Non-Conformity...

ren wrote:

it takes far more genius to operate creatively and uniquely within a defined framework.

Unique and creative people, whether they pretend to be conformist or not, are not conformists. You can't both be unique and like everyone else, you can't create something new which is somewhat also usual.

Brenna (and her friend) form an interesting point, ren.

Why are unique and creative people not capable of conforming or being labeled as such? If the choices of “the unique” were to mirror those of “the average” within a defined framework, are they still not the same choices in and of themselves? Choices which align and are essentially the same? Choices which, after allowing retention of our essence, perspective and experiences, prove that we can be both unique/creative and conforming simultaneously?

I believe the above is the polar opposite of what Alexandre Orion described as partial conformity.

Alexandre Orion wrote: .
We do have to conform in part ; all levels of social organisation depend on it. Likewise, all levels of social organisation depend on a little non-conformity too, without which we would have an arrested culture. And that non-conformity has to penetrate all of the social dimensions : the arts, religions, sciences, politics, philosophy &c. But even that non-conformity, which assuredly meets with resistance, has to remain recognisable, it must remain at least marginally within the scope of not only what people know, but also what they are comfortable with. In other words, non-conformity has limits.

Where maintaining a bit of ourselves throughout the conforming process, making it a partial conformity, is paramount to our overall endurance as unqiue and creative beings.

More interestingly, if all humans chose to be “unique and creative” then wouldn’t that social collection of peoples serve as the grandest version of conformity itself? At which point, a partial conformity could still exist for this ultimate conformity and poses limitations in the same regard as non-conformity. Thoughts on this?

It may be possible to be both unique and creative while actively choosing a path of conforming or non-conformity. Maintaining our selves as the isolated variations of the social structures we inhabit, while sharing likenesses and commonalities with those among us – partial conformity.

As Brenna stated, there is value in being comfortable with both. By embracing both we become aware of the time and place for which one may (or must) conform.

Make Good Choices,
Acheron

Why are unique and creative people not capable of conforming or being labeled as such? If the choices of “the unique” were to mirror those of “the average” within a defined framework, are they still not the same choices in and of themselves? Choices which align and are essentially the same? Choices which, after allowing retention of our essence, perspective and experiences, prove that we can be both unique/creative and conforming simultaneously?

I do think that it is possible for someone to "invent" something that someone else also previously "invented", without anyone copying anyone else. Which means these people, whilst being identical (in their invention), are still creative... Although I wonder if in this instance they can still qualify as "unique" (And this implies that maybe nothing is actually unique).
I do not think however that it implies they are conforming with anyone. they retain their essence, perspective, and experiences, and this implies that in one way or another, they also are very much like someone else, but not that they are conforming.

To me conforming is a decision (conscious or not) to choose the easy path. Tell people what they want to hear, because it's easier. Show them what they want to see, because it's easier.
If you want to make a movie (you have an idea you think is brilliant, it even has a message and everything), you have two options:
-Take a risk and do it the way you like. If you're lucky someone else thinks you're right and they also happen to have money. You get to make your movie, it'll be a flop, but you get to be seen as a genius/visionary years after your death.
-Don't take a risk and do it the way the producers like, who like it the way the vast majority of people like it. It'll be average, but people will pay for it and you'll get paid for it.

It all depends on what you seek really... Either way George Lucas actually makes a good example of a conformist who got lucky. The hero's journey is pretty standard, and Star Wars appears to be creative by making sci-fi out of old mythology... Except mythology is also sci-fi, but with "old science". Because the nature of science makes it endlessly age as knowledge/theories/technology refine overtime, what he did was in fact nothing new, something which increasingly became obvious as more Star Wars movies got released... With the exception of episode 5, the better movie, which also happens to be the one that concentrates on giving depth to the story and the characters, instead or selling a repackaged version of a best-selling product, not to mention Yoda's teachings, which are the reason why we're here...
We could of course argue that Lucas managed to tell the message he wanted to send (such as Yoda's teachings) and aptly used the hero's journey to send it.... Except Yoda's teaching's aren't Lucas' message, he doesn't believe in it and doesn't care about it, making him a conformist who got lucky, not someone who used a medium (film) to express himself.

That's the trouble with hollywood...if the non-traditional(non-conformist) film maker takes the risk and is successful everyone copies the original idea until it becomes the new norm...making non conformity into conformity....

Look at the "found footage" method of filming...14 years ago it was innovative(for a hollywood movie), now it's typical...

RyuJin wrote: That's the trouble with hollywood...if the non-traditional(non-conformist) film maker takes the risk and is successful everyone copies the original idea until it becomes the new norm...making non conformity into conformity....

Look at the "found footage" method of filming...14 years ago it was innovative(for a hollywood movie), now it's typical...

If it ain't broke.... ?

(Edit:... that's not a comment about what I think of 'found footage' films...)

lol


The thing is, found footage was always conformist. It conformed to the type of videos everyone who's ever owned a camcorder took. The style is a bad copy of a bad copy of film.

ren wrote: I do think that it is possible for someone to "invent" something that someone else also previously "invented", without anyone copying anyone else. Which means these people, whilst being identical (in their invention), are still creative... Although I wonder if in this instance they can still qualify as "unique" (And this implies that maybe nothing is actually unique).
I do not think however that it implies they are conforming with anyone. they retain their essence, perspective, and experiences, and this implies that in one way or another, they also are very much like someone else, but not that they are conforming.

To me conforming is a decision (conscious or not) to choose the easy path. Tell people what they want to hear, because it's easier. Show them what they want to see, because it's easier.
.

An Interesting perspective. I appreciate your response, ren.

Would you liken conformity to actively/passively (or thought of another way; directly/indirectly) choosing the path of least resistance?

Discussing a little more on uniqueness of character - if a person were to passively/indirectly choose the path of least resistance, thus conforming, would that also mean that a passive conformity is an active sacrifice of the application of essence, perspective and experience of the individual (said another way, if we fail to apply ourselves fully in the moment by making passive choices pro-conformity, does it then disqualify our ability to retain our unique stature?...tailing on your comment regarding "maybe nothing is actually unique").

Conversely, if actively/directly pursuing choices which lead to conformity while still following the path of least resistance, would these choices not then elevate our unique sense of character by way of directl application of intentions; which in themselves consist of our experience, perspective and overall essence?

Your thoughts?

And thank you for your previous elaborations.

-Acheron

Would you liken conformity to actively/passively (or thought of another way; directly/indirectly) choosing the path of least resistance?

Yes, I think so.
http://www.simplypsychology.org/conformity.html

Discussing a little more on uniqueness of character - if a person were to passively/indirectly choose the path of least resistance, thus conforming, would that also mean that a passive conformity is an active sacrifice of the application of essence, perspective and experience of the individual (said another way, if we fail to apply ourselves fully in the moment by making passive choices pro-conformity, does it then disqualify our ability to retain our unique stature?...tailing on your comment regarding "maybe nothing is actually unique").

To be honest I'm thinking some people may be in fact genuine by being conformist... It would seem some simply are incapable of thought without a social influence to conform to. What I meant by "maybe nothing's actually unique" is that the likeliness that what makes us who we are (our thoughts, actions, etc) does not exist in any other time or place seems very low.
To go back to conformism and esssence, I think it may be that some people cannot have their own essence and simply have a "share " of "group essence".



(Are you existentialist?)

A thought came to mind...

To be, or not to be...that, IS the question...whether 'tis nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to go quietly...

Conformity or non conformity, which will it be? Is it better to not conform and suffer the effects of social ostracism, or to conform peacefully...

RyuJin wrote: A thought came to mind...

To be, or not to be...that, IS the question...whether 'tis nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to go quietly...

Conformity or non conformity, which will it be? Is it better to not conform and suffer the effects of social ostracism, or to conform peacefully...

So are you comparing conformity to death? More specifically suicide? (Given my understanding of Hamlet that is what he was contemplating doing there)

I do, however, like how you did that.

And, just so I understand what exactly we're talking about, when we say conformity are we addressing conformity for the sake of conformity or acting along with the norm simply because that is who we are? I guess I'm asking if we are looking down on those who maybe seem to be conforming when in reality they just happen to also like the thing that is the norm? Example: Was it wrong to like Pokemon as a child because everyone else did even if you genuinely enjoyed them too?

To me true conformity is choosing to accept and embrace a change willingly, making it part of who you are(being true to yourself), conforming just to fit in and not accepting/embracing the change willingly is not being true to yourself, which can be seen as a form of suicide...

I know a part of me dies each time I'm forced to follow...

In truth though that thought just popped into my head out of the blue, I typed it up without even analyzing it and only read it after submitting it...funny how that happens sometimes...