Increasingly, I think it more important to do something in the first place, and let *doing it well* be secondary. This works for all hobbies in which the ego can be put to one side: birdwatching, piano playing, running, drawing, cooking. Of course, there is some implicit idea of being better at it, trying out new recipes. There is a minimum floor of competency, in that food must be more or less tasty. There is satisfaction in improving, but it isn't even necessary.
It applies as well to meditation, where doing it is the significant thing, and being better at it is the result of doing it without trying to be better. The egoism of being better at it is counterproductive.
With scholarship, since I know I can do it well, I need to just do it *at all* and the results will follow. I have no doubt that it will be good, because I have done it in the past and have not lost the ability. The ego involved should be a quiet confidence, not a worrisome insecurity.
***
The corollary of all this is that not doing it at all means that this part of your life does not exist. Someone who does not cook at all is not cooking well.
2 comments:
I still think all of this is from the "get it done" "am I a person" Protestant mentality.
What about the value of stopping things, of leaving them for later?
I just started cleaning my own house again. I was rusty at the beginning, but I hadn't forgotten how (and yes there are tricks to it, and yes I know it's a non-prestige activity that is not valued)
Yes; it is very important to know how to start again without guilt for having stopped. There is a joy in rediscovery.
Post a Comment