Critical Comfort Zone Theory

a reply to: Boadicea

To be clear, I am not against the section just for girls. I just think there should have been an offering for boys too. Either one section for each or two quarters for girls and two quarters for boys.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Boadicea

To be clear, I am not against the section just for girls. I just think there should have been an offering for boys too. Either one section for each or two quarters for girls and two quarters for boys.

When you say you're okay with a section for girls, as you saying that you're okay with girl-only classes and boy-only classes? Do you see a need/benefit for sex-segregated classes? Or you're okay with it just as a want?

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Boadicea

To be clear, I am not against the section just for girls. I just think there should have been an offering for boys too. Either one section for each or two quarters for girls and two quarters for boys.

When you say you're okay with a section for girls, as you saying that you're okay with girl-only classes and boy-only classes? Do you see a need/benefit for sex-segregated classes? Or you're okay with it just as a want?

If the operative premise is that there are a small number of girls who might sign up but won't because so many boys will also be there, then let them have a class that is just girls to try to ease them over the intimidation factor and get their feet wet. So long as there is equal treatment for the boys, I don't see a problem.

I also think that it would allow the subject to be explored relevant to topics that might be more interesting to boys and girls. This would be like what LEGO did. They discovered when studying girls that they would build with LEGO, but the focus was less on the building and more on playing with what they built afterward, so when LEGO made sets for girls, they did so with this idea in mind.

Like having a gym class for boys and one for girls.

Once you have them hooked, then you integrate them later on. It's a bit like track and cross country were in junior high. They were more divided at that age, but in high school, it was mostly one practice at the same time. We still only practiced against other girls when it came to our running work, but for event work, you might be a mixed group of girls and boys working technique at the same time since the techniques are the same.

a reply to: RAY1990

but the individual can only truly be a part of "the wave" by actually living it.

I think you vision this very nicely Ray. ''The Wave''. I see this, like you mention, as largely generational. More that, as I see it, attuned to that period in which a person emerges into the larger world, or grows out of that period of their lives when their parents tastes and mores are either left behind or expanded upon. That whole new world of maturation. The music scene, the art scene, the cultural word they emerge into, defined by place and time

You say, experience it by living it. That's right. I think these waves might generally last five to seven years, from emergence as the new, for a new batch of people emerge from their childhood cocoons into the work world where the grind begins and the comforts and exileration of that period are then relied upon to help people continue to feel the mental freedom of that period. Then of course other musics emerge for the next waves that sweep across the youth, one after another after another.

What might have been at one time generational, has now become decade long waves with the increased pace of change being pushed by the economic drive of selling the ''new'' to those most ready for the ''new'' those young people looking for their own identity....

kinda ironic, seeing how conservative beliefs are all based on the fear of change and doing whatever necessary to prevent change. afraid to leave your comfort zone and accept others, being jerks to everyone and wondering why they are so rebellious and trying to change everything.

a reply to: ketsuko

Thank you for expanding.

I like your thought process here.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

It's not a natural social evolution though is it?

I'd say it breeds extremism this direction we've took, comfort theory supports this which makes me consider who is pigeonholing generations like this. I chose the word pigeon hole because each generation often cuts themselves off from others and that phenomena is accelerating imo.

Music is a great example of cultural drive. Maybe they were right back when about rock & roll being the devil's work. But if I trace back am I to blame the blues, classical or maybe the choir? Maybe we should be rid of music altogether... There's some who would like that.

It would be nice to find the thing to blame, economics is just well placed people taking advantage of an opportunity. I think, most of the time anyways. It could just be as simple as every generation intuitively knows something is wrong and seek changes but basic desires, wants and needs get in the way.

Tears for fears... Everybody wanted to change the world, kids change people. Then people change the future? Something like that.

a reply to: RAY1990

Music is a great example of cultural drive. Maybe they were right back when about rock & roll being the devil's work. But if I trace back am I to blame the blues, classical or maybe the choir? Maybe we should be rid of music altogether... There's some who would like that.

I track the thinking here Ray. Right about the press of conservatism against rock and roll. And chase that back to it's roots in blues. Back and back. State sanctioned music in the Christian era was at first only allowed if it was in praise of God. Same with art. No art unless it was picturing Biblical stories and characters. Anything else was of the devil, you know like graven images and such.

Though I see these patterns I don't hold with those, ah, historical assumptions, rather put it up to more current understandings of our human nature, for one, the manner in which out OP has laid out his idea of comfort zones.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Though I see these patterns I don't hold with those, ah, historical assumptions, rather put it up to more current understandings of our human nature, for one, the manner in which out OP has laid out his idea of comfort zones.

It's why I mentioned child rearing which in my eyes seems to be the catalyst for stability rather than change. Before that people tend to want change a lot more, or is it a lack of wanting the same?

There's so many angles to cover really depending on how far back we want to dig. The age of enlightenment and access to education comes to mind too since people generally have kids later in life when they're educated.That age brought understanding too, we owe a lot to those who dared act and think differently. Maybe even our downfall?

I see religion as a tool of fear historically, comfortable for some and a hindrance for the majority in the way it was utilised. I say this because it often blocks perception whilst demanding monocultures. I find it ironic and I see religions as "new scaffolding" to build things which can often neglect the scaffolding we're born with that's in place to build our own temples, I suspect we all have emotional scaffolding anyways.

What I mean by that is the wants and desires that demand us to exit our comfort zones so that we continue to grow and build instead of becoming static. Idk, I'm poorly explaining how religion, education or even the human condition can be perfect tools for challenging ourselves but they're usually used against people to keep them comfortable. We can examine life all we want but in the end it's always the same things that make us content.

I guess I could've made along post short by simply giving my definition of a natural human life line compared to the many artificial ones we've experimented with over the millennia, it's all the same to me in the end imo.

a reply to: RAY1990

I wish we all could have speculative conversations, you know, where the brain stimulus achieved though listening to the thoughts of another? I'ts difficult on line as most posting seem to be sermons or lectures or ''see how much more I know than you.''

I'm poorly explaining how religion, education or even the human condition can be perfect tools for challenging ourselves but they're usually used against people to keep them comfortable.

But I plucked this out of your last post. This interests me. I think some people build structures for themselves. It shows and other people see it. Would that everyone who sees another's structure would build their own as well, but i'ts my observation that this is not what happens. Rather, to a large degree people adopt that structure designed by the first person and the next thing we have is the development of belief systems, beliefs built upon ''interpretation'' rather than on direct experience. Over time, this turns into religions where that structure becomes a prison rather than a building and growing structure as it was originally. Does that make any sense?

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Maybe I speculate too much... When nothing is true anything is possible.

Does that make any sense?

Yes, to be deterministic I'd say nothings original, I'd also say it saves a lot of time borrowing designs from another and since nothings original there's a high chance any design would be a mirror image of another's at some point anyways. The human brain in action I'd assume. I'd also assume this brings a strong potential to ignore homegrown wants and desires. To speak metaphorically we tend to take the short paths in life. I see that in all walks of life too, a bit like learning Vs being taught in a world where time is essential.

Looking at human history I get the sense we can all learn the same things via wants and desires, those are spurred by the emotional system and that's why I say we're born with a scaffold anyways. People capable of ignoring the world around them and getting on with it are akin to meteors burning their own light in the sky whilst the rest of us are merely satellites reflecting some light.

I wish we all could have speculative conversations, you know, where the brain stimulus achieved though listening to the thoughts of another? I'ts difficult on line as most posting seem to be sermons or lectures or ''see how much more I know than you.''

I know what you mean, I try but I sometimes find myself drifting into "clever clogs" territory and I really know nothing. The only way I find out how clueless I am is by interacting with others, I do know that interaction is best done with a smudging of kindness though. I don't consider anyone "different" just their works.

originally posted by: namehere
kinda ironic, seeing how conservative beliefs are all based on the fear of change and doing whatever necessary to prevent change. afraid to leave your comfort zone and accept others, being jerks to everyone and wondering why they are so rebellious and trying to change everything.

I have no idea at all why no one wants to do what you say ...

a reply to: RAY1990

Yes, to be deterministic I'd say nothings original, I'd also say it saves a lot of time borrowing designs from another and since nothings original there's a high chance any design would be a mirror image of another's at some point anyways.

Aye, and there's the rub innit. All those philosophers from all over from all times putting out their notions and from those notions structures get built by their students and on and on. But when it comes down to it, who knows really

In studying deterministic philosophies and sciences, a pretty good case is made for it being the bottom line, that all we think to be otherwise is just illusion built into the threads of chaos woven into a hopeful fabric of order. Determinism holds a lot of weight for me, yet, still I suspect that that deterministic aspect of existence is merely a structure so deep yet only that, a structure itself leaving who knows how much potential for whatever else might be beyond it's punishing presence.

Me, I"m basically an old existentialist, on the hunt for that which is beyond determinism. It's a hard investigation yet here is a story for you that I hold with. I"m a swimmer. In all my swimming and watching swimming I"ve seen the basic strokes . There, free style, back stroke, crawl, breast stroke, side stroke etc. In light of this, these strokes that have been around for ages, I have invented my own stroke. I call it the ''crawdad''. It involves swimming backwards using my legs as if there were doing the breast stroke. Totally non-intuitive.

After possibly millions of ''kicks'' my legs had performed this one was very difficult to achieve. It took me weeks of practice everyday to impliment so that even this strange kick would become a structure I could depend on. I"ve been doing it for about ten years now and only one other person has tried it but then gave up. It may be that I may be the only person inthe world that can do it. Maybe not, but maybe. But it dosen't matter, the thing is I developed it with no input from having ever seen it or having heard of it. It came from my wondering if there might be another stoke to create.

So is there some deep structure of being that deterministically spurred me into this? Some desire to be one of a kind? Maybe and maybe not. OK Ray, that's enough for me now. Your turn.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

So is there some deep structure of being that deterministically spurred me into this? Some desire to be one of a kind? Maybe and maybe not. OK Ray, that's enough for me now. Your turn.

I can't say, I have a story about running... I was fast when younger and the main reason for it was technique. I figured out 2 things, 1 was the inefficiency of shoes and the other was the efficiency of toes. What I developed was something akin to the way Raramuri runners do it. When realising the technique I developed wasn't new it didn't depress me, quite the opposite actually and it was years later I found out it ain't nothing new.

The only reason I figured something out was to impress a girl and I can't say exactly where my thoughts at the time came from, desire fits the bill well. I'd say there's some parallels in the our stories but the big difference is a thought came to me that I was practicing within 10 minutes to great success but wasn't new... You developed something. Thinking on the theme of the thread a lack of comfort definitely spurred my experience, was it the same for you or a case of just wanting something different?

I'm glad you found something that fits your personal ethos, looking back I did too. Behind the scenes I don't have the foggiest what actually makes determinism tick, I have suspicions that the influences we have on each other runs deeper than I can fathom.

Me, I"m basically an old existentialist, on the hunt for that which is beyond determinism.

There's plenty out there I'd say but it requires a sense of awareness that goes against the grain. I'd also say there's an issue with those levels of awareness too. Once we see something differently it's hard to resort back to the acceptable definitions which can be a highly problematic situation to be in.

Square pegs and round holes comes to mind. Shedding things to fit in is a shuddering thought.

I love this thread! Can't believe I'm just now seeing it. I also have the benefit of seeing all the responses in one view too so I can see just how this discussion progressed which is interesting.

One thing I'm noticing is, CCZT somehow changes. Or better yet, people change and what is simply comfortable suddenly becomes uncomfortable because of forcing one's CCZ onto others. Throw in some vitriol and warped morals and you have what we have today.

I believe that's what the issue mostly is. Most aren't at odds with others CCZ or even CRT but when you push your 'zone' onto others in an inundating and unrelenting full frontal almost assault, there's going to be some backlash.

But it is odd how CRT has progressed with the times. And who's in and who's out. It has become adulterated to say the least.