Love your thoughts on the "why" behind learning - reminded me of this:
It seems to me that while reading non-fiction, most folks are in searching mode. Most would be more intellectually productive, however, in chasing mode. It helps to have in mind a question, puzzle, or problem, and then read in order to answer your question, explain your puzzle, or solve your problem.
In searching mode, readers tend to be less critical. If a source came recommended, they tend to keep reading along even if they aren’t quite sure what the point is. Since authors tend to be more prestigious than readers, readers tend to feel reluctant to question or judge what they’ve read...
In chasing mode, readers are naturally more critical. When you are looking for something particular, it feels less presumptuous to stop reading when your source comes to seem irrelevant...
Also, search-readers often don’t have a good mental place to put each thing they learn. In which case they don’t end up learning much. Chasers, in contrast, always have specific mental places they are trying to fill with what they read, so they better integrate new things they learn with old things they know.
To your theme of refinement - now I'm wondering how to refine the "why" itself? Better questions, better answers and all that.
--
For me 2024 is going to be about integration. I've felt too much distance between who I am and what I'm working on, time spent on production feels separate from time just "being". It seems unsustainable.
Bridging that gap seems worthy of (at least) a year of attention.
For me 2024 is going to be about integration. I've felt too much distance between who I am and what I'm working on, time spent on production feels separate from time just "being". It seems unsustainable.
Same.
Just listened to this podcast the other day on Socrates, which turned out to dig into something really thought-provoking wrt your point about the distance between your aspirations and reality. Normally I wouldn't have found this, as I know a lot about Socrates and Greek philosophical thought already, but this was from a new angle. Here's a taste:
So the natural philosophers are "truth without relevance". The Sophists, and their propensity for the promotion of bullshit, represent "relevance disconnected from truth". So notice here they have the power to transform people, but they have disconnected it from the pursuit of the truth. These people can give us knowledge of the facts but do not facilitate self transformation. What Socrates wanted is he wanted both. He wanted individuals who knew how to pay attention in such a way that what they found salient helped them determine the truth and that the truth that they found help them to train their attention to find salience. Socrates wanted something like that.
Based on how many things you've said in the last few days have intersected stuff I care a lot about, there's a decent chance you may dig this podcast, too.
reply
Thank you, I will for sure be listening to this. Great minds think alike 🤠
I very much enjoy these kind of dichotomies, the philosophers, and the sophists. Still so relevant today, and perhaps we’re biased but bitcoiners feel like a great model of the blend that Socrates wanted.
reply
This looks fascinating thank you, I will give it a listen. I saw many people referencing this guy before but didn't know he had a podcast.
I'm reading "The web of meaning" right now by Jeremy Lent which is pretty much entirely focused on this integration topic. I don't know if I could recommend it yet as I'm only a quarter of the way through, maybe I'll write a review on SN later.
A little snippet:
While self-control has been shown to produce more successful life outcomes, if applied excessively, it doesn’t lead to sustained happiness. Rather, like an authoritarian regime forcing itself on a population, it might achieve apparent stability, but only at the cost of seething resentments that ultimately lead to acts of sabotage and potentially even revolution. Instead, establishing a more wholesome ‘democracy of consciousness’ can lead to both greater stability and a more peaceful inner experience.
The key to a successful democracy of consciousness is a full and ongoing integration of the different aspects of ‘I’ and the self. By welcoming and honoring the various needs and feelings of the self, ‘I’ am more able to incorporate them into the direction I set for my life. If I learn to listen carefully to the ‘wisdom of the body’, I can become a wiser person in the decisions I make and actions I take. At the same time, if the self recognizes that its needs are being acknowledged, it can also relax, and is less likely to sabotage the life that ‘I’ have constructed.
The relationship between ‘I’ and self is a bit like a partner dance set to the music of life. Each partner differs from the other, but can learn to attune to the other and respond harmoniously to the other’s moves, sometimes closing in, sometimes moving further away, sometimes setting a new tone and sometimes following the other’s lead, but always remaining in relationship – and rather than trying to dominate or surrender, coordinating with the other to co-create an experience that neither could ever attain by themselves.
reply
Thanks for sharing this. The article really encapsulated my thoughts about reading this Dec. I literally read stuff that comes my way; I get my books for free from book sharing corners etc. but come next year, I wanna read with greater intentionality. Read books in Chinese and Japanese to seek different perspectives other than those provided by Eurocentric authors. Read fiction rather than consume myself with productivity by reading self-help books. Have bookmarked your comment!
reply
Thank you for sharing this, searching vs. chasing is a perfect way to frame it.
That is a fantastic goal, something we could probably all focus on a bit more. Ikigai as I (and Japan) like to think of it :)
reply