Since watching the film I've been ruminating on whether the thesis does apply to me in specific ways, and I've reached the conclusion that having a wide range of choice can be a problem for me, but not in the way outlined in the lecture. Put simply, I don't have a problem with the need for perfection. Far from it - I find myself generally more than happy with what I've got in all aspects of my life.
No, the difficulty ubiquity of choice creates for me is simply that of using time effectively. I can't read all I want to, I can't listen to all I want to, I can't paint and draw all I want to. In fact, I hardly paint and draw at all, despite a slight hankering to do so, because it is only a slight hankering and I'm drawn more firmly in other directions. Sometimes this inability to do everything I would like to, when the choices are so readily there, is irritating, but it's also extremely useful. I can't recall the last time I was bored.
Another deeper point the lecturer made was that our part of the world - the prosperous bit - would be better off reducing its range of choice, especially when those choices can be so damaging, and providing more choices for those in the world who are not so privileged. I'm not so sure the economics of it all would work quite that way, but I applaud the sentiment behind the idea.
And I also recall him promoting the idea that it's useful to lower expectations in order to achieve the satisfaction we crave. That's made me think a bit. I don't feel like I've consciously lowered my expectations but I must say it's true that there's very little about me now that I see as being 'driven' in any sense. Of course, it's entirely possible that I am being wonderfully self-deceived in all this, and possibly that's the real choice I'm making.
No comments:
Post a Comment