Personal Growth

[jjj]

In this context I used the term 'legacy' to substitute the following term: 'his/one's genetically inherited true needs (or default values), incl. unique abilities and talents (if any). Maybe I have to write it out every time... ?

[Aggie]

Once should be fine.

But perhaps we need further explanation on the significance of legacy on a person's development....

How does one identify what one's legacy is?  Once the legacy is identified, how do you direct your development to address this legacy?

[Alpaca]

In this context I used the term 'legacy' to substitute the following term: 'his/one's genetically inherited true needs (or default values), incl. unique abilities and talents (if any). Maybe I have to write it out every time... ?

Given this definition of a legacy, and given that you talk about finding it as a one-time event in life, do you think that person's needs, values, abilities, and talents are predetermined and, having been attained, do not change later in life? I'm having trouble understanding.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

As am I.

I also am curious as to how you define genetically inherited true needs. Because humans have more or less evolved beyond simple biology, and that's what most of our inherited needs are about, I would argue.

[jjj]

 

How does one identify what one's legacy is?  Once the legacy is identified, how do you direct your development to address this legacy?

Obviously, self-observation is the key...

...do you think that person's needs, values, abilities, and talents are predetermined

Yes!

...and, having been attained, do not change later in life?

They merely serve as catalyst (i.e. change events, without changing themselves). Personal growth discovers, develops them consistently and by fulfilling them regularly, adequately we gain contentment. It worked for me and I cannot see why it should fail to work with anyone's   genetic make-up...?

...humans have more or less evolved beyond simple biology, and that's what most of our inherited needs are about

Human legacy consists (I reiterate) of mental, emotional, physical genetic default values as well as a number of unique abilities and sometimes even talents. In this context merely our inherited physical default values refer to biological evolution. Please correct me...

[Aggie]

How does one identify what one's legacy is?  Once the legacy is identified, how do you direct your development to address this legacy?

Obviously, self-observation is the key...

Do you have a more complete guideline than this? 

I am very curious because for most of my life, I have been very introspective and actively tried to identify my strengths, weaknesses, limitations and abilities.  I also have tried to develop additional abilities where I saw a need, and minimize or reduce my weaknesses. 

The process has been quite successful overall, and I think I've been in a state of contentment for a number of years now, but I still see lots of room for change, particularly to keep adding abilities!  I don't think I'll ever reach a state where I don't want to add on to my 'self'.  So I am curious where I stand in comparison to the process you use, jjj.

[Alpaca]

...do you think that person's needs, values, abilities, and talents are predetermined

Yes!

...and, having been attained, do not change later in life?

They merely serve as catalyst (i.e. change events, without changing themselves). Personal growth discovers, develops them consistently and by fulfilling them regularly, adequately we gain contentment. It worked for me and I cannot see why it should fail to work with anyone's   genetic make-up...?

Are you saying that I am "destined" to have certain abilities and not others, no matter how hard I work and try? Let's say I'm destined to become a professional wrestler. (Giggle.) Does the fact that I am now a thin, scrawny, nerd have no bearing on that? Or, if you'd say that well, I can't be predetermined to have a wrestler's skill set, then, what's to stop me from dropping my academic studies, and spending my days working out and wrestling?

In short, I, thus far in my life, perceive an element of choice in my development. Are you saying that my predetermined "legacy" precludes those choices?

[jjj]

So I am curious where I stand in comparison to the process you use, jjj.

That's where you should get hold of a copy of my lousy cheap Book One, titled:
A Guide to...Personal Contentment (ISBN 0646 25584 3 ) It's under $US9  at: http://www.lulu.com/content/171877
I wrote it about a decade ago and beside, it was the first time I wrote something in English...
This saves me brain fat countless pages of repetition. Also, in the book it's nicely sorted out and took me ages to get it all together as presented there. Bit and pieces don't really saves you a dime...

[jjj]

Are you saying that I am "destined" to have certain abilities and not others, no matter how hard I work and try?

No quite. Nothing stops you from acquiring practice in other fields, but talented people in the same field are going to outmatch/ beat you every time.

Let's say I'm destined to become a professional wrestler. (Giggle.) Does the fact that I am now a thin, scrawny, nerd have no bearing on that? Or, if you'd say that well, I can't be predetermined to have a wrestler's skill set, then, what's to stop me from dropping my academic studies, and spending my days working out and wrestling?

In this case you should give your ambition at least a fair try/ chance, before abandoning it.

In short, I, thus far in my life, perceive an element of choice in my development. Are you saying that my predetermined "legacy" precludes those choices?

Yes that's how it is and... face it bravely. If you are still young (say under 30) chances are you mightn't have fully recognized your inherited default values and that certainly is a far greater problem than merely 'chosing  what you like to do'.

[Griffin NoName]

I personally don't hold this view.

I didn't believe it either and (earlier on) and even believed that talents can be 'acquired'... through lots of  practice.

Does amazingly stable mean a stability from which to continue exploring?"

The exploration of one self's true needs, unique abilities and talents goes on for ever (or longer) until we are almost certain that all inherited values have been discovered etc.
Mind you, whilst we all inherited mental, emotional, physical true needs and unique abilities, not all of us inherited a talent or several.

Sure, we can always expand/ amend our mental horizon by reading/ learning, as for instance learn an additional language or acquire any other skills, insight etc;, but in everything we do our inherited, unique abilities or talents are going to play a roll in the quality of the same.

Are we at cross-purposes here? I was using growth/exploring etc in terms of the world we live in, depths of understanding, the sort of personal development that is more humanist, rather than acquiring skills or talents. I think exploration of one's own self-needs is pretty limiting after a while. I don't think talents can be acquired. But maybe that's language - a talent is innate - so is an aptitude for a skill, although acquiring a skill can be worked around to some effect with some effort.

I'm wondering from what you say about what happens to the mix of genes we acquire from both parents. Is there a way of determining how we can make the best of the mixture in the way of the sum is greater than the parts?

[jjj]

I'm wondering from what you say about what happens to the mix of genes we acquire from both parents.

The genetic make-up we inherit is derived from our family tree... I.e. not always from our parents. This explains why children often exhibit traits, which non-of the parents possess. 

Is there a way of determining how we can make the best of the mixture in the way of the sum is greater than the parts?

I didn't quite get what you meant to say. Basically, we are stuck with what we have been bestowed with. We cannot add/ delete anything more/less: only ignore/ deny it's existence. The only thing we can and should do is to take stock and then make the best out of it, by recognizing, developing them, as mentioned. In fact nature's laws compel us to do so, considering the alternatives...

[Aggie]

I'm wondering from what you say about what happens to the mix of genes we acquire from both parents. Is there a way of determining how we can make the best of the mixture in the way of the sum is greater than the parts?

Well, I can offer you an answer on this, because it's something I'm very conscious of. 

Either side of my family (father's and mother's) have a fairly well defined set of traits that define that family.  The paternal side (the S*****s) has positive traits of being confident and daring, athletic, highly motivated, and thrifty; the negative traits are over-competitiveness, crankiness, impatience, humour-at-the-expense-of-others and callousness.  Mom's side (the A********s) tends towards empathy and concern for others, calmness, communication across barriers/mediation, knowledge-seeking, and nurturing; negative tendencies are paranoia, poor resistance to nasty people (i.e. easily hurt), worrying and over-protectiveness.

In our family, it's widely regarded that I am more of the A******** composition, while my sister has traditionally been regarded as more of a S*****, although we both are observably burdened with bits of the negatives from both sides.  Knowing the traits I have inherited, I have worked to reduce the negative aspects, especially the S***** crankiness (characterized by a long grumbly fuse, with a short, sharp report)!  By working to take out the negatives, I believe I am in the process of doing better with the mix than either half I was handed alone.

My sister, OTOH, is naturally less introspective, and I've noticed that not only have her S***** negatives gotten stronger as she's gotten older, but her A******** negatives have become quite prominent - she may end up coming out with more negatives than either parent.


What will be interesting is how the personalities of my children turn out; my fiancee' is a similar hybrid of strong and mild parents (but from opposite sides), so our kids could fall anywhere in the range from strong to mild!  Just like growing the seeds of hybrid chili peppers. 

[Griffin NoName]

I'm wondering from what you say about what happens to the mix of genes we acquire from both parents.

The genetic make-up we inherit is derived from our family tree... I.e. not always from our parents. This explains why children often exhibit traits, which non-of the parents possess. 

I don't quite understand this. I thought genetic make-up always refered to the actual genetic material which is direct replication of genetic material both parents carry, and which in turn would have been actual genetic matieral from their parents in turn and so on backwards. ie. the genetic material would be from the entire family tree, but would of necessity be identifiable as genetic material in the parents and therefore possessed by the parents. However, the parents might not display the traits due to gene suppression and/or factors in life which influence expression of genetic material. ie. there may be a tendency towards say depression as a reaction to stress, but the depression would only become clinically present if enough stress occured in that person's life. So the parent would possess the trait, but not be aware of or exhibit it. Is this what you mean?

Is there a way of determining how we can make the best of the mixture in the way of the sum is greater than the parts?

I didn't quite get what you meant to say. Basically, we are stuck with what we have been bestowed with. We cannot add/ delete anything more/less: only ignore/ deny it's existence. The only thing we can and should do is to take stock and then make the best out of it, by recognizing, developing them, as mentioned. In fact nature's laws compel us to do so, considering the alternatives...

I was wondering if you knew of a good method of working out the genetic factors we had been bestowed with.

Regarding nature's laws, I re-echo my concern that nature v. nurture is still little understood. There's interesting studies on separated identical twins but still a lot of debate. My own belief is we start with some fixed traits and some traits that may or may not get switched on - or off - by events in our lives.

I think Aggie has to some extent answered my question.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I have certain level of discomfort with some notions here. While I do understand that the existence of certain traits is absolutely necessary to pursue certain careers -say music- the potential for many still remains and while it may become more difficult to pursue them (as opposed to a natural talent) it doesn't preclude them.

Back in my school days I met 2 persons who despite obstacles were able to pursue successfully the goals that they had set for themselves, one was a bassoon player whose hands were according to a teacher "too small to play the instrument" and other was a guy that had the toughest time doing calculus for a prospect electronic engineer. Through discipline both accomplish more than other supposedly more talented students each on his area to become professionals (as a side note, the hands of the bassoon player actually grew).

[jjj]

What will be interesting is how the personalities of my children turn out...

I'm afraid you might be in for a big shock, when the kids will have some physical resemblance, but almost of non or few of your characteristic traits... please, don't accuse your neighbor, because it might be just that they inherited your ancestor's traits.   

I truly believe that each generation is able to contribute some 2-5% to it's  genetic pool. Theoretically viewed that should result in talent creation at about every 20th generation. Yet, it doesn't happen, because our genetic family pool is pretty unreliable in direct gene propagation.
Example: My sister is married to the concert pianist of the Gewandhaus Orchestra Leipzig, Prof. Gerhard Erber. Both parents are musically gifted. They have two children and both received the best musical guidance possible. Yet only one child is not musically gifted. In another example studies have been made to discover the inheritance of eye colors. There too, the direct path was flawed.
===========

....bassoon player whose hands were according to a teacher "too small to play the instrument" and other was a guy that had the toughest time doing calculus for a prospect electronic engineer.

Obviously, the first person needs to grow up and the second person possible wasn't gifted for electronics engineering. With a gifted person things fall into the picture almost naturally; just like that or say, about 20 times easier and faster than with non-gifted contestants.