could be another reason for one deliberately relinquishing control - relief.

as i see it, the strong stand out as those who can handle, or ignore, or are resilient from the pressures of successful control over extended periods or extensive feats.



i don't really have anything else i want to write right now.

 

[Drezoryx]

when working
control=stress then going over bodies redline=breakdown of body

in general
control=not losing your ability to see the funny side of things then stress is redirected pretty positively

 

[Domino]

firstly,
self control vs. control of environment:
which do you prefer?
it seems to me that the parallel here yields two obvious outcomes - both the passive approach and the active approach are used to achieve or maximize the desired effect

1] maintaining self control inevitably means only reacting to what happens to you

You can act or react. Whatever happens around you, it would have happened anyway, and therefore, you can decide what you want to respond to.

Reaction seems to carry the tone of a forced march whereas action indicates a conscious decision. You cause change in your environment simply by being in it.

Having said that, I would prefer to control myself, because the world is too big and too broken to ever hope to control (whoa!! I just revoked my ENFJ card... WTH...). It's simpler, more energy efficient, to control oneself and leave the spinning wheel of fate to others -- if you can't control yourself, you become just another jellyfish adrift on the tide.

2] controlling your environment means predicting the reactions of the constituents of your environment and acting based on the tangential possibilities

despite my usual tendency to avoid talking about "life" [which is a waste of time in my opinion, vast as it is, but that's a discussion for another time] i can't help myself.

we're required by life to employ both approaches to to get the most out of... whatever the fuck it is we're doing. that applies globally as well as personally as well as holistically as well as currently.

I disagree. Talking about life is like spreading the wiring diagram of the universe before you and having someone more versed in schematics talk you through some of the inexperience until you gain the mastery you need. The mastery, in this case, is never fully achieved, and we're all in a tier handing information from one to another in a constant flow of data.

Having as many angles as possible is insurance against extinction - personal or global.

I was reading in the latest Scientific American that a small race of humans (H. Floreseinsis) living on the Indonesian island of Flores is thought to have passed information about advanced tool making to H. Erectus, and not the other way around. We wouldn't be here today without the hobbits, it seems.

no control at all:
such a thing exists - i've seen people let go everything and let their unconscious take them wherever it takes them. that's sort of vague... i hate leaving it so undefined, but i want to leave that to the vagaries of my varied customers.
i will provide examples from which you the reader can mold their own interpretation.

ex: a couple dancing, but with no care for the consequences - a completely stress free dance - where they allow their impulses to control them.
they relinquish control to the conscious mind's superior; the unconscious.

It's the semblance of no control. Dancers have trained their muscles to control them through hard discipline. I also believe that people who say they have no control over themselves (excluding the mentally ill, sick or deranged) are actually speaking of learned helplessness and NOT of their actual ability to control themselves.

each of Dexter Morgan's 'victims' being taped up on his kill-table is an example of someone who's involuntarily lost their control.

A control temporarily in a stronger position of someone else's capacity to control. He sways it in his favor through various means. That's work. He's working to his ends, the selfish need to sate something he WON'T control. Dexter's lack of control is glaring to the point of being a victim to his own weak will. I see nothing to admire in him. I see no strength there either. I see nothing but a helpless predator, like a rat eating bugs.

 

[Halla74]

Although I believe control is an illusion, I define it conceptually as follows:

Control = Probability that your desired outcome in any situation becomes reality through conscious/pre-meditated application of one's will.

My illusion is looking really good right now.

 

[Nocapszy]

I disagree. Talking about life is like spreading the wiring diagram of the universe before you and having someone more versed in schematics talk you through some of the inexperience until you gain the mastery you need. The mastery, in this case, is never fully achieved, and we're all in a tier handing information from one to another in a constant flow of data.

Having as many angles as possible is insurance against extinction - personal or global.

I was reading in the latest Scientific American that a small race of humans (H. Floreseinsis) living on the Indonesian island of Flores is thought to have passed information about advanced tool making to H. Erectus, and not the other way around. We wouldn't be here today without the hobbits, it seems.

what i meant was, it's really hard to find anything that applies to everyone's life, and to the holistic concept of life.

i have found one of the few things [or rather pointed it out].

It's the semblance of no control. Dancers have trained their muscles to control them through hard discipline. I also believe that people who say they have no control over themselves (excluding the mentally ill, sick or deranged) are actually speaking of learned helplessness and NOT of their actual ability to control themselves.

i should have defined this more clearly.

when i mean control, i mean it in the sense of the conscious mind deliberating and then acting.
such a thing exists where we allow our muscles to dissociate from the coordination of the rest of the body and act solely on their own.

for the most part, this is the way reptiles operate.
for a more clear-cut example, insects operate this way.

they have no conscious mind. they are confined to simplistic reflexes based on light and other sensations.
that is to say, when a shadow comes over a fly, the fly's eyes send a signal to the few neurons they have, which is then redirected to the wings and it flies off.

that is, there is a set of programs the fly's body can't help itself but follow when confronted with various stimuli.

by contrast, a human can make decisions based on things that aren't visibly present, and can anticipate, or decide not to react [at least not in a superficial manner] to the same stimuli. the human has control over itself.

however, we can shut that off and allow our bodies to just 'go with the flow' and i think that's a lot of what that whole rave-party thing is all about. the thrill of not knowing what's going to happen - not even knowing what's happening right now.

A control temporarily in a stronger position of someone else's capacity to control. He sways it in his favor through various means. That's work. He's working to his ends, the selfish need to sate something he WON'T control. Dexter's lack of control is glaring to the point of being a victim to his own weak will. I see nothing to admire in him. I see no strength there either. I see nothing but a helpless predator, like a rat eating bugs.

like a reptile!
he has no self control [well he does, but only so that he can continue to indulge himself] but great control over his environment.
he sports a fierce capacity for observation and calculation, and knows just the right way to move himself to elicit the desired reaction.
and not just that - his stamina is impressive as well.

sure, he's a 'predator'. he has no moral control - well... he has no morals - but he's a brilliant tactician, and that's the concern of this thread.

not to say i condone his ends, but his means... priceless.