In response, I wrote:VF wrote:
I consider it a dangerous misconception of mental hygiene to assume that what a man needs in the first place is equilibrium, or as it is called in biology, "homeostasis," i.e. a tensionless state. What man actually needs is not a tensionless state but rather the striving and struggling for a worthwhile goal, a freely chosen task.
I think I was wrong. At the time, I was really struggling with boundaries and differentiating myself from external authority figures or the authority of culture. I detested the imposition of others' ideas on me - the idea that I was incapable of making up my own mind and should instead adopt the values of some other "better" human. But now, with a little less of that more-youthful piss and vinegar, I think I'm better able to accept others' ideas around ideas of general applicability. Or, perhaps more accurately, I'm better able to ignore certain triggering words and phrases and to tamp down confirmation bias from kicking in too quickly, so that I have an actual chance to analyze challenging ideas more neutrally. In other words, I can better differentiate the triggers from my reactions to better understand each.suomalainen wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:56 pmIf goals are your thing, by all means, go achieve them. But if they are not your thing (or not your thing right now), then why adopt the Frankl sentiment that you SHOULD have a "worthwhile" goal? What makes a goal "worthwhile" anyhow? In addition, broad statements about "what man actually needs" is too generic to be correct or even useful. Everything has its time and place. You can have worthwhile goals some days and tensionless states other days.
Back to the quote, it seems to me now that getting triggered about the value-judgment "worthwhile" is my boundary issue about my-values vs others-values. Frankl wasn't even making a judgment about what is worthwhile but seemed to leave it to the experiencer to decide (i.e., "freely chosen"), so my reaction to it was just dumb. The idea of general applicability he was getting at is really no different from this:
I changed jobs to do the same job for a bit more money. It's not quite the same job. In my old job, I felt that I wasn't really needed. I was managing lawyers more than lawyering. It felt ... useless to me and therefore worthless. At my new job, I'll be doing the same underlying work, but without the management layer. In other words, I'll be lawyering more than managing. To me, that feels more useful, more worthwhile.FBeyer wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2016 5:47 amPositive Psychology has boiled people's happiness down to three major components: The Sensory, the Engaged, and the Meaningful life.
Sensory: Eating, sex, hiking, good company, concerts, exhibitions etc. These things you get better at by training your ability to appreciate them ie Mindfulness. The primary pitfall of this is Hedonic Adaptation, naturally.
Engaged: Flow, put shortly. Something that really engages you and challenges you at the same time. Something you get good at by repeated practice and by seeking out challenges that are intellectually challenging to you and also fit within your framework of interests.
The Meaningful: Doing something for others while experiencing and appreciating the effect it has. Help someone move ahead in life, do something that reaches beyond you and help your community, for any given of definition of community.
suomalainen wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2017 10:40 pmWhere I'm struggling is work ... Anecdote: I was talking to a client/friend the other day and I was arguing that you could fire all the lawyers in the department save one (whose job would be to train people to deal with outside counsel directly and to be there for minimal supervision and support). He disagreed with me and said that in-house counsel is highly valued and he would keep every last one of us. Maybe I should stop judging my perceived value by my own standards (i.e., a competent business person should be able to make do without me) and accept the fact that this competent business person (i.e., the customer/consumer/client) values the services I provide. Perhaps that is the place I can find meaning? That my work is valued by others/consumers, even if I can't see it?
And so it's the "freely chosen" part that is empowering to me. I felt like I was stagnating - both financially and in terms of not really being engaged. I could have tried to accept the management as useful, worthwhile or engaging, but I just could never really get there over 10 years. It just wasn't me. So I kept itching to find something that might fit me better. But I didn't want to go back to a law firm because I dislike their bugs more than I like their features. With this new job, I am hoping to get a couple more features (more money, more engagement) and to eschew adding any bugs. It's a fully remote position, so I am hopeful. Time will tell if it was a good move.suomalainen wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:01 pmAdmittedly, and I sorta feel like a pansy for feeling this way, but I like the idea of being busier because I like the feeling of accomplishing something and being valued by others. At my current job, I only get to feel like I accomplish something occasionally, because everything is over-lawyered. I work on deals with at least 2-3 law firms on them, plus any number of in-house counsel (like me). Only when I catch something that the 15 other lawyers have missed do I feel like I added any value. It's tough to go to work with that psychology.