Sometimes, let's say an artist, need to have the same routine, live in the same place, do the same things, because this process could allow his "extraordinary" experiences out of the real world, which in the case of a fulltime traveler, would be hard to do.
Yep, there are many examples (e.g. Kant, Flaubert, Joyce) of people like that. Many artists, philosophers and scientists were/are brains in a jar, they don't care for external world (or they do, but prefer interacting with it indicrectly - via reading books etc.), and they spend their life in the world of their creations of discoveries.
Yes, I think this is very true, although I'll expand the definition of artist to include anyone working on a project requiring a lot of focus. Only by removing all mental output needed for daily living (usually done by following the same routine) do they feel like they can get the focus they need to work on their project. Think of monks wearing the same uniform, eating the same diet, and following the same schedule everyday. Or Steve Jobs and his turtleneck. Or how most fashion designers wear the same outfit everyday.
I'll just +1 this. The whole "rich inner world"-challenge of the overly introspective. It's interesting to compare the voluntary simplicity movement of the 1990s, which was about focusing on the important things/works compared to the 2010s minimalism, which focused on fitting one's life into a carry-on/prioritizes an "outgoing"-"going out" lifestyle. Spoon theory may have something to do with. I find that if there are too many obligations---to many things/humans/obligations---who want a piece of [my mind], creativity dies. It's very hard to be creative, when life gets taken over by "management". I suspect this is also why 20-somethings tend to have a edge given how they've had less time for obligations/responsibilities to pile up on them.
There are three ways to deal with external demands.
1) Admin days. This requires the ability to compartmentalize and box obligations away in order to deal with all of them within a single day or week.
2) Outsourcing them. This requires a secretary of sorts.
3) Ignoring them. The Eisenhower Method comes to mind.
On the unhability to connect with locals.
Having some farmwork experience was often very helpfull, because in places were most people are farmer, talking about how farming is done always lead to "connecting" conversations.
“Tourists are less likely to borrow from their hosts than their hosts are from them, thus precipitating a chain of change in the host community.” We go to experience a change, but end up inflicting change on others.
If you are going to see something you neither value nor aspire to value, you are not doing much of anything besides locomoting.
Pessoa, Chesterton, Percy, and Emerson were all aware that travellers tell themselves they’ve changed, but you can’t rely on introspection to detect a delusion. So cast your mind, instead, to any friends who are soon to set off on summer adventures. In what condition do you expect to find them when they return? They may speak of their travel as though it were transformative, a “once in a lifetime” experience, but will you be able to notice a difference in their behavior, their beliefs, their moral compass? Will there be any difference at all?
Imagine how your life would look if you discovered that you would never again travel. If you aren’t planning a major life change, the prospect looms, terrifyingly, as “More and more of this, and then I die.” Travel splits this expanse of time into the chunk that happens before the trip, and the chunk that happens after it, obscuring from view the certainty of annihilation.
Socrates said that philosophy is a preparation for death. For everyone else, there’s travel.
I respectfully recognise this post is mostly about tourismy short-term travel.
That said, I enormously value the widening in perspective that comes with discovering two cultures in depth.
Here's some things I love about my second home country:
- material modesty by necessity. Most people simply have less to spend. Whatever their material aspirations may be, that helps create cultural space for the voluntary modesty of ERE.
- simple rules. The country is to small to make the rules complicated.
- liberty. What's no prohibited is allowed. You're so much more free to do what you want, stupid things included. Just don't expect the powers that be to come and save you like a deus ex machina.
Some interesting things I've learned:
- Don't try to "save" situations you're not intimately familiar with. Here's an example. My significant other was sharing a flat at the time with two other students. I discovered the heating pipes in the corridor were insulated with unbound asbestos in bad shape. Got hold of a university lab to come test it. S.o. and I decided we needed to get out asap, which we did. I also went out and warned all the neighbours. Most appreciated it. Some were hostile. They didn't want to hear. Oh well. I also went further and started calling the owner, insisting she do something about it. The result was not a fix. The owner kicked out our two room mates. They didn't have the money for a different, more expensive flat, so they wanted to stay at that safety hazard place. I lacked the local context at the time to even imagine that possibility. The roommates were quite angry at me.
- Participation in small scale active corruption is a matter of pride for many of those grown up in the Soviet era. You're smart if you get away with it.
- Private sector construction is 70+% informal economy and often .
- Some easy-to-learn do's and don't's when it comes to language, culture, ethnicity, religion and sexuality: no pointing at someone, keep a physical distance at a concert, do not consume any alcohol in the public space, ...
- Financial status symbol games become much more obvious. Cars are much more of a status symbol here compared to my native country. Most of my friends back home make 3-5 times the median wage here. Many of them don't even own a car. They use bicycles, car sharing, trains or planes, but not cars.
- Etcetera.
“Tourists are less likely to borrow from their hosts than their hosts are from them, thus precipitating a chain of change in the host community.” We go to experience a change, but end up inflicting change on others."
I'm confused by this. Why are they not saying it's the reverse? Why and what are hosts borrowing from tourists? The article seems to be describing people who would be travelling without much besides things to support themselves in whatever hotel or accommodation they are staying. That would lead me to think that tourists would borrow more from hosts, who have far more resources due to their stationary position. What am I missing?
@theanimal, it was more obvious before the internet flattened the world. The more different the cultures, the more obvious the influence visitors have on the hosts. Today it can be seen in the places where digital nomads have taken a liking to a particular neighborhood and suddenly the entire area becomes Khoa San Road where locals ape the customs, styles, tattoos, clothing and manners introduced by visitors.
