%%USERNAME%%    %%ACCWORDS%% %%ONOFF%% |
 |    My primary Writing.com blog. |
|
Logocentric (adj). Regarding words and language as a fundamental expression of an external reality (especially applied as a negative term to traditional Western thought by postmodernist critics). Sometimes I just write whatever I feel like. Other times I respond to prompts, many taken from the following places:  "The Soundtrackers Group"  "Blogging Circle of Friends " "Blog City ~ Every Blogger's Paradise" "JAFBG" "Take up Your Cross" Thanks for stopping by!  |
I think "triple your success by doubling your investment in personal development" is exactly the kind of thing a self-help motivational speaker and author would make up, because it's a general truism with complete nonsense masquerading as practical advice layered on top of it. The underlying point is well taken... that if you invest in your own personal development, it's one of the best things that you can do to contribute to your success. But "personal development" can mean a variety of different things, many of which have no objective means of measurement. Same with "tripling your success." And I feel like that's kind of the point with stuff like this. Because the self-help industry (especially in the area of business development) absolutely thrives on the idea that greater success (usually financial) is just around the corner as soon as you figure out the one quick tip, life hack, pro tip, etc. that the person selling you something has to offer. Is this quote saying that if you take one of the author's seminars or pick up one of his books, that your salary will triple? Or that if you go back to school you'll suddenly have the skills needed to be your own boss? Or that your investment portfolio will triple in value if you take a few online courses in leadership development? That's kind of the point of quotes like this... it allows you to fill in the blanks. It encourages you to imagine what your "success tripling" looks like for you, as long as you double your investment in personal development (which is what the author is, conveniently, selling). Don't get me wrong; I'm someone who thinks there is value in some self-help stuff, and who genuinely believes in the power of personal development, self-actualization, and all that good stuff. But, at its core, what do I think this quote means? I think it means that a self-help guy is trying to sell you more of his products by encouraging you to imagine how much more successful you'll be if you buy just one more of his books, or attend one more of his seminars, or pay for one more personal coaching session... or whatever it is he's offering. It's a catchy quote, with the barest hints of truth to it... but that's been layered over by cheap salesmanship and impossible-to-prove assertions. |
In a world where we could freely contact the deceased as easily as making a phone call, I wonder if death would still have the same significance. For a lot of us, I suspect a big part of it is the fact that we can no longer speak with the people we care about or used to communicate with. I know that, after almost four years, the times that I still miss my mom the most are on my commutes home from work when I would often call her to catch up and just pass the time while I'm sitting in traffic. If I could still communicate with her in the afterlife the same way that I just dialed up her number when she was alive, I wonder how much of the significance of her death and absence from my life would still remain? I would, unquestionably, use this ability to contact friends and family who had passed. I have zero interest in reaching out to famous persons or historical figures, except maybe as the occasional novelty, or if I were able to use it to get a very specific question answered. I don't see myself calling up an actor or a musician that I love who died, because my connection was to their work (which still exists) rather than themselves as a person. I'm not sure what I'd gain by contacting Stan Lee, or Leslie Nielsen, or Anthony Bourdain and trying to have a conversation with them. Unless it was to very specifically get an answer to a burning question. Think of all the college students that would call up William Shakespeare or Robert Frost to ask them what they really meant by a particular passage of their work. Or all the phone calls Jesus of Nazareth would get with people wrestlings over a piece of scripture or one of his teachings! Or the number of times Napoleon, or Alexander the Great, or Aristotle, or Sun Tzu would be consulted for their thoughts on a present-day geopolitical issue. Would this usher in an entirely new industry of personal assistants and answering services for incredibly popular historical figures? Would there be gatekeepers and "we don't accept unsolicited requests from the land of the living" auto-replies to filter out the thousands, or even millions of requests certain dead people would get? Part of me wonders if having an ability to contact the dead like this would be a wonderful gift. To be able to talk to my mom again, to let her know what's going on in my life and with her grandkids, and ask her advice when I'm struggling with something would be an incredible gift. On the other hand, another part of me wonders if having that kind of access to people who have died would do real damage to the sanctity of life, and the significance that death plays in the world. It's an interesting question for sure, but if given the opportunity to do it, I'd one hundred percent take the chance and worry about the philosophical effects later. In the meantime, I'd just enjoy talking to my mom, my grandparents, etc. again. |
"Better three hours too soon than a minute too late" from Shakespeare's The Merry Wives of Windsor is often cited when people are looking for quotes about punctuality. And, depending on the context, it definitely makes sense. You wouldn't want to be a minute too late to board an international flight, or defuse a bomb. Although I suspect that it probably would't be as big a deal for something like showing up to an event you really don't want to attend. For situations that don't involve anything critical, I actually think most people would prefer to be a minute late rather than being three hours early. I am not most people. I hate being late. It drives me crazy when I'm late to something, even if it's a casual get-together or something where punctuality isn't expected. If I say I'm going to be somewhere at 6:00 p.m., I do not want to get there at 6:01 p.m. or 6:02 p.m. When it is for something important, I will 100% inconvenience myself by arriving way early and hanging around rather than taking the chance of arriving late. For example, I live in the Greater Los Angeles area, where traffic is always unpredictable. The only predictable thing about it, in fact, is that it's almost always bad. And when I have something like a job interview, even though it would be perfectly acceptable to walk into the room a single minute late, I would rather drive there hours early, and take the chance of arriving hours early and killing time waiting in my car or hanging out at a local coffeeshop just down the street than chance that I'll be stuck in traffic. So, yes, I deeply identify with Shakespeare's "better three hours too soon than a minute too late" line from his play. It's pretty much how I've dealt with punctuality my entire life, even for occasions where I think other people would be more inclined to be a minute late. |
To qualify for my Watch List every month, the following has to be something that I've watched that's new to me. It doesn't necessarily have to be a current show, but it can't be reruns or rewatches of something I've already seen. So if I'm including it in this list, it means this month is the first time I've watched it. I'll put "DNF" (Did Not Finish) next to anything that I stopped watching and have no immediate plans to finish. Movies  The Beekeeper Damsel Megamind vs. The Doom Syndicate The Union The Wild RobotTelevision Nobody Wants This The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives Selling Sunset (Season 8)I watched quite a few movies this month that I thought were okay but not great. The Beekeeper was an okay Jason Statham action movie. The Union was an okay Mark Wahlberg action comedy. Damsel was a pretty good Millie Bobby Brown action fantasy movie. Megamind vs. The Doom Syndicate was a not-very-good direct-to-streaming sequel to a so-so animated movie that's almost fifteen years old. The Wild Robot was a pretty touching animated movie about parenting. The television content was okay. The latest season of Selling Sunset was fine... more of the same... and The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives was interesting but a little less of an expose on women in Mormon culture and more about a group of women fixating on their experience as social media influencers, which is not a topic that I find particularly interesting. Nobody Wants This, on the other hand, was delightful. Despite the terribly generic name that doesn't do it any favors, it's a really charming romantic comedy starring Kristen Bell as a non-religious sex/relationships podcaster who falls for a rabbi who's religious tradition and the expectations of his family and friends of course requires him to be with someone of the Jewish faith. It was genuinely smart, funny, and charming romantic comedy. I really hope they greenlight a second season soon. TOP PICK: Nobody Wants This |
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
