This is actually about more than names. It’s about substance too. Some specialize more in making things happen, while others specialize in changing those things, while others specialize in destroying those things.
Of course, all of those 3 -to create something anew, to change something, and to destroy- might be needed at one time or another, but some just can’t do more than they can (or so they think) so they specialize in something instead and do it compulsively.
One who is up to creating something anew is most likely able to do the rest as well; while another might be more able to change and destroy, while another might be more able to only destroy.
It is due to the creative ones that we have anything at all, the rest are more occupied with changing and destroying that.
One who is able to cook will most likely do so, while another who is more able to change might as well say ‘it could use some more salt’, while another who could only destroy would say that the food was bad.
If you had the one who is more on the change side cook, he would cook worse than the creative one, while the one who is more on the destroy side would probably burn the food or make something lethal. And that’s a reason why one shouldn’t be depended upon feedback from others.
Despite appearances, one tends to do unto others what he does upon himself. And don’t expect from one who attacks another’s creativity, one who is constantly occupied with blaming and complaining to do any better himself.
Sure, it is ‘normal’ to say that some guy acted badly in some condition, like in a family fight. But what would the critic do in his situation? You could tell by how mean his criticism was. One could say that Joe was bad for yelling back at his dad, but that would leave out the fact that Joe had been sustaining himself financially since age 16, while the critic hadn’t had a job until 31, living with his parents money in the meanwhile, treating them even worse than Joe.
It is ‘normal’ in the age of ‘knowledge’ to jump to conclusions based on tiny (or not that tiny) indications, and not by the whole story. Nobody knows the whole story, really, any better than the person who experiences it himself. There is no match for own experience in knowing something. No matter how many sources you consult, you will never know anything better than if you experience it yourself. And while we get a lot of information that we don’t examine ourselves thoroughly, we tend to get vague impressions instead of actually knowing what’s going on.
Deep down, it was the creative ones who created science, religion, politics and all we have. And later on it was the rest that turned those things into monsters, and it was the same guys that then pointed the finger and said “that thing (generally) is bad”. Yes, something might be bad, and it’s good to point it out –if you’re very true and specific in what you point out. But that’s not the whole story. If somebody, or some people of some specific race, religion, sex, this or that do something bad, and somebody says they’re all inherently bad, don’t expect anything better from him.
That is how general things get a bad name. Somebody inside that thing does something bad, then another of the same kind points it out and says the whole thing is bad. And so we get political parties that represent some civic having nothing to do with what they were originally meant to, and the same occurs to religions and other things. And the supporters see only what that thing was originally meant to be like (the good thing) while the opposition sees what that thing has become. And so no side understands the other, while what that thing becomes is the opposite (more or less) than what it was meant to be, as it’s been changed and destroyed.
The same can occur to individuals well, even to a point the individual believes in what it has become, and doesn’t know what it actually is. That’s what you do when you analyze yourself, when you analyze others or get analyzed by others based on some incident(s) that is most likely not even seen exactly as it happened (change). That’s what you do when you fiercely criticize (destroy). That is how the majority of mental scientists and ‘justice’ employees think and operate, by the way.
And as that cycle goes one as one analyzes and points the finger to the others, and as he does that unto himself as well, instead of just creating what he likes for himself and others to experience, things worsen.
What’s the antidote? Just perceive things as they are in present, and just make what you like.