Living in a state of mass content creation while I don't necessarily have too much following is great for now because I can figure out many things in a 'beta' environment. Getting feedback and improving the quality and then the scale. And following that process repeatedly. I can figure out my routines and find what works and what doesn't. Not only to optimize my own, but to speak from experience when relating to others. This is kind of on the micro scale but also on the macro scale of perfecting things long term. The vision of what I have, aka the 150 year plan, working at 2U allows me to experiment with different things in a business setting and find what works and what doesn't.
Something I wrote down last year was that I am the person I am now half because of the structure in school and half in spite of the structure in school. Do I agree with that now looking back at that? I think that shows the neutrality of any situation or experience. It's only "good" or "bad" based on how we perceive it. "Only thinking makes it so." So yes, I took all the positive aspects of school like learning about my subjects, social circles, etc. while simultaneously being aware of its shortcomings. So it might just be semantics as to whether the "in spite" phrasing is strictly the shortcomings or because the system wasn't good enough in general.
Going back to the first topic, it's related to something that Gary Vee said once. "It's not about being right. It's about finding right." And right is not objective. It's subjective to each person and may / will change over time. So we're always in the process of trying to find what's right for us. Not for anyone else. I understand the reason when people like being told what can be right for them. But eventually they must level up to finding things out on their own. The journey inward is not a multiplayer game, it's a single player game. If all we ever do is try to be right generally, we'll never spend time discovering right for us granularly. I think this may be one of the issues with politics. It's inherently the former. The thing with law is that there are rules that a few people decide which apply to everyone. Yes there should be basic things which do so. But I think the structure should be more set up that allows the flexibility and ability for people to 'find right'. Microcosm of the macrocosm.
I look at it the same way I govern myself. There are unconditional, non-negotiable, uncaveatable rules that I live life with. Those are my values. Then there are the general structures and frameworks that I operate under, but which can adjust at any time. Each piece within the system has a function and a purpose. The issue now is that systems and processes have become the end, rather than the means to the end. The end is not really explicitly written out anywhere. So people get lost in the structures. Even for me though, I built out my individual operating system with the pieces that I required. But I never explicitly described the purpose of each system, subsystem, process, sub-process, etc. That way, if I do do that, I don't lose sight of the why I did anything within this system. I'll want to add that to improvements and write things out. Define everything and why. That's probably a good step to take during 2022 planning at the end of this quarter / year. So perfect my individual OS, define everything, then expand the scope and quality.
I also wrote down "If I were to lead a workshop" last year in my notes. Guess I got my answer. Except it's not just one workshop but multiple ones that comprise a course. I skipped the lower level to that, whoops. That's all good. Again, it's a means to an end. If I can gain that experience and experience that purpose another way, then by all means I will.
There's a lot of topics in my content pipeline that I've yet to get to, but every topic doesn't need to be a 3-hour long journaling session.
Comments