3 Comments
Jun 9, 2021Liked by Joel Fariss

I always found the ideas of evolution and ambivalence deep, especially in the context of psychological thrillers, the most interesting genre by my standards. Dostoievski's Mr. Goldyadkin, Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and even Francis Dolarhyde in Red Dragon. They are all characterizations of our both/and nature, not the either/or dichotomy we use whenever we face a crossroads. It's simpler to imagine we can be either a saint or a devil, not all (and everything in between) at once.

I think with proper stimuli, people's inhibitions can be put in the position of subliming. It's not just about the two rules you outlined. Maybe it's also about the rule not to be judged by your teammates and yourself... although that's a tough one to achieve because it's tacit, not explicit. How would I know if X is not judging my very twisted 'What if...?' In addition, perhaps there's a path towards an honest state of sublimation through voluntary exposure to your 'out-of-yourself' self. Kind of like what happens when someone wants to overcome arachnophobia. It's a step-by-step process that happens in familiar environments. This sandbox must be the inhibited caterpillars' cocoon, they must feel comfortable in it before they let go of inhibitions - and, arguably, that doesn't necessarily happen because there will always be the social norm constraint.

P.S Cool matrix. It made me think about my English-speaking ability. As a Latino, I'm very aware that I am inhibited every time I speak in English (upper left quadrant). Does that make me one step closer or one step away from my raw uninhibited self? What would Joel Fariss write under a pseudonym? We can talk about these topics whenever you wish.

Expand full comment
Jun 4, 2021Liked by Joel Fariss

excellent read!

Expand full comment
Jun 4, 2021Liked by Joel Fariss

...cheers to summer!

Expand full comment