Verne, we understood Mama's question perfectly well.

Mama is an old woman from the old school like our parents were, who once believed that only special people can accomplish special achievements. Isn't that the reason why they used to think only White folks could be doctors etc.?
That's why they are so much in total awe of their children and grandchildren achievements. That's called "breaking the glass ceiling" to use Hillary Clinton's term.

I contend that this belief lies at the heart of why so many of us end up languishing on the wayside of life because of our apparent inability to extricate ourselves from our perceived limitations.

If there is anything that I've learnt over the years is that, there are no un-ordinary persons. Every one of us is as ordinary as the next one. We all have the same basic needs as the next person. Now that's not to say that there are no geniuses like a Sparrow or Pele. Sure they are, but underneath it all lies their ordinariness.
As we go on to achieve this or that in life, society puts us in its own stratified categories. Some of us let the conferring get to our heads and start to behave in the manner described in my original post. Some were lucky enough to recognize what they were doing to themselves and made the turn-around just like the "wineing sophisticated lady." And there are others who continue to behave as the ordinary persons they knew they originally were. My daughter puts it best when she told an awe struck admirer that "being a doctor is what I do, not who I am."

Her statement is the crux of my point. What in effect she was saying, was that she is as ordinary a young woman as anyone else, but who just continued on the educational path, and achieved what she did. Why should that achievement transform her from being the same ordinary person that she always was?

Our problem is that we allow degree acquisitions etc. to color our thoughts about how we perceive those who have acquired them. Many of us are yet to learn that regular ordinary people really can, and do go on to do some amazing extra-ordinary things. The proof is all around us from Gouyave who have removed the blinders to become who we are. I hope Peter Boyke and yourself won't mind my referencing you both as perfect examples. And there are so many, many others like you two!

Once we remove that cloud, we automatically free ourselves from the self-imposed limitations with which so many of us are burdened. At that point we suddenly realize that we ordinary people too, can go on to do extra-ordinary things just like those to whom we give reverence.

Verne, I'd be in agreement with you if you were saying that that self-realization that we are only as limited as our minds allow us to be, is the basis for transforming ourselves.

What I do VS Who I Am

We all grow out of circumstances be it privileged or not to pursue our passions or try to find a way to evolve out of the situation that we have been born into. Along the way we may encounter someone or experience a life altering event that will impact our compass in life and ultimately where we land. We follow a path laid out for us, or in few cases zero in on something of an inner calling, or just take the next best thing that is available. Whatever the issue my focus at this point is; could one not be, or become whatever we choose to do in life.

“Being a Doctor is what I do, not who I am”. Can one who is trained in a profession that takes an inordinate amount of time and sacrifice not become what they are trained to do?

What would Dr. House say? Being a Doctor is what I do, not who I am because actually I am an Actor. The person playing Dr. Gregory House, James Hugh Laurie, did he become an actor or is he not that either? Is he an ordinary person by definition or by perception?

Pursuing a profession or discipline to the level of a Ph.D. takes an inordinate amount of time and sacrifice and the absorption of a tremendous amount of knowledge and accompanying understanding. Does this mentally and physically change the pursuant to become that which he has pursued, be it a Doctor of Medicine, a Doctor in Anthropology or a lawyer etc. This applies not only to the academic level of a Degree but how about a Mechanic, or Landscaper etc.

I think it is well established that we become not only mentally changed by our experiences, but also physically changed. Our actual wiring is changed and the way we see things and react to things become somewhat of a “reflex” action as our physical rewiring supports that process in the essence of efficiency. How we perform within that profession is very complex as a plethora of influences forever bombard the person who would have to rely on morals, and the original spark that guided them onto the path they have undertaken to basically maintain a sense of the original self. Could it be that the difference lies in what’s more important between what you do or what you are called?

Mya, I find your post to be very refreshing, interesting and thoughtful. It provides even more room for further discussion on the subject.

>>could one not be, or become whatever we choose to do in life.<<

There is no question about that. I've met too many folks who see and discuss subjects way beyond what their level of education and station in life would lead you to expect from them. My father-in-law(RIP) was one of them. The poems and prose he left behind are treasure chests filled with keen observations and wisdom for his survivors to marvel over. He like so many others is an example of PhDs without the formal degree and title.

The Mighty Sparrow is another example. So many of his calypsos like Dan is the Man, and London Bridge, are filled with insights and expressions that you would hardly expect from someone who didn't even attend high school. The debate continues to this day with some wondering if he actually penned those calypsos himself or was there a mystery writer behind him. Regardless, it's small wonder why UWI conferred a well deserved honorary doctorate on him!

Mya, I picked up on the subject of "The ordinary Man" because I remembered only too well how the professionals during my boyhood used to act and behave once they became professionals. Mama's observation immediately took me back to those times. And that's the singular point I was trying to make in so many words. Should a professional degree stop you from being the ordinary person you used to be?

>> “Being a Doctor is what I do, not who I am”. Can one who is trained in a profession that takes an inordinate amount of time and sacrifice not become what they are trained to do?<<

Of course in the process of becoming a professional one's "wiring" is obviously re-wired. Yes, their training is obviously reflected in that which they were trained to do. That's why plumbers are able to do what they do, and lawyers what they do, etc.
However, wiring is one thing, but does it translate into losing your original self? Does that make you aloof from your old "simple" friends? That's the crux of the question, and that's what my daughter meant when she responded “Being a Doctor is what I do, not who I am.” It means that she has not lost her ability to enjoy the simple pleasures of life; and though most of her associations will be with her new colleagues, being a doctor in no way prevents her from being able to "lime and ole talk" with her old friends and family who have not attained the same professional level that she has.

I could not agree with you more in your observation that >>Our actual wiring is changed and the way we see things and react to things become somewhat of a “reflex” action as our physical rewiring supports that process in the essence of efficiency.<<
Only in that sense will I agree with you that the professional is no longer as "ordinary" as he/she used to be.

(That's good food for thought)

"Look what 'Mama' go an do!, jook Ants Nest and have us all splitting hairs"

"I am who I am, not what I have become.The latter is what I do, it is the former that bears the burden of an inquisition"

In our quest to define ourselves, we sometimes fall into the trappings of allowing one segment of our existance to dominate that definition. It is because we as human beings go through several processes of assimilation, one of which is assigning a hierarchical order of importance to the things we do, as if our real selves are in need of a redefinition or transition. What we fail to realize is, in that process, we never take the time to define "who we are" and it is precisely here that question of "ordinary people" comes into play.

What then is an ordinary person -the who I am definition of "us" ?

Were we all ordinary before we became "extraordinary" ?

Does our ordinary designation take precedent over the extraordinary individuals " we have become"?

In my humble opinion, "Who one is" and "what one does" is never in contention. They are two separate value systems but are inextricably linked to the individual that gives him or her their awareness of self. The first value system comes from their social indoctrination that embraces the moral and ethical efficacy that stem from their cultural,tertiary educational, religous and political upbringing during their formative years. These form the core values or guiding principles of the individual that determine the manner in which he/she would proceed along their paths in life. It is where one can argue, encompasses the foundation of most ordinary people.

When one gets educated into a profession that designates what one does/ has become, they do not (by virtue of their education) loose their core but in "some cases", ceases to accommodate some of the core values and instead, incorporates the necessary nomenclatures of these disciplines that are fundamental to their profession. I had used the word "compartmentalization" as it best describes the venue where colleagues with similar disciplines can be stored and  tapped; the concept adapted by computer informational display of icons.

Therefore, Dr. House's contention of >>>>>..... "Being a Doctor is what I do, not who I am because actually I am an Actor". <<<<< the Actor is where the good Dr. House's "ordinariness" can be found, while the Doctor designation is simply an accommodation for his profession. Both parts however, make him what he is or would like to be regarded as. It is in this context where an ordinary person/Artist, singing under the sobriquet "Brother Valentino" warned us with his Kaiso rendition that " life is a stage and we are all actors in a play".

So Mya, in recognition of your theory,

>>>>>>.....Pursuing a profession or discipline to the level of a Ph.D. takes an inordinate amount of time and sacrifice and the absorption of a tremendous amount of knowledge and accompanying understanding. Does this mentally and physically change the pursuant to become that which he has pursued, be it a Doctor of Medicine, a Doctor in Anthropology or a lawyer etc. This applies not only to the academic level of a Degree but how about a Mechanic, or Landscaper etc......<<<<<<<<

And on a noted point in your conclusion, you summarized with a recognition of >>>>.....the person who would have to rely on morals, and the original spark that guided them onto the path they have undertaken to basically maintain a sense of the original self.<<<<<<
That 'original self' you mention seems to be the one that points to the simplicity of the individual and his/her unadulterated designation. That, I will conclude is the ordinary people Mama was seeking to find.

VJL

I am sure that the spontaneous remark by “Mama”, here to mean any dear Grandmother not anyone specifically, was not as loaded as we are treating it but it has brought up some interesting subject matter.

Vernon,
>>>>>>>>>> Were we all ordinary before we became "extraordinary" ?

Does our ordinary designation take precedent over the extraordinary individuals " we have become"? >>>>>>>

These are very Poignant questions as it relates to the discussion. I will approach this with two quotations which I think sheds some light on the matter;
“What you do defines who you are. Remember to be the best at what you do. You develop higher confidence from doing what you do excellently.”
― Mark F. LaMoure

When I read the quote I got that it is not who you are that makes one extraordinary but it is what you do. One might argue that there must have been something inherent in that person initially that led to the manifestation of whatever that extraordinary feat or act leading to the, as you put it, extraordinary designation.
This would present us with a proverbial conundrum.
Professionals be they Doctors, Lawyers, Plumbers, etc. are “ordinary” in their fields until they do something over and above the ordinary within that discipline. Short of that one is basically contributing to the average and therefore “ordinary”. This then leads me to the second quote;


“they were all ordinary until they took the extraordinary steps with courage to leave the extraordinary footprints”
― Ernest Agyemang Yeboah

I would conclude that a Professional is not necessarily extraordinary, so when the words Ordinary, Professional, Extraordinary are used, I find it interesting as to how they relate.

>>>>>>>>> I've met too many folks who see and discuss subjects way beyond what their level of education and station in life would lead you to expect from them. >>>>>>>>> While this is a discussion for a different date , the term seem to attempt to pigeon-hole or stereotype people by “expectation”. I sited this at this time only as it might affect the way Ordinary is seen.

As a side bar, would there be a difference if someone said “practicing medicine is what I do, not who I am” or “Surgery is what I do, not who I am”. “Being a Doctor” seems to imply that I am a Doctor, so what would have been the tone in the discussion if the statements were different.

I have never subscribed to the notion that one person is superior to another on the basis of Formal-Education, Nationality, Race, color or Profession by which he or she make a living. I find this attitude small of mind.
True superiority comes from righteousness and one's good conduct towards one’s fellow men. That is the only standard recognized and rewarded on merit by The Creator of this Universe.
When the word ordinary is use to describe someone, the implication take on different connotation depending on whom it is coming from. For example: a) when it comes from the so-called educated; arrogant ones, it tends to indicate that he or she is speaking of the less educated of the society whom they perceived to be lower than themselves. There is an inherent trait in human nature that always seek to put someone below them in order to feel better about themselves. b) When it is coming from the less formally educated who might be much smarter then the pretentious ones, it tends to mean, people who are down to earth; unpretentious and live a harmonious existence with the rest of society.
Having said that, I will now attempt to put forward a different view on the Grandma’s question, which I expect everyone to disagree with, if Mr. DeCoteau’s statement is correct.
Quote: “Sure enough there a lots of things on which you and I, and I won't be surprised many others too, fundamentally disagree, but that does not mean you should cease from saying whatever you want to say.”
I find it deliciously interesting why he thought he needed the support of other talk-shop contributors. But as the saying goes there is strength in numbers.
So here goes: I got the impression that when the Grandma enquires of her granddaughter, if she had any ordinary friends. I think the way she posed the question was wise as a Grandma should be. Therefore she chose to use diplomacy rather than come outright and say: Do you have any down-to-earth friends, who are not pretentious, who are not suffering from superiority complex, who are not always trying to make impression.
I can almost feel the trauma this down to earth poor old lady must have felt sitting between the so call sophisticated doctors, nurse-practitioners etc. so traumatize that she was force to ask what she asked. Just another obvious angle to this saga, nothing more.
In Antigua this kind of people are called Poor-boast.
As I am here I might as well give my two cents on the hotly contested quote: “being a doctor is what I do not who I am.” This has been around for quite a while, but I got the impression Tony was praising his daughter, thinking she was the author; the original, “surgery is what I do, not who I Am.” However many people have without thinking, used it wrongly over time. One do not do doctor. You are a doctor and what you do is practice medicine as Mya allude to.
I am yet to understand what desires drives a person to put their family under the microscope of people’s opinion.

Zafar, I meant every word I wrote when I said, while you and I, and I supposed many others too, may have fundamental differences, that should be no reason to desist from saying whatever you want to say.
Someone once said, I may not agree with your point of view, but I'll defend to the very end, your right to say it. That makes perfect sense to me and I try my best to follow that dictum.
I recognize my human imperfections so I'm always allowing myself room to reappraise my views in light of what I might have been missing in my argument that would have led me to a different conclusion.

>>I find this attitude small of mind.
True superiority comes from righteousness and one's good conduct towards one’s fellow men. That is the only standard recognized and rewarded on merit by The Creator of this Universe.<<

>>I got the impression that when the Grandma enquires of her granddaughter, if she had any ordinary friends. I think the way she posed the question was wise as a Grandma should be. Therefore she chose to use diplomacy rather than come outright and say: Do you have any down-to-earth friends, who are not pretentious, who are not suffering from superiority complex, who are not always trying to make impression.
I can almost feel the trauma this down to earth poor old lady must have felt sitting between the so call sophisticated doctors, nurse-practitioners etc. so traumatize that she was force to ask what she asked. Just another obvious angle to this saga, nothing more.<<

I deliberately re-posted your above quotes because nothing about them is factual. They are clearly your interpretation of them that are so different from what I thought I was saying. Unlike Mya's post, not a thing in any one of your post or previous, has given me any reason to reappraise what I originally thought. That's just my opinion!

And there you go again:
>>“being a doctor is what I do not who I am.” This has been around for quite a while, but I got the impression Tony was praising his daughter, thinking she was the author; the original, “surgery is what I do, not who I Am.”<<

Zafar, where did I say or indicate that I was "thinking (my daughter) was the author" of that statement? In case I need to make myself even clearer, I merely wrote what she said in her explanation to her friend. If you assume that is praising my daughter, well again, it's your opinion. I won't even attempt to change your mind.

>>I am yet to understand what desires drives a person to put their family under the microscope of people’s opinion.<<

If you were to read A PLACE CALLED GOUYAVE, you will notice that I have often-times used my self or family members, and even friends whose permission I sought, that were essential to illustrate situations that were personal. It's my belief that there is much more credibility in using real identifiable persons, rather than using the run-of-the-mill anonymous ghost characters as so many do, in telling a story to make a point.

It may not be your thing to do, but it's just my way, my style. Many may say that it is not the best thing to do, but then again, who is to determine that as well as so many other things in life?

Finally, >>I find it deliciously interesting why he thought he needed the support of other talk-shop contributors. But as the saying goes there is strength in numbers.<<
In case you need a reminder, I've included "other talk-shop contributors" because it is a FACT that you've butted heads with others on this Talk-shop too. This time it is not my opinion.

Hey Zafar, as I've said before, so long as you or I or anyone else avoid straying outside the guidelines that the Webmaster has requested for his Talk-Shop, we should have no problem writing whatever it is we want to write about. Many have and will continue to state their disagreements with those views, but then again, that's intrinsic in the concept of talk-shops like goGouyave.

Take care.

>>>>>So nothing pleased me more as an adult than to see my friends and other contemporaries not caring a hoot about how it looked while they care freely dingolay to soca, reggae and other indigenous Caribbean music. Yes, they are all professionals, from doctors, educators, lawyers, scientists to teachers and distinguished writers, but first and foremost, they are ordinary people!!<<<<<<

Your post is spinning different ways and I am having a ball with reading the arguments. lol Without saying too much, however, I would say that the people referred to above are from Grenada or even Gouyave, are as down to earth as ever, and that being thought of as Dr. This and Mr. That does not mean much to them. Some may even shy away from accolades even though well deserved. They still remain grounded in where and how they started. Am I correct?

What I have been wondering is, has anyone really questioned Grandma at length to find out EXACTLY WHAT she meant by her comment/question about your daughters' professional but "not ordinary" friends and WHY she asked? I would think that she asked the question after sitting quietly, while listening with the infinite wisdom and insight of the aged to the conversations of all the young "extraordinary" youngsters flowing around her. I would also think she may have asked the question well after after the guests had all left. I may be wrong!

Thank you, AM, for not going way off on a tangent beyond what I wanted to say in my post. Perhaps the confusion should be blamed on my winded verbosity (copying Vernon, lol).

It does appear that the point I tried to make escaped many of the posters. So I am trying once again in as simple and direct a way as I possibly can.

My point was only to compare the way professionals acted and behaved when I was a teenager, and how they act and behave today.

Hence my reason for recalling how normal "ordinary" behavior like dancing to Caribbean music, or even singing a calypso was something you'd rarely see yesteryear's professionals doing, if at all. As much as I loved and respected my elementary school-teachers, it was impossible for me to imagine, much less see, Teacher Daisy or Mr. Eli Peters or Mr. A E Williams dancing to, or singing calypsoes.
That's just who they were, or how they believed they should act/behave!

That's why I knew I was going to have a hard time emulating them should I one day become a professional like them.
That's why it gives me so much pleasure seeing my professional friends acting and behaving so completely opposite and different today.

That's why I recalled that while "ole-talking," some of us GBSS students would say that we couldn't imagine some of our "masters" actually participating in the act of procreation, even though many of them were fathers. It was impossible in our minds that they would or even could use a "bad word." Oh, how we loved Mr. Otto "Bozo" George! He was the lone exception who had no embarrassment expressing himself in "ordinary" terms for his students to understand what he meant by the swinging pendulum. He had us laughing like mad, although his stern stare would make us shut up immediately realizing that we were in a Physics classroom.
Other than Mr. George, those "masters" used to act so stiff and upright that they seemed to lose all semblance of normalcy, "or ordinariness" if you will.

That is why I wrote that post. Because Mama's question took me back to those days, and prompted me to compare them to how I see professionals behaving today.

Most of my daughter's friends that Mama was meeting had been known by her from way back in secondary especially, and college who went on to become those professionals.
Remembering how long-ago professionals used to behave, Mama told us that she couldn't bring herself to believe that her grand-daughter's friends could behave as ordinary people normally do, like having a good time while dancing to reggae, soca and soul music. To paraphrase her, she was glad to see that they didn't lose who they were in the process.

AM, I thought that point would have been very easy to recognize and couldn't believe Zafar ascribing so way out a meaning to Mama question of:-
>>Do you have any down-to-earth friends, who are not pretentious, who are not suffering from superiority complex, who are not always trying to make impression.
I can almost feel the trauma this down to earth poor old lady must have felt sitting between the so call sophisticated doctors, nurse-practitioners etc. so traumatize that she was force to ask what she asked.<<

More and more I can see why we are always warned about the word assume. Consider the letters that make up its composition and you'll see how true the warnning is.