Here's an interesting piece about procrastination: _http://www.paulgraham.com/procrastination.html
The "program" he talks about (though he does not call it that) is not just procrastination, but how we fool ourselves into thinking we're not procrastinating at all - by doing a lot of other things to make ourselves feel like we're "busy" and "getting things done". The question is, why? As someone on this forum mentioned before, we develop a "selective laziness".
So he quotes these interesting questions someone else posed:
So, procrastination - doing other things things and postponing what is "important" until the last moment, because for whatever reason you just don't feel like doing it now, maybe it seems boring, or you're not inspired, or something else (everything else?) looks way more enjoyable. But there seems to be a subtlety here that I would like to address and understand.
One possibility for this - undeveloped emotional center. Like, dislike, love, hate, want, don't want, boring, fun.. - all that is completely under the control of the many "i"'s in our default state. Today something is boring, tomorrow it is fun. Today you like it, tomorrow you don't. People want to do things when they are "inspired" to do them. But what triggers or activates inspiration, and should we have to wait for inspiration to just pop up or can we consciously create inspiration? Waiting for inspiration to hit seems to be equivalent to waiting for the right "i" to suddenly get switched on, the "i" that just happens to enjoy that particular activity - and only then do it. Is this an accurate definition of "inspiration"? If so, are we not then maneuvering within the constraints of our machine, trying to basically wait till our machine "feels like it"?
But another possibility is what Laura wrote in the education thread here: http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=7109.msg50128#msg50128
Then there is the multiple i's, combined with the undeveloped emotional center. This too can result in being inspired or uninspired for certain activities, having a "low attention span", but also holding contradictory beliefs and urges etc. So what is the difference between creativity/genius and many i's?
Perhaps the difference is that on the surface it looks the same, but really isn't. One person can be jumping from subject to subject because of a low attention span, another one might be doing the same because their mind is drawing the connections due to being allowed and encouraged to draw such connections as a child? Perhaps one way to put it - in one case jumping from one activity/subject to another a mechanical thing, and in another case it is a conscious thing?
So then, where would a child who does this fit in? Is it creativity or mechanicalness? The reason I ask is, I wouldn't want to accidentally encourage the child to embrace their machine, but to be sure that I'm helping the child develop a single "I" - and yet without stifling creativity or forcing the mind to submit to unnecessary restrictions etc. And not just a child, I mean anyone really, including myself.
In terms of procrastinating, that too is related because - when is procrastination just a program of our machine, where we "don't feel like" something because we're mechanical - and when is procrastination a result of the mind "maximizing" an experience and so would be a good thing? Is there a way to differentiate? People say that we should do what makes us happy, what makes us feel fulfilled. But on the other hand, if that happiness is just a mechanical happiness that satisfies just some "i" then it's bad advice - they're encouraging us to conform to our machine and just "go with the flow". On the other hand, CAN we *make* ourselves inspired? Or does that come from simply developing through the Work, and we simply find that our inspiration becomes less and less haphazard and more stable as a result? Is this not then where real genius is found - when inspiration is "stabilized" and we are driven towards a goal consistently without being "driven" towards another 2 minutes later?
The "program" he talks about (though he does not call it that) is not just procrastination, but how we fool ourselves into thinking we're not procrastinating at all - by doing a lot of other things to make ourselves feel like we're "busy" and "getting things done". The question is, why? As someone on this forum mentioned before, we develop a "selective laziness".
So he quotes these interesting questions someone else posed:
Then he mentions people shying away from seriously contemplating this. Well yeah, there are tons of uncomfortable things people "shy away from" regarding their machine, or their circumstance in life.- What are the most important problems in your field?
- Are you working on one of them?
- Why not?
- What's the best thing you could be working on, and why aren't you?
So, procrastination - doing other things things and postponing what is "important" until the last moment, because for whatever reason you just don't feel like doing it now, maybe it seems boring, or you're not inspired, or something else (everything else?) looks way more enjoyable. But there seems to be a subtlety here that I would like to address and understand.
One possibility for this - undeveloped emotional center. Like, dislike, love, hate, want, don't want, boring, fun.. - all that is completely under the control of the many "i"'s in our default state. Today something is boring, tomorrow it is fun. Today you like it, tomorrow you don't. People want to do things when they are "inspired" to do them. But what triggers or activates inspiration, and should we have to wait for inspiration to just pop up or can we consciously create inspiration? Waiting for inspiration to hit seems to be equivalent to waiting for the right "i" to suddenly get switched on, the "i" that just happens to enjoy that particular activity - and only then do it. Is this an accurate definition of "inspiration"? If so, are we not then maneuvering within the constraints of our machine, trying to basically wait till our machine "feels like it"?
But another possibility is what Laura wrote in the education thread here: http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=7109.msg50128#msg50128
It seems like there is a subtle but crucial difference between these 2 explanations, and I'm kind of confused about just what that difference is and would appreciate any and all thoughts. What Laura described above as the "fundamental element of genius" I understood to be the act of allowing a mind to think and explore in any and all directions without restricting it, and be allowed to focus on whatever issue it is "inspired" to focus on, and not be forced to limit itself to a particular line of thinking or a subject more than it feels the need to at the time. Did I understand that right?Laura said:For children ages four to eight it would be better to spend two to three hours per day simply becoming familiar with the fundamentals of reading and numbers as play and then allowing their own natural curiosity to direct their imitative activities in an environment where there is someone and something worthy of imitation. For a child, play is learning and the importance of presenting education in this context is tragically underestimated. When a child is tired of a certain game, they should be permitted to initiate a different one. They know when their brain has maximized the experience at hand. It is crucial to their curiosity, the fundamental element of genius, that their attention be allowed to flow naturally from one subject to the next which draws their interest.
Then there is the multiple i's, combined with the undeveloped emotional center. This too can result in being inspired or uninspired for certain activities, having a "low attention span", but also holding contradictory beliefs and urges etc. So what is the difference between creativity/genius and many i's?
Perhaps the difference is that on the surface it looks the same, but really isn't. One person can be jumping from subject to subject because of a low attention span, another one might be doing the same because their mind is drawing the connections due to being allowed and encouraged to draw such connections as a child? Perhaps one way to put it - in one case jumping from one activity/subject to another a mechanical thing, and in another case it is a conscious thing?
So then, where would a child who does this fit in? Is it creativity or mechanicalness? The reason I ask is, I wouldn't want to accidentally encourage the child to embrace their machine, but to be sure that I'm helping the child develop a single "I" - and yet without stifling creativity or forcing the mind to submit to unnecessary restrictions etc. And not just a child, I mean anyone really, including myself.
In terms of procrastinating, that too is related because - when is procrastination just a program of our machine, where we "don't feel like" something because we're mechanical - and when is procrastination a result of the mind "maximizing" an experience and so would be a good thing? Is there a way to differentiate? People say that we should do what makes us happy, what makes us feel fulfilled. But on the other hand, if that happiness is just a mechanical happiness that satisfies just some "i" then it's bad advice - they're encouraging us to conform to our machine and just "go with the flow". On the other hand, CAN we *make* ourselves inspired? Or does that come from simply developing through the Work, and we simply find that our inspiration becomes less and less haphazard and more stable as a result? Is this not then where real genius is found - when inspiration is "stabilized" and we are driven towards a goal consistently without being "driven" towards another 2 minutes later?