šØ Henrik struck again. Look at that opener š I was hooked right there. The whole thing looks like a great -and wise- ālessonā to pass on kids: everything that turned out well in my like followed the same design process.
If I look at things that have turned out well in my life (my marriage, some of my essays, my current career) the ādesign processā has been the same in each case. It has been what Christopher Alexander called an unfolding. Put simply:
I paid attention to things I liked to do, and found ways to do more of that. I made it easy for interesting people to find me, and then I hung out with them. We did projects together.
I kept iteratingāpaying attention to the context, removing things that frustrated me, and expanding things that made me feel alive.
Eventually, I looked up and noticed that my life was nothing like I imagined it would be. But it fit me.
š And since weāre on the topic of āpaying attentionā hereās another -great- reason from L. M.: if your world is not enchanted, you're not paying attention.
what if we experience the world as disenchanted because, in part, enchantment is an effect of a certain kind of attention we bring to bear on the world and we are now generally habituated against this requisite quality of attention?
š¶āāļø And when would be best to train -but without really trying- our attention? Thomas argues for a specific type of walking: walking as inactivity.
The luxury of the aimless walk is one of the most accessible and readily available blank spaces we have. It is no coincidence that such a stroll will all of itself produce ideas and insights and new observations. In the absence of a task the mind will begin to play. It will be free. This is why walking and creativity go absolutely hand in hand. Insight comes to the contemplative and contemplation comes from inactivity, from not trying to generate insights, or indeed trying to do much of anything at all.
šŖ Objects becoming āpossessionsā and imbued with meaning and memories is something very close to my heart -there is something of Objet in there- so that one from Nix resonated obviously: personal artifacts.
š§¬ And since weāre on the topic of culture transmission - thereās something deeply interesting in the idea of: our body is an archive.
If human knowledge can disappear so easily, why have so many cultural practices survived without written records?
āŖļø Back to meaning and connections -another thing weāre fighting for with Objet- Bobby struck a chord with that one: brand is dead.
Iām not suggesting that brands provide meaning, but I believe human connections do. And the best way to deliver that to a consumer within product is wrapping it with a thoughtful and robust brand experience.
ā”ļø I liked that Verciās manifesto: A NEW RENAISSANCE.
In periods of darkness and catastrophe, humanity bends towards a period of rebirth and new possibility. The Black Plague was followed by the Enlightenment. The Vietnam War with Woodstock and the counterculture movement.
And with Covid-19, we had the chance for an awakening. This is our chance to emerge stronger, more unified, and more optimistic than ever before. We could catalyze the Renaissance of our age.
š I started with Henrik so I'm gonna finish with him too. āIdentities are interfaces. Pseudonyms are social technologies.ā Pseudonyms lets you practice agency.
I have a lot of identities! Iām a father, a husband, a writer, a coordinator at a galleryāwhich of these identities is the authentic one? It is more useful to think of authenticity as being about how you play your identities. There is a way for me to play husband authentically, and there is a way to play it that is not. And so on for every other identity I haveāincluding the obviously fictional ones. Authenticity is not about the identity, but the way you use it.