What is success?
It's a hard question to answer. Success could be measured in power. In money. In satisfaction. In the impact made on others' lives. In a life well-lived. It's easier to describe what success is not.
This technique has been used to define abstract concepts for millennia. Via Negativa by Plato and Christian scholars to understand the gods. Neti neti by Hindu practitioners to understand Brahman. Charlie Munger says, “Invert, always invert," to understand companies. You can understand a concept by seeing what it's not. And you can take action by avoiding the opposite. Munger is famous for his quote, "All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there."
Earlier, I talked about struggling to define creativity. I said that if you pursue autonomy, mastery, and purpose, you would find creativity. But I don't think that's good enough. What exactly are autonomy, mastery, and purpose? How can we turn these from "nod along if you want to look smart" ideas to principles we can follow in our lives?
Let's invert each of these.
Autonomy <--> Mimesis
Mastery <--> Rigidity
Purpose <--> Boredom
Over the next three weeks, I'll talk about why I think these are oppositional forces and how we can avoid them.
Discoveries:
1️⃣ Mike Elias writes about “Credo ut intelligam” - I believe, so that I may understand.
Believing changes an idea from an intellectual exercise to a deeply personal issue. It’s important to remember that you need to get your hands dirty to actually understand something.
🔗 Credo ut intelligam - h/t
2️⃣ Maria Popova writes about creativity:
To create anything — a poem, a painting, a theorem, a garden — is not to will something new into being but to surrender to the most ancient and alive part of ourselves.
I’ve been talking to my friend Christin Chong about surrendering. If I was to “Credo ut intelligam” about surrendering, what would that look like? The hardest part about surrendering (although it’s the point of surrendering) is accepting the unknown consequences. I also talked to Tom Morgan (the next discovery) about this concept.
🔗 The Remedy for Creative Block and Existential Stuckness
3️⃣ Tom Morgan believes that when you use your skills in alignment with the Universe, good things happen.
Wisdom tightly correlates with flourishing, happiness, connectedness, and meaning. It’s precisely the tangible reward you would expect if the path was indeed the “point of evolution.” It’s an infinite game worth playing for its own sake.
Two difficulties that I’ve had are (1) it can be hard to appreciate what your skills are and (2) it’s hard to listen to the Universe.
4️⃣ Kris Abdelmessih guest posts on
.I’m reminded of the money hole and creativity fountain.
Having a steady paycheck but feeling the pull of other work is like having a technical problem solved, namely making ends meet, but having an existential problem. I basically swapped problems implicitly betting that I’ll solve the technical problem of making money.
Kris also talks about why he writes:
But Paul phrased it in a beautiful way. He told me, “Kris, you write to find the others.” As soon as he said it I knew it was the most complete answer.
His own newsletter is excellent. =>
🔗 A Former Trader on Self-Experimentation
5️⃣ Shane Parrish at Farnam Street writes about why he writes:
Writing is the process by which you realize that you do not understand what you are talking about. Importantly, writing is also the process by which you figure it out.
6️⃣ Ryan Peterman writes about why engineers write. You can substitute any profession or person for “engineer” in his essay:
Writing your thoughts down forces them into a coherent, logical narrative. Condensing your writing gives you a deeper understanding. This process improves your thinking.
Also, writing doesn’t just clarify your existing ideas; it generates more of them. When I write design docs, I often discover optimizations or edge cases I didn’t think of at first. So long as critical thinking is necessary, writing will not be obsolete.
Quote of the Week:
"Don't ask what the world needs. Ask what makes you come alive, and then go do it. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive." - Howard Thurman
Something Fun:
A fascinating story of how Orson Welles got complete creative control for his first film, Citizen Kane.
Short answer - He knew what he wanted (which was different from everyone else) and insisted on it.
You can find more of my writing at chr.iswong.com.
Questions, suggestions, complaints? Email me at [email protected].
Feedback welcome.
If you enjoyed this newsletter, please share it with a friend or two. And feel free to send anything you find interesting to me!
Leaving you in peace,
Chris
Re: credo ut intelligam you should check out Michael Polanyi, especially his notion of “indwelling”, you might find it interesting
> Let's invert each of these.
Autonomy <--> Mimesis
Mastery <--> Rigidity
Purpose <--> Boredom
I’m reminded of the conversation we had in the comments of your last week newsletter
If Herzberg two factor great insight is that unhappiness is not the inverse of happiness but is its own thing, then I also wonder if autonomy is also similarly not the inverse of mimesis.
Neti neti (neither this nor that) is beyond inverse (not this or opposite this) and might be a more helpful device to explain autonomy
Eg using last week conversation, unhappiness is neither happy (obviously true) nor not happy (this is the subtle difference)
I suspect same for autonomy where it’s neither mimesis nor not mimesis.