It seems that many of us relate to your struggle with the worth of words, and your cautious eye on the curtain with a big-hug emoji on it but behind which we cannot see. Indeed, we writers are spies, tempted and sly. Our "important" choices--are they not those words that rise to the level of deeds, that have wings folded up with the hard work of experience, so that for the receptive reader they fly from the page into the world, and change it? I find your words to be such birds, Jonathan. Thank you.
I’ve come to Substack as a refugee too, still finding my voice. Your post helps me to continue that search and not feel obliged to just send things out because it is Tuesday and my readers expect something from me on Tuesdays.
Second thoughts on Substack’s business model and venture capitalists aside, I do value this platform as a space where you can be unashamedly intellectual. Not to show off but because we need to work our intellect in the same as we need to work our muscles. This only works in the exchange with others. I am deeply grateful that this thoughtful exchange of curious and wandering minds still is possible after the disappointments with Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn.
The 'solidarity of singularity' - now there is a phrase to get your teeth into! There is a wonderful tension in this which encapsulates the struggle to understand and express ourselves. Phrases like this get my mind whirring and make me want to write.
"A friend in the intelligence community informed me that the capacity to distinguish between what is interesting and what is important is the main thing that makes spies valuable, and also what keeps them alive. The value of this capacity applies to creativity too, so I aim to share what feels important for me personally to share, rather than merely what interests me, or because it’s time to post. "
THanks much for this discernment. It helps me go more deeply into what I am trying to get to within my one "wild" life I am living and to perhaps write or share "just in time as needed."
Love the way you think and see the world, Jonathan. And, as it's 1:25 AM California time as I write this note and I just poured a bit of tequila into my glass – the first and only drink of this long evening/night – I was particularly tickled by this line:
"There will be wee drams of Lagavulin 16 to extend and deepen time after midnight...."
What an insightful, nuanced perception to explain this late-night treat I've enjoyed for so many years. Cheers!
Just imagine if every Murrkin one henceforth meets, instead of intoning the expected all-purpose "well now that's interesting" exclaimed (something like) "by jeezus dude that is *important*!
Looking forward to your thoughts on the work of Cynthia Bourgeault. You’ve mentioned her impact on you several times in passing and I’ve wondered what shifts in perceiving and thinking she has stimulated.
Would be keen to understand how do you nuance between interesting and important. Perhaps highlight the features of the "interesting but not important" & also of the "important but not (apparently) interesting" parts of the Venn diagram. Thank you
Have been struggling with this one for a long time.
Don't know if progress is possible to make the distinction absent some sort of contingency / causes all the way down "its important because X", "X is important b/c Y" etc. Intuitively, I think we should ditch hot air interesting stuff that appeals to our junk food part of the brain and is inconsequential (like what did Dubois said to Joshua in their pre-fight conference) and aim to engage with mundane stuff that doesn't appeal to our junk food part of the brain and is consequential in some meaningful way (like really engaging with the data on why many things got better in the world eg child mortality). But then the debate becomes why make this distinction which has to lead to some axiom that I intrinsically care about.
Excellent thoughts and look forward to what you have to say about the work of Cynthia , as she is amazing .
This is beautiful. Only post when you can lay down your burden without breaking it.
It seems that many of us relate to your struggle with the worth of words, and your cautious eye on the curtain with a big-hug emoji on it but behind which we cannot see. Indeed, we writers are spies, tempted and sly. Our "important" choices--are they not those words that rise to the level of deeds, that have wings folded up with the hard work of experience, so that for the receptive reader they fly from the page into the world, and change it? I find your words to be such birds, Jonathan. Thank you.
I’ve come to Substack as a refugee too, still finding my voice. Your post helps me to continue that search and not feel obliged to just send things out because it is Tuesday and my readers expect something from me on Tuesdays.
Second thoughts on Substack’s business model and venture capitalists aside, I do value this platform as a space where you can be unashamedly intellectual. Not to show off but because we need to work our intellect in the same as we need to work our muscles. This only works in the exchange with others. I am deeply grateful that this thoughtful exchange of curious and wandering minds still is possible after the disappointments with Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn.
Thank you Jonathon
The 'solidarity of singularity' - now there is a phrase to get your teeth into! There is a wonderful tension in this which encapsulates the struggle to understand and express ourselves. Phrases like this get my mind whirring and make me want to write.
Shades of Douglas Rushkoff re: business model of Substack ( and Patreon as well)
The creative impulse is distorted and destroyed by quantification and monetization
"A friend in the intelligence community informed me that the capacity to distinguish between what is interesting and what is important is the main thing that makes spies valuable, and also what keeps them alive. The value of this capacity applies to creativity too, so I aim to share what feels important for me personally to share, rather than merely what interests me, or because it’s time to post. "
THanks much for this discernment. It helps me go more deeply into what I am trying to get to within my one "wild" life I am living and to perhaps write or share "just in time as needed."
Love the way you think and see the world, Jonathan. And, as it's 1:25 AM California time as I write this note and I just poured a bit of tequila into my glass – the first and only drink of this long evening/night – I was particularly tickled by this line:
"There will be wee drams of Lagavulin 16 to extend and deepen time after midnight...."
What an insightful, nuanced perception to explain this late-night treat I've enjoyed for so many years. Cheers!
Well said. “The freedom to be intellectual” is an underrated and neglected freedom!
Just imagine if every Murrkin one henceforth meets, instead of intoning the expected all-purpose "well now that's interesting" exclaimed (something like) "by jeezus dude that is *important*!
Looking forward to your thoughts on the work of Cynthia Bourgeault. You’ve mentioned her impact on you several times in passing and I’ve wondered what shifts in perceiving and thinking she has stimulated.
I look forward to that. I struggled to get on with The Eye of the Heart and paused it, meaning to return.
Would be keen to understand how do you nuance between interesting and important. Perhaps highlight the features of the "interesting but not important" & also of the "important but not (apparently) interesting" parts of the Venn diagram. Thank you
That sounds like one for you to carry! I’d be happy to see it though.
Have been struggling with this one for a long time.
Don't know if progress is possible to make the distinction absent some sort of contingency / causes all the way down "its important because X", "X is important b/c Y" etc. Intuitively, I think we should ditch hot air interesting stuff that appeals to our junk food part of the brain and is inconsequential (like what did Dubois said to Joshua in their pre-fight conference) and aim to engage with mundane stuff that doesn't appeal to our junk food part of the brain and is consequential in some meaningful way (like really engaging with the data on why many things got better in the world eg child mortality). But then the debate becomes why make this distinction which has to lead to some axiom that I intrinsically care about.
A very long way of saying I dont really know.