@play

The state of flow is when you forget the mechanics of things. When you are learning something, you have to focus on the mechanics and doing all the different parts well.

Driving is a good example. When you know how to do it, a lot of it becomes automatic. Typing is another example, or any kind of writing. As I write, I'm only aware of what I'm expressing. I don't have to pay attention to each letter or word or to the mechanics of using language. Similarly with art. I've noticed how, with digital art, these days I'm not aware of what my hands are doing. It's as if my mind is directly creating what I want. Or video games. 

But then, with creative processes, after you have mastered the mechanics you can go back to being aware of the mechanics again and do interesting things. You play with the interaction between the mechanics and the process.

use it in a sentence

I'm always rehearsing conversations in advance and reviewing them in retrospect and when I'm working on a writing project, I'm always writing it in my head, as all my reading and notes get fed into that continual process of composing, but when I have a good idea, I have to write it down the first chance I get, otherwise I might lose it - because an idea can be quite complex, with multiple stages and links, and the short-term memory just can't hold things like that. 

why you should watch that film for the 10th time

I like those shows where they follow people through their lives - like the '7 up' series, where they interviewed a group of 7 year olds in England and then interviewed them again every 7 years after that, and they make a film each time. The most recent one was 63 up, in 2019, which means the next one will be 70 up in 2026. 

The films involve a kind of storytelling. That's how we understand reality - through stories. There's a universal element about each person's story and the story of all of them together, and there's an individual element. 

I'm reluctant to watch the series again because I've watched at least some of the episodes over and over. So, I think it would be boring to watch them again, but actually, I know that it wouldn't be or it might not be - it needn't be, because I would probably see something new that I haven't noticed before. My familiarity with the series needn't be a source of boredom. It there are new elements as well, my familiarity would just heighten the tension between the known and the new, and tension is the source of meaning. 

hate at first sight

When we don't like something, we feel obliged to completely avoid it, but maybe it would be better to be intrigued by our initial distain and see it as an indicator that something merits further investigation. 

connection

If I have a hometown, it would be Sydney or maybe Wollongong. I have lived in and around Sydney and Wollongong my whole life since I was 4, apart from an 8 month stay in Hong Kong.

As I travel through these cities, I pass through a whole series of places that I have very strong memories about - different places I have worked or lived in or where my friends have lived. The trip I'm on links very different parts of my life.

It's like the kind of triangulation that happens with learning. You learn about some historic figure or phenomenon when you're learning about one subject and then you encounter the same key figures and developments in a completely different subject, and it enriches your knowledge of all of it. 

momentum

One of the indications that I'm well mentally, or recovering, is that I'm interested in things. It's really noticeable. It stands out because it's so different from the depressed mind. 

I remember one time when I was walking out of my room and I looked at one of my books and I felt that sense of interest. It was so memorable because I had gone for a long time without feeling any interest in anything. 

what you need

In the day of my trouble I seek the Lord; in the night my hand is stretched out without wearying; my soul refuses to be comforted. - Psalm 77:2 (RSV)

There is an implication here that our soul knows better than we do. You don't usually refuse something despite yourself.

Part of us wants comfort and relief and part of us wants God. But those two parts belong to us and must both be accommodated. They must come to terms with each other.

They actually work together to help us grow. Because our need for comfort and our need for God are ultimately the same thing, we just don't realize that at first.

disinterested is the opposite of bored

I read Jon Ronson's, So You've Been Publicly Shamed and really enjoyed it. I was thinking about what makes this, or any other book or show or speech or whatever, compelling. What engages me? I think it's when it's not what you expect. I'm not that interested in the book's ostensible subject matter - people being publicly shamed and how, in today's world, with social media and so on, people can be exposed to extremely severe shaming and criticism. The book works through issues related to that subject. But that's not what holds my attention. The subject of the book isn't that interesting to me. It's something else.

It's a combination of the fact that what I'm reading is interesting but also, I don't really know what it's getting at or where it's going. I don't really care about the argument the book makes (its thesis) or the conclusions the writer comes to...I'm not even interested in the argument or the points he makes. I don't really want to learn anything from it or increase my understanding.

But strangely and ironically, I think that's what makes for good learning...that's what makes for engagement....disinterestedness. Not 'uninterestedness' - no, it's actually the opposite. Disinterestedness is intense curiosity but for the enjoyment of it - not because you need to learn about it to complete some project or get something done. To be disinterested is to be detached from results [which is different from not caring], and a lot of really, really good things come about as a result of disinterestedness.

It seems like a strange word (because you would think that the 'dis' pre-fix signifies opposition, but it doesn't). The key to understanding it is to realize that it's talking about a different type of interest to the one we're referring to when we say something is interesting. Normally that's about having some kind of stake in the matter, whether that's in terms of money or particular results. We can speak of having 'a financial interest' in a project. To be disinterested means you don't favor one side or the other, but rather you favor the truth or some other altruistic goal. If someone is disinterested, it means they are doing something because they really want to do that thing. They don't have any ulterior motives or agendas. And, ironically, the results - the results attained when someone doesn't really care about results - are often spectacular....far more so than when someone is trying to achieve a particular goal.

I think...I'm open to debate about this, but I think...that some of the best learning is disinterested learning. One of the joys of research is that you don't know how your research is going to be used. Some of the most useful things in this world began with research with the aim of expanding our knowledge and understanding of some field, and only later was the practical application figured out. 

transit scholarship

You know that problem when you don't name your files systematically - you name the latest one 'new', then the next one 'new new', and the one after that 'updated new' - so you can't tell by the names of the files, which is the latest one? It becomes very confusing. I think literary scholarship has a problem like that. 

Why did they call 'modernism' 'modernism'? Modern means current, doesn't it? So, what were they going to do when modern no longer meant early twentieth century? [Assuming that's the definition you're using. Sometimes 'modernism' is used to refer to the period beginning with the enlightenment and the scientific revolution.] Well, you call the next thing 'post-modernism', which is really just deferring and exacerbating the problem, because it kind of means 'after now'. So, what do you call the next development after 'post-modernism'? Scholars have solved the problem by declaring that theory no longer exists.....yes, we are living in a post-theory world.

Another good example is the so-called 'new criticism', which isn't new at all anymore. It's actually around a hundred years old now, but it's still called 'new criticism' because that's what it was called when it was actually new. It seems like literary scholars are a lot like normal human beings. They get excited about what they are doing, and they think that no one has ever thought or done those things before, and, for some reason, they don't stop and think about what will come next. They're like the people who push and shove to get on the bus, but once they are on, they won't move down the aisle so other people can get on.

the meaning of pain

"Recovery is terrifying when you don't know who you are without your sadness."
(via drunkblogging) source: little-miss-tragedy

This really resonated with me. It's like that song - 'how?', by John Lennon....how can I go forward when I don't know which way I'm facing?

Of course, I have a concept of mental health and happiness; I've just never experienced it. And yet, I make progress. I have made progress.

What matters is the direction you're facing. Instead of holding up this perfect ideal of blissful happiness (which no one actually ever attains anyway) and seeing how far short you fall, consider your progress. 

We always demonize struggle. We think there must be something seriously wrong with us to be struggling like this. But actually, struggles are valuable. That's one of the lessons I've learnt from life in general but more specifically from my taper (coming off valium). 

When you're experiencing some kind of mental pain, it's not what it feels like. It feels like you're being broken down, but the opposite is happening. A good analogy I've heard is renovating a house. To renovate, you might have to knock down some walls and things are going to look pretty rough before it starts to look good. Making involves breaking. Likewise, the process of healing your mind is going to hurt, but the hurt is a reflection of healing. 

the stultifying effect of systems

I'm not a fan of systems. It seems like systems always take a good thing - like spirituality or religion or business - and corrupt that thing. When some worthwhile endeavor is made into a system, the results are not just second-rate; the results are negative, destructive and even evil - the opposite of good.

Systems don't recognize the individual. It's especially problematic when you try to systematize everything - all aspects of life - as they do in some religious groups. Someone has a problem?.....OK, bring in a leader to counsel them. Then the leader listens just enough to make an assessment about the ideologically correct (according to the system) analysis of the problem. They do a kind of calculation and come up with a formulaic solution that would apply to anyone with this problem. That's all the person is to this leader: a problem to be solved. 

When the guys from the Sydney Church of Christ were studying the Bible with me, what I didn't realize at the time was that the studies and the things they said were part of a formula. This was a process with desired results at every stage. I got to know that process very well once I had joined the group. But, over time, I came to see the studies as a kind of blunt instrument. Exactly the same studies were done with everyone, with the same expected results. There's no real discovery or newness, just a list of expected results.

One day I said to them that what I would like to do is to go away and read the Bible for myself, and reflect on the issues that they were raising, and come to my own conclusions - generate my own convictions from what I read. Their response was that it was much better to continue with the studies (what they call 'guard the gospel') because they knew what verses to point out and what to say about them and they could get me ready to become a disciple much more quickly than if I just studied the Bible on my own. So, I continued with the studies and got baptized and remained a member of that group for 12 years. 

It occurred to me recently that my original idea of reading the Bible for myself and drawing insights from it that are my own, is what ended up happening. Through all my years with that group and all the years since, to this day, I read the Bible regularly and draw my own insights from it. I think that's really what it's all about. It's about your own personal connection with God and you drawing meaning from the Bible.  

they crave that mineral

This is adapted from a post on my old blog (caeusura) that I wrote on July 2, 2014. ***

Zachaeus the tax collector wanted to see Jesus but because of the crowds and because he was short, he climbed a tree. Jesus walked up to the tree and told Zachaeus that he was going to have dinner at his place that day. How could you resist an invitation like that? Was Zachaeus a Christian? Did he become a Christian (or a disciple)? Was he 'saved'? None of that seems particularly relevant. He was a person and Jesus interacted with him.

Jesus was (is) remarkably straightforward in his dealings with people. I sometimes wonder how Jesus would feel about Christians today and their churches. One of the things that I notice about some churches is that they have an agenda. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, the church should have an agenda. But that agenda needs to be pure and honest. There shouldn't be ulterior motives. With some groups, members want to be your friend and they want to share the message - the gospel or good news - with you, but not because those things are worthwhile and valuable in themselves, but because they want to convert you - they want a result. 

After being part of a Christian group that had many of the characteristics of a cult, for 12 years, I have an aversion to those kinds of agendas. For example, I try to avoid those people who approach you in the street and want you to make a regular donation to their cause. They act as if they want to speak to you - they feign friendliness, but it's because they want you to donate. I don't hate them. I've even signed up for some of them. But I dislike what they do, because I have done a similar thing myself, just in a different context. 

One of the things that gave me a lot of joy after leaving the group I mentioned was being around people and interacting with them without having an agenda. It felt so good, for the first time in many years, to just talk to people and interact with them for the pleasure of doing that. And to be able to say what I wanted and what I really felt, instead of what I felt I had to say.

poetry without words

I wrote this post on my old blog, caeusura, on July, 18, 2014. I was going to edit and revise it but it has a kind of completeness the way it is, with its flaws * * * *

When a computer stores data, we call that memory and we also call it memory when we recall information or events. But what do the two processes - computer memory and human memory - have in common? They are both a kind of record. But when we open a file we have stored in a computer, we don't say that the computer is remembering. Remembering is a human thing. Implicit within the concept of remembering is that of forgetting. Computers don't forget things, so they don't remember things. And each person's memories are unique to them.

But what constitutes a memory? A kind of mnemonics is involved. A single detail represents the whole. In literature, this trope is called synecdoche. It's like a box with a label on it. But what language is the label written in? It's a kind of poetry, for sure.

It's a poetry without language and the box isn't really a box. No - it's not without language - it's without words. It's a very eloquent language. It's the language of gesture - the language of animals, the sea and the sky.

creative goals

I'm very cycle based - at least more so than some other people. So, I make progress and think about my goals in a different way. It's not so much about increments for me - although of course to the external observer, I will be making progress in increments - but it's more like: I push really hard, then fall back a bit, then push really hard, fall back a bit, and so on. 

I remember watching a YouTube video where the presenter was talking about a very well-known and lauded self-help book, and she said, it may be a good book, but that's not how I work. And this is a book that everyone was raving about. 

I feel that way about SMART goals - the idea that, to be valid and effective, every goal has to have each of the five elements: specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timely. Goals have been an important part of my life for at least 30 years, but I have different types of goals for different purposes. Like for example, I have 'next level goals' and at the other extreme I have 'progress goals'. Both serve an important purpose and both are very different. Next level goals are things that are basically unrealistic. Something like - being a professional artist who exhibits work in galleries. It's encouraging to have goals like that because, everyone and everything may tell you it's impossible, but it's not impossible so why not dream it and pursue it. Then, at the other end of the scale, there are progress goals, which are eminently achievable. The challenge with these is to think of very easy ways to move in the direction you want to move in. The beauty of these goals is how easy they are, but, at the same time, how worthwhile and positive they are. So, it could be something like, I'm going to eat this different kind of food that I don't normally eat, or I'm going to go for a walk or I'm going to have a conversation. 

One type of goal that I never formulate though, is SMART goals. 

cat [egorie] s

The problem with categories is that they don't comprehend the individuality of what is being categorized. 

Of course, in life, we all have to do categorize people and things to some extent, but when you get to know somebody and your friendship develops, the way you relate to them becomes more and more specifically tailored to them. A bond develops. That bond is based on both the sense of each other's uniqueness as well as a sense of sameness between you, because like is drawn to like. A new category is created that contains both of you. A group of friends is a kind of category, but in a good way. It's not prescriptive and reductive - it's not being used to label and make judgements - it serves people rather than people feeling confined and restricted by it.

So, I think that's the key - we should use categories in interesting ways and in ways that change - ways that are not inflexible and prescriptive, but ways that serve us. 

@work

Reading an article about Vivienne Westwood, I was struck by how some people do what they love for work and become very, very rich. Other people hate their job and earn a normal wage. 

don't look back

The past is a strange kind of possession. My past is mine - it belongs to me and no one else. But I have no ability to change it. I can't change even the smallest detail. While I was experiencing it, I had control over some things. Now I have no control over anything in my past. But through my memory, I have access to it.

The meaning of things changes according to the context. As I go through life and grow physically and have different experiences, it puts the events in my memory in a different context. So, does that change the meaning of events? It does, but the question is whether, and if so how, my memories remain factual. 

I find that, especially unpleasant experiences or thoughts, take on a different meaning later. I look back on difficult and painful experiences with a kind of fondness. 

tim tam and who part two

I tried another one of the Jatz Tim Tams today, because I thought, now that I know it's supposed to taste like it does and it's not expired or poisoned, I might like it more, and I did. 

particles and waves

Harold Bloom's thesis is that no literary creation is truly original. All writers revise what other writers have written. He posits a series of six revisionary 'ratios' whereby this revision process takes place. Each of the ratios is based on a different trope. Tropes are like figures of speech - ways of conveying meaning by expressing things that aren't literally true. The most well-known tropes are similes and metaphors.

Tropes are the fundamental building blocks of all communication. Even that sentence contains the trope of metaphor because tropes are not really building blocks at all. And 'that sentence contains' is another trope because a sentence can't literally contain anything.

Irony is another trope. The word 'literally' is one of the most ironic words, because when something is strictly and objectively true, we say it is 'literally' true. So, the literal and the literary are opposites.

Consider a story, any story. When a character in a story says that something about that story is true, it's ironic (whether or not the writer is deliberately being ironic) because, of course, it's not true because it's happening in a story. But it's still true in some sense because in the world of the story it's true.  Irony works because of the quantum nature of reality. Contradictory conditions can both exist. It happens more than you realize. We think, that can't possibly be right, only because our limited intelligence can't comprehend it.

recognizence

‘A few anecdotes, a few traits of character, manners, face, a few incidents, have an emphasis in your memory out of all proportion to their apparent significance, if you measure them by the ordinary standards. They relate to your gift. Let them have their weight, and do not reject them, and cast about for illustration and facts more usual in literature. What your heart thinks great is great. The soul's emphasis is always right.’

                   - Ralph Waldo Emerson, Spiritual Laws

Your soul knows what it's doing when it draws your attention to things. It recognizes itself. There is an exquisite tension between difference and sameness when you perceive something of yourself in another person or in a book or a place. 

agency

The beauty of writing for me is that I don't know where it will go - it's a creative process. But, at the same time, I'm in control of what I write. When so much in life feels like it is out of control, here is a space where we can have control.

interesting

I like things that I understand to some extent but I'm aware that there is so much more that I don't understand. Friedrich Nietzsche wrote, 'That for which we find words is something already dead in our hearts. There is always a kind of contempt in the act of speaking.' Likewise, the things I fully understand hold little interest for me.

In the same way, questions are often more interesting than answers. Answers are the end of the matter. They put an end to enquiry. And problems aren't the bad things we often think they are. Problems are central to life. Problems and challenges make us who we are.

It's weakness that makes things interesting. Imagine the 'perfect' painter who could paint things that look like a photo. That would be impressive, but their work wouldn't be beautiful. But as soon as there is a struggle or faltering - some expression of frailty or strangeness, within the work, it becomes interesting; it strikes a chord.

choices

This post is adapted from a post I wrote on my old blog - caeusura -on May 31, 2014.

When I was studying English at uni and I had to write my first essay, there was a range of topics/ questions to choose from. I really agonised over the choice.....which one would be best? which would I do best at?, etc. When I went to see my tutor about it, she had the most simple and elegant solution. She said, do the one you most want to do. When I thought of it like that, it was really obvious to me which one I should do. 

It's funny how I never thought of approaching it like that. I'm not sure why I didn't think of that as an option. Maybe it's because I was used to school being a place where you don't have the option of doing what you want. In High School, when there is an option, you don't think which do I want to do? you think which one will get me the best result? 

everything's not lost

I thought my old blog - caeusura - was gone forever. I deleted it when I started this blog in January 2020. But I had a look at the wayback machine, and...it's all there! Every post is there. 

So, I'll probably go through it and maybe republish, or revise and republish, some posts. Or maybe I should recreate it - open a new blog called caeusura and put all the posts in it. 

Tim Tam and who?

Someone I work with brought in a packet of Tim Tams the other day and later in the day I took a couple and when I ate the first one I thought that they must be expired or something because it tasted distinctly salty. There was the normal chocolaty flavor of Tim Tams, but then there was also a saltiness. 

So I looked at the pack, and the Tim Tams were....not salted caramel, but.....Jatz flavored. Jatz flavored Tim Tams. Yes! A marriage of two iconic Australian staples. I ate the second one, but I really didn't like it, to be honest. As I said to my friends, this flavor combination just doesn't work. 

I did some more research. The reviews I watched were generally quite positive. I also read an article that said that the original idea was an April fool's day joke, and some people believed it and complained when they found out it wasn't a real product. 

I can't help wondering, if I had known what the flavor was before tasting that first one, whether that would have changed my view, because, interestingly, while I thought the saltiness was unbelievably strong because I was expecting the normal Tim Tam sweetness, a lot of the reviewers said that it was hardly salty at all and some even said they wish it was more salty. Overall though, the reviewers liked them. 

close reading

Early on in my studies of English literature, I was never sure, when I had an idea about a poem - about what it meant or what the poet was trying to convey - whether I was right or wrong. But then, after a while, I realized that I could trust my ideas. 

That applies to anyone actually, and when I was tutoring I would tell students that. If you engage with the poem and you get something from it, that insight that you get is real and valid, more often than not. This is the case to varying extents, for all subjects, but especially for English because we each make our own meaning from literature or other kinds of text. In English, there isn't a right and wrong answer the way there is for maths and science. 

History too is malleable in that way. If you read and understand all the materials, and you're able to convey that understanding in your essays, you will do well even if your conclusion is questionable. That's why History essay questions will ask you about a particular issue and you could come down on either side and still do well, because what really matters is your ability to argue the side you choose. 

pov

I felt a bit cheated when I studied creative writing at uni. We did a single module of creative writing in first year English and I did really well. I've never been able to write stories and the beauty of this creative writing module was that they said, it's not about that; it's about playing with language. I found that I was good at that and enjoyed it.

So, I enrolled in a full unit of creative writing in second year, but, in that class, all everyone was talking about was writing stories. I actually failed that course. 

your rules don't apply here

People love to make up rules about how to taper off benzos. One expert says that you shouldn't taper for longer than 2 years. That's based on his experience. That's what he decided to do. That doesn't mean other people should do that. Do what suits you. I've been tapering for four years and I'm just coming to the end now. I only heard that advice after I had been tapering for longer than 2 years, and my response is that I'm working through this as best I can. I didn't really plan my taper in advance; I just thought that I'm going to do it as fast as I can. 

Another extremely common rule is that you have to maintain your dose from day to day. According to this rule, you make a reduction and then every day you take the same dose until you make the next reduction and then you maintain that. Or you make very small reductions each day. But you never, ever increase. Taking a 'rescue dose' would be an absolute disaster and a setback. 'Reinstating' or increasing your dose again to a point you were at previously is a very serious decision and probably not advisable. In my experience, all of that is rubbish. At every stage, before I started to taper and since I've been tapering, my dose went up and down. From day to day and week to week. On stressful days I take more. Some days and weeks I push myself and take a lot less. The key thing is that, overall, the direction has been downward. I have consistently reduced my dose.

There are probably other rules as well. There are others I've heard. Those two are just the ones that I feel strongly about because the first one comes from an 'expert' and the second one is like an article of faith for, I think, most people. I've heard that from so many people including youtubers who I also got some very good practical advice from. It always made me feel like I was failing. But now, because I have succeeded in my taper, I can say for sure, it's not a rule. Stop teaching it as if it's an article of faith. 

Anyone who is tapering, I want to encourage you. You've got this. You're doing it. You are. You really are, and you will get there. You will get to the end. You just have to keep going. It seems to go on forever, but it doesn't. It seems like it's breaking you, but it isn't. 

A good analogy I heard is that it's like chopping down a tree. It's hard work and it takes time, but once the tree starts to fall, that's it. It's no longer hard work. It's done. You just don't need the thing anymore. That can apply to benzos, alcohol, or something else. 

a catchy song

Escape aka The Pina Colada song is a good example of how what is popular in this world doesn't really merit that popularity. Two people cheat on each other, but because they both did it, they decide it's OK. More importantly, the whole experience makes them realize that they should be happy with their relationship because their partner really has everything that they are looking for, so they 'escape' together instead of escaping from each other. 

The problem is that all these things that they realize they both value aren't really a good basis for a healthy relationship - like, alcohol, inactivity, the romanticization of inconvenience, sex, unhealthy food. And we're meant to believe that each of them never knew that the other liked these things. 

It's all about escape and evading any kind of challenge, which is ultimately really boring and empty. 

fr

I'm watching Robert Eggers's Nosferatu and it's good. It's a good horror film but, for me, it's not in the same league as The VVitch, because The VVitch, besides being good, was an intellectual feast. It was like a study of the mechanics of the 17th century witch narrative. It's like Arthur Miller's The Crucible in that sense. 

These two texts bring together historical fact with emotional immediacy in a way that's really compelling. 

art LXVII

how to visit the beach

Probably one of the most important and least understood aspects of enjoying the beach is what happens with your feet, so it is vital to remove your shoes before stepping onto the sand. 

Once you have stepped on the sand....congratulations - you are now at the beach. Move quickly but calmly towards the water. Stop at a point where the incoming and outgoing water just covers your feet. The technical term for this part of the beach is [the] 'swash'. Then, as the water recedes after each wave, scrunch your toes and wiggle your feet from side to side so that your feet sink into the sand. 

That's enough! for now. Future episodes will cover: appropriate attire for the beach, entering the surf, how the beach brings new meaning to the humble sandwich, advanced beach lounging, and so forth. 

wow

This blog post is microwavable! That's right it's just what you've been waiting for. I've been studying the market and looking for a gap and I found one. This has never been done before! 

Of course you can also heat it up in a traditional oven or toast it on an open fire....it doesn't matter! enjoy!

art #2

art video #1

बोर

I can't write anything that is just about me telling the reader about something. There are things like that that I could write. For example, I could write about why you should buy a kindle if you like reading, especially if you like reading classics, but just thinking about structuring an argument and all the points I would make, is demotivating, because it's static....what I would be trying to express is exactly what I have in mind. 🎼

I like writing what is going to change my mind. Each new sentence is a response to the sentences that went before it. ቆ

That tendency to endlessly go off on tangents is a liability when it comes to writing a thesis or a recipe but an asset in writing letters or blogs. ჯ

what makes us special?

They gave the example of ants to explain why God became a human in Christ. Say if you wanted to reach out to ants, the best way would be to become an ant. 

It wouldn't really work though, because you still wouldn't be able to tell them about yourself and that you love them, which makes me realize that what makes human beings special is our use of language. That - maybe even that alone - constitutes the sense in which we are made in God's image. 

That consciousness and creativity and potential is a miracle worthy of our faith and belief. 

reflektion

the asymptote of perfection

be best

I was watching a video about the creative process and it wasn't that interesting. Then the presenter mentioned Cal Newport and I stopped watching. 

Why am I so averse to his views? I value intelligence and I also value technology, and I want both. I believe in deep-work and I want to find my own way to it. I think that social media, can be used in self-affirming and life-affirming ways.