Been obviously quite consumed with a few things. This is the first breather and slight hint of motivation I have again for writing something on this blog.

 

Indeed, some recent (and long overdue) reading of a rather critical and self-absorbed author brought about this realisation. Nassim Nicholas Taleb is not nessisarily a rather clean, structured nor ordinary writer but he does show rather stoic qualities in his views of the world. His writing is a bit messy and way to convoluted, perhaps similar to myself in that there is an understanding that needs to be conveyed, often it in an unstructured, visual manner. I will commend Taleb that he certainly has a way with words, partly attributable to his blieve in his superior knowledge of the world (and therefore an imaginary egotistical superiority anxious to show off this hidden genious). I do agree with Taleb that writing a specific piece of writing, of a particular length of for a particular purpose even indeed lead to a "loss of pleasure in writing". That phase unfortunately is not over until I submit my dissertation.

Taleb, in his closing pages, makes a rather brash comment though, one that certainly provoked some thought. He claimed that "at the limit, [one] can decide whether to be (relatively) poor, but free of [ones] time, or rich but as dependent as a slave".

 

Now, there is something bizarre about this statment. He claims that the slavery is a "result of external pressures", often based on "fixed and tight schedules" that start govering ones life. Indirectly, he blames this on optimisers who work toward a more efficient, leaner, and better planned life. To Taleb is seems natural to assume that "people who get promoted to important positions [...] suffer from tightness of schedules". Now, as rediculous as this sentance reads, it definitely infers that people who succeed become particular about their time, and therefore enslaved by it.

 

This own interpretation can now be read in contrast to the paragraph above, effectively portraying a sad picture. Those who succeed will ultimately not find happiness because they become rich yet dependant, while those who want to be free will indeed (without option) be poor. It would hardly seem attractive to choose either route. The author offers no alternative, no holy grail or solution.

 

Fine, perhaps to be read with slight disregard for the authors opinion; yet since the thought has been conceived is must have some meaning.