Naivety

I'm going with the standard on-line version of this word, and I also know that I am going to murder the English language somewhere in this because it involves so much 'neologism' stuff that is inherent in the early formulations of modern psychology.

In fact I'm going to default straightaway to the field of psychology, though without restricting it to the thinkers of only the last two hundred years -, when considering this idea of why people are bored or become bored in life.

So why do I raise 'naivety' with reference to human boredom?

Let me start with an example of what adult humans mostly all do - and this example is to do with a very well-known actress, namely Jane Fonda.

You cannot say that Fonda has not been around. She is not young, she's had a lot of life experience.

You would suppose, that maturity in humans is what happens when they have experienced a lot, and processed those experiences and had enough relationships and then derived some synthesis about their relationships and how those are dynamically reactive with their own inner selves.

You cannot say that Fonda is unintelligent; she's very intelligent.

So... The psychological standpoint is that humans are happiest when they are playing among themselves and achieving growing, positive interrelationships that are creative and dynamic, sometimes unpredictable, but necessarily alive.

The ancient psychology conception about why humans go off the rails as far as genuine maturity goes, says it (the problem) starts at their birth and early childhood - because although they are dependent on adults, they do not in the cell memory of their conscious brains actually select the two people who are their parents, and they have no say in how they are actually raised either.

Consequently, if the parents are psychologically flawed or under some kind of pressure, it becomes a given that the children are affected in some way or in many ways, often profoundly.

Jane Fonda, in many fairly recent interviews, casually mentioned that one reason she left Roger Vadim, was that he was gambling a lot and was using her money often, to do it.

'Her money.'

In the same breath, she says that much of Hollywood's producers had only one conception about the female roles in films - namely, they (the women characters) validated the male figure, and then took their clothes off, and that was it.

Vadim never did that with Jane Fonda. Oh absolutely he was called an 'exploitation film' producer, but that is not at all what he was. Fonda's roles always and forever were the same: that of the ingenue. She was an ingenue in Barbarella, the film that put her on the map world-around, and she was an ingenue in Klute (produced by Alan J. Pakula) and she was always and ever that.

'Ingenue' has the meaning of not only an innocent and naiive person, but one whose decisions are based on moral idealism not pragmatism or genuine life experience and maturity.

Only a naiive person would have ever said the words 'my money' when they had been produced and directed by Roger Vadim. Vadim was the highest grossing filmmaker by actual global sales of any director/producer at the time. The logical flaw in Jane Fonda's perceptions of it all, is that if she was only an ingenue then 'her' money was like an act of professional body-selling, but even so she was in competition with all the other 'validate the man/remove clothes' actresses in the movies. Fonda is not narcissistic and would not be so narcissistic as to admit she was so much better looking than all those others! ...That hence why she made her money. In other words...

No. It's not true as a fact, what she said; her reading of it all is false. It is not invalid on a certain level though because what Vadim must have been doing was also wrong. But her perceptions and reactions were immature and naiive. 'Moral idealism' here means 'childish fantasy' ideals, not Universal Truth ideals.

No doubt at all, his gambling ways were a great fault if they were (as they indeed must have been) coming into negative contact with the people he had in his personal relationships.

But the adult mature experienced way to have handled that was to explain to him - 'Roger,  your role is to make films that sell, and to put important stories down into film. And it is reckless and irresponsible of you to waste too much time gambling significant sums in gaming houses regardless of whether you feel that some lucky streak might give you a bargaining edge over the studio money, and if you are doing it because you need the psychological driver of the feeling of high risk to spark some creativity then well, fine but you still need to put out films and have those finance your losses - which they can easily do.'

The naiive thing to do is stew on the thought that he is using your money. And that is on account of the fact that it is actually not your independently-made money at all; it was made via Roger's creative and directing power.

If Roger Vadim had have produced me and my cat, we both would have been enormously rich and enormously famous. And neither I nor my cat are enormously globally famous!

Same goes for you - you would be rich and famous too.

Jane Fonda never at all made the leap across from ingenue to actually life-mature woman.

A lot of people would of course howl and say otherwise but she is not mature and not wise. She is instead, completely stuck inside a loop involving her own ego, her own pride, issues coming from the fact her wealthy independent mother committed suicide (or so the story goes) when Jane was only 12, and a troubled relationship with her hugely famous father Henry Fonda.

Vadim and Fonda played together as human beings, but neither one of them 'went half-way across the street' for the other one.

There is a difference between the trick of sex attraction and the power and the force of the attraction of a liberated soul - as Charles Bukowski called it 'a free soul.'

You will never ever be happy here on this planet, among other people, if you are a soul enslaved - as indeed most of them all are too. Some people reach resigned acceptance and imagine it is happiness.

Bukowski utterly nailed it, and all he's done is echo the psychologist whose name must not be named, and CG Jung too and Freud certainly, absolutely: 'The free soul is rare, but you know it when you see it - basically because you feel good, very good when you are near or with them.'

...I am about to pull out a huge teaching that will astonish some and send chills up the spine of others - and if you have your brain switched on it will surely give your flesh goosebumps:

The power that each of you has, is to turn on all of these huge stars, these super-famous, super talented, super-rich people and look upon them as the naiive immature children that they all are. And to love them of course, and necessarily - but as you would love a child. We own them -, if not their bodies, then absolutely their living souls. The Devil has possession of their bodies. And only those, may die. Here endeth the first lesson.