We, almost all of us, work and strive toward some end. We struggle to achieve some...thing(s).. goals; visions of what the future should look like. But what do we get in the end? Is the struggle worth it? Is our vision of ourselves one that brings anything meaningful?
I've been doing a lot of thinking lately. No... I've been doing a lot of .. not thinking lately. Soul searching maybe. Seeking sounds better. And this particular chapter began with these questions. It's taken a while, but I believe that I just had a breakthrough and that I now have something to say about the subject that's worth sharing:
Too often these visions of our own future are cluttered with unnecessary details. When we work with things - honing our skills, developing talents and such, we tend - at least in the circles that I run in - to get lost in those things. That is, we lose sight of the actual good that those skills can provide. It's easy to do, because the real value of things has nothing to do with those things at all. [I have to be careful here, as these thoughts are difficult to express in a way that is sensical - let me try to come up with an example] It is so easy to think that the purpose of say, mowing a lawn, is to have good looking grass. It is easy to think that designing a classroom lesson is expressly for conveying knowledge. It's easy to think these things because it just makes "sense" that you do something so that you might have something to show for it. Well, I'm here to announce, to whomever is ready to hear it, that that is not why you do something.
When we are TRULY LIVING, everything that we do, we do for the art of it. Many of us are not truly living... most of us at any given moment.
Whether we know it or not, we are beings in pursuit of artistic expression - in all forms.
Each action, done right, is itself a priceless art form.
True art is life acknowledged by itself.
Life, artistically performed, is a gateway to all of the beauty in the universe.
That gateway exists inside every one of us, and inside every thing, and inside every action, should we choose to see it.
No choice is above or below any other.
No thing is above or below any other.
All is perfect and beautiful.
This is true love (forgive me for some sentimentality here) - unconditional and unlimited, and we are all capable of this ACT.
This is the only act that has any payoff in the end, and there are infinite roads to it.
Nothing is a mistake, there is just doing art or learning to do art.
And, to make matters... better, we will all live art eventually, even those who seem farthest from it. It is inevitable.
When we fail to see this beauty, we are waiting... not living. I am guilty of waiting for almost the entirely of my life. I believe almost all of us are. There may have been a few who were/are fully immersed in life - divine ones. But all of us have that experience from time to time. We are all occasionally completely present in the universe, and in those moments we are, too, divine.
I believe we should devote ourselves to living artfully. I feel that the best choice we can make is to embrace whatever choices we make and exist completely in them.
I think that all of us are infinitely more than we give ourselves credit for, and that regardless of what it might look like, we can all achieve more than any THING could ever amount to.
If this makes no sense, perhaps this idea is too soon for you. All real truths are at least somewhat paradoxical.
This is the most truthful thing I think I've ever said.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
A political rant
A response to a "tea party" advocate who complained about our spending and our taxation, claiming that taxation hurts the economy and national debt hurts the economy. That seemed like a contradiction to me and I couldn't help myself. As always, I invite any comments:
The debt problem is bipartisan. The most expensive periods in our recent history were overseen by republican administrations. Not to say dems do anything much better (we're still spending like fools), but the answer isn't republicans. Don't let the "tea party" propaganda convince you of that. They don't offer a real solution. Your own statement is a contradiction, which makes sense because it's their talking point. You can't complain about our debt AND taxes. Taxes is how governments raise money to get out of debt. There's no solution there. Our economy isn't dependent on us spending so much as it is on us profiting from other countries' resources (and our own, though those are less profitable because we insist on some reasonable level of compensation and responsibility for the extraction). That imperial profit scheme is reliant on corporate multinationals, which the government needs to tax in order to pay for our services. That's how it has worked, more and more, for the past century, as we have switched from our domestic resources to those of other countries. Which is why we're in these expensive wars with no end. Which is the real reason why we're in debt. The imperialism game has gotten really expensive lately, which is to say, we're losing the game lately. What we need is a real revolution. Grass roots. Transformation of our society on an individual and community level. We need to seek domestic sustainability, fiscal sustainability (and, by default, environmental too), and turn to our innovation as the source of international relations and exchange. America needs to become the brain trust that it can be and has been in the past. No more petty fruitless bickering with the likes of Glenn Beck and Limbaugh antagonizing and drumming up irrational fear. Trust one another, at least locally, and lean on one another so that we can be more effective, like voltron.
The debt problem is bipartisan. The most expensive periods in our recent history were overseen by republican administrations. Not to say dems do anything much better (we're still spending like fools), but the answer isn't republicans. Don't let the "tea party" propaganda convince you of that. They don't offer a real solution. Your own statement is a contradiction, which makes sense because it's their talking point. You can't complain about our debt AND taxes. Taxes is how governments raise money to get out of debt. There's no solution there. Our economy isn't dependent on us spending so much as it is on us profiting from other countries' resources (and our own, though those are less profitable because we insist on some reasonable level of compensation and responsibility for the extraction). That imperial profit scheme is reliant on corporate multinationals, which the government needs to tax in order to pay for our services. That's how it has worked, more and more, for the past century, as we have switched from our domestic resources to those of other countries. Which is why we're in these expensive wars with no end. Which is the real reason why we're in debt. The imperialism game has gotten really expensive lately, which is to say, we're losing the game lately. What we need is a real revolution. Grass roots. Transformation of our society on an individual and community level. We need to seek domestic sustainability, fiscal sustainability (and, by default, environmental too), and turn to our innovation as the source of international relations and exchange. America needs to become the brain trust that it can be and has been in the past. No more petty fruitless bickering with the likes of Glenn Beck and Limbaugh antagonizing and drumming up irrational fear. Trust one another, at least locally, and lean on one another so that we can be more effective, like voltron.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
morality of profit
Consequences of Achieving the American Dream
I worked for a moving company once. It was in my early 20's, I'd just moved to Anchorage, Alaska, and it seemed like a solid source of income for the summer. This place had a bunch of young misfits boxing up and delivering people's earthly belongings. They were a fun group, but perhaps the most memorable acquaintance that I made was with a soft-spoken, middle-aged, black man named Jerry. Over the course of the summer, information about Jerry gradually leaked from my co-workers. As it turned out, this unassuming guy had kept his nose to the grindstone, double-shifting as a mover and long shoreman for 30 odd years, even started his own little freight company, and had amassed a small fortune.
Years earlier, I had worked in Sun Valley, Idaho, helping to facilitate a weeks-long banquet for some of the wealthiest people in the world. There, the annual Allen and Company retreat was a much anticipated event. Locals lined up to catch any drippings that overflowed from the cash cornucopia rolling through town. I was one of those - living off the fat of kings. I began to wonder what events or choices had brought these rich people to their position in life and later learned of some of the atrocities that their respective business operations had lead to. I grew suspicious of the very wealthy, a mindset that remained for years. And then I met Jerry. I began to see that the circumstances that lead to financial success were not so fixed or rigid; that acquired resources need not come at a heavy cost to others. More importantly, I learned to empathize with the profiteer. I saw how people often feel entitled to wealth when the sweat of their labor stains every dollar. Before that summer, I thought of profit quite negatively, but Jerry was irresistibly respectable. He was meagerly educated, but he was hard-working, cautious, gracious, and frugal, and he was going to retire soon, a wealthy man. I wondered if some of the Allen and Company group had had a similar experience. I wondered whether their wealth began with hard work and deserved success; if the adverse fallout of their transactions might go unnoticed by them for some other, justifiable reason, or if I had been right all along - that the pursuit of profit can blind us from the real and complete effects of our actions. Finally, I wondered whether any of them, from Jerry, with his humble success story, to the billionaire CEOs in Sun Valley, had ever stopped to consider what their actions said about their own personal character, or if they had simply started down a path and eventually lost sight of their larger purpose, like so many of us do. Our American mythology is riddled with tales of pioneering individuals who face remarkable odds and battle their way to a life of plenty. The imagery conjured up in these stories is often of overcoming external obstacles with perseverance - the competitive spirit. It has become standard American dogma to espouse competition as synonymous with freedom - we are feisty after all. In America, we have the freedom to "make it" by carving out a big slice of the pie. But nowhere do the stories go further, describing the consequences of achieving the American dream.
Asked whether profit is moral, and I immediately think about a wresting of resources (taking slices out of the pie). Clearly, there are some who feel that profit is as natural as breathing; that even discussing its morality is a nonsensical or wasted exercise. Others find the idea of profit repulsive, on the grounds that profiting creates both 'winners' and 'losers,' while all people are entitled to certain human dignities which are inevitably denied to some who happen to be on the wrong end of the exchange. And then there are those who fall in the middle, claiming that perhaps some profit is fine so long as all people are assured the opportunity to live in relative safety and comfort. I don't wish to debate this particular issue. I see plenty of examples of individuals from all over this spectrum. Rather, I feel that there is a deeper issue, one that underlies any discussion of the morality of wealth creation and distribution: the issue of context. If we are to analyze the morality of profit, we must understand the value system that brings about profit in the first place, since only in a system of shared values can we agree on what is moral.
Profit is the byproduct of competition, so this is really about the morality of competition. Since morality is measured against one's value system, it would serve this discussion to describe the values associated with the competitive model. I will attempt to outline the values underlying both ends of the spectrum, from "profit is absolutely and always moral" to "profit inevitably leads to humanitarian atrocities."
In the extreme case of absolute free-market competition, which moralizes virtually any profit, the requisite values are harsh and divisive. Atop the list is individualism. In the absolute pursuit of profit, each individual is responsible for his/her personal outcome, and should not expect others to contribute to his/her success unless it serves those individuals as well. Further, in order to prevent any cooperative opposition, one is rewarded for isolating others from one another. Next, since all wealth is derived, directly or indirectly, from natural resources, natural resources must be considered commodities. Also, in order to prioritize personal competitive achievement, one must think only in time frames shorter than one or two human lifetimes.
In absolute competition, internal exchanges of resources tend to be cyclic - passing from hand to hand and eventually back again - or else pile up conspicuously in the hands of the most successful individuals. Acquisitions from afar, on the other hand, serve the dual function of being both less noticeable and more favorable for local citizens. Separating from distant people also helps to justify their losses as the inevitable outcome of competition, and helps to alienate them. Separation from others, once again, supports the competitive model.
One of the most highly touted values associated with absolute free-market competition is that everyone has an equal opportunity. According to the model, an individual's success is determined by their choices. Poor people are poor because they made bad choices. This value is debatable since it assumes that the differences between peoples' achievement is even a point of discussion. An alternative is the assumption that individuals simply have variable abilities and thus, one's outcome is the product of their intrinsic 'worth.' In any case, there must be some justification for the disparity that results from competition.
From what I was able to gather during my months with Jerry, I would have to say that despite his success in profiting from people's need to transport goods, this list of values is far from his own. Rather, I think he might identify with the equal opportunity and individual responsibility values, but not necessarily the resources as commodities or imperialism values. Such is likely the case for most Americans, who might subscribe to some of these values, or at least variations of them. As far as the Allen and Company billionaires, I imagine that perhaps a few of them would identify with this entire list of values, or else their choices might point to them, even if they consciously claim otherwise. Instead they might use the classic "it's just business" justification for any contradiction between their stated values and their professional choices.
As a teacher, a member of a socialized institution, I find myself surrounded by individuals whose values are quite contrary to those from the competitive model. While there is certainly a spectrum of teachers, and there is even a strong element of competition embedded in our academic institutions, there seems to be a significant tendency toward non-competitive values for which virtually no profit is moral. I will call this the communal or cooperative model, and attempt to describe the values associated with absolute cooperation.
First and foremost, the communal model emphasizes cooperation and connection, even with distant peoples. Communities, as systems of individuals, function best when each member contributes to the good of the whole, and the more inclusive the whole, the greater the body of talent/resources on which all can draw. Cooperative behavior, as we have seen to great effect in our industrial society, can lead to incredible efficiency. Also highly valued in this model is sustainability. Since the communal mode focuses on the well-being of the group, all decisions must consider the long-term consequences for the community. Perhaps the backbone of the communal/cooperative model is the idea that all individuals have equal inherent worth despite varied circumstance or abilities. In order to work for the common good, one must value all members of the community equally. As soon as a person starts to value themselves above or below another, competitive values emerge. Further, in this model no one person or thing can truly be considered independent of the whole.
The only examples of this sort of value system that I'm aware of are in cases with aboriginal peoples, and even then I'm almost certain that they contend with nearly perpetual occurrences of individuals violating these values. In order to maintain this system, everyone must sacrifice a degree of their autonomy, which is a lesson that doesn't come easily to most people and certainly doesn't jive with the traditional American attitude.
Whether or not either of these ends of the spectrum is feasible, I would challenge the reader to consider where they stand. One of the real freedoms that all of us have is the freedom to choose our own value system, which is what makes moral arguments both extremely complicated and often very heated. I wonder, however, whether many of us ever stop to consider the implications of our values. I know that in my case, values arose quite passively, as the product of both my upbringing and my life experiences. I imagine that for many this is also the case - circumstances bring about beliefs. But we are not prisoners of our circumstances. We have a choice. I suggest we take a moment to figure out where we stand, whether our choices agree with that stance, and whether our values reflect our best self.
I worked for a moving company once. It was in my early 20's, I'd just moved to Anchorage, Alaska, and it seemed like a solid source of income for the summer. This place had a bunch of young misfits boxing up and delivering people's earthly belongings. They were a fun group, but perhaps the most memorable acquaintance that I made was with a soft-spoken, middle-aged, black man named Jerry. Over the course of the summer, information about Jerry gradually leaked from my co-workers. As it turned out, this unassuming guy had kept his nose to the grindstone, double-shifting as a mover and long shoreman for 30 odd years, even started his own little freight company, and had amassed a small fortune.
Years earlier, I had worked in Sun Valley, Idaho, helping to facilitate a weeks-long banquet for some of the wealthiest people in the world. There, the annual Allen and Company retreat was a much anticipated event. Locals lined up to catch any drippings that overflowed from the cash cornucopia rolling through town. I was one of those - living off the fat of kings. I began to wonder what events or choices had brought these rich people to their position in life and later learned of some of the atrocities that their respective business operations had lead to. I grew suspicious of the very wealthy, a mindset that remained for years. And then I met Jerry. I began to see that the circumstances that lead to financial success were not so fixed or rigid; that acquired resources need not come at a heavy cost to others. More importantly, I learned to empathize with the profiteer. I saw how people often feel entitled to wealth when the sweat of their labor stains every dollar. Before that summer, I thought of profit quite negatively, but Jerry was irresistibly respectable. He was meagerly educated, but he was hard-working, cautious, gracious, and frugal, and he was going to retire soon, a wealthy man. I wondered if some of the Allen and Company group had had a similar experience. I wondered whether their wealth began with hard work and deserved success; if the adverse fallout of their transactions might go unnoticed by them for some other, justifiable reason, or if I had been right all along - that the pursuit of profit can blind us from the real and complete effects of our actions. Finally, I wondered whether any of them, from Jerry, with his humble success story, to the billionaire CEOs in Sun Valley, had ever stopped to consider what their actions said about their own personal character, or if they had simply started down a path and eventually lost sight of their larger purpose, like so many of us do. Our American mythology is riddled with tales of pioneering individuals who face remarkable odds and battle their way to a life of plenty. The imagery conjured up in these stories is often of overcoming external obstacles with perseverance - the competitive spirit. It has become standard American dogma to espouse competition as synonymous with freedom - we are feisty after all. In America, we have the freedom to "make it" by carving out a big slice of the pie. But nowhere do the stories go further, describing the consequences of achieving the American dream.
Asked whether profit is moral, and I immediately think about a wresting of resources (taking slices out of the pie). Clearly, there are some who feel that profit is as natural as breathing; that even discussing its morality is a nonsensical or wasted exercise. Others find the idea of profit repulsive, on the grounds that profiting creates both 'winners' and 'losers,' while all people are entitled to certain human dignities which are inevitably denied to some who happen to be on the wrong end of the exchange. And then there are those who fall in the middle, claiming that perhaps some profit is fine so long as all people are assured the opportunity to live in relative safety and comfort. I don't wish to debate this particular issue. I see plenty of examples of individuals from all over this spectrum. Rather, I feel that there is a deeper issue, one that underlies any discussion of the morality of wealth creation and distribution: the issue of context. If we are to analyze the morality of profit, we must understand the value system that brings about profit in the first place, since only in a system of shared values can we agree on what is moral.
Profit is the byproduct of competition, so this is really about the morality of competition. Since morality is measured against one's value system, it would serve this discussion to describe the values associated with the competitive model. I will attempt to outline the values underlying both ends of the spectrum, from "profit is absolutely and always moral" to "profit inevitably leads to humanitarian atrocities."
In the extreme case of absolute free-market competition, which moralizes virtually any profit, the requisite values are harsh and divisive. Atop the list is individualism. In the absolute pursuit of profit, each individual is responsible for his/her personal outcome, and should not expect others to contribute to his/her success unless it serves those individuals as well. Further, in order to prevent any cooperative opposition, one is rewarded for isolating others from one another. Next, since all wealth is derived, directly or indirectly, from natural resources, natural resources must be considered commodities. Also, in order to prioritize personal competitive achievement, one must think only in time frames shorter than one or two human lifetimes.
In absolute competition, internal exchanges of resources tend to be cyclic - passing from hand to hand and eventually back again - or else pile up conspicuously in the hands of the most successful individuals. Acquisitions from afar, on the other hand, serve the dual function of being both less noticeable and more favorable for local citizens. Separating from distant people also helps to justify their losses as the inevitable outcome of competition, and helps to alienate them. Separation from others, once again, supports the competitive model.
One of the most highly touted values associated with absolute free-market competition is that everyone has an equal opportunity. According to the model, an individual's success is determined by their choices. Poor people are poor because they made bad choices. This value is debatable since it assumes that the differences between peoples' achievement is even a point of discussion. An alternative is the assumption that individuals simply have variable abilities and thus, one's outcome is the product of their intrinsic 'worth.' In any case, there must be some justification for the disparity that results from competition.
From what I was able to gather during my months with Jerry, I would have to say that despite his success in profiting from people's need to transport goods, this list of values is far from his own. Rather, I think he might identify with the equal opportunity and individual responsibility values, but not necessarily the resources as commodities or imperialism values. Such is likely the case for most Americans, who might subscribe to some of these values, or at least variations of them. As far as the Allen and Company billionaires, I imagine that perhaps a few of them would identify with this entire list of values, or else their choices might point to them, even if they consciously claim otherwise. Instead they might use the classic "it's just business" justification for any contradiction between their stated values and their professional choices.
As a teacher, a member of a socialized institution, I find myself surrounded by individuals whose values are quite contrary to those from the competitive model. While there is certainly a spectrum of teachers, and there is even a strong element of competition embedded in our academic institutions, there seems to be a significant tendency toward non-competitive values for which virtually no profit is moral. I will call this the communal or cooperative model, and attempt to describe the values associated with absolute cooperation.
First and foremost, the communal model emphasizes cooperation and connection, even with distant peoples. Communities, as systems of individuals, function best when each member contributes to the good of the whole, and the more inclusive the whole, the greater the body of talent/resources on which all can draw. Cooperative behavior, as we have seen to great effect in our industrial society, can lead to incredible efficiency. Also highly valued in this model is sustainability. Since the communal mode focuses on the well-being of the group, all decisions must consider the long-term consequences for the community. Perhaps the backbone of the communal/cooperative model is the idea that all individuals have equal inherent worth despite varied circumstance or abilities. In order to work for the common good, one must value all members of the community equally. As soon as a person starts to value themselves above or below another, competitive values emerge. Further, in this model no one person or thing can truly be considered independent of the whole.
The only examples of this sort of value system that I'm aware of are in cases with aboriginal peoples, and even then I'm almost certain that they contend with nearly perpetual occurrences of individuals violating these values. In order to maintain this system, everyone must sacrifice a degree of their autonomy, which is a lesson that doesn't come easily to most people and certainly doesn't jive with the traditional American attitude.
Whether or not either of these ends of the spectrum is feasible, I would challenge the reader to consider where they stand. One of the real freedoms that all of us have is the freedom to choose our own value system, which is what makes moral arguments both extremely complicated and often very heated. I wonder, however, whether many of us ever stop to consider the implications of our values. I know that in my case, values arose quite passively, as the product of both my upbringing and my life experiences. I imagine that for many this is also the case - circumstances bring about beliefs. But we are not prisoners of our circumstances. We have a choice. I suggest we take a moment to figure out where we stand, whether our choices agree with that stance, and whether our values reflect our best self.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
praise for individualism?
Toward the end of this school year I was talking with Mr. Webb (I believe that I included a student or two at one point) about a tendency that some people have to be critical of most everything - to look upon all options with distaste. He hypothesized that this is due, at least in part, to the safety of this position: it is easy to dissect virtually any idea to the point where flaws are readily apparent. In other words, it is very easy to find something wrong with pretty much anything if that is what you're looking for, since all things are ultimately highly complex. On the other side, the pro- to this bitter con-, there is great risk. If you openly decide that you like something, you are identifying with it, in essence advertising that "I am the sort of person who likes this thing." For those nay-sayers, eager to dislike, it is now easy to conclude that you are as distasteful as your naive preferences. Lack of identification--criticism--, therefore, is the safe position, involving no risk-taking.
Last night, I was discussing this idea with one of my college friends when he proposed a link between this and the 'mob' mentality. He suggested that people feel much more comfortable getting behind something (approving) when there is a large group in agreement since that same critic who claims that you are a fool for your preferences is now denouncing the entire group. Safety in numbers.
Thus, once again, the lone wolf faces exceptional challenges. But what about when the lone wolf is onto something? (s)he is now in a perfect position to engage in a form heroism, since heroism, after all, requires that one face fears and challenges.
Last night, I was discussing this idea with one of my college friends when he proposed a link between this and the 'mob' mentality. He suggested that people feel much more comfortable getting behind something (approving) when there is a large group in agreement since that same critic who claims that you are a fool for your preferences is now denouncing the entire group. Safety in numbers.
Thus, once again, the lone wolf faces exceptional challenges. But what about when the lone wolf is onto something? (s)he is now in a perfect position to engage in a form heroism, since heroism, after all, requires that one face fears and challenges.
the separation of self
So, since my junior year of college (96-97) I've kept up a study of philosophy from time to time. Over the past 6 years I've gotten pretty into the eastern stuff, and a lot of it resonates with me, largely because it seems like the underlying truths to many western ideas as well (though those are so often cloaked in layers of interpretation and pointed vernacular). One of the big ideas that fascinates me is the notion that in the real reality, not the one that has passed through our sensory filter, we, all people, all things, all lack-of-things (space), and even time, are all connected, we are all one. In Buddhism, this is the essence of Buddha, in Taoism, this is the Tao (though in both cases my generic one-line description only scratches the surface of these 'beyond words' notions). As a side-note, there are some theories in physics that assert the same claim about the underlying unity of reality. So, with this whole parenting thing I've done a lot of reading and apparently babies are born without the ability to distinguish themselves from the world around them. There is no separation. They perceive everything as themselves. They also have no notion of cause and effect, which, of course, is another term for time... but yet they most certainly perceive. They can almost immediately distinguish between their mother and anyone else. They very deliberately move toward their food source and they are certainly aware of their physical needs. This state of awareness persists, apparently, for some time. This raises two (+) questions:
1) Are humans born Buddha (or whatever name you choose to use)?
2) How can one perceive without distinction between self and "other?" In particular, what is Mother to such a being? Assuming no sensory distinction between forms, what remains?
1) Are humans born Buddha (or whatever name you choose to use)?
2) How can one perceive without distinction between self and "other?" In particular, what is Mother to such a being? Assuming no sensory distinction between forms, what remains?
Saturday, January 30, 2010
goal setting
Something that I've been working on lately
I often hear all this hubbub about goal setting. Goal setting is a great tool, but it can sometimes interfere with your performance in the present, as it can be a distraction to think about where 'this' is going. It is certainly true that a goal can be a motivator, but I suggest that when setting goals, be sure to not get attached to them. Let them depart when it is their time, so that you can fully embrace the path that presents itself.
I often hear all this hubbub about goal setting. Goal setting is a great tool, but it can sometimes interfere with your performance in the present, as it can be a distraction to think about where 'this' is going. It is certainly true that a goal can be a motivator, but I suggest that when setting goals, be sure to not get attached to them. Let them depart when it is their time, so that you can fully embrace the path that presents itself.
change
Every 7 years or so your body has completely recycled itself. The rates of cellular reproduction and cellular death are pretty much the same for most of your life. People are literally re-born in slow motion continuously. Life--reality--is ever-changing, ever-renewing. I often look back and recognize the person I was just some years ago as distinct from who I believe myself to be right now. Life is a process. So often we focus on products - goals. In fact, our society is structured around the idea of goals. "making something of yourself" is touted as the utmost freedom afforded by American life. That statement, "making something of yourself," implies a timeline with a destination, which in turn implies that there is some goal, some future self that you should set out to 'achieve.' Achievement is overrated. I say live instead of achieve. No acquisition will replace this moment, and with an emphasis on those moments ahead, these moments pass away. As beautifully painful and exquisitely sinister as this moment might be, it is a work of art that is exactly as magnificent as each of you. You, after all, don't exist except right now, and you will never again exist as you do now. 7 years from now you will be completely different. Life is process... not product.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)