Hi, found this from a link on twitter. I appreciate the "thinking in color" idea, that drew me in—it's a good way out of black/white->grays->then what? sequence which comes up everywhere (e.g. politics.)
The way this is written threatens very much to establish "builder" as just another thing you "should" be, to be drilled-towards or zen-ed away from. I do not think "be a builder" is actually the right way to give this advice. And citing figures e.g. Steve Jobs as paragons of this virtue sets them up as people you "should" be like also—which is very likely to produce a narrowly-conceived idea of the person someone should be. Most, or much of the time, up to some point in their lives, Jobs/Jordan/etc probably *were* acting out of a sense of doing what they "should"/proving themselves, but one that was very coherently-held, so they were able to flourish as that version of themselves without actively employing the taxing drill-sergeant emotional posture.
The word "Builder"—and the figures you cite as inspiration—is better thought of as a sketch of what a flourishing/agentful person looks like, rather than what a specific good life looks like. It can be a revelation to learn that neither oppressive discipline nor painless detachment is necessary to live, and that a life with neither is desirable. The word "Creative" will resonate better for many people, in the sense that the fundamental choice to be made over and over is: out of all the general possibilities of my life, which one will I choose to create? Like creating art, or writing: you cannot be successful creating what you think you *should*. To step free from "should", and recognizing the *choice* in writing, art, OR life (which feels I think like a certain relationship to "fate", or the concept of "identity", the Buddhist direction is unavoidable)—this is what we are pointing to.
Your last advice, to ask yourself over and over"why do I care about that"—including "why do I want to be a builder?", "why does the word builder appeal to me?"—is in my opinion the critical *skill* it really takes to live in flourishing way. The drill-sergeant voice seems to come in when the answer to "why" is "to avoid facing the pain of not being seen/never being worth anything"; the zen voice appears as an answer "why should I have to prove I am worth anything"; the rabbit-hole of "why" can lead you to why you believe you need to be worth something and why you believe you are not.
So then "building the builders" is basically about man, not, basically, entrepreneurs. It's about, as Rand said, "accepting the risk of [volitional-conceptual] knowledge" [created by a focused mind] instead of passively waiting for a subjective or mystical revelation into an unfocused mind.
Men’s epistemology—or, more precisely, their psycho-epistemology, their method of awareness—is the most fundamental standard by which they can be classified.
Do you have any advice about absorbing information/techniques from people who identify with the drill seargent's methods? At one point I had a mentor describe the learning process at the company as analogous to "pavlovs dog," and this isn't uncommon in the industry where I work. Thank you!
Sure: briefly, I would double down on my own builder’s mindset (both in how I approach my work, and in how I communicate with my colleagues—so that maybe they can absorb some information/techniques from you instead!). Also here’s a post I happened to see today that gives some useful interpersonal tips for navigating a toxic work environment: https://open.substack.com/pub/tahahussain/p/how-to-survive-and-thrive-in-a-toxic?r=6gt4h&utm_medium=ios
Timothy Gallwey in "The Inner Game of Tennis" called these Self 1 and Self 2. He describes the results of attempting to play tennis using the consciously directing Self 1 to control the movement of the body as leading to very poor results. He recommends surrendering to Self 2, which means simply being aware of your body and of what you see (the ball, the court), and allowing your body to respond on its own, trusting in its ability to learn on its own. This makes sense with the people he describes himself as coaching, as they clearly have "controlling personalities" who are getting in their own way. If I remember rightly though he doesn't discuss "deliberate practice", which does involve using the conscious mind to notice what you're having difficulty with (your serve, your backhand, your volleying, etc.) and setting aside time to practice specifically that.
In general I think Gallwey's description is at least free of unwanted associations or connotations - whereas using Zen as metaphor suffers from not knowing specifically what Zen Practice, (or " Zazen") means to the person practicing it. They could be seeking "enlightenment" (Satori) or they could be simply tuning in to whatever it is they are feeling ("Emotional Focusing", ala Gendlin), or observing their Automatic Thoughts (ala CBT), etc.
This is the first piece of yours I've read, and I'm clearly late to it, so forgive me if you covered this somewhere else. Could you give some concrete examples from peeling back why's like suggested at the end?
"arbitrary standard you’re trying not to fall short of" vs "a real and credible one, with the enactment of your fully-lived life as the ultimate value at stake" is not a clear distinction for me.
If I had to guess I think most of my deepest (failing) whys are of the Zen nature, but it's hard to be certain if I'm avoiding arbitrary standards or truly living a fulfillingly non-coercive life.
Hi, found this from a link on twitter. I appreciate the "thinking in color" idea, that drew me in—it's a good way out of black/white->grays->then what? sequence which comes up everywhere (e.g. politics.)
The way this is written threatens very much to establish "builder" as just another thing you "should" be, to be drilled-towards or zen-ed away from. I do not think "be a builder" is actually the right way to give this advice. And citing figures e.g. Steve Jobs as paragons of this virtue sets them up as people you "should" be like also—which is very likely to produce a narrowly-conceived idea of the person someone should be. Most, or much of the time, up to some point in their lives, Jobs/Jordan/etc probably *were* acting out of a sense of doing what they "should"/proving themselves, but one that was very coherently-held, so they were able to flourish as that version of themselves without actively employing the taxing drill-sergeant emotional posture.
The word "Builder"—and the figures you cite as inspiration—is better thought of as a sketch of what a flourishing/agentful person looks like, rather than what a specific good life looks like. It can be a revelation to learn that neither oppressive discipline nor painless detachment is necessary to live, and that a life with neither is desirable. The word "Creative" will resonate better for many people, in the sense that the fundamental choice to be made over and over is: out of all the general possibilities of my life, which one will I choose to create? Like creating art, or writing: you cannot be successful creating what you think you *should*. To step free from "should", and recognizing the *choice* in writing, art, OR life (which feels I think like a certain relationship to "fate", or the concept of "identity", the Buddhist direction is unavoidable)—this is what we are pointing to.
Your last advice, to ask yourself over and over"why do I care about that"—including "why do I want to be a builder?", "why does the word builder appeal to me?"—is in my opinion the critical *skill* it really takes to live in flourishing way. The drill-sergeant voice seems to come in when the answer to "why" is "to avoid facing the pain of not being seen/never being worth anything"; the zen voice appears as an answer "why should I have to prove I am worth anything"; the rabbit-hole of "why" can lead you to why you believe you need to be worth something and why you believe you are not.
So then "building the builders" is basically about man, not, basically, entrepreneurs. It's about, as Rand said, "accepting the risk of [volitional-conceptual] knowledge" [created by a focused mind] instead of passively waiting for a subjective or mystical revelation into an unfocused mind.
Men’s epistemology—or, more precisely, their psycho-epistemology, their method of awareness—is the most fundamental standard by which they can be classified.
-Rand, "FNI"
Do you have any advice about absorbing information/techniques from people who identify with the drill seargent's methods? At one point I had a mentor describe the learning process at the company as analogous to "pavlovs dog," and this isn't uncommon in the industry where I work. Thank you!
Sure: briefly, I would double down on my own builder’s mindset (both in how I approach my work, and in how I communicate with my colleagues—so that maybe they can absorb some information/techniques from you instead!). Also here’s a post I happened to see today that gives some useful interpersonal tips for navigating a toxic work environment: https://open.substack.com/pub/tahahussain/p/how-to-survive-and-thrive-in-a-toxic?r=6gt4h&utm_medium=ios
Thanks for the feedback. I really appreciate it.
Timothy Gallwey in "The Inner Game of Tennis" called these Self 1 and Self 2. He describes the results of attempting to play tennis using the consciously directing Self 1 to control the movement of the body as leading to very poor results. He recommends surrendering to Self 2, which means simply being aware of your body and of what you see (the ball, the court), and allowing your body to respond on its own, trusting in its ability to learn on its own. This makes sense with the people he describes himself as coaching, as they clearly have "controlling personalities" who are getting in their own way. If I remember rightly though he doesn't discuss "deliberate practice", which does involve using the conscious mind to notice what you're having difficulty with (your serve, your backhand, your volleying, etc.) and setting aside time to practice specifically that.
In general I think Gallwey's description is at least free of unwanted associations or connotations - whereas using Zen as metaphor suffers from not knowing specifically what Zen Practice, (or " Zazen") means to the person practicing it. They could be seeking "enlightenment" (Satori) or they could be simply tuning in to whatever it is they are feeling ("Emotional Focusing", ala Gendlin), or observing their Automatic Thoughts (ala CBT), etc.
This is the first piece of yours I've read, and I'm clearly late to it, so forgive me if you covered this somewhere else. Could you give some concrete examples from peeling back why's like suggested at the end?
"arbitrary standard you’re trying not to fall short of" vs "a real and credible one, with the enactment of your fully-lived life as the ultimate value at stake" is not a clear distinction for me.
If I had to guess I think most of my deepest (failing) whys are of the Zen nature, but it's hard to be certain if I'm avoiding arbitrary standards or truly living a fulfillingly non-coercive life.