Reading Steve Pavlina
Nov. 10th, 2008 11:21 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
snousleI've been wasting time in an effort to be more productive. Some time ago, someone turned me towards a guy named Steve Pavlina, a hyperkinetic get-it-done guru. I just read one of his articles that might represent a turning point for me - away from the very idea of productivity. It certainly rattled me and made me wonder if he's someone I want to pay attention to. Here it is:
http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2008/08/money-and-the-law-of-attraction/
Many points he makes are good ones. What we consider "poverty" in the US is really quite extravagant by world standards, and literally unimaginable to at least a billion people.
I think it's also true that if you take a "wealthy mindset" you are much more likely to become wealthy. That's not a sufficient condition, of course, but it's almost a prerequisite to getting there.
I find myself in a strangely intermediate position: I think that a $50K bank account is so lean as to be skating on the edge of catastrophe, while $500 is a huge sum of money that I would never dream of charging for a one-hour consultation. And yes, I accept that by "pushing that away" I will never have it, even if I could achieve it. I simply find it indecent.
The problem I have with his philosophy is that it is not just elitist, but inherently elitist. It depends on the existence of an elite class that has access to this kind of money while others do not. It is mathematically impossible for everyone in the country to be as wealthy as he describes. It is wrong to say that aspiring to a cup of coffee is elitist just because half the world lacks clean water; everyone in America, and probably everyone in the world, can in principle have that cup of coffee, but not everyone can have a private tennis court, no matter how much personal motiviation or social justice is involved. The analogy he draws between the two is, on reflection, offensive in its glibness and insularity.
Realizing that the average American uses ten kilowatts of power at all times is probably the single most jarring thing I've learned. We are, collectively, so wealthy that it is ridiculous. Why, then, are we locked in this competitive struggle, even at the highest income levels? Why are Americans stressed out all the time when they should be the laid-back envy of the world? It isn't just a matter of inequality. It is because capitalism sets us against each other, draining energy away from productive work into useless, competitive striving.
I am an ambitious person who struggles with endemic laziness and a 300-item to-do list, and his writing is very helpful in gaining perspective on that. But this latest article seems to show that he is so decisively at odds with my values that I wonder if the very notion of productivity is wrong-headed.
I know that, given clear goals, I can work my ass off and be happy the whole time. I've worked 14-hour days for five days in a row and finished it feeling ready to do it all over again. It's way better than banging on a keyboard for four hours while charging for eight.
When people ask me why I went into catering, I like to say that it's because I wanted a job with more work and less pay. But I keep being distracted by this high-paying bullshit for a dying company, work that will make hardly any difference whatsoever. I keep running up against these deep, basic philosophical contradictions concerning what it's all for. And that is paralyzing. It's an addiction of sorts. But Friday is cold-turkey day; the last day of my contract. I wonder what life will be like once that's gone.
http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2008/08/money-and-the-law-of-attraction/
Many points he makes are good ones. What we consider "poverty" in the US is really quite extravagant by world standards, and literally unimaginable to at least a billion people.
I think it's also true that if you take a "wealthy mindset" you are much more likely to become wealthy. That's not a sufficient condition, of course, but it's almost a prerequisite to getting there.
I find myself in a strangely intermediate position: I think that a $50K bank account is so lean as to be skating on the edge of catastrophe, while $500 is a huge sum of money that I would never dream of charging for a one-hour consultation. And yes, I accept that by "pushing that away" I will never have it, even if I could achieve it. I simply find it indecent.
The problem I have with his philosophy is that it is not just elitist, but inherently elitist. It depends on the existence of an elite class that has access to this kind of money while others do not. It is mathematically impossible for everyone in the country to be as wealthy as he describes. It is wrong to say that aspiring to a cup of coffee is elitist just because half the world lacks clean water; everyone in America, and probably everyone in the world, can in principle have that cup of coffee, but not everyone can have a private tennis court, no matter how much personal motiviation or social justice is involved. The analogy he draws between the two is, on reflection, offensive in its glibness and insularity.
Realizing that the average American uses ten kilowatts of power at all times is probably the single most jarring thing I've learned. We are, collectively, so wealthy that it is ridiculous. Why, then, are we locked in this competitive struggle, even at the highest income levels? Why are Americans stressed out all the time when they should be the laid-back envy of the world? It isn't just a matter of inequality. It is because capitalism sets us against each other, draining energy away from productive work into useless, competitive striving.
I am an ambitious person who struggles with endemic laziness and a 300-item to-do list, and his writing is very helpful in gaining perspective on that. But this latest article seems to show that he is so decisively at odds with my values that I wonder if the very notion of productivity is wrong-headed.
I know that, given clear goals, I can work my ass off and be happy the whole time. I've worked 14-hour days for five days in a row and finished it feeling ready to do it all over again. It's way better than banging on a keyboard for four hours while charging for eight.
When people ask me why I went into catering, I like to say that it's because I wanted a job with more work and less pay. But I keep being distracted by this high-paying bullshit for a dying company, work that will make hardly any difference whatsoever. I keep running up against these deep, basic philosophical contradictions concerning what it's all for. And that is paralyzing. It's an addiction of sorts. But Friday is cold-turkey day; the last day of my contract. I wonder what life will be like once that's gone.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-11-13 06:22 am (UTC)But what's interesting is that your philosophical meanderings are part and parcel of our elitist Western experience.
I've noticed myself doing it. And later, I find myself wondering why I and so many others of my generation can't just do things. We have to think about them to death first.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-13 06:28 pm (UTC)