#44 - Bye Bye Reality, Hello What
Playing Favorites; An Illusion of Significance; Might Fakes Right
Hello, my friends,
For those who celebrate, may you have a Merry Christmas in a few days! I’m a tiny bit salty because both Michael and Sophie’s schools are also closed on the 26th. Why, though? Baby Jesus is on his second day, surely the kids can go back to school. Oh well, if it’s still raining next week, we’ll spend Tuesday afternoon snuggled up in several blankets watching a (probably Christmas) movie. It’ll be nice!
Not so nice is that my two little basil plants shriveled up this week for reasons unknown. We’ve talked about this before when I planted them in July and I’ve posted occasional updates (mostly: Not dead yet). They made it nearly half-a-year which is longer than most Substack newsletters. Maybe the radish I planted a couple of weeks ago will survive into adulthood. New readers, this is the ultra-suspense you can expect from HMF, look away for a week and it could be bye-bye radish.
Playing Favorites
I record all of the books I finish into a Google spreadsheet. Since it’s the end of the year (though there is one more newsletter left), I guess it’s okay if I enumerate and elaborate on my reading. This year I finished 44 books. I rated each on a scale from 1-4 — I don’t do scales of five because three seems too wishy-washy; one must declare whether they liked a book or not, after all. Here are the ratings:
1: 0 (I’ve read books long enough that it’s very rare for me to choose a book I’m going to hate. Just as likely I won’t read such a book long enough to rate it) 2: 10 3: 26 4: 7
As you can see, I liked the majority of books I got through well enough. They were mostly above-average, though not life-changing. The highest rating is given to books that are well above-average either overall or in their genre. They’re books that either astounded me as I read them or that had enough wisdom that it would be worthwhile to revisit them. Here’s the list of my top books:
The Best We Could Do by Thi Bui (fiction, graphic novel)
Fifty Years in Public Causes by Brian O'Connell (non-fiction, memoir)
Made to Stick by Chip & Dan Heath (non-fiction, marketing)
On Leadership by John W. Gardner (non-fiction, see title)
The Jews by Howard Fast (non-fiction, history of religion)
Under-Earth by Chris Gooch (fiction, graphic novel)
On a Sunbeam by Tillie Walden (fiction, graphic novel)
Going through my list, most of my fiction was comic books as opposed to novels. Actually, I only read four novels this year. Plenty of non-fiction, though, and a lot more if I count books where I only read a portion. For instance, yesterday Complete Massage by Victoria Plum went back to the library. I leafed through the whole book and looked at the pictures but only read around a third of it. From this book I learned about Tui Na and petrissage, two words I’d not heard before so the time spent on the book was worthwhile despite not fattening my “Books Read” list.
What was your favorite book of the year?
An Illusion of Significance
How many of our everyday decisions and/or commitments to ourselves truly make a difference? If I say, I’m going to eat a salad for lunch today but I eat a ham sandwich instead, what suffers? Not the world at-large, not my long-term health, maybe my self-esteem? How important are our agreements with ourselves? Surely, in the public sphere, the high-achievers in tangible activities like sports — where the outcome is clear and obvious — are people who undertake challenging, long-term commitments. Externally, they demonstrate willpower, discipline, and determination, but do those qualities translate into a more complete person internally? Are successful athletes or surgeons or lawyers more complete as people because they are able to maintain more internal consistency in certain areas of their lives? Does their discipline translate outside their area of achievement?
Looking at it from a purely theoretical standpoint, a person who regularly fails in accomplishing goals they set for themselves (a few examples: I will go to sleep at 10pm tonight, I will take a cold shower, I will go for a jog in the morning, I will practice the piano for 20 minutes) becomes increasingly ineffective over time and may succumb to behavior that puts their health at risk. On the contrary, a person who has regular successes builds a self-story of being able to do what they set their mind to and so can take on more difficult challenges.
The easy way out would be to say that the latter person is an objectively better human being. But I don’t think that’s necessarily so. Likely, the subjective experience of someone who keeps promises to themselves is probably better; I suspect they’re more likely to be happy. But there is a leak in that reasoning: It surely matters whether the promises they keep align with their truest self (whatever that means) or if they are, for instance, done more to earn the pride of an overbearing parent or gain some external material reward.
I’ll conclude (otherwise, this could end up being 1500 more words and I’d have to save the other sections for later) with the potential truth that up to a point, there is an intrinsic value in carrying out a self-appointed task, closing that loop, regardless of what the task, it’s purpose, or motivation is. It’s a common refrain in psychological literature that willpower is strengthened through repeated effort like a muscle. Thus, small insignificant “inside” successes are beneficial both for their associated activity and for their contribution to leveling-up a person’s discipline skill. So, yeah, you should do that thing you keep telling yourself to do. Just don’t murder anyone and don’t steal your coworker’s lunch.
Might Fakes Right
Because I tend to leave people whose politics I disagree with on my social media feeds to avoid filter bubbles, I’ve been seeing a lot of, not exactly propaganda (since a lot of what people post is either true, partially true, or so trivial it doesn’t matter), but polemic content regarding the Israel-Hamas conflict. I’ve not engaged in any internet arguments on the topic for a few reasons: I’m not a Zionist, I’m skeptical about the truth value of ancient land claims, and I have no skin in the game. More to the point is that I’m mostly ignorant about the history of the middle east. Looking purely at the present situation, though, I see Israel in challenging ethical position.
Your country is insulted by a surprise attack on a religious holiday and over one thousand people are killed, with others taken as hostages. What is an ethically appropriate response?
Should Israel have ignored the attack and immediately began negotiations to free the hostages? Turning the other cheek.
Should Israel have counterattacked but stopped as soon as they had reached the same number of deaths and hostages? An eye for an eye.
As it is, Israel has responded with overwhelming force leading to something like 19,000 casualties (according to Wikipedia).
It’s an ethical nightmare. Likewise, politically, there is no way to win in all corners. What does it look like to the Israeli people if there is no military response? An eye for an eye is ludicrous both politically and operationally. A forceful response seems to, at least, satisfy the human and political need for revenge (“we defend our own”). It’s the same old story, but is it right? I think that’s the wrong question. Armchair activists decry one side or the other, bloviating about theoretical solutions that lack any persuasive power beyond those who already agree. Pragmatically, as much as it pains me to write, humans have not moved beyond the paradigm of “might makes right.” And so Israel, with the United States in its corner, is demolishing the Gaza strip. I understand the impulse and I hate it. But how can humans do better?
Hello Oleg! On the question of is a person a better human because they keep daily commitments to themselves, I'd say that the answer is not an easy yes or no. The ability to keep daily commitments depends on so many external factors. For people who read, write, ponder, consider, make art, stare out the window, walk slowly and think about anything other than the task or commitment at hand for pleasure, when time is meted out, escape is favored over sticking to an arbitrary commitment that one has assigned to themselves. Also, I don't think a value judgment in an either or set up helps the person nudge themselves to ultimately flipping the switch and making the change to the healthier/better behavior. Self acceptance isn't linear, it shifts. I'd make the argument that for parents of young children whose welfare is of primary importance, sometimes the ham sandwich is the vacation and the salad is another chore.