A Personal Government

What if your life was totally controlled by the government?

No, I'm not envisioning some dystopian future or referencing a distorted view of the present. Nor am I speaking about the pervasive and important influence that our local, state, and national governments have on our daily lives. I'm proposing a personal government, one formed by a three-way division of yourself.

First, you would need a constitution that sets up the fundamental structure for how you live your life. Maybe you want some things baked in: always take the stairs; find a way to tell the truth; navigate with a particular ethical precept in mind. Maybe you dream up an ideal day. Importantly, your constitution might install a division of powers between three branches: the legislative, the judicial, and the executive.

Your legislature would decide on the rules outside of the broad directives of the constitution. Every once in a while, you could brainstorm a legislative agenda: issues whose resolution would make your life better. You could, for example, do some research on diet and decide that you want to eat vegetarian or Paleo. Or you might set up some rules for the way you work so that you are always at the top of your game. Additionally, your "legislature" might determine what sort of goals you should pursue in the short and long term. These rules and decisions would come about only after careful consideration of the pros and cons. They would be treated roughly as final choices, subject, of course, to careful revision.

Your executive would carry out the laws "passed" by your legislative branch. This part of you involves the day-to-day planning and execution. You'd consult the rules and then engage in active living.

Your judiciary would assess whether your executive was faithfully executive the laws and whether the other two "branches" were adhering to the constitution you set up. Perhaps these checks come about through a regular process of journaling; any discrepancies demand a change of course. Alternatively, you might use the judiciary as a mental space for post-mortems, dissecting what went wrong and why you strayed from your principles.

The next time you have to make a decision, consult your personal government. What would make it through the rigmarole of your three inner branches? A personal government such as the one described above would only let the best ideas win and the best you express itself.

Kids these days...

Today, I went to the park to do a quick workout at a playground close to my apartment. Afterwards, I was sitting on a tree stump next to a small grove near the playground when a small boy ran in my direction. He's blonde, wild-eyed, maybe four or five.

His mom calls, "Where are you going?"

Boy: "Over there. To see all the pretty plants."

Mom: "Ok. Just be careful."

Boy: "Why?"

Mom: "It's damp. You'll get wet."

Boy: "Oh."

He runs in.

Commonplace Links #4

I found powerful this episode of OnBeing with David Whyte. Maria Popova helpfully points to some good parts of the conversation here.

One part that Popova doesn't touch on is Whyte's thoughts on the power of questions. Whyte reflects:

The ability to ask beautiful questions, often in very unbeautiful moments, is one of the great disciplines of a human life. And a beautiful question starts to shape your identity as much by asking it as it does by having it answered. And you don’t have to do anything about it, you just have to keep asking, and before you know it, you will find yourself actually shaping a different life, meeting different people, finding conversations that are leading you in those directions that you wouldn’t even have seen before.

I love this idea. Asking better questions is an underrated path towards transformation of both ourselves and others.

Relatedly, Jedidiah Jenkins writes about how another way we can shape others: highlighting what's best in them. Jenkins:

Saying what someone 'is’ is like witchcraft. For this reason, I tell people what is lovely, so that it becomes more of them.

Another way to put it: we are what others pay attention to. There's beauty in this idea of becoming through call and response, though we shouldn't forget James Baldwin's powerful admonition: "You've got to tell the world how to treat you. If the world tells you how you are going to be treated, you are in trouble."

Whyte's poem "Sweet Darkness," which he reads during the episode, offers a little help in the difficult process of choosing how to engage with the world. Its closing lines:

anything or anyone
that does not bring you alive
is too small for you

Anything or anyone that does not bring you alive is too small for you. What an incredible way of sifting through yes's and no's in life.

Finally, Freddie de Boer on reading:

My recommendation to anyone, but particularly to anyone who wants to restart their habit of regular reading of book-length work, is a project book.

...

A project book is one that you want to take a long time with, often one that necessitates taking a long time with. And though so many of your instincts are going to militate against it, you should stretch out into that time. Get comfortable. Think of your project book as a long-term sublease, a place that you know you won’t live in forever but one that you also know has to come to feel like home. You want to take months, reading little chunks at a time. It might offend your bookworm nature, but I find it’s useful to make a regular appointment– for this hour, twice a week, I will read this book and ancillary materials about it. Think of it like appointment television, if that suits you. Learn to enjoy the feeling of not being in complete control over what you mentally consume all the time, a feeling that has become rarer and rarer.

I've been thinking a lot about reading and its importance to the both the mind and soul. I'm actively rebuilding my identity as a reader, which directly feeds my identity as a writer. A project book is a fantastic way of training that skill. I have a few ideas for one (perhaps Plato's Republic or DFW's Infinite Jest), though I think I will take one up this summer.


Background to this experiment in link-sharing here.

Out of Curiosity

"Out of curiosity..."

To begin a line of questioning this way implies that we a springing out of a place: curiosity.

What could that space – curiosity – mean?

I think it means that we are engaging in a purer, more ennobling form of questioning. Questions that come out of curiosity are the types of questions we ask when we don't have an agenda. They are the questions we ask when we are thirsty for knowledge, embarking on a journey from one space (curiosity) to another (learning).

Our questions can have other positive orientations besides curiosity, like love, or helpfulness.

How, then, can we encourage the better springs of inquiry?

Much of it has to do with pausing. Before we ask a question, we can examine its origin. Is it coming out of curiosity or spite? Kindness or sabotage? We can choose from what mental space our questions flow from.

In doing so, we also dictate the form and beauty of the answer. Those nourished by questions asked out of curiosity will more likely choose the generous response. Downstream, a beautiful response might lead to more beautiful questions.

The next time you ask a question, ask it from the best place you know inside yourself.