2024-09-12
Writing another wv for the day, when really I should be going to bed or doing just about anything else - I have a bad headache - I just want to mull over whether a good life is more about variation of stimuli than anything else.
What I mean by this is, a range of different experiences. For instance, the typical example of a bad life would be the stereotypical NEET life, i.e. living in one's mother's basement, barely going outside, always playing the same video games or watching porn over and over. This is of course a bad life, but why? And again, let's consider a good life: a wide range of different experiences, places, people, skills... why is this good? It seems to present the idea of a range of stimuli as inherently good, or, experiences as inherently good. In fact, a lot of what people do is said to be for the experience of it, as opposed to any material gain. Holidays are in this camp: they are done for the experience and for the memories, but not for any strict material gain, unlike, say, investing.
This would taken to an extreme be experience-maximisation: the idea that the most experiences possible is desirable. Of course, this will lead to bad things; one may murder, with intent, just for the experience. So of course we don't want to go that far. Then again, it is common for vice to be a part of people's life and of their experience, and for the vice to have shaped their experience in some way. We would say the vice is bad, but the overall life, and in particular the overcoming of the vice, is good.
Really, in a way this is also trying to justify the things I am trying to pursue at the moment as well; I am aiming for more of a range of experiences, so as to better my life. I think certainly a range of locations is good: just staying in one's room all the time is bad, I would say. I am not sure why. Potentially it is as there is the ability for associations to become bound to a location, and so one's actions become bound to the location itself. In this way vices, negative emotions, etc. can build up and become attached to the place itself, and in a way become reinforced by way of this, noting that negative stimuli have a greater grip than positive ones. In this way, it also seems like it would have some kind of polluting effect. Being in many places at different times means that associations may still occur but are not so strongly bound to a particular place, and so can be overridden (consciously) more easily. Or am I speaking nonsense?
Generally, at least in terms of location, I do want to think about how to do this. I generally go to one of several places: either I am at home, at the gym, at the allotment, at the cafe to study, or at my grandma's. There are other places but these are most common. Perhaps there is a rough rule somebody has set, who has already had this experience (surely a common one!) and has said, for instance, as a heuristic, twelve places (number plucked out of thin air) should be regularly visited for activities. I could add to this number by going to the park as an alternative to the cafe, and this weekend I want to go and sit by the sea to draw. Guitar will have to happen at home so that is that, but there are likely other places I could visit. The thing is, I have the bike and yet do not use it halfway enough; I ought to use it a lot more to explore new places, given how easy it is to get around on it, and go to various woods, and generally anywhere I can get to easily. If I had a motorbike, it would help even more, as there are a lot of places that simply do not have any pavements or anything, just a single 50 mph lane for cars to speed down. It's sadly quite common here, and public transport is generally poor or non-existent. Even still I think I can find a decent array of different places to go to, and be able to explore a little. I could also experiment with going out for dinner (on my own or inviting others) and see how it goes. Yes, it's comparatively expensive, but if I get water then a meal only comes to about £10 to £15. It's entirely reasonable.
But then also, this (like, the idea of maximising stimuli, not the ramble I just went on) flies against the idea of cultivating skills, which requires investing a significant portion of time in a single activity. For instance, the gym, guitar, and drawing are all the same thing over and over, but if I do them enough I could hopefully build up a skill in them. Perhaps there is a middle ground to stimuli: for certain things, a commitment is necessary, and it is good for a person to have a few things at least he regularly commits to, but then also, as regards circumstance and more superficial things, he could seek a certain degree of novelty. Does that work?
I think so. A bit under 1000 words but I'll call it here today. Have a good one.