Thomas Sowell's Clarifying Thoughts: discussing economic issues regarding minorities

I don't know enough to outright validate Thomas Sowell but I appreciate his clarifying approach to complex issues. He doesn't just try satisfying an issue on a simple point of comparison but digs into the complexity of an issue by taking into account the various factors that surround something like statistics and also looks into areas of a topic beyond the issue at hand in order to challenge and clarify the assumptions behind the proposed problem. I haven't looked a lot into Thomas Sowell but at this point I at least appreciate his clarifying handling of complex issues.

Try

Quiet Car Ride

All that noise had been burying me,
Never has silence sound so sweet.
When to be filled is to lessen what I feel,
All that space is what it takes for me to breathe.

Cavendish Pipe

I'm just all alone but it's not quite a fright,
I sit on this porch and smoke my cavendish pipe.
The snow falls, it's cold;
I feel the things that I felt,
I fear getting old.
I'm just on the porch smoking my cavendish pipe,
the smoke is thick and it's late, well into the night.
I'm here, you're never around;
it's just me and no one is here,
they aren't when they are.
The tobacco in my pipe is burning up,
I guess I'll call it a night,
I didn't feel how I wanted tonight.
But there's always next time,
Even though this was like last.
I'll just rest my pipe and call it a night,
tuck my shoes under the bed and turn out the light.

(edited 9/14/15)

Lowergentry's "Brown Truck": Final Draft of Script Writing Complete

Lowergentry's Elliot Norton and Charles Norton have completed the final draft of their latest film script, Brown Truck.

The immediate next step for them is a private script read-through with Lowergentry collaborators, followed by a long-anticipated transition into their first feature-length filming phase. Following several 48-hour film projects for Idaho's i48 film competition, and numerous other independent film productions, Brown Truck will expand territory for Lowergentry as they have hitherto only produced short film works. What they can hope to retain from previous efforts is a quality and originality that has awarded them successful acknowledgements including:

2013 i48's "Second Best Film" for Twomancrew,
2014 i48's "Best Use of Character" for Guru's Sandbox,
and 2015 Idaho Media Award's "Best Narrative" for Canyon County.

Image by Lowergentry.com
For updates on Lowergentry and their newest project, Brown Truck, follow them on:

Facebook
Twitter

Visit their website at www.lowergentry.com

I'm Going to Start Waking Up Early: my thoughts on supplementation and lifestyle changes

By the end of the month I'll be waking up at 6 a.m. every weekday. That's the goal. The plan is to maintain that habit for at least a month or two, enough time for my body and habits to adapt to it. My original goal was 7:45 a.m., but then I realized I'd miss sunrise and might as well get up a little earlier, plus for some that's sleeping in and my goal is to try being an early bird. I have a tendency to stay up late and I don't know if that's just lack of discipline or a biological propensity, but this experiment should help me see how I handle mornings. The benefit is that if I adapt then I think I'd really enjoy it- seeing the sunrise, and being up early I'll still enjoy some quiet personal time, plus I'll probably be more productive having more structure. If it doesn't work out, at least I gave it a shot and when people give me a hard time about staying up late I can honestly say I gave mornings a shot and they weren't for me. Obviously I'm talking about preferences, having an early job or a family someday will likely get me up early whether I like it or not.

Lately, my staying up has been exceptionally bad- to where I don't even like it. Staying up as late as anywhere between 5 a.m. and 10 a.m. in the morning and sleeping until early evening. This is largely owing to being on the search for a job and as I'm laying in bed I start thinking of other jobs I should apply for or other e-mails I should send, so I get up and stay awake much later than I should. For about a week or so I've been trying to get to bed earlier so I can adjust to reaching my goal of being up early, but I don't get tired now until way late into the morning. I tried skipping sleep for a whole night in order to fall asleep sooner the next day but that wasn't as effective as I'd hoped. I tried working out- jogging 5 mi. a day for a bit and that helped a little but not enough. Part of it is also lifestyle- being on the computer too late and thinking about job searching too late. However, last night I got to sleep around 3 a.m. and woke up around 9 a.m.! I went to Whole Foods looking for melatonin, and discussed it with an employee there who recommended Stress-Relax Tranquil Sleep supplement, and it worked well, better than I expected! It looks like this:

Image by Wesley Grover
(Obviously, people are different- consult your healthcare provider about what's right for you, especially if you take any other supplements or medications, and I would only use it short-term. I'm not being endorsed by this product, I'm just stoked that it worked well so far. I'm also not promoting the brand per se, I don't know how its quality stacks up against other brands.)

It has 5-HTP which is a precursor to the neurotransmitter serotonin, Suntheanine which is a company's proprietary form of L-theanine- the compound in green tea that promotes a relaxing effect, and melatonin which is a naturally occurring hormone that helps regulate your sleep cycle. So, I'll be trying that temporarily as well as a few lifestyle changes such as not using the computer so late, not dealing with things that will get me excited late- such as thinking about a job or things I need to do, keeping the lights low prior to bedtime, exercising regularly, etc.

I'm looking forward to seeing how this morning schedule pans out and what effect it has. If it's even remotely remarkable then perhaps I'll give a little update on how it's been. Cheers.

Oh, and if you're already a natural early bird, as in an effortless early bird- YOU RASCAAAAAAL!! *shakes fist in a Stephen Colbert-esque manner*

Image by David Shankbone

Inspirational Videos

So I struggle a bit between the tension of wanting, on one hand, to only post when I feel I have enough insight or passion about something in order to capture and express it meaningfully and, on the other hand, to keep disciplined in posting regularly enough that I'm pushing myself to develop the skill and mindset to think and write in a way that matters to me more consistently. With that said, this post will be an appeal to both sides. These are a few videos that I've found inspiring. Since I haven't worked out anything in the writing realm this at least keeps me disciplined about posting regularly while also giving me some more time to see if I can figure out what I'd like to write about next.

I don't agree with everything in these videos, yet I have still found them inspiring and thought-provoking. Filter them through your own value system and see if you find them useful at all. Enjoy:


Will Smith:

Rainn Wilson:

Arnold Schwarzenneger:

Russell Brand:

Introspective Questions

Sometimes I find it helpful to ask myself questions; this idea is somewhat neutral in that it can be done in a healthy way or unhealthy way. I spend a fair amount of time thinking about self-development and social dynamics, and these questions that come to mind sort of connect those two areas. They also happen to deal with perspective, which can be a powerful tool for insight. I'll pose a couple sets of questions which both deal with the same idea but with different emphasis.

First round- it seems common to think about what we want or what we think we have to offer, but usually it's from our perspective. One way I like questioning myself and challenging my perspective is by asking questions like: "If I was a girl would I want me as a boyfriend/husband?", "If I was a boss would I want me as an employee?", "If I was a waiter or cashier would I want me as a customer?", "Would I want me as a sibling or friend?", "Would I want me as a neighbor?", etc.

Second round- the first round of questions are the type of things I've occasionally asked myself, and my intent with it is to be more aware but also optimistic hence using it as a method for self-development. This second round of questions I just thought of today while watching a video that reminded me of perspective, it's a bit more in the theoretical realm as it may not deal with common relationships but is meant to provoke awareness and perspective. These are questions like: "What does my personality have to offer a blind person?", "What do I have to offer a deaf person?", "What do I have to offer a kid?", "What do I have to offer an immigrant?", etc. The idea here isn't about charity or giving, but rather about challenging one-dimensionalness. I myself tend to connect with people verbally whether it be joking around or carrying on a conversation, so the idea here would be to see who I am without that, hence "what do I have to offer a deaf person?" Some people may be really into their looks and seek to secure good standing with people that way, so a question to consider would be "what do I have to offer a blind person?" And so on. It also contributes to perspective by assessing what qualities are appreciated by different capabilities or positions in life.

Idaho Media Awards

Yesterday, friends at Lowergentry.com won the Idaho Media Award for Narrative with their short film Canyon County. Congratulations to them!

Their film is available for viewing here (some mature content):

Canyon County

For more information and updates on Lowergentry, like their Facebook page at www.facebook.com/Lowergentry.

For more information on the event host, Idaho Media Professionals, visit their website at www.idahomediapro.com and their Facebook page at www.facebook.com/IdahoMediaProfessionals.

Being and Intent

In passing, I lived my life;
until I wondered what I was doing otherwise


(just a little thought-provoking poem I came up with, basically assessing the idea that you're always living and being, and that your level of intentionality can affect and develop you, but so does your passivity; the irony being that living "in passing" doesn't make sense because everything you do is in the context of your life so you can't treat it as though being "passive" is to be unengaged- treating it passively ends up being your activity and ends up affecting your being. So once you realize you're constantly contributing to who you are and what you're doing it becomes less a question of whether to be in control and more a question of how to be in control, which can positively contribute to someone's thinking by putting their attention on the decisions they do or can make, rather than just focusing on the sometimes daunting consideration of decision-making in general. Basically if one worries about the effect of their decisions, thus becoming passive, they could just as well worry about the effect of their indecisions, which isn't to excuse either one but rather to not view decisiveness as automatically more suspect. Just a thought, take it for what it's worth; cheers.)

Defined Content in Theories As a Measure of Usefulness (rough draft)

The following is an idea about theories, assessing the issue that sometimes occurs where a theory becomes so encompassing that it loses some of the useful distinguishing qualities that presumably motivated the development of it, or the content of the theory is so vague and undefined that to know what the theory would mean is just to look at the world/thing it's referring to in order to gain insight- thus making the theory not as helpful as it was presumably intended to be; so I'm mostly attempting to identify an issue and speculate on some concerns of it. There may be a place for all-encompassing or vague theories, but I'm at least attempting to show how their usefulness differs, if not indeed lacking in usefulness. I haven't developed this idea as far as I think would be warranted for a full understanding, but it's a start and hopefully any mistakes are fewer than the insights. I might revise this idea in the future, so feel welcome to give feedback and criticism.

When theories are useful for our understanding of the world it is because there is a correlation between the theory and reality, and because there is information or criteria within the theory that is defined and the knowledge and understanding of which is transferable to our knowledge and understanding of the world. So a theory that wouldn't be useful for our understanding is one which has undefined information or criteria such that there is no understanding to be gained that translates to an understanding of the world. For example, when theories equivocate their content by defining it in reference to the content of the world then an understanding from the theory depends on knowledge of the information of the world and thus one's understanding is being formed by the world primarily and not the theory, thus making the theory not useful. This occurs when content is undefined, a classic example of which would be the Euthyphro problem- where the desired understanding ("what is good?") is given an undefined criteria ("whatever is loved by the gods"). This theory is not useful for understanding because it makes an identification (goodness with what is loved by the gods) without definition (is it good and therefore the gods love it, or do the gods love it and therefore it is good?; in other words, we're still left asking "what is good?").

I'm not saying that theories with undefined content or criteria are false, I'm just assessing usefulness. Mainly I'm addressing the issue that sometimes comes up when handling a theory where the theory becomes so encompassing by way of its referencing  that it approaches equivalency with the theorized object in consideration (the world, etc.), and thus it doesn't offer much of its own content except to refer to the object- thus knowing the theory is equal to knowing the object in terms of useful content. I'll give two examples of theories with contrasting ways of handling them just to illustrate this point; this is a theoretical comparison of a couple of ideas, I'm not asserting whether or not these topics necessarily fall into the problem I'll pose (it may be more a criticism of how they're handled, but certainly if they're posited in this problematic way then that instance of the theory would be subject to the same criticism). Before those examples (the way you might run into them academically), brief examples of ways people may commonly experience the type of thing I'm addressing (the way you might run into them popularly): someone saying something like "all communication is argument" or "everything is politics"; now, such statements shouldn't be readily dismissed merely for the scope of their claim, and there's often an element of truth to them. Sometimes the person saying it is just trying to imply the importance or breadth of that topic by showing how everything can be viewed through that lens, or how everything relates to that topic. But the difficulty that sometimes emerges with such types of statements is that a lack of distinction renders them less useful. If all communication is argument then to talk about communication is just to talk about argument, unless you specify that all communication is argument but that communication isn't only argument- to the extent there's no distinction it seems to make less sense (in terms of usefulness) to bring up such a point. Real quick- just to lay out some logic in a basic example, consider basketballs (bearing reasonable assumption):  all basketballs are round, but not all round things are basketballs. So on the topic of talking about a round thing it is useful to clarify that it is a basketball, but on the topic of talking about basketballs it is less useful to clarify that it is a round thing. However, even in clarifying that all basketballs are round it's the case, in this example, that all basketballs aren't only round- they also have other attributes such as color or size, which may differ. But insofar as all basketballs are round, the basketball is entirely round- but being all round doesn't excluding it from being something else in addition to round (red, blue, big, small, etc.). So to say all basketballs are round isn't to say all basketballs are the same.

Now on to two theories and examples of different handling (I'm not asserting that I'm representing these theories correctly, these are just examples for the sake of comparison; but the comparison should make sense regardless of the accuracy of representation). Take Evolution and Behaviorism for example; evolution dealing with biological adaptation to the relative environment and reproductive development, and behaviorism dealing with behavioral psychology with respect to reward and punishment. Now say, theoretically (i.e.- I'm making this up), that one were to posit evolution as the development of biological life with respect to lifespan and offspring, and behaviorism as the understanding of behavior with respect to the subject's preconceived or recalled assessment of an experience's effectual reward and punishment. With a bit of elaboration and assessment those two theories (as just posited) would be potentially useful given the defined content (lifespan and offspring; preconceived or recalled assessment of an experience's effectual reward and punishment) and criteria (development of biological life; understanding of behavior). The use of these theories as such would look something like- life is developing evolutionarily if and when their is an increase in length of lifespan or an increase in quantity of offspring (another example could be the sustaining of length of lifespan and quantity of offspring in relation to a changing environment); and, we're understanding behavior behavioristically if and when we know a subject's assessment of a behavior's potential reward and punishment and their inclination toward reward. So in these examples, these theories would be useful in that we can, on one hand, understand if a species is adapting to its environment (and thus whether it's tending toward extinction or expansion, or sustained) by measuring and comparing different points of lifespan length and offspring quantity; and on the other hand, understand the reason for one's behavior (and thus the likelihood of certain behavior with respect to the experience in consideration) by knowing the subject's assessment of an experience's outcome of reward and punishment, along with their inclination toward reward.

Taking the same topic of theory, but handling it in an undefined way, will show how such a theory is much less useful:  say we define evolution as the adaptive changes of biological life to its environment, and behaviorism as the understanding of behavior where one's choices are done for reward. When inquiring for understanding of the theories as to what defines "adaptive changes" or "reward" their usefulness as theories is diminished (or lost) when the answer is merely an unqualified reference to the very instance in consideration. It's all-encompassing in a way that doesn't offer insight into any part, or it's tautologous in a way that is necessarily true but useless. So if someone says that evolution is simply the occurrence of all changes between living things and the environment- that biology necessarily evolves in relation to the environment (and parts of the living thing in consideration might be considered as environmental causes to other parts of the living thing) because living things are composed with the environment and so for living things to reproduce they must do so compatibly with the environment and when there is incompatibility the living thing ceases to be sustained, and thus all life and evolution become connected- since you couldn't have a living thing that isn't evolved (since it would cease). Notice that the difference between this conception of evolution and the one theorized earlier is that this one is about adaption of a living thing to its environment (thus to be alive is to be adapted to some extent) and the other one was about some defining characteristics of adaption as they relate to reproduction and lifespan. In the mere adaption one you can have a living thing adapting to its environment (thus changing in a way that if it didn't change it would've died off) but still having a reduction in lifespan and offspring (thus the changes were sufficient to sustain life but not advantageously in comparison to its relation to the previous environmental factors); in the other theory the living thing in consideration is deemed to be evolving with respect to a sustaining or increase in lifespan or offspring. Both theories may be true, but their usefulness differs; to answer whether something is evolving for one is just to ask whether it's still living and reproducing at all with respect to environmental changes, to answer whether something is evolving for the other is contingent on (in this example) an increase in lifespan or offspring and thus some living things will be considered evolving and some not.

As for behaviorism, say it is posited that all behavior is done for reward. But pursuant to this assumption, in answering "what was this behavior done for?" it isn't debated as to whether what it was done for was a reward or not, but rather, being done for a reward, what was it done for since that is the reward. Thus "reward" becomes synonymous with the reality of whatever it is, in all circumstances, that anyone behaves the way they do for. And thus "reward" becomes as broad in definition as there are reasons for behavior. Although it seems very similar, there is a difference between saying that someone did something because it was rewarding (thus a defined or preconceived notion of reward; the reason for something that was done is compatible with what is, at least in that person, considered rewarding; this way of positing it doesn't preclude the possibility of doing something not for reward) and the reward for which someone did something is whatever the reason they did it for was (thus having done it for reward is a matter of necessity, not a matter of compatibility, since reward is being identified as equal to the reason for a behavior). So saying "everything is done for reward" doesn't become helpful because there isn't anything that isn't done for reward and the reward is just whatever anything is done for- which is presumably unique to each event and thus the theory has no common attribute.

Please note that I'm not attempting to over-exert myself for the perfect example comparison- I'm just attempting to offer two different aspects of a theory to show that when held in a certain way the theory isn't as useful (unless expanded in a way that includes the qualities of the more defined theory).

One of the qualities of a good theory with defined content is that the theory can be used for prediction and mechanistic identification; if there's a correlation between the theory and reality, and the theory has defined content, then when something in reality correlates to that defined content then the implications within the theory will have transitive application to understanding the instance of reality in consideration that the theory is being applied to. The defined content allows one to identify the association between the parts in the theory and the correlating parts of reality. Theories that are so undefined that they get all of their content from reality, or that are so encompassing that there's no distinguishing contrast, don't seem to then develop enough internal understanding that would then be clarifying in it's application to the world, the understanding will emerge in the perception of the information one gains from reality, but the usefulness that follows from this will be owing to the understanding developed from perceiving reality rather than from the conception of the theory. A possible exception might be if such a theory wasn't aimed at adding understanding but rather removing misunderstanding- so the example of saying all communication is argument may not be informative but may be clarifying by virtue of challenging the preconceived idea that there are types of communication that aren't argument (if such were the case).

"A Zombie Parable" a short film by Lowergentry

This is the film friends at Lowergentry submitted for the h48 Idaho film competition. Enjoy!



Look for future films and updates of Lowergentry by subscribing to their channel on YouTube and liking their page on Facebook (or follow on Twitter). Thanks for watching!

h48 at the Idaho Horror Film Festival

Lowergentry has submitted a short film for h48, a Halloween-themed forty-eight hour film competition in Idaho.

See their film, along with the others, on Saturday the 18th starting at 4pm- at The Egyptian Theatre in Boise. h48 is an annual Halloween-themed forty-eight hour film competition, and the Idaho Horror Film Festival is a several-day, Halloween-themed film festival making its inaugural debut this year; h48 is being featured at the Idaho Horror Film Festival. For more information on h48 and the Idaho Horror Film Festival, including a schedule of the events, click the links below:

h48: Horror Idaho 48-Hour Film Competition

IHFF: Idaho Horror Film Festival

Image by Wesley Grover

Image by Wesley Grover

"Canyon County" a short film by Lowergentry

This is a recent short film some friends at Lowergentry made. In dramatic fashion it captures the difficulties and issues associated with social dynamics and crossed boundaries.
The film features local musical talent Hillfolk Noir, and also acts as a preview for a full-length film the group aspires to make.

Lowergentry will be participating in the upcoming H48 competition, a Halloween-themed 48-hour film competition in Idaho. You can keep up-to-date on their Facebook page here.

(Note: some mature content)


YouTube:
"Canyon County"
Website:
"Canyon County"

Much and Less

I sit, quietly, in a chair in the corner.
Still, and quiet, I sit, alone in the corner.
What can I do here?
Much of me can change here,
as I sit still; being, thinking, reflecting.
Much can do much,
but less, it seems, can do as well.
I begin to get lonely,
enough to see the line that distinguishes-
between where I am and what I am.

Environmental Factors in Information Acquisition and Use (or, the difference between how you learn something and how you use and communicate it)

Some things today have reminded me of something I thought of in the past- that how you learn something might affect the way you (or your ability to) communicate or use it. Particularly with the concern that if the extent and way in which you learn something differs dramatically from the extent and way in which people in your environment communicate, you may find yourself hindered in your ability to communicate what you've learned to others and possibly be hindered to some extent in your normal prior capacity for communication to the extent that what you learn (differently) affects the way you handle other things- including what was previous handled in a way as to be readily communicable to others. A simple example might be vocabulary- if you learn, say, literature and it has a dramatic affect on your vocabulary, and you also don't sufficiently develop the ability to communicate what you've learned outside of that developed vocabulary, then you become hindered in your ability to communicate what you've learned to others; and if that dramatic affect on your vocabulary extends beyond what you're learning in literature to other areas (including the ones that before were readily communicable) then you may lose some of your capacity which you had prior because you're using vocabulary that others aren't familiar with.

I was reminded of this because of a friend saying how someone who is successful at something isn't necessarily able to communicate the means to that achievement, except perhaps to refer them to their life circumstances and experiences which lead to it, but, of course, those are already different from another's own. The other thing that contributed to reminding me of this is what I read today in Howard Gardner's "Frames of Mind", which looked at the relationship between one's psychological development and the cultural environment in which that development takes place. For example, he talks about general cognitive capacities such as logical development which are universal (occurring across all cultures), and others which aren't universal such as reading, and how there are differences of development between those in a culture that values, and in many ways depends on, the use of reading and those in a culture that doesn't. This reminded me of a thought I had before about losing touch, to some extent, with others to the extent that aspects of your development differ from those who you then communicate with. Of course, to the extent that these differences can be translated into an understandable form of communication from one to the other, then exercising that capacity would be useful in preventing some of those communication issues.

I think communication is just one consideration of concern between the use of something in an environment significantly different than the environment in which it was learned. A simple example might be something like self defense- to the extent that the learning environmental factors are much different than the environmental factors of its use then one may be hindered by those differences; for example- if I mostly train in fighting technique but the conditions of use in a self-defense scenario are significantly different- such as, the difference of state of mind being that of strategy execution in one and being that of fear and excitement in the other, then the decision-making considerations differ to some extent. In the former one may be thinking of the best move in the moment, in the latter one may be assessing the risk factor and whether to even fight or attempt to flee, etc., not to mention the differences of perception and emotion they're experiencing. Rory Miller discusses these types of issues in "Facing Violence". To further analyze, there seems to be quite a difference, at least socially speaking, if you learn something within a social context related to its use versus learning it in a way that differs significantly from its use (and this difference goes for the communication of it as well); but this also has limitations- some things aren't advisable to learn in the context of their use such as the self-defense example, but the training environment could be modified to better address the environment of use and thus reduce aspects of the difference between the two.

I guess what I take away from this thought is at least the awareness of one's environment in general (how it affects your capacities and experiences, as well as those of others; this is the type of stuff Howard Gardner discusses) and the diversity of individuals' personal environments that affect their experiences from which they're interacting with the broader cultural environment. With this awareness, then, one may come from a better position of understanding for the benefit of communication and social interaction (that uptight man might be an off-duty cop who has developed a sensitivity to potential risks and the value of being aware). The same way one might assess the physical environment in considering what to wear, what activities are an option, etc., one's cultural environment may have comparable implications. I'm not arguing for relativism or subjectivism, but am saying that cultural conditions are objective factors that affect decision making and experiences, which brings me to one more point, something I briefly discussed with a different friend- the dynamic between choosing one's environment and changing one's environment. I think it's a point of wisdom in deciding between the two, but it can be worth being aware of the dynamic between one's capacity to choose which environment they'll be in and one's capacity to affect the environment they're in.

To summarize, I brushed across a few aspects of this topic, which I would distinguish as: the effects of development on communication (particularly difficulties of communication that occur when communicating something learned in a context different than that within which one is attempting to communicate in; the vocabulary example was offered, and the possible solution of maintaining a translational capacity between the two), difficulties in application of something one learns in an environment different from the one in which it was learned (self-defense example), and differences of opportunity to develop, as well as differences of opportunity to apply one's development, in relation to environmental differences (mentioning of individual environmental differences and analogy of physical environment affecting activity options being related to cultural environment affecting one's options of application of their development).

Thoughts About the Future, Living in the Moment

Nothing happens "in the future," everything happens in the moment; this doesn't preclude the value of thinking about the future, but should amplify thoughts about the present.

Interests vs. Goals: thoughts on having interests with no goals and goals with no interests

[the following is derived from a journal entry on 08/26/12 and has been edited and expanded]

If I have the desire to do something (interests), and there is no perceived or arguable bad in my intention, the thing desired, or the outcome, but yet I still don't have a good reason or explanation for pursuing it (goals), then I should be OK with pursuing it- I have the chance to develop something naturally in me, which by virtue of self-development and growth is itself positive; and the good for which it may be useful might not be perceived prior to pursuing it, and it may not be applicable in its own right but might be used as part of, or in regard to, something else.

If I have the desire to attain something (goals)- to have done or attained something, yet I don't have much of a preceding desire itself for the action to attain it (interests), then I should seek to better understand the thing I really desire (if I have a desire for a goal but not an interest in the means of attaining it, then I should consider whether I really desire that goal or something else related to that goal)- I may find that what I actually desire is something that pertains as an effect of, or aspect to, the goal in consideration but is not perceived as being as much in or part of the thing through which it is sought (the means of the goal). That is- I may desire a goal and there may be means of attaining that goal involved, and so you'd think I'd have some interest in the means of attaining the goal since I have an interest in the goal and the means and the goal are correlated (at least through cause and effect), but if I find I don't have an interest in the means of attaining the goal, then perhaps what I really desire is something related/associated to the goal and not the goal itself- which may explain why there is an interest in the goal and not the means of attaining it. But this isn't to exclude the possibility that we have goals we're legitimately interested in attaining but which we don't have an interest in the means of attaining.

For example- say I decide I want to have a better understanding of world history (goal) but I realize I'm not interested in the means of attaining it (studying history), then perhaps I'm not actually interested in having a better understanding of world history but rather am more interested in social status associated with having a better understanding of world history- this would be one way of understanding why I have a goal I desire but am not interested in the means of attaining it. Another possibility in this example might be that one really does have a desire to have a better understanding of world history, but they don't like reading- thus they don't have an interest in those means of attaining the goal not because they don't actually have an interest in the content (world history) but because they don't have an interest in the method related to the content (reading). In such case what one desires really is the goal they have in mind but may seek a different means to that end; in the other case (where they don't actually desire the goal but something related to it, and thus they don't desire the means because they're associated with the original goal and not directly related to the actual desire which is simply related to achieving the original goal) one might clarify what it is they actually desire and see if there are means of attaining that desire (assuming it's good and worth pursuing) that are more directly associated with the desire, that way they are developing their desire in accordance with both the means and the newly clarified goal, rather than just the original goal which they only desire for its consequence/correlation and thus won't necessarily be satisfied in the pursuit of it. Of course, life is filled with experiences where we overcome something we don't in itself desire in order to attain something we do desire- such as enduring exercise in order to get fit, and so my point is just to seek clarity not just for the sake of avoiding any involvement in things that may not be what we desire but rather to understand what it is we desire and to decide either what we prefer or what we're willing to endure in order to attain it, depending on what options are available and known (and again, assuming its something good and worth pursuing). It's worth noting that in some cases- such as enduring exercise to get fit, we develop other qualities that are beneficial such as developing our will and determination, perhaps developing our resilience to resistance.

By seeking to better understand the actual desire and its object I can better perceive the role or correlation of the means I have in mind for it and either develop it into the desire or be more adequately disciplined in doing it by seeing its correlation to, and involvement in, seeking the thing desired. As a matter of discipline the thing which I seek to do for what I desire may still be done without fully understanding its correlation to the interest in the desired effect (when the cause and effect is understood but one's interest is in the desired effect and they don't see a relationship between the interest they have in that thing and the possible interest in the cause for attaining it)- for it may be that the correlation of interest one may have between the desire and the means is evident in the action rather than prior to it. For example, exercising- where perhaps the reason for my desire to be fit is to be able to do more things, and then through discipline I come to see that exercising is an instance of me doing more things, and so the compatibility of the interest in the goal and the means of attaining it becomes more evident, beyond just cause and effect but seeing that the desired effect is involved in the cause. This is an example of a person having a goal without interest in the means of attaining it, but then coming to have an interest in the means of attaining by seeing what it has in common with the goal. But if it's the case that what is desired, or the reason for what is desired, doesn't seem to be part of the means of attaining it then at least understanding the relationship between the cause and the effect will increase or solidify one's commitment to the cause for the sake of the effect (and I'm still speaking from the sentiment of the person having no bad intention and of the thing being good or not bad; thus, if you discover that what you really desire is something that isn't good then I don't suggest pursuing it)

But two risks are to be noted:

1) if there is no correlation between the means and goal (a person is mistaken about the connection), or the considered means are not necessary- and other more pertinent options would apply to the pursuit, or the considered means are not sufficient to bring one to the desired thing, then one risks wasting their time and not seeking their desired goal in the best way (or else seeking it in a poor way).

2) without doing this thing (the means to the desired goal) by desire one will not do it as well; partly because one will be naturally resistant to doing more than is needed- whereas if one had interest in the means then they'd be OK with doing more than what is merely sufficient since they're not interested in just the goal but in the means as well (perhaps because of what they have in common), and it will also not be done as well partly because they will always be putting more effort in for a return than if they'd done it by desire because with desire less will of effort would be required for action since the desire would move them- which favors the action more than a will of discipline since discipline is more goal/value oriented rather than a will of desire which appreciates the action itself. Another exercise example would be goal-oriented exercise vs. exercising by doing something you enjoy. But again, each has its trade-offs. And I'm speaking mostly to general experiences; there may be exceptions where one has such a strong goal in mind that they are more driven than someone who has both a desired goal and an interest in the means.

To summarize- if one has an interest (not harmful or bad, etc.) with no goal then it's worth developing the interest since it reflects a natural capacity of the person and thus develops the strengths of the person which will be beneficial when a pertinent goal is discovered, and may also lead to the discovering of that goal; or the development of the person by that interest may benefit them in a goal that isn't directly related to that action but is related to the person in an aspect that benefits the goal from the person's development from their interest. And if one has a goal without an interest in the means of attaining it then it's probably a good idea to consider what is really desired by the attaining of the goal, and if it's a good goal then to consider if there are other means of attaining it that would be of interest or to decide if the discipline to attain it is worth the goal, or to at least weigh what the cost of making a disciplined decision for that goal will be.

The Tricky Balance Between Awareness and Pursuit

You can't think about yourself and be yourself at the same time.

That's a thought I came up with a while back; my point isn't to suggest exclusion but to consider balance, perhaps to ask if and when one should think about one's self.

Some Thoughts on Writing: Practicing It and Recognizing the Tricky Balance Between Being Idealistic and Realistic in Non-Fiction Storytelling

[Journal entry 2/23/14]

I want to practice writing more. I don't know if I'll do it in this journal or a notebook, but I'll likely start by asking a question and then practice writing by answering it. One of my goals will be brevity- to select key points and apply just the right amount of explanation; another goal will be structure- knowing more quickly how I want to present something so that I can narrow in on key points. Another general goal I have is to try to maintain a sort of experiential truth to my writing. We all know how the way you write about an event you experienced can make it seem more fun or dramatic than it was in your experience.

It's tricky though, because part of the joy of reading and the skill in writing is to be able to present things with a certain ideal or value in mind- in a sense so as to train oneself by the reading of it to then see the world more in that manner. But I wonder if even this way of handling writing can be done in better and poorer ways- not by degree of affect but by a certain sort of honesty in presentation. I already mentioned how events can be recalled in a way that might have a desired effect, yet fail to maintain a sort of honesty. It's one thing to recall the highlights of an event, but another to present the mundane things in a non-mundane manner- one is selective, the other almost deceptive.

One way of addressing this latter concern could be to present the mundane as it is, but to add commentary to it in a way that makes it clear that the desired effect is distinct from the event; this might involve including the author's voice, but doesn't have to. For example, this following example could be a way of focusing on the highlights of an event without being deceptive concerning the mundane:  "the line was long, and it gave me a sense of how busy and crowded it would soon be in the building. The long wait was soon forgotten in the excitement of seeing the admired comedian take the stage."

I'll leave myself to explore more later, but some routine quick writing practices should prove beneficial. Part of my interest in this is because I was filling out a resume cover letter yesterday and noticed that I wasn't as readily able to select the key points I wanted, and to decide how to present them, as I'd like to be.