Back in. . .*cough* the day, this was me. Mostly. The exception would be that, preferring this idea of leveling up in real life, I never generally understood why people were into games. I wanted to learn everything, know everything, do everything.
And so I tried. I read classics no one around me had heard of or cared about, studied obsessively on certain topics, trying not to miss any corner or detail. I threw myself haplessly but wholeheartedly into efforts to understand human social interaction and to make my body function better. I obsessively collected books and refined my library in the hope that I'd come up with the the best ones for learning. . .well. . . everything.
Along the way, there were several major changes in my life and in me. At some point it became actually clear to me that my childhood dream of becoming the next real-life Indian Jones would not be fulfilled, slightly preceded by an understanding that that was no longer quite what I wanted. When people asked me what I wanted, I could only say that I wanted to live a good life. . . it had to be full, and rich, and . . . and something. Directed, maybe. I didn't really have anything for them if they required a specific definition of good.
In retrospect, I find my then budding and intuitive existentialism to be sort of charming. . . and I suppose that's a good thing, considering how much I seem to find myself again in the same boat. I hone myself on the acquisition of various skills, not quite sure what they will be for, making course corrections as the course resolves before me.
We can never be sure what things we will need to be able to do, but it seems like a good idea to do it well, whatever it is. Therefore, the current project--competence. In my case, the question is focus, gathering widely applicable skills that still, somehow, don't leave me a generalist--always, of course, adjusting as the field of "what I want to do with my life" becomes less vast and more clear.
meta-skills:
1) Finish things I start
2) Ability to modify/create habits
3) Organized and disciplined--affairs in order
er) -Also to be playful. is this something to work on or an implicit personality trait?
practicalities:
1) No more languages (just French) till I've enough fluency to have deep conversations without annoying the hell out of everybody
2) Have an actual reading list, including severe limitation of library books and the paring down of my library via reading the things I've actually been intending to read
3) Write. . . always write, though I'm not a wannabe writer, damnit. This is for me. . . and all of you, clearly. I want to do it fabulously well.
4) School and physics; great exercise in discipline, plus much fun
5) Take care of health as priorities dictate.
6) Music practice--collaborative, consistent, and less random
7) still, playfulness.
p.s. todays blog dedicated to Danielle, our waitress at IHOP. Mad props for craftsmanship--jobs well done are inspiring.
2 comments:
Yeah, actually, when I was growing up, I *wanted* to develop myself a lot but could never bring myself around to it. I dunno why.
Interestingly enough, in middle school I occasionally started down the idea that if "good" is unknown, then something must be asserted and called good. The interesting thing is that this is somewhat existential in that it sort of denies external purpose, but it isn't because the next step is to reaffirm external purpose. That philosophy, interestingly enough, helped form a justification for my fascistic tendencies when younger.(if there is an absolute then nobody can justly deny the absolute)
I didn't say I was good at it. I tried, but most of the aftereffects involve (a)knowing a lot about physical training (mad useful for a girl with a broken spine) and (b)having read and half understood Freud and Hugo at an early age. There's a success to build an empire on, no?
More importantly, please help me out: "if good is unknown, something must be asserted and called good"--in order to know good, something must be asserted, to be tested as such? Not sure what else this statement could mean. . . it denies external purpose because the assertion of good comes from the internal? But then that doesn't follow to the fascism. . . unless there's something else I don't see?
btw, you had fascistic tendencies when you were younger? and also, do know who you are at all?
Post a Comment