Colin Marshall

Line of the Day: David Lynch

And the award goes to David Lynch, who tweets:

You have control over action alone, never over its fruits. Live not for the fruits of action, nor attach yourself to inaction.

Sound as this might like a line he got from his guru or whomever, that doesn't make it any less useful. It also articulates a third point in a series of sub-themes to which I find myself returning again and again, to wit:

1. You are what you do.
2. Only your actions in the external world matter.
3. You can control only what you do.

Hence my increasing focus on my own actions — especially my reactions — right here and right now, wherever and whenever "here" and "now" happen to be. Most of what I once focused on turns out to be unpredictable, uncontrollable action by-product. The varieties of this by-product are numerous, and include, off the top of my head:

• Wealth
• Love (the act)
• Love (the concept)
• Fame
• Stuff
• Lifespan

I spoke to The Livejournalist Formerly Known as cobalt999 not long ago about this phenomenon, which I think of as the mistaken desire for by-product instead of product, for second-order effects instead of first-order. Sure, it's technically possible to directly pursue this second-order stuff, but the results are grim even if you succeed: wealth for wealth's sake (Donald Trump, Donald Trump's combover), love-the-act for love-the-act's sake (those guys who take extended trips to Bangkok with suspicious frequency), love-the-concept for love-the concept's sake (barren marriages that last until the bitter end), fame for fame's sake (Paris Hilton), stuff for stuff's sake (the Collyer Brothers) and lifespan for lifespan's sake (the guy in Being John Malkovich who pees orange).

So that's why I care about what I do, how I act, the way I respond, all that sort of thing — and not too much else. But crowding obsessive, poisonous thoughts — whether positive or negative — about results, consequences, rewards, punishments, etc., turns out to be a damned tall order. But then, my pro-hard-stuff stance commits me to it, I suppose.

Lines of the Day

And the multi-award goes to A.C. Grayling, who has quite a salvo in the Guardian:

I used to be a terrible hypochondriac when I was young and a great reader of medical dictionaries. One day I realised that I was not actually frightened of terminal illness but of not getting done the things I wanted to get done.

I myself have started to come to terms with the fact that any fear of or obsession over illness, incapacity and death I might experience is actually just anxiety about doing stuff before the clock's gears grind to a halt. If I've learned anything from unreflective Aussie hyper-travelers, it's that you can stave off unproductive mortality-related hand-wringing by doing as much as possible as often as possible — because you might not have the chance later.

Science is the outcome of being prepared to live without certainty and therefore a mark of maturity. It embraces doubt and loose ends.

Science, and even most evidence-based thinking in general, gets a bad rap from people disinclined to appreciate it. They'll claim that science is hubristic about its absolute possession of the cold, hard facts of the universe, when its appeal in fact lies in its willingness to separate what's known from what isn't, and to know how known these alleged cold, hard facts really are. (Not to mention that they can be overturned with the right demonstration.) If it's hubris you're looking for, talk to those who unwaveringly chalk everything up to deities, Great Magnets and/or "energy."

Life is all about relationships. By all means sit cross-legged on top of a mountain occasionally. But don't do it for very long.

Granted, "The world's nothin' but people" and its ilk are stupid aphorisms, but there is little of interest to be found only within the I. I've been recently thinking out the idea that one of interaction's richest joys is the observation of and attempt to understand minds other one's own. Could it be one of existence's greatest joys?