That is a very interesting and complex topic. I often wonder about John Nash and how different he is to these “mediums” or people who say they can “channel”. How does one know if he is talking to or channeling God, Mary Magdalen, Rembrandt or if he is just a lunatic or schizofrenic? One can really wonder - Is there one objective truth? Because for Nash - he clearly saw these persons, they were real to him, but they were not real to the other people. So is the truth defined by what “most” people think? I doubt that. However, I would love to have a definition and understanding of what actually is “real”. Like in the movie Inception - was it actually reality at the end? But more importantly - does it matter if it was or not? Can we live in an illusion or do we need to be searching for objective truth? And yet again - how does one define objective truth? Isnt it always subjective? Well, I have more questions than answers but it is intriguing to think about it.
Jul 29, 2023·edited Jul 29, 2023Liked by Filip Dousek
Great topic to breakdown. Looking at it purely from a pragmatic viewpoint, one has to wonder how the concept can be applied for a long-lasting impact. There are countless biographies about titans of the past (Nash, Buddha, Michelangelo, Steve Jobs, etc). I wonder how much of their "scope" - ranging from minor nuances to ideas, principles, and actions - can be transformed into an applicable model that can be adjusted to one's own personality, their context and time they are living in.
A great example is the movies and books about these Titans. They inform us about what they did and how they did it, but one has to wonder if that's sufficient to build an applicable model from it. For instance, after Isaacson's book about Steve Jobs, a lot of managers began to act like assholes because Steve Jobs was somewhat of an asshole. I feel that they missed the point about Jobs, that he was a mission-driven asshole rather than a purely ego-driven one + they started to act "weirdly" in the eyes of their colleagues by simply adopting one part of the model of someone else. They simply lacked integrity when adopting portion of the model of someone else. It's almost as if a layer on top of the books/movies/autobiographies that connects everything together is missing.
Also, I believe every context is different, therefore one must aim to understand the universal and timeless principles each Titan was driven by. Nash, Jobs, and Buddha might have adapted their thinking and principles to the age we live in, or maybe not. Actions of the past are just that, actions of the past. That's why it's very tricky to tap into the models of titans, taking their models and applying them; otherwise, everyone would become the next Buddha or Steve Jobs. So isn't it rather about tapping into the DELTA, the difference between who you are in your CONTEXT and the Titan? Can you tap into a limit function that is approaching zero distance between you and the Titan (in the CONTEXT and TIME), so that NOW his/her model would be truly applicable?
That is a very interesting and complex topic. I often wonder about John Nash and how different he is to these “mediums” or people who say they can “channel”. How does one know if he is talking to or channeling God, Mary Magdalen, Rembrandt or if he is just a lunatic or schizofrenic? One can really wonder - Is there one objective truth? Because for Nash - he clearly saw these persons, they were real to him, but they were not real to the other people. So is the truth defined by what “most” people think? I doubt that. However, I would love to have a definition and understanding of what actually is “real”. Like in the movie Inception - was it actually reality at the end? But more importantly - does it matter if it was or not? Can we live in an illusion or do we need to be searching for objective truth? And yet again - how does one define objective truth? Isnt it always subjective? Well, I have more questions than answers but it is intriguing to think about it.
Great topic to breakdown. Looking at it purely from a pragmatic viewpoint, one has to wonder how the concept can be applied for a long-lasting impact. There are countless biographies about titans of the past (Nash, Buddha, Michelangelo, Steve Jobs, etc). I wonder how much of their "scope" - ranging from minor nuances to ideas, principles, and actions - can be transformed into an applicable model that can be adjusted to one's own personality, their context and time they are living in.
A great example is the movies and books about these Titans. They inform us about what they did and how they did it, but one has to wonder if that's sufficient to build an applicable model from it. For instance, after Isaacson's book about Steve Jobs, a lot of managers began to act like assholes because Steve Jobs was somewhat of an asshole. I feel that they missed the point about Jobs, that he was a mission-driven asshole rather than a purely ego-driven one + they started to act "weirdly" in the eyes of their colleagues by simply adopting one part of the model of someone else. They simply lacked integrity when adopting portion of the model of someone else. It's almost as if a layer on top of the books/movies/autobiographies that connects everything together is missing.
Also, I believe every context is different, therefore one must aim to understand the universal and timeless principles each Titan was driven by. Nash, Jobs, and Buddha might have adapted their thinking and principles to the age we live in, or maybe not. Actions of the past are just that, actions of the past. That's why it's very tricky to tap into the models of titans, taking their models and applying them; otherwise, everyone would become the next Buddha or Steve Jobs. So isn't it rather about tapping into the DELTA, the difference between who you are in your CONTEXT and the Titan? Can you tap into a limit function that is approaching zero distance between you and the Titan (in the CONTEXT and TIME), so that NOW his/her model would be truly applicable?