AMA with Hannah Aline Taylor. Wednesday 2/4 at 4:00 PM CT
love, boundaries, and mistakes in relating, community, and peopling together (+ thank god love doesn’t look like you expect it to)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNYNL05PRBQAMA with Hannah Aline Taylor. Wednesday 2/4 at 4:00 PM CT
love, boundaries, and mistakes in relating, community, and peopling together (+ thank god love doesn’t look like you expect it to)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNYNL05PRBQProductivity Systems vs Meaningful Aligned Work. This might be a false dichotomy.
But, every few months, I come across some new productivity idea and get mini obsessed by it. GTD. Anki cards. AI Assistants.
As far as I can tell, I don't have a cohesive system for work or anything. I keep all my tasks in a txt file. Most of my computer files live in my downloads folder or a dropbox sync folder. I have my own "internal" system that's taken bits and pieces from what I've learned.
Recently, I read this article, A receipt printer cured my procrastination
Basic idea is printing out your tasks with a receipt printer (very fast, very cheap, very small). Having it be physical and visible rather than stuck in a digital todo app.
Also saves the headache of manually writing these out on notecards/post-it notes.
I went ahead and bought a receipt printer off ebay. But I have a sneaky suspicion that I'll love this for a few weeks and then drop it entirely.
(also the concern that thermal receipt printers are toxic in daily frequent exposure but there's more expensive paper that's suppose to be neutral/healthy)
It feels like all these systems are modernist hacks to predict and control human behavior rather than trusting its natural eros towards what is meaningful.
On the other hand, meaningful work tied to my identity that's in direct connection to others/near environment, I don't need any system or task manager to do. It naturally flows and gets done.
Then again, there are just thigns that need to get done like paystubs and taxes that I don't have any eros towards so maybe there's a happy medium of systems for necessary but not interesting tasks and trusting natural interest for everything else?
Can we live in the Now constantly? Integrating Martin Buber's "I and Thou" with Iain McGilchrist's "The Master and His Emissary", I come to the conclusion that we cannot constantly live in the Now. To do so would revert the insight that Iain McGilchrist has when he says that living from our left hemisphere all the time, we would be well fed but become somebody else's lunch in the meanwhile.
To constantly live in the Now, according to the differentiation of the "I-Thou" and the "I-It", would mean that we are in a constant flow state with everything, in dialogue with "You", but starving and incapable to navigate the world.
What do you think?
Martin Buber (translated from German):
https://aperspectival.substack.com/p/ithouitIt is impossible to live in the mere present; it would consume you if you did not take care to overcome it quickly and thoroughly. But it is possible to live in the mere past; indeed, it is only in the past that a life can be established. One need only fill each moment with experience and use, and it no longer burns.
And in all seriousness, truth, you: without It, man cannot live. But those who live with It alone are not human.
Can we live in the Now constantly? Integrating Martin Buber's "I and Thou" with Iain McGilchrist's "The Master and His Emissary", I come to the conclusion that we cannot constantly live in the Now. To do so would revert the insight that Iain McGilchrist has when he says that living from our left hemisphere all the time, we would be well fed but become somebody else's lunch in the meanwhile.
To constantly live in the Now, according to the differentiation of the "I-Thou" and the "I-It", would mean that we are in a constant flow state with everything, in dialogue with "You", but starving and incapable to navigate the world.
What do you think?
Martin Buber (translated from German):
https://aperspectival.substack.com/p/ithouitIt is impossible to live in the mere present; it would consume you if you did not take care to overcome it quickly and thoroughly. But it is possible to live in the mere past; indeed, it is only in the past that a life can be established. One need only fill each moment with experience and use, and it no longer burns.
And in all seriousness, truth, you: without It, man cannot live. But those who live with It alone are not human.
Can we live in the Now constantly? Integrating Martin Buber's "I and Thou" with Iain McGilchrist's "The Master and His Emissary", I come to the conclusion that we cannot constantly live in the Now. To do so would revert the insight that Iain McGilchrist has when he says that living from our left hemisphere all the time, we would be well fed but become somebody else's lunch in the meanwhile.
To constantly live in the Now, according to the differentiation of the "I-Thou" and the "I-It", would mean that we are in a constant flow state with everything, in dialogue with "You", but starving and incapable to navigate the world.
What do you think?
Martin Buber (translated from German):
https://aperspectival.substack.com/p/ithouitIt is impossible to live in the mere present; it would consume you if you did not take care to overcome it quickly and thoroughly. But it is possible to live in the mere past; indeed, it is only in the past that a life can be established. One need only fill each moment with experience and use, and it no longer burns.
And in all seriousness, truth, you: without It, man cannot live. But those who live with It alone are not human.
What are your secret internal moves, your cues? I'm eternally curious about how we navigate our worlds, and the tricks, jumps, hops, and skips we use.
Sports coaches have cues for all kinds of things. "Follow through" in golf, tennis, and throwing generally. "Chest up, hips back, knees out" for a back squat. "Light feet" or "quick feet" for agility training.
These cues aren't attempting to be accurate descriptions of the world from a physics point of view. They're an attitude/orientation that helps a human do a thing a little better.
My contention: we each are an entire compendium of little skill orientations that we use all the time. But because they're second nature and interior, they're funcionally invisible and don't often get shared or talked about.
Wouldn't it be neat if we talked about them?
Some examples from me:
So what are your cues? Nothing is too simple, silly, or obvious.
What are your secret internal moves, your cues? I'm eternally curious about how we navigate our worlds, and the tricks, jumps, hops, and skips we use.
Sports coaches have cues for all kinds of things. "Follow through" in golf, tennis, and throwing generally. "Chest up, hips back, knees out" for a back squat. "Light feet" or "quick feet" for agility training.
These cues aren't attempting to be accurate descriptions of the world from a physics point of view. They're an attitude/orientation that helps a human do a thing a little better.
My contention: we each are an entire compendium of little skill orientations that we use all the time. But because they're second nature and interior, they're funcionally invisible and don't often get shared or talked about.
Wouldn't it be neat if we talked about them?
Some examples from me:
So what are your cues? Nothing is too simple, silly, or obvious.