The Barrow

There is a version of you, far in the future, who would give anything to be in your shoes right now. Ninety-year-old you would kill to be in his thirties again.

This is time you'll never get back, and the future is not guaranteed. Death could take us at any moment. Will you be ready?

Remember: you too shall die.

Sometimes it seems a meditative state is impossible to achieve; when the world is noisy and distracting, it keeps us from it.

Other times we slip so easily into that thoughtless, dreamlike state it floors us afterward.

Our minds empty, and in turn are filled from some external source.

In these cases many things can be revealed to us. We can suddenly hear a voice speak:

“Why don't you stop doing this, crocodile?”

Then, just as quickly as clarity was given, it is taken, and you must interpret this and decipher what it means.

I'm starting to wonder if I really am – strictly speaking – a stoic, or if I simply see the stoic methods as most effective in achieving other goals. This in fact begs another question: if I know that seeking something is the most sure way to never achieve it, and therefore do not seek it, in an effort to achieve it, am I then seeking it? This question has been stewing in my mind quite a lot lately as I read Seneca's letters.

To address the first question: Seneca, in his letters, makes it very clear he believes humanity should be living a very austere existence: letter XC in particular outlines a mythic age Seneca envisions in which humans simply... wandered around gathering food from the earth and sleeping outside, never giving a thought to improving their condition or on frivolities such as.... art. What then, is the point of these effective stoic methods of honing outselves into our best shapes to achieve our goals, when we then resign ourselves to the fact that we should achieve nothing? If we want for nothing, if we never endeavor to build or conquer, what then can be the point of human life?

To address the second question: these mythic philosophers Seneca envisions, who act with perfect discipline and submission to the natural order in all things, what are they expected to achieve with these powers? I am reminded somewhat of siddhi in dharmic tradition: supernatural powers cultivated by dedicated mystics through decades of asceticism and meditation. The caveat is that those who can achieve these literal magic powers are precisely those who would never use them. I do believe in siddhi, and I believe this is the case (the Dalai Lama, for example, maintains that he has met some ascetics who are capable of siddhi and frankly I believe him). This is not only true of great powers like siddhi but in fact echoes through all aspects of life: those who obsessively seek friendship, or power, or romantic relationships, are exactly those who do not receive them.

This seems to be one of the great mysteries and paradoxes of life.

Let us meditate on this.

It feels good to get back to work and back to the regular routine after an extended holiday. I was just off work for five days, and while it was much-needed and indeed much-appreciated, I am enjoying today's return to normalcy.

I get antsy after long periods of inactivity. We all must periodically rest, of course, even for longer periods of time, but I thrive on routine and regularity. I need to find a way to work more downtime and leisure into my regular routines, but I digress.

I'm bright-eyed and bushy-tailed and ready for normal!

It's so easy to fall out of good habits and into bad ones. This is one of the most frustrating parts of human existence, and something we all struggle with.

This is yet another example of the universally corrosive force of entropy and here, just like everywhere else, we mustn't give it any quarter.

One lazy day won't ruin everything, but it is the only way to have two lazy days, which can quickly become three, and so on and so forth.

One lazy day (and remember, there is a difference between laziness and conscious rest) destroys your momentum, making it even harder to stay on whichever straight and narrow path you have chosen for yourself. Its consequences insidiously go far beyond the day in question, like a destructive shockwave, or a ripple across a lake.

The only way out is through. Push! Push! Push!

I'm currently at my desk the last time I will be during the month of November 2025. There's something beautiful about the way time evanesces. There will never be another November 2025. This is it; I should take the time to feel it now.

I have struggled with validation-seeking for as long as I can remember, and yet, just recently (within the last few years) am I beginning to understand how much it has negatively impacted my life.

It has jeopardized my friendships, my relationships, my employment, all of this. Someone who is constantly seeking validation feels extremely uncomfortable to everyone else and quickly tangles themselves up in sticky situations which hurt everyone involved. Other people, consciously or not, make themselves scarce when you act like this.

I need to learn to be whole in and of myself, and not outsource my self-worth to everyone else. This would fix the problem from every possible angle. Not only would I require less validation, I would, in fact, receive more.

This ties into the universal paradox of “you receive what you act like you don't need” but that's a topic for another post.

Stay crunchy.

I was reading more Seneca today (letter XVIII) and once again he was comparing these two schools of thought in a favorable light, even while calling Epicurus a “hedonist” and in the same paragraph going into detail about how he would routinely endure long periods of austerity in order to build discipline and enjoy things more as well as to prepare oneself for hardship in order to suffer less. This shared objective of suffering less (though the stoics would insist this is not the goal, but instead being able to endure suffering is; I would say this difference is semantic at best) made me realize that these two ways of thinking actually have a lot in common (though one could come to this conclusion seeing just how much Seneca quotes Epicurus...). Stoics also insist their teachings are the key to a happy life (and I would agree, frankly) but if one does not allow oneself to experience the joys in life (yes, even jubilant and excessive joys and pleasures) then what even is the point of this secure, stable spirit one is building? One may say “for others” but this could be taken one step further: for others to do what?

An interesting thought.

also: working harder vs. working smarter.

This morning I listened to an episode of one of favorite podcasts, The Daily Stoic, in which guest Jay Heinrichs insisted he had very little discipline; he simply manipulated himself into seeing the good part of some unpleasant reality, or into seeing it as part of his identity. This kicked off a discussion about what discipline means, and some interesting differences between stoicism and Epicureanism.

My (perhaps undereducated) take is that it is irrelevant how you make yourself do the things that need to be done. Discipline is simply the quality of making it happen any way you can. If you use self-manipulation to make it happen, this too is discipline.

I would even say that a stoic discipline also does this. When you force yourself to endure something like a cold shower, you are thinking about exercising discipline so that you may use it in other areas of your life. You're basically doing the same thing.

Today I was reading Seneca's letters and came upon this passage:

“Cling, therefore, to this sound and whole­some plan of life: indulge the body just so far as suffices for good health. It needs to be treated somewhat strictly to prevent it from being disobedient to the spirit. Your food should appease your hunger, your drink quench your thirst, your clothing keep out the cold, your house be a protection against inclement weather. It makes no difference whether it is built of turf or of variegated marble imported from another country: what you have to understand is that thatch makes a person just as good a roof as gold does. Spurn everything that is added on by way of decoration and display by un­necessary labour. Reflect that nothing merits admiration except the spirit, the impressiveness of which prevents it from being impressed by anything.”

This certainly sounds like good advice if unexamined. However, it begs the question: what place does this leave in the world for art or craftsmanship? Surely the master mason who crafts the aforementioned exotic marble edifice deserves to make a living off his work, right? How could he do so in a world full of stoics who indeed claim his mastery of his art is wholly useless?

This seems to suggest to me that moral and philosophical frameworks cannot be universal; they are chosen by the individual in order to live a life more like that which the individual desires.

This seems compatible with a pagan worldview as opposed to the unuversalist abrahamic religions which seek to impose the same moral framework on all humans.

What is permissible for Jove is not for the cattle.