2024-08-26
When dealing in self-improvement, how much is aesthetic and how much is more genuine? To complicate matters, is the aesthetic aspect of it also genuine?
For instance, I have begun to change the way I dress. I in my day-to-day life now most often wear a button-up shirt and jeans, which is an improvement over what I used to wear, tracksuit bottoms and a T-shirt. My current dress I feel helps me to look a lot better compared to how I was. Is this not just aesthetic though? Does it signal a genuine improvement?
In a way, I think it does. I have begun to put more attention into my appearance, which could be vanity in a way (and I do worry whether focussing on my appearance is not just vanity), but it is a part of a wider project to improve my character more holistically, and so is not purely aesthetic. In this way, it could be argued that the aesthetic portion of the change is merely a visual representation of the inner change that is (hopefully) co-occurring. I suppose I would be the only one to argue this, given that I'm the only one talking here.
The quote-unquote genuine aspect of it is what? I would say likely it is the improvement to my character, which entails the overcoming of ingrained sins (habitual vice) and the building of skills which I have heretofore neglected, for instance my physical ability (via the gym), my social ability (talking to people), etc.
What then I would define as the more aesthetic aspect is strictly that relating to my appearance, namely, the maintenance of my hair (both head and facial hair), the wearing of good clothes, the use of good perfume (I think the term for a male is different here, though in essence it's the same stuff), etc.
There is an intersection of both of these in those things that are both visually represented and are actually behaviour, not mere look. For instance, good social ability (ability to laugh, quick wit, etc.) are all both visually represented (i.e. they can be seen) and are aspects not of mere look but also of character.
As stated, I believe, if the improvement is to be holistic, an aspect of this is, in a way which is not vain or excessive, to put adequate focus into one's appearance. It would also benefit to do this, as people may be kinder socially, and thereby social ability can be improved also. As such, I have no real need to try to deprioritise visual matters, but instead should likely deal with the visual matters first of all so as to have these "sorted", in a way. Now that I wear nice clothes, it is no skin off my back whatsoever to apply this, and I end up consistently looking better than I otherwise would if I would not have put the initial investment into my clothes.
All aspects of it are genuine and can be a part of a holistic self-improvement, then. However, neither one can be used to in itself justify deprioritising the other, I suppose. Well, there will always be an aspect of deprioritisation.
I have heard the advice to 'flirt with the world' from I think one of Chris Williamson's podcasts, in the sense of, it is good, when trying to improve social ability, to "flirt with" (socialise, joke about with) everyone. I think it's good, and actually what I enjoy to do anyways. I really don't like to adopt the city attitude where you walk past people without interacting. When I went to Cheddar, seeing that sort of thing in a rural place depressed me thoroughly. I think flirting with the world is normally used when trying to find dates, as a way to say, be social with everyone and dates will soon come naturally without particularly trying, which I think is true, but really I guess it has the main effect of meaning that you end up talking to a lot of people, which is fun!
I used to (I'm switching between topics again because I am not able to maintain a single topic for a single wv anymore it seems) think that, because I was an introvert (so I would self-designate) I was naturally to be in the state of not wanting to talk to people. I was always a little unsure of it, though, and was partly self aware that it was self-confirmation into the state (I managed once to self-confirm myself into not being able to see) which is clearly quite potent - girls nowadays can give themselves Tourette's in this way - but always gave myself the out of saying it could be ambiversion. In a way, I think knowledge of these terms, especially as a teenager, is dangerous in a way, as it allows for confirmation of what may only be a small predilection into a general state, or for the small and managed to become larger and unmanageable. Learnt helplessness, of a sort. I think, in the same way, the proliferation of transgender terminology - whilst certainly good for those who suffer from it - is bad for others, as slight tendencies (even, a slight feminine tendency in a young boy, for instance) can be exaggerated in this way, and become larger than they ought be. A too-intricate knowledge of introversion and associated terms had a similar effect on me as a teenager.
I now, well, really don't think about it, and haven't done for a long while, but wouldn't call myself an introvert anymore. I enjoy talking with people, and don't particularly see use in the "social battery" analogy. Perhaps it works for some, but I had largely self-confirmed myself into it being true, where it wasn't actually. I'm not sure "self-confirm" is the right word, but you catch my drift.
For all things, really, it seems affixing a label to it does more harm than anything else. I've heard "don't be a writer; write" before, which is of a similar vein. To be a writer is a label that will bring with it other maladies; to write is simply to write. I write, often, in terms of my journal, and this wv thing I've begun, and try here and there to write poetry or whatever (not often, not much) but am certainly not a writer. I feel a certain malaise when others affix to me a label I would not otherwise, even when people say I am fluent in German (I'm not; I am just quite good at it, for a foreign language). Each label seems to bring with it something in excess of the representation itself, and seems to force itself upon itself, or reinforce the connotation, so to speak, bringing about an exaggerated form of itself, or a form devoid of those aspects foreign to itself. To call myself introverted is to reinforce those aspects which are introverted (or coordinate or related to introversion, e.g. mere shyness, or asociality) and to strip away those aspects of my character which are not in line with the self-ascribed label. If that makes sense. There is likely a healthier way to interact with labels, but I find they have a tendency, if given first, or given not in face of the evidence, or if assuming an existence in and of themselves and not as a mere verbal representation of the state of things, to be maleficent.
Perhaps any nonconcrete thing which assumes an existence in and of itself, assumed a priori, almost, without instead being conditioned by and subjected and subordinate to a truer "state of things" is bad in some sense. If I could still philosophise, I would delve into this, but as it stands, and as I've reiterated now several times, I can't philosophise anymore! So I can't go into it.
(Well, really, it is just because it's half nine and I want to go to bed.)
Have a good one.