urgency & philosophy

[Adam Blatner]

Dear Ed and others,
    This email leaves the issue of  the source of a quote,  and speaks rather to your 
perspective of urgency of ecological work.
          First, of course you're right about the time theme.
(I'm even reminded of Al Gore's interview in the recent time Magazine as the 2nd place 
person-of-the-year).

      Yet, to shift the perspective a little, your urgency and passion, while noble, also 
brings up some issues that deal with sociometry: How much worry is optimal? And might 
people choose others who share similar tolerances for the degrees of worry they "vibrate 
with"?

    From other recent issues, I've become more aware that when it comes to worry, too much 
makes me crazy, arouses my limbic system so that I can't think straight.
         I remember a funny mantra: When in trouble or in doubt, run in circles, scream 
and shout!

 Yes, a little edge, a little worry, is needed for arousing the nervous system to optimal 
engagement.
    Too little and I become complacent, drugged, un-engaged. (This is one of the pitfalls 
of drugs, alcohol, and for many, television and other pseudo-addictions and escapes.)
     There is a range that seems just right---I do my work with my skills in my area of 
interest and ability. I may stretch a bit, give a bit to this or that political cause.
        But I find myself becoming wary about associating with acquaintances or groups who 
engage in levels of worry that I find abrasive, upsetting.

         This is important, because we are exhorted by thousands of sources to do more and 
more. And there's always more to do! politically, socially, etc.
       Worse, it's often quite unclear what must be done.
              Meeting and talking about it with no particular suggestions to consider 
rarely generates truly useful solutions unless it's dealing with something very local, 
such as is one's own business (i.e., brainstorming)---and even then, no guarantee that the 
improvisations and ideas will be fruitful. Even harder if the challenge requires the 
cooperation and collaboration of scores or hundreds or thousands of groups, becomes 
national and international in scope.
         How about giving money to a cause? Which cause? How do we know they're more 
efficient than many organizations who are strikingly inefficient? And in many cases, 
throwing money at a problem may go into the hands of corrupt politicians.

     There's also the problem of recognizing and responding to how much worry can be 
tolerable. (Here's where an issue of tele comes in.) There are some social and religious 
groups that carry a higher degree of urgency--- social action oriented, missionary 
oriented, this or that cause about homosexuality, abortion, women wanting to be 
priests---whatever the issue, however you may agree or disagree with a given position, the 
point is that for some groups these concerns are accompanied by a sense of urgency and 
worry.
       Often these groups perceive other groups or people who seek more comfort and peace 
of mind to be, well, complacent, and morally deficient, worthy of being judged and 
scolded: "Stop living in denial!"
.    And perhaps for some there's more than a germ of truth: There are folks who are 
indeed complacent.
            And others are in-between:
              (I remember a blessing that goes:
                    May the Holy Spirit forever continue to comfort... and disturb... 
u.   )

        The sociometric theme is that some folks feel vulnerable for not being more noble, 
but can't handle with any comfort the degrees of worry and urgency claimed by other folks. 
It then depends on who seems to be the great majority. (Scott Adams, the Dilbert 
cartoonist, notes that in any encounter the one who is more insane tends to dominate.) So 
in a group in which the more worried ones represent maybe 30%, that will end up seeming 
like a majority to the quieter, lower-key others.

        I haven't known how to talk about this because, on reflection, I used to feel 
guilty, ashamed, vulnerable for not wanting to get too het up about certain political 
issues. I realized gradually that worrying carries a threshold---some folks find it to be 
painful when done at 40%  (at 80% it's called agitated depression and it can be one of the 
worst, hellish feelings. I tasted this once in early 2002 following a flu syndrome. 
Cleared up with SSRIs.).
       Some folks like that edge and become accustomed to and even desirous of 
entertaining worry, stress---for them it's optimal challenge. Generally that may be at, 
say, 14-20%  Others really suffer when they are preached at to worry about things at a 
level of more than 10%
      My hunch is that kids at play, really engaged, spontaneous, trying out different 
solutions, are vibrating at a level of excitement, making mistakes, feeling just an edge 
of shame and fear that their mistakes may become too much, but this keeps them alert. They 
don't want the game to be any less challenging. I put this at around 5%

I know I feel very engaged and am quite active within my own range.  But 10% starts to 
mentally, emotionally "hurt."
    So I just don't get heroic in certain ways. I can't justify not wanting to do more---I 
wonder if even saying "it hurts" makes me seem like a wuss.

    But I've come to a point of reflection where I can not only accept my limits, but 
affirm them. This applies also to some other roles in my life. I'm not going to go much 
past what Vygotsky the Russian developmental psychologist calls the ZPD, the zone of 
proximal development, the region where I can stretch a little, but not get overloaded. 
(That's the aforementioned 5%)

       Thanks for helping me look at this dynamic. I wonder if anyone else senses this 
edge of when are certain issues "too much" and when do I want to address them. I also note 
that the variable of "what precisely can I do" is a factor here. My angle is to promote 
psychological literacy in my corner of the world, and on my website, etc.

      warmly, Adam