Just been reading your free articles which were all really good and now found my way over to this equally interesting series. However im rather confused when it comes to applying all your information to my life.

Living Your Values Part I and Part II and found them really easy to follow etc but I think the information conflicts a little with what’s presented here. In those articles you asked people to choose values that struck a chord with them which I guess is defining your beliefs and values and thus your context. But then in part II you ask people to change them depending on what there goals are - isn’t that making you misalign yourself. Could you explain the relationship between those posts and this post and how they all fit in?

Also you ask in this post to think of alternative best possible lives and to imagine their outcomes. Your example was really deep but then you do come across as a philosophical type. I on the other hand could only think of one thing and that was I too want to develop myself to the best of my abilities. But then Im not sure if im just copying you. Other ideas seemed too simple such as “create a successful business” or “be a great father to my children”? Are these the right sort of scenarios I should be generating to evaluate? Could you provide some alternative simpleton examples that you believe are the right level to accomplish this task.

I’ve been reading Steve Pavlina’s self help site recently trying to figure myself out. His latest post is about Star Trek: The Next Generation as examples of they types of people to aspire to be.

It’s an interesting universe and it would be nice to…

What if our ego is artificial, illusion. How we know, that there’s any ME, any ego?

Isn’t the MIND the only one creating our ego feeling? Is it possible to stop thinking? If yes, does ego live without thoughts any more? If not, who is asking?

I was perplexed by your claim that the main purpose of your life is to serve the process of evolution. (The way you wrote your article, it really seems you’re talking about biological evolution.) The selfless, generous, self-sacrificial life you would appear to be living is inconsistent with the selfishness, greed, and ruthlessness which would more readily arise as “values” from an alignment with evolution’s apparent goal–the preservation of life through the survival of the fittest. Not only that, but the purpose and quality of life of an individual seems irrelevant to evolution, as long as the strongest in the species survive and procreate. (An interest in individual purpose and quality of life is why we’re reading your blog anyway, right?) I have no idea how values such as altruism, fairness, and generosity (among others) could spring from an alignment with the goals of evolution (if a mindless, unintelligent, process can be said to have goals.) Merciless competition rather than kind cooperation would more readily arise from such an alignment. Historically, we’ve already seen other ugly deductions drawn from evolutionary theory in the societal programs created by those who have integrated Social Darwinism, eugenics, and biological determinism into their value systems.

Also, I disagree with your comment that through evolution life has upgraded its overall chances of survival. If humans are the pinnacle of evolution so far, then evolution took a wrong turn, off into a ravine. The human species seems more inclined to the destruction of life than to its preservation. Life would probably have a better chance of survival in a humanless world populated with unsentient, unintelligent beings than in our human-populated world where we threaten the very existence of life through nuclear weapons, contamination, and destruction of the environment. Incidentally, it seems like the diversity of life you claim has been upgraded has instead been downgraded, since we have exterminated and endangered many species, thus reducing biodiversity. We not only tend to destroy other forms of life, but our own as well, seeing how we are highly susceptible and drawn to self-destructive, evolutionary counterproductive vices and addictions more than any other animal would seem to be. Also, ironically, humans appear to have a tendency toward producing mysoginous cultures which are also counterproductive. So many cultures value the production of male offspring above females and place women in danger through other attitudes. (From an evolutionary standpoint, females might actually be considered more valuable, given that they are the ones ultimately capable of creating more life. That’s how it seems to be in the animal kingdom.)

I know you mentioned in one of your comments that you refer to evolution as a metaphor for growth, yet the connotation of evolution as biological evolution is clearly present in the article. In what way do you serve evolution’s purpose of preserving life and “improving” the gene pool? (By the way, I am unconvinced of the accuracy of evolution as a depiction of historical reality, so I think basing one’s purpose on that concept is useless. Thus I’m curious as to how you base the worthwhile life you appear to be living on a concept that appears worthless to me.)

If you die and go to oblivion, then your growth will have benefitted those remaining behind… also time well spent.

If you die and the universe goes with you, then it doesn’t matter whether you grow or not, but the time is going to pass anyway, so the pursuit of growth is as good as anything else.

If you don’t die at all because technology reaches the point where it can extend your life indefinitely, then you’re off to a great start, and the habit of growth will serve you well for eternity.

You can’t lose.

As for growth being a means to leaving a legacy, that’s not quite accurate. Leaving a legacy for others and growing personally are two sides of the same coin. They are both means to each other. Growing helps you leave a legacy, but leaving a legacy also helps you grow. The two are self-reinforcing. To me they are the same thing. To optimize my personal growth requires that I help others and build a self-reinforcing environment in which future growth can continue to occur without end. If I help someone else grow, I simultaneously increase their capacity to help me grow. So I see growth and leaving a legacy as the same, and I consider them ends in themselves, but they are the same end.

If you grow each day, you will reach your greatest self the last day of your life. The very same day, you will die. What is the point?

Now, let’s think of growth as a mean : you use your greater self to help others, to leave a legacy.
That is what you are doing, Steve, you are using growth as a mean. Or don’t you?

Eudaimonia is a new concept to me - I’m not sure if I’ve interpreted it right, but it seems to be a combination of personal development AND worthwhile contribution. That sounds like a better reason to live, than growth for its own sake.

I think of personal development purely as “upgrading myself” - improved health, more knowledge, intelligence, abilities, etc. “Making a contribution” doesn’t directly come into my definition of personal development - it’s a separate question. Eudaimonia is a nice way of tying them together: “upgrading myself so I can make a better contribution”.

I don’t like the idea of growth for its own sake - it seems selfish. Growth to increase my ability to contribute - that sits more comfortably with me.

If you had nobody to contribute to (except yourself), would you still keep growing?

Of course, a lot depends on how I’ve defined ‘personal development’. If you think it’s synonymous with eudaimonia, then it’s a moot point - just a difference of definitions

Despite of your Mathematics degree, you’re fundamentally wrong here.
Math is indeed a ‘human invention’. It does not discover or describe world
in any way.

> Invention implies control — we cannot reinvent the laws of mathematics
> differently if we happen to dislike them. We cannot make prime
> numbers non-prime.

People created the laws of mathematics. For the purpose of helping other
sciences to learn the laws of the world. We decide what we call prime numbers,
and what are non-prime. There are no prime numbers in the universe, because
there are no numbers at all - they are all people’s imagination and people’s invention to help comprehend the world.

Math is purely a language for the science, especially for physics and chemistry.

Math is a set declarative rules, created by people (mathematicians), not by the nature, mostly for the purpose to help other scientists.

In the end, math will be the human language to describe God and universe.

You currently can be fully described by about 4 GB of math data representing your genome. The universe and God will require a lot more.

The symbols of mathematics were invented by humans. But the true body of mathematics and the concepts it represented were discovered, not invented. You can change the symbols but not the concepts.

“Thousands of geniuses live and die undiscovered — either by themselves or by others.” (Mark Twain)

This may require further investigation into Mr. Clemens’ philosophical side

Cordy

I am hardly a mathematician (I am a coy magician, though, which at least ends in “ian”), but it seems to me that math is a language, a set of symbols used to correspond with portions of a supposed reality. Aren’t languages invented rather than discovered?

What meaning does “2 + 2 = 4″ have outside of language? More specifically, what meaning outside of the system of symbols known as math does a symbol like 2 have? Where can I find a 2 in nature and, without benefit of the math symbol system, know that it is a 2? (And I don’t just mean that I could call a 2 a “mefefhihini” while it is still a 2; I mean, is the concept of a 2 really present in an objective reality in some way that is separate from the human mind’s imagined model of reality?; yikes, for that matter what is objective reality outside of the human mind’s construction of that which we have decided that it is?)

At a young age, I had to take someone else’s “expert” word for it that “2 + 2 = 4″ somehow indicates something that can be found in the simple, raw experience of being alive (which was really the only thing I was familiar with at first, despite being barely conscious of the fact). For that matter, without other humans teaching me language in my infancy, how could I even distinguish between “nature” and “self” and “symbol” and “being alive”?

I hate to be a contrarian, but the sanctity of naming and projecting a few mental models onto reality has become entirely too sacred for my tastes. If you strip off the layers of culture and language, the raw experience of life seems to have a scarcity of basis for such a hyper-naming fetish; it offers itself instead as a simple, colorful chaos. Anyway, I think all human effort, including science, should be lumped under art, but I don’t suppose I’ll get many takers there.

Maybe I’ve expressed myself poorly by stating that ‘life has no meaning’, I didn’t mean to imply that a person’s life cannot be made meaningful. I hope I will be able to do so with mine, by trying to enjoy all the beautiful things in life and helping others to build a better future. Maybe ‘meaning’ can then be ascribed to the process, struggles and experiences, even though the result might not matter that much in the end.

I realize the above might sound a bit cynical. I’ve only recently come to the conclusion that I’ve forced myself for years to base my life on the expectations of society instead of listening to my inner voice. Your articles have helped me a great deal in that respect. I’m very grateful for that, and have realized that altruism is yet another beacon in my search for meaning.

Still, I do feel I lack the self-confidence to fully make a start with my new life and begin making other significant personal changes. I’m certain that your insightful views on the subject will be a big help for all us insecure people

Thanks again for your great advice!

@Paul: I personally believe that personal development is an end in itself as a process, not a final state of being. Does one need a reason to grow other than growth itself?

@Cordelya: Word.

@Jethro: Math is a human discovery, not a human invention. Invention implies control — we cannot reinvent the laws of mathematics differently if we happen to dislike them. We cannot make prime numbers non-prime.

I use the word “evolution” in an abstract sense as a synonym for growth and change. I did not intend the term to be used in the strictly biological sense with respect to natural selection, mutation, and crossover. I use the word in the sense of Barbara Marx Hubbard’s book Conscious Evolution, where human beings become conscious co-creators of their world.