4 ms·

It's almost as if human experiences don't fit into the carefully curated categories we have in modern society where individual aspects are considered in isolati

It's almost as if human experiences don't fit into the carefully curated categories we have in modern society where individual aspects are considered in isolation and not handled in a holistic way. It's as if: the need for meaning, relationships, sleep, body, teeth, eating, professional development, daily routine, sitting, walking, how we walk, our individual body constructs, personality archetypes, mental health, etc... were more than the sum of their parts and being overly dissecting such things leads to a lessening, not increase in understanding of the whole. A great book on psychology like thinking fast and slow will do a great job at dissecting reality from that narrow point of view, just as other books will do the same in other fields. But I don't really know of any field that is respected that combines many elements to study how to maximize human potential/study the human experience as a whole. I offer no solutions, just an observation in terms of how we deal with the human experience in modernity.

Swizec 7y ago
This is because I can change a thing but I can't change my whole life. Well, I can, but that's hard and single things are easy.
- 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
  You are right, it is necessary to dissect. But I feel it's taken on a life of it's own. Just as work to live in some places has been distorted to live to work. We should create categories to understand, not understand to create categories. I've seen it everywhere. My doctor trying to shove pills down my throat when I had developed some bad habits and he didn't ask me ONE question about diet or night routine. I've seen it in universities where professors attack each others field instead of finding the common thread. In the boss that says "that's not your job, thats marketing/QA/dev/business dev/growth team/etc". It's a lack of understand that a team should provide value to the overall and the categories should only be there to aid in overall progress.
- yeahitslikethat 7y ago
  That's why you change one thing at a time.
ssivark 7y ago
> It's almost as if human experiences don't fit into the carefully curated categories we have in modern society where individual aspects are considered in isolation and not handled in a holistic way. Well put. The challenge for any individual author is that it is much easier to write defensively in a narrow niche (cue: increasing specialization in research). It is very easy to start flinging accusations and ad-hominem attacks on an author who's ambitiously trying to synthesize connections between apparently disparate topics, which discourages any ounce of originality/creativity. A more obvious problem is how our systems bias for an explosion of "content" and evisceration of nuance. For some thoughts on the topic, see https://www.brainpickings.org/2018/09/24/norbert-wiener-communication/ https://www.brainpickings.org/2018/09/24/norbert-wiener-comm... To start with, I wonder whether we can construct a better reading list for an audience with a more holistic bent, not just in relation to health, but for other domains too. Once a curated audience is established, authors might find more inducement to write such stuff. That said, once these floodgates are opened, filtering out the bullshit-mongers will take significant effort and judicious exercise of editorial discretion. In case anyone is interested, some ad-hoc examples, based on what I've been reading lately: - Christopher Alexander (full series of ten books, ostensibly relating to architecture, but actually reflecting on so much more) - Writings by some cybernetics pioneers (eg: Norbert Weiner and Ross Ashby) - Design as participation, by Kevin Slavin -- https://jods.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/design-as-participation https://jods.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/design-as-participation PS: Some of my current readings skirt "unfashionable" topics related to AI/ML, many of which are papers from the 80s :-)

Swizec 7y ago

This is because I can change a thing but I can't change my whole life. Well, I can, but that's hard and single things are easy.

4ntonius8lock 7y ago
You are right, it is necessary to dissect. But I feel it's taken on a life of it's own. Just as work to live in some places has been distorted to live to work. We should create categories to understand, not understand to create categories. I've seen it everywhere. My doctor trying to shove pills down my throat when I had developed some bad habits and he didn't ask me ONE question about diet or night routine. I've seen it in universities where professors attack each others field instead of finding the common thread. In the boss that says "that's not your job, thats marketing/QA/dev/business dev/growth team/etc". It's a lack of understand that a team should provide value to the overall and the categories should only be there to aid in overall progress.
yeahitslikethat 7y ago
That's why you change one thing at a time.

ssivark 7y ago

> It's almost as if human experiences don't fit into the carefully curated categories we have in modern society where individual aspects are considered in isolation and not handled in a holistic way. Well put. The challenge for any individual author is that it is much easier to write defensively in a narrow niche (cue: increasing specialization in research). It is very easy to start flinging accusations and ad-hominem attacks on an author who's ambitiously trying to synthesize connections between apparently disparate topics, which discourages any ounce of originality/creativity. A more obvious problem is how our systems bias for an explosion of "content" and evisceration of nuance. For some thoughts on the topic, see https://www.brainpickings.org/2018/09/24/norbert-wiener-communication/ https://www.brainpickings.org/2018/09/24/norbert-wiener-comm... To start with, I wonder whether we can construct a better reading list for an audience with a more holistic bent, not just in relation to health, but for other domains too. Once a curated audience is established, authors might find more inducement to write such stuff. That said, once these floodgates are opened, filtering out the bullshit-mongers will take significant effort and judicious exercise of editorial discretion. In case anyone is interested, some ad-hoc examples, based on what I've been reading lately: - Christopher Alexander (full series of ten books, ostensibly relating to architecture, but actually reflecting on so much more) - Writings by some cybernetics pioneers (eg: Norbert Weiner and Ross Ashby) - Design as participation, by Kevin Slavin -- https://jods.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/design-as-participation https://jods.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/design-as-participation PS: Some of my current readings skirt "unfashionable" topics related to AI/ML, many of which are papers from the 80s :-)