Podcast 1.07 - The Greatest Known Fact
In "The Greatest Known Fact," I share a quote from Thoreau you've probably never heard, a quote that I feel is the most valuable quote you could ever know; and I also touch on the idealism of the Romantics.
posted by Nature's Lead @ 2:40 PM
9 comments
9 Comments:
Does keeping your ideal goal in mind actually give you clear steps to follow, like you say?
It seems very possible to me that one reason some people find it difficult to ever reach their ideal goal is that the path is rather nebulous (especially when contrasted with a less-than ideal goal).
For instance, if one inspires to be a great author, where would one even begin? So many great authors have taken different paths - there is no consensus. But if I merely settle for being a person who leaves comments on blogs - then the path is extremely clear and simple.
I agree with you that one should keep an ideal state in mind to strive for, and even that we should plan out steps ahead to reach that goal, but it seems possible that one may not see clearly the theoretical steps necessary to obtain that goal - regardless of the steps' difficulty levels.
Thanks for the comments; you bring up some good points.
You asked, "Does keeping your ideal goal in mind actually give you clear steps to follow?"
I actually was trying to say that establishing the ideal will help you measure every decision and potential path against something. It doesn't hand you the steps to get there, but it does help guide you through.
Being a great author is a great example you bring up... Once you decide that, then as you tackle the profession, you may end up trying in many different ways, but the common thread is that end goal you're striving for. If you're offered a job as a journalist making a lot of money (highly paid journalist?!...remember, this is a fictional tale), you may see that as a great thing in the short term. But when weighed against wanting to become, let's say, a novelist, you may decide the job would not allow you enough free time to progress towards your goal. That's a tough decision, but you would only make it if you had that ideal in mind. Conversely, you may see the job as an opportunity to improve your writing and increase your knowledge of the world, so you decide to accept. Either way, you're basing that decision on the ideal state you want to reach rather than on the short term fancy of what society may think you should do or what you may think you should do. So when faced with these paths in life, you're using the ideal to help you make your way.
Here's what I said in the podcast that probably most clearly summarizes what I'm saying:
"I am always looking at the ideal state of who I want to be, of what the types of things I want to be doing are, and of what kind of accomplishments I want to achieve while I’m here. Then, with every decision I have to make, big or small, I measure it against those ideals."
Also, you said that reaching the ideal can be difficult because of the nebulous nature of it. I agree. Having an ideal state is not a cure-all; one still needs to pragmatically work hard towards finding ways of reaching that goal. At some point, I'll be doing a topic on how the path should be looked at as more rewarding than the destination; it's the movement on the path that is living. Being rewarded by the process can maybe make a nebulous pursuit more easily digested.
Anyway, thanks again, and I hope you like the podcast.
Two thoughts I'd like to put out here . . .
One, thanks for your site and podcasts - I recently discovered this site and enjoy listening to your words.
Two, in reference to the initial post using the example of aspiring to be a great author, I think when considering this thought it is valid to ask: what does 'great' mean and to whom? Being specific (at least as I see things) is important.
I don't mean to over simplify or compartmentalize but considering the word 'great' - does that mean being someone who embraces 'high art' (akin to a Shakespeare at his best) or something other?
I've read some 'great' writers but I don't think they will necessarily stand the 'test of time' as a 'great' author (Michael Crichton comes to mind – I love his books. He is a 'great' writer but I don’t think of him in the same way I consider the Bard. And as I consider my last sentence - perhaps that's a shortcoming of my own. I've heard the arguement that there is no difference between 'high art' [I read: 'great' works] and 'low art' [art that is 'less great'] - and maybe this is true. Maybe 'great' just is.).
The other thought to this for me is to whom - to whom am I (in this case) a great writer?
I write 'great' love letters to my partner but others may not see these penned memos as such. At work I write 'great' reports - but I'm not or do I ever believe I will be a bestselling author.
For me - and here is where I get stuck in the being 'great' thing - I think I need to define ‘greatness’ (within certain ideals or boundaries – Pol Pot may have been ‘great’ in his mind but not a ‘great’ man) but I need to really understand that what I strive to be may not be what my peers think of as 'great'. And I shouldn't let that stop me from my personal greatness.
Still, too often, it does.
I have a 'great' garden and I believe am a 'great' gardener - but others have commented that the garden is small and some years they note the harvest from the garden was small. What I hear them saying is 'you're not as great as you think.'
And I sometimes listen to that and take it too much to heart. I then feel compelled to change my process - to change my act/acts of 'greatness' – maybe even to give up on what I think of as 'great' - to match theirs.
I think I'm a 'great' gardener because of my love for the activity. Product, while a plus, is not exactly the point of my gardening - until someone says something - then I can get stuck in thinking that 'greatness' is in the product alone.
I'm looking to minimize their impact on me in that way. Anyway, I'm near a ramble now, so I'll end!
Thanks again for a great site!! - E
Hey there, really glad you like the podcast, thanks.
The whole stream of thought you went through there is extremely important, I feel. That's the type of through line people need in their thinking that detaches them from society's bog of supposed truths. Yes, "great" should always be 100% subjective. If someone truly wanted to be a "great author" in their own understanding of it, then that person would need to define that as part of their ideal. "Great" is tricky because it's used as an expression that implies judgement by society, time , etc. But if what "Great" means to someone is to be judged at large by society as a current, "Great" author, then that's their subjective definition that is just as valid as any.
I have the same problem with modern works that you mentioned: I don't consider them great until time can step back with some perspective and reflect. That's not necessarily the right way, it's just the way I feel about it personally. It's an opinion, not fact. Anyone can argue Crighton is a great author, and they'd be just as right as me who can't yet call any modern authors great.
In the modern day, there are certain works like Toni Morrison's "Beloved" that seem to be headed for greatness and immortality, but when I studied these modern day works in school, I couldn't help but remember the Romantics. In their time, they were not the most read writers of the day, yet they're the ones who made it out, the ones we remember and revere for their brilliance. Certainly one could argue that we are biased in other times and don't accurately define greatness for past eras just because we have gained perspective. But with everything I say and as I pointed out in one of the first podcasts, you have to just believe sometimes in what you feel and go with your opinion, for that is perhaps your own Natural Truth within.
Thanks for the comments.
PS Forgot to mention... if Stacy writes in her journal all her life and feels she is a great writer while never showing anyone nor feeling the need to, then not only is she a great writer, but she's also very mentally courageous.
You bring up some good points.
Perhaps my example was a poor one. I didn't mean for it to distract from my overall point. When I wrote "great author", it was just my attempt to give an example of what someone's ideal goal could be - whatever "great" meant to him or her.
If you pushed me at the time I would probably admit that what I meant by "great author" was someone who enters into the western canon, but that was just for the sake of the example.
There are really two diffrent ways to think about this: 1) What is "great" to each individual? and 2) What does "great" mean outside of individual opinion?
For the first, I agree with you both that it is completely subjective. Also, I think the second is still a highly subjective matter, but yet is much more difficult to answer and may not be ENTIRELY subjective.
I don't believe in absolute truths. So in that sense, there is no objective way I could claim one book is great and another is not. Also, it is important to note that being completely objective may not even be desirable. It would take away what makes us unique and virtually, for me anyway, all the pleasures in life.
However, I tend to love a higher percentage of classic books than I do modern books and it seems that is true for many other people. Y And while I can't make a law that makes people honor that, I think there is something to be said of it.
No, everyone does not think Shakespeare or Tolstoy is great. And you could certainly make a case that I was influenced by many people calling them great- to the point that I read them thinking "if I don't like this, I'm stupid because everyone else does," but I tried not to let that affect me and it is impossible to expect anyone to block things out that seep in subconcsiously.
On the other side of it, I know there will be books that I read and love that will never be remembered 50 years from now.
For instance, I believe The Sound and the Fury and Beloved are both really great books, but I enjoyed The Sound and the Fury more than I did Beloved. Yet, there is no way I could convince someone that The Sound and the Fury is a better book than Beloved. And I even think it is stupid to try to.
In conclusion, I agree, there is no way someone could prove one book is better than another, but that there might be a reason Shakespeare is still read 400 years after his death (even outside of the old-white-guy-professor-perpetuating-what-he-learned in-school theory).
I've begun to ramble too, so I'll sum this up with a quote by Aldous Huxley:
"A bad book is as much a labor to write as a good one, it comes as sincerely from the author's soul."
I don't know what the chances are that this is the first podcast I listened to when deciding whether or not to subscribe to your cast, but I am glad it was. I keep this one one my pod and listen to it every once in a while - as a teacher who works with kids from lower socio-economic groups, I find this quote to be one that I need close to my heart at all times. I had never heard it before either. Thank you for bringing it to my attention! This is one of the only podcasts that I listen to with regularity.
I don't know what the chances are that this is the first podcast I listened to when deciding whether or not to subscribe to your cast, but I am glad it was. I keep this one one my pod and listen to it every once in a while - as a teacher who works with kids from lower socio-economic groups, I find this quote to be one that I need close to my heart at all times. I had never heard it before either. Thank you for bringing it to my attention! This is one of the only podcasts that I listen to with regularity.
Thank you so much for that... made my day!
Post a Comment
<< Home