I’m struggling to enter naivete. There’s always some fear lurking when certain topics come for discussion. I want people to depend on me so that they won’t shun but happily help me when I need them. I tend not to forego those aspects of “I” that create value in their minds. This tendency hit me badly when I was wearing a turtle neck teashirt and somebody asked me where I got it. I lied. I didn’t want him to buy clothes from a store which I painstakingly found. This wasn’t conscious reasoning: He asked me, I instinctively lied. I am rarely malicious, but frequently self-protective. Self-protectiveness doesn’t help naivete.
People value me for what I can provide them. So I don’t want to lose my value for it has practical repercussions. This makes me play social games. But this tendency meddles with entering naivete.
Any suggestions please.
I would recommend to investigate deeper into this with the goal of eventually separating what is factual and what is a belief. It would be my guess that a lot of these ‘practical repercussions’ might not be as set in stone as you believe.
I remember whenever I questioned and contemplated eventually stepping out of a certain boundary under which I was living my life, there was always this fear that my life will actually fall apart, that there will be serious, actual consequences. So far every single one of those fears ended up being a furphy, those terrible consequences never came to fruition.
What did happen though is that interacting with people became easier, more straightforward, more practical and happy.
The problem seems that whenever we contemplate giving up the ‘good’ (in this instance providing value), we habitually jump to the ‘bad’,with images of being a loner, not getting on with anyone, saying fuck you to the whole world and the world saying it back to you.
But the goal is to find the third alternative, and there is an answer that is even better than merely providing value out of fear of being a no one.
When it comes to rational fears, can we separate facts from beliefs? What we refere to as beliefs is nothing but our world-view: how the world operates. Irrational beliefs(like religious or metaphysical) can be dispensed with when there’s no evidence to support them. But when our experience tells us you won’t be valued unless you provide value to people, which is basically the unwritten contract under which everyone in a society operates, how can I not act against it? It’s like I’m acting against my whole being. Fear prompts to secure ourselves. I can fool myself that I’m merely being cautious and acting what practically works, but that’s undergirded by fear.
Just in case, any one or two fears of yours turned out to be true, say you went poor, would you risk not securing yourself for future?
Hi Kiman
As geoffrey suggested, try the method on small scales ( don’t start with big major issues), and build confidence, then slowly move to bigger and bigger situation.
For example: how about looking for ( allowing naivete in ) it, when you are already feeling good and in a
familiar and safe surroundings.
Also note that actualism is not about solving Specific Issues, it is much broader and nonlinear as well.
There is, beating in the psychic heart of everyone, another whole set of rules.
The normal “dog eat dog” rules don’t apply there.
This is where you sink or swim.
I think that sociopaths get away with subverting the normal rules because there is another whole set of rules which we have generally zero skill in.
Richard became an artist. His eccentric personality was disguised in the persona of being an artist. Socially, there are hidden rooms which can be navigated.
In your example of the turtle neck, one is protecting a certain persona projected by a certain look. However, the ‘other set of rules’ determines who embodied the persona.
For example, Jimi Hendrix had both a persona and skills which no matter how anyone tried to copy, they failed. Because he WAS that person.
Being the artist, is being the artist. If the turtle neck comes from that place of “being that” it’s not possible to copy.
What a true artist puts out, is like the fallen flowers of a frangipani tree. People will stop and pick them up, but they can’t produce these flowers.
Projecting a persona which isn’t a genuine expression will be riddled with fear. Like picking up frangipani flowers and watching them dry out. Being the artist is like being the tree; there is no fear because there are plenty more flowers where they came from.
What I am exploring in this thought, is that there is a level of genuine expression that people try to copy, but can’t.
They will however try. And that is 95% of human efforts. Trying to be the ones they admire.
I mentioned sociopaths because, however destructive that mode of being is, they are not trying to be it. It’s natural.
The reason I am not a successful artist is because I was trying to be someone else. I had the talent, but played the game at the superficial level. And I knew it too.
I see it all the time in the work place as well. People protecting what they think is the reason they will succeed, ignoring the real reason people will follow.
You write poetically, Andrew, haha.
Some are naturally gifted in terms of entertaining people or accruing a vast social network and everybody wants to be fraandz with them. Their social needs(not the need to socialize, which I am not a fan of, but others finding them valuable and therefore willing to helping them out in general or in times of adversities) are easily met. Others earn that value by self-abuse(trying to “gain” social network, doing high-paying jobs that they don’t like etc.). Those who are naturally gifted don’t naturally bother about it, but those who are not have this lingering fear that they will be shunned if they don’t holdback the secrets of what others find valuable.
Wealthy people don’t give away wealth although they don’t use most of it is for the same reason–it’s a value signal.
Right, so you are at the root of this particular fear.
You don’t feel you have any genuine expression, (which is not really true), so what you have found in the turtle neck look, you want to protect it.
An old Jewish proverb; the weath of the rich man prevents sleep, but the labourer slumbers peacefully.
Meaning, if we are the genuine “means of production” we have no fear of losing anything.
If something is an expression of your artistry, there will be another set of rules applying to you. Every single friend you have could wear a turtle neck tomorrow, but only the one who is that artist will rock it.
Personally, I couldn’t wear in public what I would like. I would be in full tactical Camo, with pockets everywhere and every gadget under the sun. 
It is important to thinks these things through to their final conclusion. There is a chance that you may loose everybody, loose all you have, loose all that’s important to you. Thinking things through may be scary, but the moment you do you can meet your greatest fears and experiance them intimately. In most cases you can see that they are irrational at the very end.
When it’s all said and done, a free, intelligent and benevolent human organism wouldn’t make foolish things. When you are really happy, harmless and carefree, do you act foolishly?
Normally you find the best solutions to all given circumstances. It just works, effortlessly.
In regards to naivity: Naivity can not be “activated” just like that in my experiance. There are several (mostly conditioned) layers on top of it, sharing the same space so to speak. Naivity cannot move under all this rubble.
I really had to look at: cynisism, pessimism, sarcasm and especially into smart-ass fake scepticism. I had to actively face and remove this layers before naivity could even have a chance to shine. I could rekindle it, but the rubble would always stop it dead in it’s tracks.
I even had to inform myself about every aspect of these traits. I went into Wikipedia pages to learn about them and understand them correctly. But that’s just me 
Suppose I’m scared of heights, and I face that fear by climbing heights like going to terraces of high rises, then I’ll know that fear is a phantom. Because I will clearly know what I fear hasn’t happened. I can repeat the exercise and see it for myself to confirm.
But when it comes to social fears, I won’t know the effects of not maintaining my value. They aren’t clear. Actually, I know losing social value means gradually losing the benefits it’ll accord. The only way out of this conundrum seems to be is being okay with losing social value, which means if I need any help from somebody, I will likely not get it. As someone who lives in society, I atleast need doctors, govt officials, attorneys, police, plumbers, electricians, carpenters etc. It makes life easy. And I’ll get to know about how society works at a deeper level. People will show interest in interacting with me, which will help me understand myself better. People will not dare to mess with me. There are so many benefits to having a social value. I will lose them all if it gives me naivete, but that is not known. And I also don’t know if I have to lose them, but it appears to me from pce/ee that it is the only obstacle. But social value is such that once lost is difficult to gain back. For example, if I don’t take steps to earn a lot of money now, it’ll be very difficult later. The advantage and leverage of compounding of money and accrued knowledge will not be there even if I want to earn in future. Likewise, women don’t disclose their grooming and make-up secrets for the same reason; They want to maintain their distinct advantage.
I don’t neet validation from others at all. I don’t judge or emotionally evaluate people based on their status or wealth or some metric. Yet I feel I should signal social value. And that summons “self” into existence, the more I feel the need for it, the more often it’ll appear. Actually, instead of trying to act optimally(evaluating whether a certain thing is needed or not, like disclosing about the clothes store in the above case), it seems to better have a blanket defensive response(not disclosing in all cases where I feel there’s a threat to my social value) and not feel bad or pressured about it, and continue with my getting back to happiness. If I can pull that off, it’s a win-win.
With that approach, can I still enter naivete?
The question is, what do I do if I am not the genuine means of production?
Should I learn guitar or some other fad skill with an underlying goal to impress others?
To be okay with loosing social value isn’t the same as loosing social value. It’s really not about loosing social value but understanding social values on a deeper level. Understanding social values on a deeper lever means not believing in social values. From this position you can choose which values to “honor” and which not aka paying “lip service.”
In one scenario you are driven to perform, in the other you freely choose to perform or not.
Here common sense, a freed intelligence comes in. You wouldn’t do something silly aka akt foolishly.
Ya exactly as Elgin says. You don’t have to lose them. If it’s sensible to keep them then you do. But you won’t be “in the thick of it”. You won’t feel compelled to maintain it. You won’t feel afraid of losing it.
I think part of an obstacle here can be that it feels like being a fraud , to “not believe” in the social values but to maintain them. Like you’re play-acting. Aren’t I suppose to be ‘true to myself’? If I don’t believe in the value, shouldn’t I loudly proclaim this to anyone who would say? Shouldn’t I point out in all interaction how silly they are being?
That may be being ‘authentic’ in once sense of the word… but it’s very silly. You won’t convince anyone and you’ll just hurt yourself. So part of this is being okay with “going along” with the social values, even while not believing in it anymore. And indeed it’s just a ‘belief’ or yet another ‘social value’ that I would be being a ‘fraud’ doing this. Why not use sensible intelligence to determine what to do in each circumstance? Anything else is what is silly.
In the case of the turtle neck, you spent considerable time shopping for this item. It cost you time and money and, at least in your mind, affords you some social value.
The conundrum rose when others wanted to know where you got it, and you felt compelled to lie.
So the dilemma isn’t really about social value, it’s about lying.
Is it wrong to lie?
Breaking it down, why would another ask you where you got it if it hadn’t had the effect you imagined? It did look good. Looks are 90% of most social interactions. So, in the social economy of value, you were being asked to give away your “means of production” for free. You did the research, spent your most valuable asset (time) and this joker wants the benefits for free.
You owe them nothing. They want to gain social value for zero effort. So, can the answer to their question be phrased in a way which preserves your integrity whilst protecting your social value advantage?
You could answer “I picked it up online” then change the topic. Maybe counter question where they got their jeans. Deflection works.
The question “should I learn guitar to increase social value?” I would say yes. Do it. Because whatever value one thinks is on offer with instruments, there is the actual value of music and artistic expression. My favourite guitarists are those who just picked it up in front of me and start creating without a shred of theory. It’s fantastic.
So, with zero skill, you would have social value to me, at least for the first ten minutes of listening to you discover how to make pleasing sounds with it.
It reminds me of the movie “Yes Man” with Jim Carrey. It’s the engagement with life, the animation of exploring and saying “yes” which brings both social value and actual enjoyment.
I really like what has been discussed elsewhere recently, that you can persue anything, but enjoy and appreciate it, happy and harmless.
A lot of the worrying comes from belief in scarcity. That you couldn’t possibly have any other value than the turtle neck. Or guitar. Or whatever.
The fountain is valued for the spring that feeds it. Be the artist. The skillful shopper of turtle necks. The artful conversationalist who can intrigue without lying. The liar who intends no harm.
What have you harmed if you lied in this scenario? Nothing.
Further, I don’t think the issue is social value, rather whether giving something away for free is sensible.
It’s a Christian value to give away for free what cost you something. To go the extra mile, give the coat off your back. Christianity has proven itself to be an absolute failure. So with all the values of looking after others at the expense of oneself.
I am preaching to myself here. It’s good to contemplate these things, as I have many of these concerns.
Why isn’t there an emoji for fire here, haha
No, and the problem is not about lying. The problem is about self-centeredness which interferes with inducing naivete or rather naivete sneaking up on me. When there’s no guilt, or any emotion, there’s no “self”. Yet, I feel self emerging, making its presence with hesitation, “shall I disclose, what disadvantages do I see. What if I miss some factor in my evaluation. Okay, let’s err on the sode of caution.” The few moments of ambiguity, the waking up of self-protective mechanism is the self.
Do you remember Vineeto saying, in virtual freedom decisions are made considering well-being of all people in the frame/situation?
Also from Vineeto:"…it is easy to assess one’s happiness by checking if I am feeling happy whereas many people may feel themselves to be harmless when they are not experiencing feelings of aggression or anger against somebody. Yet they are nevertheless causing harm via their thoughtless ‘self’-oriented instinctual feelings and actions, something that all human beings are prone to do unless they become fully aware of their instinctual passions *before * these translate into vibes and/or actions.
cloak of myopic ‘self’-centredness began to lift and I no longer saw the world only ‘my’ way and my judgments and actions no longer revolved around ‘my’ interests, ‘my’ beliefs, ‘my’ ideas, ‘my’ ideals, ‘my’ fears, ‘my’ desires and ‘my’ aversions. Consequently I have learnt to judge harmlessness by the amount of parity and consideration I apply to others whom I come in contact with, both at work and at play, and not by merely feeling myself to be harmless."
Consider the following as a side remark.
I think you are being reactive from the pain that moral indoctrination caused you.
And what is considered harm by society and law is distorted.
Let’s say you are driving by an accident scene. The motorist is lying in a pool of blood on the road side. Would you stop by and admit in the hospital or just give a glance at the scene and drive ahead?
What’s wrong if you do the latter? Nothing.
Harm is not just creating damage or pain for others but also not alleviating pain of others even if it’s well within our limits. If we don’t do it, we are being indifferent or numbed ourselves to others’ pain. Not that it is wrong, we are not talking on those terms, but that’s the fact, isn’t it?
Well, those are good points, and you are probably correct about the moral indoctrination on my part.
The hypothetical car accident is interesting.
I would stop. However, having been trained a few times in first aid, I would be very careful. The first rule of first aid is to ensure one’s own safety. That includes pools of strangers blood.
I completely agree that being indifferent or numbed to the pain of others isn’t harmless. It’s potentially callous. I wouldn’t go so far as to say I was harming the person on the side of the road though. Where would one draw the line on that?
Should I give mouth to mouth CPR? It could save their life, but it could also kill me. There are still around 1500 deaths from HIV per year in Australia, not to mention a whole swath of other diseases.
I would think it’s sensible to help anyone out in that situation, as I would want other to help and indeed I have been in that situation ( on the side of the road after a flipping my car on the freeway at 18 years old. Disorrientated,I was walking back onto the freeway to pick up pieces of my car, until the people who had stopped to help made me sit down and called the ambulance. Again, recently in May this year, I broke my collar bone coming off my motorcycle, and someone stopped to check I was ok).
I like the Vineeto quote. The consideration of all involved, includes oneself.