making time
Nov. 20th, 2003 07:02 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cellioAn objection I saw raised to this (in a protected entry) was, basically, that people are busy, so being too busy doesn't mean the thing isn't important. But that misses the point, I think.
Yes, of course people are busy. I'm certainly very busy, at least. But my not having time for a given activity does not pass a value judgement on the activity -- just on that activity for me at this time.
Maybe I'm weird, but when I consider taking on something new, I ask myself where the time will come from. It has to come from somewhere, after all, and those college-age days of just saying "I'll sleep less" are long past. Certain time commitments are non-negotiable: job, family time, sleep, religious commitments. (That's not an ordered list.) All else is optional. (Of course commitments once made must be kept absent permission to break them. I'm not talking about that; I'm talking about the initial decision to take on the activity/commitment.)
When my music group (On the Mark) started, I realized that for me the time would come from the informal instrumental group I was playing with. When I became generally more active on the net, that time came from casual reading (particularly science fiction). When I started using LiveJournal, I dropped some mailing lists and put the final nail in the Usenet coffin. When I began to spend more time on religion, that time came from SCA involvement. (Within the "SCA" box there has also been an ebb and flow -- fighting gave way to choir, dancing to brewing (and music), archery to scribal time, scribal time to dance research (and persona research), and so on.) When I recently became chair of a synagogue committee, I planned for an easy initial chunk of time until my board term ends in May. And, yeah, there was one season of Babylon 5 for which the answer was "sleeping less one night a week isn't so bad".
The point is: to do things you have to give up other things. Sometimes there's nothing you are ready to give up, and that's a sign that you shouldn't be taking on that new thing right now. (Again thinking about the SCA, sometimes college freshmen fail to anticipate the competing time demands of SCA activities and classes. Classes have to come first.) Sometimes there are things you could give up but the new activity just isn't important enough for you to do so -- maybe your weekly commitment to fighting practice is more important than a new gaming group. So you don't "have time" for the gaming group, but if your situation were different you would have time for gaming and no longer have time for fighting.
There are only so many hours in the day. When something new comes along, I ask myself: is there anything I'm doing, and that I'm not committed to, that is less interesting than this new thing? If so, I consider a swap. If not, then I don't have time for the new thing right now, though I might have a year ago or might a year from now.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-20 05:20 pm (UTC)Whether you call it fantasy or not, people do order the importance of things that don't manage to consistently occupy their time. Maybe this is "affection for" rather than actual actual importance, but there is a prioritization and feeling involved.
Secondly, and this is the doozy, people tend not to have total system integrity. Most folks have less than you probably do. Most of us have dreams, fantasies, and desires that are out of line (somewhat or completely) with how we actually allocate our lives. It takes courage and resolve to act consistently with your own intellectual model of what you want. Furthermore it takes courage and resolve just to have a model that you can believe in. Most people just coast.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-20 06:23 pm (UTC)To continue belaboring the obvious: Everything that's been said about time here is also true of money. (And, presumably, most other limited resources.)
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-20 06:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-20 07:54 pm (UTC)Oh, yes -- me, too. That's more polite to the other person, I think. But I realize that internally, what I mean is "I choose not to make time for that".
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-20 08:03 pm (UTC)Do you mean that we optimistically over-schedule because things might not take that long or we'll somehow make it work out or the like? Yes, I'd grant that. And we probably get away with it most of the time; if the result is that you didn't get around to watching Law & Order tonight, no one else will even know. If, on the other hand, you didn't get around to buying groceries (and you share food duties with others), you'll have dropped the ball.
Most of us have dreams, fantasies, and desires that are out of line (somewhat or completely) with how we actually allocate our lives.
Yes, I can see that now that you point it out.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-20 08:06 pm (UTC)Sure, but I do some peer counseling, and when someone comes to me and says "I really really really want to do X, but I never have time" I ask some suspicious questions. Sometimes the reason they don't act in accordance with what they want is that they're scared, or don't know how, or are in some way prevented. But sometimes, the reason they keep not finding the time is that, really, deep down, they don't want to. Conscious, rational mind however thinks they should want to. Talking to only the rational part of them won't get you the whole story.
So I take what people don't do pretty seriously as an indicator of what's going on inside them, on the deeper, less rational levels. I take it seriously as an indicator within myself.
I don't see system integrity as being a top-down process, where reason is a tyrant over the system. I see it as a partnership of the various parts. Integrity often means honestly admitting what the priorities of the less rational part are, and living in accordance with them, as opposed to the rational mind inventing priorities and imposing them on the rest of the self.