'Comfortable Conformity' with Rickson Gracie

This to me is an all too familiar issue. Actually, it might only become an issue once you become aware of it, that is, it may only piss you off once you have discovered it as is the case so often. However, once you are aware of it, there may also be a possibility of enhancing the situation. Recently, the great Jiu-Jitsu masters Rickson Gracie and Eddie Bravo joined the JRE (Joe Rogan Experience) for an awesome podcast. Towards the end, Rickson mentioned a very interesting observation on society. He stated that in the past he considered cowardice to be the opposite of courage. Today however, he considers conformity to be the opposite. He went on to say that people are too afraid to change certain things, even though they do not like their current situation, like staying at a job you despise because you are afraid you won't find a new one, or staying in a shitty relationship because you are too afraid of possible consequences.

Yet besides these examples, this seems to be going way further, if one takes a closer look at it. Conformity, or being "conformal" essentially means unvarying, staying the same way. This does not only apply to the relationship between the individual and society, as in "stay at the shitty job you ought to have because it is safe", but also applies to conformity within the individual. Since I have written extensively about the former, especially regarding the topic of dealing with work and jobs (right here: 'You Better Work Hard, or Else..!'), I will now focus on the latter in this text. 

In my opinion, realizing that you are influenced by rule-sets (norms etc.) and expectations of external factors like society might be easier than realizing that you are subject to your own expectations and norms of behaviour as well. It seems that there is a peculiar pursuit for most human beings (including me of course) to define themselves. Definition is, by definition usually something static, along the lines of: "This is x, x is like this and this is what makes x, x. Therefore, since we are used to define things (how else could we communicate?), we also tend to define ourselves: "I am a human being. I am an e.g. writer, I like this and I dislike that." The issue that may arise with this trend of defining ourselves is that we stand in our own way at times. 

If I have previously defined myself as someone who dislikes a certain thing or activity, I have eliminated the possibility of this activity being fun this time, before it has even happened. 

Let's for example say that I have defined myself as being someone who does not like hip hop music. Now, even if I liked one particular hip hop song at the moment, I may not be able to enjoy that because "I don't like that kind of music". Clearly, the words and labels we use to describe ourselves do not reflect reality accurately which is precisely the reason why conflict arises. Instead of just realizing that at this moment I enjoy this (whatever it is), there is a tendency to dwell on the fact that "I am not a person who likes this" which is a preemptive strike against the possibility of enjoying the moment. Conversely, if we are doing something "we like", we might tend to actively seek enjoyment because we ought to enjoy this now (according to the definition of ourselves), instead of seeing if we in fact do enjoy it right now. Because if we do not enjoy this now, then how can we define ourselves as "a person who likes that"? Since definition is something static, theoretically we would have to redefine ourselves anytime something happens that is not in accordance with our set definition. 

Staying within the conformal boundaries of our own definitions however, is rather comfortable. Comfortable because it is easy. It's easy to dismiss an activity or a person as bad or unlikeable by sheer principle, as it does not require us to look at the person carefully and then decide whether or not we like them right now. After that, after we have realized that I in fact dislike this guy right now, the judgement seems to be more appropriate than disliking him from the beginning before he has even said anything. I'm saying "more appropriate" because basing a judgement on a person on one interaction would not really be accurate either which is exactly the problem. The point is to only judge for the moment, since that is all there is right now. We know of ourselves that we have our good and our bad days, yet tend to judge someone else as a bad person based on one interaction. The same goes for activities and pretty much most things, even food. If you close your mind to the possibility of broccoli tasting good this time, it probably won't, even if it could have. 

Of course I know that in theory this might sound great, yet it is close to impossible to go into an interaction without any preconceived notions. So, instead of trying to avoid any premature judgement, maybe all we can do is be aware of the fact that such judgements are not based on actual reality at this moment and might not be accurate this time. That way one might be able to attain more of an open mind even when confronted with things that one "does not like. Ever." (mind the period).

Precisely this state of being open minded or empty minded, with no preconceived notions of the past influencing the present is what is often described as a meditative mind or also (rather figuratively) as the mind of a child. Expressed in a mildly poetic way:  A mind which is always young, for it does not carry the past into the present and only reacts to what is happening right now. Among others (e.g. Thoreau), Friedrich Nietzsche has greatly influenced me regarding this idea of renewal. In Thus spoke Zarathustra, when Zarathustra decides to visit the people again, he walks through the town and realizes that most of them do not seem to have understood what he wanted to say when he told them that the final transformation of the mind is that the mind becomes the child, a new beginning, a game (from the first speech of the book: Of the Three Transformations). Hence, he finds them like this:

"Diese jungen Herzen sind alle schon alt geworden - und nicht alt einmal! 

nur müde, gemein, bequem - sie heißen es "wir sind wieder fromm geworden."  "  

- (F. Nietzsche Also sprach Zarathustra: "Von den Abtrünnigen")

Translation/Mediation:

"These young hearts have all turned old - and not old even! just tired, ordinary, comfortable - they call it "we have become devout again."  "

As indicated above, old and comfortable, old and ordinary (conforming) are used almost synonymously here, just like young and new in the mentioned sense. When interpreting Nietzsche it's usually helpful to consider that he was the son of a priest and pretty much struggled his whole life, trying to free himself from Christianity's dogmas. Therefore, when Zarathustra uses the word devout, surely christian influence come to mind. Taken a step further though, a person who is devout is a person who believes and belief is not exclusive to religion. In the same way, I can believe myself to be a certain type of person, as discussed above. Hence, everybody who becomes tired, ordinary, comfortable in their beliefs (all kinds) and therefore does not change them ever, ends up with an old mind.

In another part of the text Zarathustra draws upon the afore mentioned difficulties that come with trying to avoid premature judgements and belief systems:

"- Ach! Immer sind ihrer nur wenige, deren Herz einen langen Mut und Übermut hat; und solchen bleibt auch der Geist geduldsam. Der Rest aber ist feige." - (ibid.)

Translation/Mediation: " - Oh! Always of these there are only few whose hearts have a long courage and high spirits*; and for those the mind (spirit) stays patient. But the rest is cowardly." 

*the german word "Übermut" literally translated would mean sth like "over-courage", more than courage. Exuberance of courage in a way

To take us back to the beginning, courage is what Rickson Gracie understood as the opposite of conformity. In the same way, Zarathustra calls it cowardly to be "conformal" or rather compliant, as courage is the opposite of conformity because conformity is cowardice. Probably not always, as most things or ideas aren't always the case, but quite likely sometimes. 

Further, Rickson explained how when you do go for it and do not stick to the way it always was and respectively acquire an (rather) open mind, life becomes much more exciting, vibrant and unpredictable. For example, you do not decide that this activity is going to suck anyways, but rather let it surprise you. Life becomes more alive, more of a life. Hence, unpredictability is what we want. Or is it? Because it does sound risky. Maybe an analogy I have heard Alan Watts talk about can help:

If we had the power to control whatever happens next and do whatever we want, what would we do? We probably would acquire the ability to fly or do something similar and wish for all the most pleasant things to happen next. We would do this for quite a while I guess. Sooner or later though, we would want to be surprised because it gets boring to know what's about to happen next all the time which is why people get annoyed when somebody tells them the ending of a movie they wanted to watch. Of course we would want pleasant surprises to happen. Unfortunately though, if I have not come across an unpleasant surprise, how will I know what the pleasant surprise is and also, where is the thrill of the surprise if I know that it's gonna be good anyways? Hence, what we would wish for in the end is exactly the situation we are in right now. Not knowing what will happen next.

In the end, a little bit of awareness about the inaccuracy of our judgements and the fact that definitions are static, but that the world is not, may just make it possible to attain a mind that is a little closer to the child-mind and therefore can lead to a more vibrant and unpredictable life.