Shared publicly  - 
 
On justification systems. The comspci grad student tells himself that what he’s doing is brilliant. That he’s exploring an area of reality that only a handful of people on Earth do study. He takes for granted that his field, his work, is of non-arbitrary importance, and that he might be on the edge of acclaim. The student who becomes rejected from grad school tells himself that having gone to grad school he would be poisoned with a superiority bias. He tells himself that he has the opportunity to grow wiser by avoiding such and will have a more objective grasp of reality which is what he’s been seeking all along. Also, he tells himself, if he comes up with an idea in the field of compsci that is objectively progressive enough, he will get recognition with or without grad school, and if not, then it is an indication that academia does not honor objective discoveries as their first priority. The compsci grad student tells himself that in grad school he has direct access to communication with other peers who focus their time in the same field, and that the ability to be peer reviewed saves him from the risk of spending his time in a schizophrenic vortex of empty and disconnected work. He would remind the grad school reject that without peer review, how should anyone know if he’s not made a mistake. The grad school reject tells himself that the schizophrenics are the grad students, vortexing around an extremely specific and consistent system, whereby the impressiveness of their work is derived from the lack of precedence of that level of specificity in their respective field, but that on an grander scale of interesting phenomona and philosophical insight, they have made no headway and instead are reusing old analogies but painting them with a differently specific veil. The businessman tells himself that at the philosophical point of deciding one’s time spent in life, he’s realized that since everyone eventually dies, why not live hedonistically. He presents an extreme example: if life was 10 minutes long, would you make love or try to find instances of advanced time solutions of the electrodynamic wave equation? The physicist butts in, you might as well have lived life having contributed something at large for posterity. The novelist says you’d be dead anyhow, it’s inconsequential whether you made an impact, as god could have just as easily cheated and thrown away all your contributions after you’ve lost consciousness and you would never know. The grad student says that he misspoke and that his work isn’t for acclaim. That instead it is to witness the beauty of abstract patterns, and laments that people don’t give enough ontological realness to relations, patterns, and ideas and insists there is a whole reality to them. The grad reject goes on to ask if the grad student’s current work contributes anything to that sort, or if his work on optimizing inefficient algorithms is meant for Cisco Systems. The grad student goes on...The grad reject goes on...

If you spend time playing your own hypothetical apostasy, it comes down to a question of time. You or your apostate could be right about how to spend life, it’s just that it’s not determinable in a short amount of time. To come to a conclusion it would take as long as quantifying the utility of your productions, quantifying brain chemicals, quantifying the ratio of stress/reward, quantifying the weights of different categories to try to reconcile categorical differences, and enumerating many other things in hopes to comes to some universally comparable metric. To proceed beyond this aporia is to join the apathetic masquerade.
1
Add a comment...