6 ms·

As always I keep coming back to the beautiful Japanese concept of Ikigai - "a reason for being" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikigai https://en.wikipedia.org/wi

As always I keep coming back to the beautiful Japanese concept of Ikigai - "a reason for being" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikigai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikigai Imagine four intersecting circles depicting: 1. What you love to do 2. What you are good at 3. What you can get paid for 4. What the world needs It's about finding a balance between these factors. See http://www.forastateofhappiness.com/ikigai-the-happiness-of-always-being-busy-in-japan/ http://www.forastateofhappiness.com/ikigai-the-happiness-of-... and http://www.forastateofhappiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Ikigai.jpg http://www.forastateofhappiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/...

eevilspock 6y ago
What happens when they don't intersect? What if #4 needs people to compromise on #1 if we want to have any degree of equity, as opposed to the lucky elite doing what they love and everyone else serving them to survive? What if #4 needs people to not selfishly maximize #3, e.g. take the ethical job that pays enough rather than the unethical one that pays you much more? Modern culture has come to be obsessed with self actualization and happiness, at the expense of meaning, love (by definition not self-centered), solidarity in both difficulty and joy, and integrity/honor. I would LOVE TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS on this essay about Viktor Frankl, for whom "meaning came from three possible sources: purposeful work, love, and courage in the face of difficulty." https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/03/26/viktor-frankl-mans-search-for-meaning/ https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/03/26/viktor-frankl-mans-... Buddhist Economics: https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/07/07/buddhist-economics-schumacher https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/07/07/buddhist-economics-...
- abdullahkhalids 6y ago
  I think you are thinking #4 should be something like making a better Facebook or something global. I highly doubt that is what the concept means. It just means do things that benefit other people directly. Running the friendly neighborhood barbershop where you are not doing anything unethical (like recommending shady products) falls within #4.
  - eevilspock 6y ago
    I don't think you understand what I wrote at all, much less read my links. What the world needs is equity, shared responsibility, genuine good will and humanity. The world needs to NOT be dominated by exploitation and oppression, the amassing of wealth, power and advantage at the expense of other people, cynical politics, and environmental degradation. A better Facebook is a Facebook that does not exist. The fabric of society should never be run be a profit-seeking firm, especially one whose means of profit is directly detrimental to that very fabric. The world needs more teachers, and zero people who salary is paid by advertising. How many HN'ers would give up their comfy salaries and instead be teachers? How many would give up many material comforts if that was the best way to protect or planet and better share resources with the world's have-nots? The world needs everyone to work as if we were a family. What kind of family would give one child steak, asparagus and chocolate cake for dinner while another child is left to beg in the streets? Gives one a wonderful home while the other is abandoned in a slum? Gives one wonderful childcare and schooling and leaves the other to sink or swim (most likely sink)? The world is the way it is because most everyone is self-centered about #1 and greedy about #3, and only pretends to care about #4. We'll find a job that maximizes #1 and #4, and never do the deep critical thinking about how that contributes to or undermines #4. We'll lazily and self-servingly claim that it must be what the world needs because the free market is paying top dollar for it. Viktor Frankl might say that if we focused on #4, we would find deep meaning and shared joy and humanity, which would totally transform what we think #1 is. We might blow our own minds.
    - abdullahkhalids 6y ago
      Maybe I misunderstood your first comment. But it was expressed much worse than your second one. That I completely agree with.
    - abdabab 6y ago
      This interpretation is similar to an old Buddhist teaching. When you’re one with the world you’re sharing others’ joy and disowning your “personal” sufferings.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  Not everybody likes the same things. We may all want to do things that have a purpose, that are ethical, and that are relatively easy compared to the money we make, but there is a still a wide potential range of how we define those categories. What are you thinking of when you say "unethical"? Is a job that has something to do with fossil fuels unethical? Corporate litigation support? The defense industry? Tobacco? Cannabis? Guns? Pharmaceuticals? Meat processing? Investment banking? Or do you mean unethical in more of an old fashioned way, like participating in concrete crimes? It seems to me that there's something wrong with judging anything as unethical in an unqualified way if it is currently necessary to sustain society. We may want to eliminate fossil fuels, but millions of people are dependent right now so they don't freeze in the winter.
  - eevilspock 6y ago
    What percentage of fossil fuel consumption do you think is related to keeping people from freezing vs maintaining materialistic lifestyles at the expense of the planet and sustainability? > necessary to sustain society We as a society have abdicated nearly all critical judgement about this and instead worship the market as the arbiter of truth, the "one true algorithm" that decides what everything and everyone is worth and what everyone must do. We've been doing this so long that we don't realize that the algorithm has transformed our world in its image, so deeply that what is now needed to sustain society in indistinguishable from what is needed to maintain the functioning of the algorithm.
    - perl4ever 6y ago
      >What percentage of fossil fuel consumption do you think is related to keeping people from freezing vs maintaining materialistic lifestyles at the expense of the planet and sustainability? It seems you took my comment out of context. Global energy policy is not relevant to 99.9% of the people employed in the energy industry, who must make decisions about whether their participation is ethical. Joe or Jane Schmoe who is a project manager at Exxon-Mobil is not making global policy choices or even oil-company-CEO choices. They are contributing a tiny bit to whatever good and bad things the company is doing, but it's likely to be very small and indirect. There is no choice on a daily basis when developing an Excel spreadsheet "should this spreadsheet help people who are cold or instead the greedy materialists?" The granularity of the choice that is made is, should I continue working for, say, Chevron? Should I go work for Exxon-Mobil if they are slightly more ethical by some metric? Should I go work for some company that has a much lower carbon intensity because it isn't in the same industry? Or one that has more ethical leadership according to some public opinion of someone? It sounds to me as though you have made statements about ethical responsibility that aren't consistent with the limited choices ordinary people can make.
- tardismechanic 6y ago
  I don't have the answer to any of the what-ifs. Even if I did more what-ifs can always be created. It is endless and not conclusive. As with things like these, Ikigai is a tool. It may or may not be useful/relevant. Depends on the situation I suppose ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ YMMV Frankl's thoughts are interesting but unfortunately he lost me at "Suffering is an ineradicable part of life". This seems true if and only if one identifies with one's body/mind. If one chooses to identify with say "life" and not a specific body/mind, suffering might be eradicable. Feel free to read up on the eastern wisdom traditions specifically Advaita Vedanta for a much better exposition than I can provide in this small text box :) Good luck!
  - eevilspock 6y ago
    yes, these text boxes are quite limiting! Good luck to you too!

eevilspock 6y ago

What happens when they don't intersect? What if #4 needs people to compromise on #1 if we want to have any degree of equity, as opposed to the lucky elite doing what they love and everyone else serving them to survive? What if #4 needs people to not selfishly maximize #3, e.g. take the ethical job that pays enough rather than the unethical one that pays you much more? Modern culture has come to be obsessed with self actualization and happiness, at the expense of meaning, love (by definition not self-centered), solidarity in both difficulty and joy, and integrity/honor. I would LOVE TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS on this essay about Viktor Frankl, for whom "meaning came from three possible sources: purposeful work, love, and courage in the face of difficulty." https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/03/26/viktor-frankl-mans-search-for-meaning/ https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/03/26/viktor-frankl-mans-... Buddhist Economics: https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/07/07/buddhist-economics-schumacher https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/07/07/buddhist-economics-...

abdullahkhalids 6y ago
I think you are thinking #4 should be something like making a better Facebook or something global. I highly doubt that is what the concept means. It just means do things that benefit other people directly. Running the friendly neighborhood barbershop where you are not doing anything unethical (like recommending shady products) falls within #4.
- eevilspock 6y ago
  I don't think you understand what I wrote at all, much less read my links. What the world needs is equity, shared responsibility, genuine good will and humanity. The world needs to NOT be dominated by exploitation and oppression, the amassing of wealth, power and advantage at the expense of other people, cynical politics, and environmental degradation. A better Facebook is a Facebook that does not exist. The fabric of society should never be run be a profit-seeking firm, especially one whose means of profit is directly detrimental to that very fabric. The world needs more teachers, and zero people who salary is paid by advertising. How many HN'ers would give up their comfy salaries and instead be teachers? How many would give up many material comforts if that was the best way to protect or planet and better share resources with the world's have-nots? The world needs everyone to work as if we were a family. What kind of family would give one child steak, asparagus and chocolate cake for dinner while another child is left to beg in the streets? Gives one a wonderful home while the other is abandoned in a slum? Gives one wonderful childcare and schooling and leaves the other to sink or swim (most likely sink)? The world is the way it is because most everyone is self-centered about #1 and greedy about #3, and only pretends to care about #4. We'll find a job that maximizes #1 and #4, and never do the deep critical thinking about how that contributes to or undermines #4. We'll lazily and self-servingly claim that it must be what the world needs because the free market is paying top dollar for it. Viktor Frankl might say that if we focused on #4, we would find deep meaning and shared joy and humanity, which would totally transform what we think #1 is. We might blow our own minds.
  - abdullahkhalids 6y ago
    Maybe I misunderstood your first comment. But it was expressed much worse than your second one. That I completely agree with.
  - abdabab 6y ago
    This interpretation is similar to an old Buddhist teaching. When you’re one with the world you’re sharing others’ joy and disowning your “personal” sufferings.
perl4ever 6y ago
Not everybody likes the same things. We may all want to do things that have a purpose, that are ethical, and that are relatively easy compared to the money we make, but there is a still a wide potential range of how we define those categories. What are you thinking of when you say "unethical"? Is a job that has something to do with fossil fuels unethical? Corporate litigation support? The defense industry? Tobacco? Cannabis? Guns? Pharmaceuticals? Meat processing? Investment banking? Or do you mean unethical in more of an old fashioned way, like participating in concrete crimes? It seems to me that there's something wrong with judging anything as unethical in an unqualified way if it is currently necessary to sustain society. We may want to eliminate fossil fuels, but millions of people are dependent right now so they don't freeze in the winter.
- eevilspock 6y ago
  What percentage of fossil fuel consumption do you think is related to keeping people from freezing vs maintaining materialistic lifestyles at the expense of the planet and sustainability? > necessary to sustain society We as a society have abdicated nearly all critical judgement about this and instead worship the market as the arbiter of truth, the "one true algorithm" that decides what everything and everyone is worth and what everyone must do. We've been doing this so long that we don't realize that the algorithm has transformed our world in its image, so deeply that what is now needed to sustain society in indistinguishable from what is needed to maintain the functioning of the algorithm.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    >What percentage of fossil fuel consumption do you think is related to keeping people from freezing vs maintaining materialistic lifestyles at the expense of the planet and sustainability? It seems you took my comment out of context. Global energy policy is not relevant to 99.9% of the people employed in the energy industry, who must make decisions about whether their participation is ethical. Joe or Jane Schmoe who is a project manager at Exxon-Mobil is not making global policy choices or even oil-company-CEO choices. They are contributing a tiny bit to whatever good and bad things the company is doing, but it's likely to be very small and indirect. There is no choice on a daily basis when developing an Excel spreadsheet "should this spreadsheet help people who are cold or instead the greedy materialists?" The granularity of the choice that is made is, should I continue working for, say, Chevron? Should I go work for Exxon-Mobil if they are slightly more ethical by some metric? Should I go work for some company that has a much lower carbon intensity because it isn't in the same industry? Or one that has more ethical leadership according to some public opinion of someone? It sounds to me as though you have made statements about ethical responsibility that aren't consistent with the limited choices ordinary people can make.
tardismechanic 6y ago
I don't have the answer to any of the what-ifs. Even if I did more what-ifs can always be created. It is endless and not conclusive. As with things like these, Ikigai is a tool. It may or may not be useful/relevant. Depends on the situation I suppose ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ YMMV Frankl's thoughts are interesting but unfortunately he lost me at "Suffering is an ineradicable part of life". This seems true if and only if one identifies with one's body/mind. If one chooses to identify with say "life" and not a specific body/mind, suffering might be eradicable. Feel free to read up on the eastern wisdom traditions specifically Advaita Vedanta for a much better exposition than I can provide in this small text box :) Good luck!
- eevilspock 6y ago
  yes, these text boxes are quite limiting! Good luck to you too!