Today I'm going to talk about relative importance.
Life is a combination of several planes of existance that intertwine with one another, so many that it would take some 3000 different symbols to make a vector equation with them and just writing one point of intersection would take a month to copy down. Us, as people who constantly change, be it mentally, physically or literally changing from a business suit to a horribly coordinated floral-printed shirt and matching shorts, end up spending our existential presence hopping from plane to plane, spending more time on some more than others. As a result of this, obviously we become professionals in some fields and a little more than hairy apes in another. For example, Wayne Rooney is regarded (and I say wrongly) as the best footballer in England, while in the gambling den he loses money like Nicole Richie loses her marbles. Michael Jordan is a basketball Legend and a three-legged elephant on the golf course.
All this points towards the fact that each and every person will be regarded with a different degree of importance in different areas. Caretakers at home are nobodies outside, because they spend an awfully long time at home and next to none outside. Even in our language, we see this. For example, in the sentence "My clock broke down this morning" the letter L is awfully important, changing the entire meaning of the sentence when taken away. On the other hand, you could take away a G from "Gnome" and it would have no impact on the way it is pronounced.
So, this points us towards a direction of specialisation, where we simply dwell in one area and not venture out, since we are after all best at one area of life, so it would make sense to do so, in order to derive maximum pleasure out of our transition. And if everyone did this, they would be funneled into whatever they enjoyed most, setting the world at a peaceful and enjoyable equilibrium. Sadly, much like a bad employee, this almost always fails to work. Because humans are greedy creatures, there is always a hunger for more, to branch out. Which means that as a result some planes become overcrowded as people jostle for territory.
There actually is a more concrete reasoning behind this non-specialisation, and as much as I hate to admit it it's explained by economic theory. The inherent problem of full-blown specialisation is that it's essentially throwing all your eggs in one basket. When Romeo thought Juliet was dead, he killed himself. This, however, is not about the stupidity of Shakespearen characters. This means that once you lose that one thing you've lived for, everything follows suit and goes down the drain. Theoretically one could argue that partial specialisation would be the best of both worlds, but the flipside says that it could be the worst as well.
That being said, total commitment could turn out to be like riding through the clouds on a golden jackalope with a Mercedes symbol on its forehead, or it could be like being a farmer with no chickens, or even worse, a singer forced to cut an album in collaboration with Cher. Sadly, there really isn't way to predict how things will go - the passage of time has proven that whol industries can collapse, I mean nobody wants new Backstreet Boy songs anymore, they should've quit while they were ahead.
---
I wanted to study lit today. I really did. Problem is, my notes are buried under a pile of redundant econs notes that I've left alone for months now. So, as could be expected, the moment I tried to move it the PSI in my room jumped to an apocalyptic number as the room was clouded in dust, the alarm was sounded, the fire engine made its way here and Taufik Batisah stepped out of that fire engine, the pure absurdity of the situation meaning that everything really is turning a little loopy. Well, that and the odd urge to burst out into song in a way normally reserved for corny Disney movies anyway.
Life is a combination of several planes of existance that intertwine with one another, so many that it would take some 3000 different symbols to make a vector equation with them and just writing one point of intersection would take a month to copy down. Us, as people who constantly change, be it mentally, physically or literally changing from a business suit to a horribly coordinated floral-printed shirt and matching shorts, end up spending our existential presence hopping from plane to plane, spending more time on some more than others. As a result of this, obviously we become professionals in some fields and a little more than hairy apes in another. For example, Wayne Rooney is regarded (and I say wrongly) as the best footballer in England, while in the gambling den he loses money like Nicole Richie loses her marbles. Michael Jordan is a basketball Legend and a three-legged elephant on the golf course.
All this points towards the fact that each and every person will be regarded with a different degree of importance in different areas. Caretakers at home are nobodies outside, because they spend an awfully long time at home and next to none outside. Even in our language, we see this. For example, in the sentence "My clock broke down this morning" the letter L is awfully important, changing the entire meaning of the sentence when taken away. On the other hand, you could take away a G from "Gnome" and it would have no impact on the way it is pronounced.
So, this points us towards a direction of specialisation, where we simply dwell in one area and not venture out, since we are after all best at one area of life, so it would make sense to do so, in order to derive maximum pleasure out of our transition. And if everyone did this, they would be funneled into whatever they enjoyed most, setting the world at a peaceful and enjoyable equilibrium. Sadly, much like a bad employee, this almost always fails to work. Because humans are greedy creatures, there is always a hunger for more, to branch out. Which means that as a result some planes become overcrowded as people jostle for territory.
There actually is a more concrete reasoning behind this non-specialisation, and as much as I hate to admit it it's explained by economic theory. The inherent problem of full-blown specialisation is that it's essentially throwing all your eggs in one basket. When Romeo thought Juliet was dead, he killed himself. This, however, is not about the stupidity of Shakespearen characters. This means that once you lose that one thing you've lived for, everything follows suit and goes down the drain. Theoretically one could argue that partial specialisation would be the best of both worlds, but the flipside says that it could be the worst as well.
That being said, total commitment could turn out to be like riding through the clouds on a golden jackalope with a Mercedes symbol on its forehead, or it could be like being a farmer with no chickens, or even worse, a singer forced to cut an album in collaboration with Cher. Sadly, there really isn't way to predict how things will go - the passage of time has proven that whol industries can collapse, I mean nobody wants new Backstreet Boy songs anymore, they should've quit while they were ahead.
---
I wanted to study lit today. I really did. Problem is, my notes are buried under a pile of redundant econs notes that I've left alone for months now. So, as could be expected, the moment I tried to move it the PSI in my room jumped to an apocalyptic number as the room was clouded in dust, the alarm was sounded, the fire engine made its way here and Taufik Batisah stepped out of that fire engine, the pure absurdity of the situation meaning that everything really is turning a little loopy. Well, that and the odd urge to burst out into song in a way normally reserved for corny Disney movies anyway.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home