Reflections on August 2020

Hey patrons,

There goes August. Another month, another series of life events. I hope you’ve all been well, and that you and your loved ones are taking care.

I have some reflections to share with you today – three things I’ve been pondering over the course of the month.

Let’s get right into it.

(1) Language as the gatekeeper of thought

One thing that philosophers have often brought up is the limitation of language. The way we communicate is based on a set of linguistic constructs, all of which have been seeded well before we were born. As a result, we are stuck with using some prescribed set of sounds to describe things that we otherwise may want to use different words for.

For example, if I were to tell you that “this tree is beautiful,” I’m using “tree” to describe this big, odd brown thing that splits into a bunch of smaller brown things, all of which have a series of green sheets that cover them. This intricate life form that I see before me has somehow been condensed into a simple, 4-letter word. To me, it could look more like a “moofa woofa,” but you would give me a blank stare when I call it that, so nope, “tree” it is.

And what about the word “beautiful”? That’s a whole rabbit hole in itself, right?

The point is that language is a crude way to describe the world we live in, especially because he have to adhere to these age-old constructs that somehow standardize it all. And of course, anything that’s standardized comes with a removal of nuance and individual preferences, which removes our sense of freedom. How can we truly express ourselves when all we have is a standard code of symbols we need to funnel our observations and feelings through?

While language is fundamentally limiting, I do see something super useful about it that isn’t often addressed:

The way it provides agency to our thoughts.

One of the first things you’ll notice when you start meditating is how out-of-control your thoughts truly are. They are like a wave of uninvited guests, just pulling you in whatever direction they desire. Oftentimes, they have nothing to do with your values and your identity; instead, they go off of whatever impulse hits you at any given moment.

To say that you can control your thoughts is an illusion. If I were to offer you a screen that broadcasts all of the thoughts you have to everyone around you, you’d be 100% right in telling me to go away. No one would want that because we all inherently know how uncontrollable our thoughts are, and to broadcast every single one won’t do much good for your reputation.

Language allows us to place a gate on your thoughts – specifically, on what we choose to express to others. By having to use language to convert our thoughts into either the written or spoken word, we are extracting the thoughts we have in our minds, and making the choice to communicate them into existence.

“Think before you speak” is a common adage that is relevant here. When you speak, your thoughts cross the bridge of language to make themselves known to others. So what this adage is really saying is, “Are you sure you want to use language to communicate what’s on your mind? Or should you leave it untranslated, and tucked away instead?”

Language gives us a sense of agency over what we communicate, which is a relief, given that we don’t have agency over what we think. The only reason our every thought isn’t continually broadcasted to the world is because of the gateway of language.

Thank goodness for that.

(2) Money problems and the one word to remember

I’ve written two big posts on money: one on our individual relationship with it, and one on how it has changed the course of humanity. Both touch the topic of money at different scales, but I find it interesting how they converge upon one word that helps alleviate the tension that it creates:

Our ability to understand the concept of enough.

It may seem obvious to draw upon this word, but in reality, it’s not as easy as we’d like to think. The amount of attention we give to money expands and contracts based on fear and contentment (respectively), and it’s incredibly difficult to know exactly what “enough” means as our needs fluctuate over time.

It is for this very reason that money problems appear in even the closest of relationships.

Take married couples for example. One of the top reasons why couples get divorced is because of money. Another sad example here are family relationships. Countless bonds have been disconnected as a result of money.

The root of this issue all has to do with one fundamental disagreement:

An inability to agree on what enough means.

Take the husband and wife that are fighting over money. On the surface, it may seem like the husband and wife are having a fight over whether or not a car should be purchased (you can take “car” and replace it with any other good, i.e. a house, a boat, whatever). But in reality, there’s a fundamental difference in opinion about what “enough” means. To the wife, she may feel very content with what she has, and doesn’t feel the need to sacrifice any additional wealth for some other good. But to the husband, he might not be satisfied with his current holdings, and looks to something more to get him to his definition of “enough.”

Both occupy the present moment, but have differing opinions as to how it’s interpreted.

This can scale up to the highest of issues (such as whether or not they should pay for the healthcare costs of a sick loved one), all the way down to the lowest of them (such as whether or not to buy organic meat from the grocery store). Some of these issues may feel like fundamental disagreements in values, but whenever money is connected to them, chances are there’s something to do with “enough” there.

If every married couple were able to have an open discussion of this concept, then so many of these money problems would be alleviated. If anything, having agreement on “enough” before getting married would be great, but having it afterward is okay too. As long as it’s mutually understood among them, then they’ll have a good baseline to go off of whenever things stray a bit.

The most dangerous thing would be to assume that everyone is on the same page as you. Remember, the attention each person gives to money is based on their unique circumstances and dispositions, so it’s almost guaranteed that your view of “enough” will differ from the next person’s. The goal is not to change the other’s mind about what it should mean, but rather to be acutely aware of how each person internalizes that word and allows it to shape their world view.

(3) Avoiding the status trap

I recently read a great long-form piece from Eugene Wei titled Status as a Service (StaaS). I highly recommend you check it out if you haven’t yet. It offers one of the most lucid and well thought-out frameworks to view social media, and how these platforms ultimately act as dispensers of status and prestige.

As a creator in the digital era, everyone is fighting for the most finite resource one can give: their attention. The supply of content will always be greater than the amount of attention any one person can provide, and this conundrum is either solved in one of two ways:

(1) You create things that are so good that people can’t ignore it, or

(2) You build up your status and use it as a way to attract attention.

A lot of the time, #1 builds credibility and lends its way to #2, but if you’re looking for a shortcut, going directly to #2 may look enticing.

This is where social networks come in. By attaching follower counts to people’s accounts, by adding “like” buttons, and using algorithms to drive certain accounts to the top of the proverbial stack, they act as platforms that tell its users, “Hey, look at this person, they deserve your attention.” Essentially, they are distributors of status, and elevate people based on what works best for their platform.

The problem is that this status is distributed in the crudest way possible. Most of the time, it’s by follower counts, or some other metric that condenses one person into a single integer. So those with many followers are showered with status, while those that don’t have many are not.

The thing about this type of status is that it’s generally localized to one domain. A famous Instagram account may have zero presence on Twitter. A TikTok star is unknown to most people that solely use Facebook. Status creates segmentation, and further edits an identity down to the platform it finds itself depending on.

The reality is that no single person’s identity can be relegated to any one domain, yet when we view the landscape of creators, that’s how it’s been set up. There’s an odd kind of dehumanization that occurs when we see each person as nothing more than an incremental increase to a follower count, and we see this in high prevalence on any individual network.

The status trap tricks you into thinking that accumulating status is what matters, rather than developing deeper relationships with people instead. I try to put this into action by focusing more on interacting with those take the time to reach out via email, and of course, with you, my patrons. Yes, the social media tools can be helpful, but understanding that they’re constrained by certain games helps me zoom out and see what’s really important.

If I were to give advice to any new content creator, writer, etc., it’d be this:

(1) Focus on making great stuff.

(2) Connect deeply with your audience.

(3) Ignore the status games as much as possible.

If you chase status, you’ll always be dependent on the opinions of others to validate your sense of progress. But by focusing on your own work and the people it resonates with, you’ll be able to cultivate something that no one else can take away.

That’s it for this reflection. As always, feel free to let me know if you have any feedback, thoughts, or if you simply want to say hello. I love hearing from you all, and you can always drop me a message here on Patreon as well.

Thank you so much for your support, and have a great week!

-Lawrence