In trying to update Eli on how things are going I became surprisingly upset. Not at Eli, definitely not, but at the dilemma I feel.
I am very much inclined to not state these things plainly and hide their meaning behind metaphors and generalities. A worse form of censorship I do not know and I did call this thing "Thoughts Uncensored". This inclination arrives from finding the whole situation humiliating overall. However, I have experienced in the past the unparalleled liberation that can only be achieved by humiliation. Without further ado
I've already identified motivation as a key issue of mine. I have always been encouraged to pursue my passions and passions are basically the sure-fire method of attaining motivation. On top of this I have a most fortunate (very, very fortunate) life in which I effectively have zero obligations or commitments to anyone other than myself. I have that most rare privilege of actually being able to do whatever I want. What then could possibly be stopping me from going out and achieving amazing things in my area of interest.
This has been a slow realization. To become an expert, an artisan, a master at anything one either must have extreme natural talent or extreme devotion. I've always been about the devotion path, I am rather obsessive by nature. I was devoting myself more and more to learning everything that I could about computers with the eventual goal of being able to make something truly amazing. But I realized that as I obsessed and gained ground along that path I was simultaneously contributing to my abject loneliness.
As you delve deeper into specialization, you are also changing your social space (read limiting your romantic possibilities). The usual cure for this phenomenon is that specialists date within their specialization so that they don't need to worry about being able to relate to people who do not share their vocabulary, microculture, worldview, interests. Woe to the engineer, to the computer scientist, to the mathematician who is specializing further and further into an area where women are rarer than vegan butchers.
Certainly it is not absolute that becoming specialized makes the specialist handicapped in mixed specialization company. But with me this is the case.
So I am experiencing two contradictory forces. One force compels me to dabble in everything, broaden my experience, relate with everyone and everything on a fleeting but electric level (this is the practice of folks know as "interesting people"). The other force compels me to put on the blinders and dig as deep as I can into what I love in pursuit of excellence.
The unfortunate result of these forces is a net stasis, a stasis I have been in for 6 months now. Progress being made in neither direction and frustration mounting.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Recent studies suggest that exercise is equally effective in combating depression as prescription medication. I think that is because if we are not tired often enough our subconscious makes us restless - feeling that we are not reaching our full potential. Tiring yourself out on directionless exercise deceives your systems into believing you're living at your maximum intensity.
The Obama administration has done a bit of cutting to the military budget in its planning activities. Also, they have done some rearranging of priorities - canceling some projects it does not deem pertinent, such as a laser firing plane. This all seems great to me, but I am very curious if Obama has plans to expand or contract the role of private military contractors in America's warfare activities.
Generally, I like free market principles and the efficiency that they promote. Two important issues on the political landscape today warrant exceptions: military contracting and health care. Why? Because these are industries of death. One might wonder why I would accept reduced efficiency in matters of mortal gravitas.
In the case of military contracting it's simple. Free market efficiency has honed killing to humans' most advanced art and many of the great social advances of modern society are actually the injection of inefficiency into the matter of killing and coercion. In ancient times the ruler of a people was defined by who could kill the best; tyrany was the norm. Fortunately, though in a frustratingly gradual process, those of us who are not so good at killing have been able to convince the professional killers that not-killing is actually in the interest of all involved. Contrary to the beliefs of second-amendment fanatics, government's monopoly on coercion is necessary to modern society. Part of the agreement with government is that in return for not resisting this monopoly they must be transparent in revealing how they use their power - allowing us to criticize actions like those represented by Guantanomo Bay. Some may suggest, permitting private military contractors to operate, simply under heavy government supervision and regulation. If we are going to do that - why not just make these organizations part of the military, which already has systems in place to ensure accountability. Plus, having any group of people engaged in war profiteering seems morally reprehensible to me, not to mention dangerous to freedom when you consider exactly how disgustingly rich/powerful these companies are.
I think health care is a little more difficult to argue. Since the advent of bill of rights type philosophies we have established that there exists a minimal floor of afflictions that no person should have to endure at the hands of another person or organization of people. To establish a universal health care system is to assert that that minimal floor extends also to afflictions that a person can endure from non-human sources and even, in many cases, from themselves. Do we as a people find that individuals of all stripes should receive the same care when injured by a natural disaster? And, more controversially, when someone causes themself injury by - say - recreational chemical ingestion, should they receive the same care whether they are a Hollywood millionaire or a penniless dreg? And what if its not a mortal matter? Should the community pay for arthritic treatment? Hepititus?
I think so. However, I have not thought through it well enough to argue for it effectively.
The Americans who are in the top 10% by income pay for 70% of the country's income taxes. If you are in the top 1% then for 103 days of the year you work for the government for no pay. Of course, if you are in that bracket I'm pretty sure that YOU don't actually work... your money does most of the working for you. Woo capitalism.
The Obama administration has done a bit of cutting to the military budget in its planning activities. Also, they have done some rearranging of priorities - canceling some projects it does not deem pertinent, such as a laser firing plane. This all seems great to me, but I am very curious if Obama has plans to expand or contract the role of private military contractors in America's warfare activities.
Generally, I like free market principles and the efficiency that they promote. Two important issues on the political landscape today warrant exceptions: military contracting and health care. Why? Because these are industries of death. One might wonder why I would accept reduced efficiency in matters of mortal gravitas.
In the case of military contracting it's simple. Free market efficiency has honed killing to humans' most advanced art and many of the great social advances of modern society are actually the injection of inefficiency into the matter of killing and coercion. In ancient times the ruler of a people was defined by who could kill the best; tyrany was the norm. Fortunately, though in a frustratingly gradual process, those of us who are not so good at killing have been able to convince the professional killers that not-killing is actually in the interest of all involved. Contrary to the beliefs of second-amendment fanatics, government's monopoly on coercion is necessary to modern society. Part of the agreement with government is that in return for not resisting this monopoly they must be transparent in revealing how they use their power - allowing us to criticize actions like those represented by Guantanomo Bay. Some may suggest, permitting private military contractors to operate, simply under heavy government supervision and regulation. If we are going to do that - why not just make these organizations part of the military, which already has systems in place to ensure accountability. Plus, having any group of people engaged in war profiteering seems morally reprehensible to me, not to mention dangerous to freedom when you consider exactly how disgustingly rich/powerful these companies are.
I think health care is a little more difficult to argue. Since the advent of bill of rights type philosophies we have established that there exists a minimal floor of afflictions that no person should have to endure at the hands of another person or organization of people. To establish a universal health care system is to assert that that minimal floor extends also to afflictions that a person can endure from non-human sources and even, in many cases, from themselves. Do we as a people find that individuals of all stripes should receive the same care when injured by a natural disaster? And, more controversially, when someone causes themself injury by - say - recreational chemical ingestion, should they receive the same care whether they are a Hollywood millionaire or a penniless dreg? And what if its not a mortal matter? Should the community pay for arthritic treatment? Hepititus?
I think so. However, I have not thought through it well enough to argue for it effectively.
The Americans who are in the top 10% by income pay for 70% of the country's income taxes. If you are in the top 1% then for 103 days of the year you work for the government for no pay. Of course, if you are in that bracket I'm pretty sure that YOU don't actually work... your money does most of the working for you. Woo capitalism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)