5 ms·

I read that differently from you. I think he's sad because they _do_ go to the effort of hearing the cuckoos, but they're rushing. They're not fully present, a

I read that differently from you. I think he's sad because they _do_ go to the effort of hearing the cuckoos, but they're rushing. They're not fully present, and so they don't get the full experience. He, by contrast, is very present in the things he does. That he doesn't choose to do many things is a different topic.

taneq 5y ago
Is it different, though? Can you do things that deeply without limiting the number of things you’re doing?
- riffraff 5y ago
  I believe there is probably a balance to be struck. I am from (near) Rome, and am familiar with the phenomenon of people visiting the city over a weekend, or even worse, on a day trip. That literally means you cannot experience the city, you can at most put some checkmarks on the 3 most popular sights. In a month you may spend a weekend in Paris, Madrid, Rome and London, but I believe it would be better to spend a few more days in only one of those. This is still different from, say, spending six months in a given city (which is what some people do to really experience it!). To each their own, some people do prefer broad & shallow to restricted & deep, but I think these days we do tend to over-emphasize the shallow side.
  - FalconSensei 5y ago
    Yeah, it's crazy. When I went to visit my cousins in Paris, I stayed for 19 days, and it was awesome. A friend said that 3 days was enough, and it would be nice to travel to a few other places too. Maybe enough for a quick glance at some tourist spots, but not to actually experience the city. I could have stayed for a whole month, or two, and would still be getting new experiences. As you mention, there's a good balance, and maybe 20 days could have been spent in 2 cities. But a weekend is very shallow
- DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
  I think it is. There are people who experience time differently due to disabilities, who simply are like this[1], but I it's also possible when trying to make an effort: Meditation is meant to give this ability: Also the Japanese "ichigo ichie" living in the moment is based on the concept, and some people I know not just "practice" this but are incapable of multitasking - because they chose not to. Something can be gained by not stripping away boredom, but instead "savouring" the moment to see where it leads (essential for creativity). Then there is the idea of taking a cold shower as first thing in the morning to tell your subconscious to better not be to comfortable, and prepare "properly" for your day ahead (without "expectation" of comfort). Eating the same supper is a similar spirit and strips away the comfort and thinking that "one has an entitlement to something". See also the Stoic philosophy etc. ___ [1] this is a truly fantastic book if anyone was looking for an unsolicited recommendation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Discovery_of_Slowness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Discovery_of_Slowness from the wikipedia link: > "Slowness" — in German, "Langsamkeit" — had, before Nadolny's novel been primarily associated with mental retardation. In Nadolny's world, however, this seeming disability is in fact a powerful asset; the possessor of "slowness" can afford to wait, because he must wait. As a result, he attains victories unimaginable to the more "hurried" multitude. Nadolny's choice of a hero is apt in this regard; certainly the historical Sir John Franklin was never known for his mental alacrity, but beyond that, his "slowness" is more of a post-modern conceit. In a manner reminiscent of Roland Barthes' "autobiography" of Jules Michelet, Nadolny's Franklin is completely consistent with the known facts, all impeccably researched. Yet interwoven with the truth there is an entirely fictitious construction of Franklin as "slow," ranging from an imaginary ball-game in which the hapless John always arrives several seconds after the ball has departed to a fictitious re-creation of Franklin's efforts, at the height of Admiral Horatio Nelson's naval battles, to find and shoot a sniper from atop the masts of an enemy warship. By waiting, without panic, and carefully noting the angle at which the sniper's shots have been discharged, Franklin pinpoints his location and takes him down with a single shot.
- raffraffraff 5y ago
  No, I don't think you can. But most people get enjoyment out of life without doing anything deeply. Sometimes you can look down your nose at them (eg people who get their science "facts" from Scientific American or /r/ifuckinglovescience and love to quote amazing bullshit at you). But sometimes it makes sense to take a shallow interest in things because, as you say, you can't go deep in everything, but that shouldn't stop you from singing badly, failing at some side project, gardening badly and doing high-effort low-quality DIY at the weekend. The contrast reminds me of a fad among 20-something's back in the 90s, spending a year "roughing it" on a grand tour of some third-world country. They'd come back with a tattoo, weighing 60kg, tanned and full of derision for "...your first world addiction to consumerism, man", and laughing at people who take their jobs seriously. Telling stories of dysentry, dangerous situations, psychedelics, corrupt police, bribing border guards, and living on pennies a day. "You get to see the real <wherever>". But while they certainly got closer to 'grit', they never really blended in with the locals for the same reason that they couldn't appreciate poverty. It was because they knew they had an exit strategy. They were fake, like Carla in Fight Club, going to terminal cancer support groups. Like the rich girl in Pulp's song, Common People, hanging out in a rough neighborhood, renting a flat above a shop, getting a shitty job and pretending she never went to school. But she never gets it right because she knows she can call her Daddy any time and he'll rescue her. And true enough, every man-Jack of those 20-something's had a car and a career within months of their return, and they're rightfully embarrassed about the enlightened crap they gave everyone when they first got back. Maybe a 2 week holiday to see the scenery is just as good after all?

taneq 5y ago

Is it different, though? Can you do things that deeply without limiting the number of things you’re doing?

riffraff 5y ago
I believe there is probably a balance to be struck. I am from (near) Rome, and am familiar with the phenomenon of people visiting the city over a weekend, or even worse, on a day trip. That literally means you cannot experience the city, you can at most put some checkmarks on the 3 most popular sights. In a month you may spend a weekend in Paris, Madrid, Rome and London, but I believe it would be better to spend a few more days in only one of those. This is still different from, say, spending six months in a given city (which is what some people do to really experience it!). To each their own, some people do prefer broad & shallow to restricted & deep, but I think these days we do tend to over-emphasize the shallow side.
- FalconSensei 5y ago
  Yeah, it's crazy. When I went to visit my cousins in Paris, I stayed for 19 days, and it was awesome. A friend said that 3 days was enough, and it would be nice to travel to a few other places too. Maybe enough for a quick glance at some tourist spots, but not to actually experience the city. I could have stayed for a whole month, or two, and would still be getting new experiences. As you mention, there's a good balance, and maybe 20 days could have been spent in 2 cities. But a weekend is very shallow
DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
I think it is. There are people who experience time differently due to disabilities, who simply are like this[1], but I it's also possible when trying to make an effort: Meditation is meant to give this ability: Also the Japanese "ichigo ichie" living in the moment is based on the concept, and some people I know not just "practice" this but are incapable of multitasking - because they chose not to. Something can be gained by not stripping away boredom, but instead "savouring" the moment to see where it leads (essential for creativity). Then there is the idea of taking a cold shower as first thing in the morning to tell your subconscious to better not be to comfortable, and prepare "properly" for your day ahead (without "expectation" of comfort). Eating the same supper is a similar spirit and strips away the comfort and thinking that "one has an entitlement to something". See also the Stoic philosophy etc. ___ [1] this is a truly fantastic book if anyone was looking for an unsolicited recommendation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Discovery_of_Slowness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Discovery_of_Slowness from the wikipedia link: > "Slowness" — in German, "Langsamkeit" — had, before Nadolny's novel been primarily associated with mental retardation. In Nadolny's world, however, this seeming disability is in fact a powerful asset; the possessor of "slowness" can afford to wait, because he must wait. As a result, he attains victories unimaginable to the more "hurried" multitude. Nadolny's choice of a hero is apt in this regard; certainly the historical Sir John Franklin was never known for his mental alacrity, but beyond that, his "slowness" is more of a post-modern conceit. In a manner reminiscent of Roland Barthes' "autobiography" of Jules Michelet, Nadolny's Franklin is completely consistent with the known facts, all impeccably researched. Yet interwoven with the truth there is an entirely fictitious construction of Franklin as "slow," ranging from an imaginary ball-game in which the hapless John always arrives several seconds after the ball has departed to a fictitious re-creation of Franklin's efforts, at the height of Admiral Horatio Nelson's naval battles, to find and shoot a sniper from atop the masts of an enemy warship. By waiting, without panic, and carefully noting the angle at which the sniper's shots have been discharged, Franklin pinpoints his location and takes him down with a single shot.
raffraffraff 5y ago
No, I don't think you can. But most people get enjoyment out of life without doing anything deeply. Sometimes you can look down your nose at them (eg people who get their science "facts" from Scientific American or /r/ifuckinglovescience and love to quote amazing bullshit at you). But sometimes it makes sense to take a shallow interest in things because, as you say, you can't go deep in everything, but that shouldn't stop you from singing badly, failing at some side project, gardening badly and doing high-effort low-quality DIY at the weekend. The contrast reminds me of a fad among 20-something's back in the 90s, spending a year "roughing it" on a grand tour of some third-world country. They'd come back with a tattoo, weighing 60kg, tanned and full of derision for "...your first world addiction to consumerism, man", and laughing at people who take their jobs seriously. Telling stories of dysentry, dangerous situations, psychedelics, corrupt police, bribing border guards, and living on pennies a day. "You get to see the real <wherever>". But while they certainly got closer to 'grit', they never really blended in with the locals for the same reason that they couldn't appreciate poverty. It was because they knew they had an exit strategy. They were fake, like Carla in Fight Club, going to terminal cancer support groups. Like the rich girl in Pulp's song, Common People, hanging out in a rough neighborhood, renting a flat above a shop, getting a shitty job and pretending she never went to school. But she never gets it right because she knows she can call her Daddy any time and he'll rescue her. And true enough, every man-Jack of those 20-something's had a car and a career within months of their return, and they're rightfully embarrassed about the enlightened crap they gave everyone when they first got back. Maybe a 2 week holiday to see the scenery is just as good after all?