"Culture is Important" and "Self-improvement is Important" Paradox

[moda0306]

So I've noticed some trends on this forum as well as podcasts that I find interesting, and I'm going to try to explain how I think they interact in my mind and get your takes on it, but I've had trouble arranging these thoughts into a cogent narrative, so bear with me and do your best to see where I'm trying to go with this.

Culture vs. "Spreadsheet Economics"

One one hand, I've come to agree with a lot of folks here that "GDP" economics is a subset of culture & social economics rather than the other way around. People get jobs and consume more-so as a result of social cohesion and assumptions built on social proof than spreadsheet-style analysis, for good or bad. I might disagree with some of the conclusions on government policy in the face of this reality, but that's another issue. Accurately describing reality is hard enough. Developing a cogent policy proposal in the face of that is a whole other animal.

For a little bit, let's get out of the purely political realm of what the state should do. Deciding how to interact with your family & community's culture will prove difficult enough in this post... bringing the state into it is gonna be a mess.

But this realization that culture more at the core of our behavior than spreadsheet economics inevitably leads to the personal decision (conscious or not) of how much one should allow prevailing culture to influence them. Harry Browne's HIFFIAUW changed my muddled view on this considerably, though I think most of us realize he came down a little to hard on simply abandoning ideas of marriage, kids, and family if they're not clearly making you happy... that we shouldn't abandon the "group traps" too quickly, perhaps.

But I have trouble really nailing down how to describe "American culture," much less "Western culture." Is "football" our culture? Driving cars? Mowing lawns? Is the stuff that makes us unique from other cultures a more significant part of our culture simply because it's different!? When adhering to your cultural norms vs other culture's norms (especially ones you see as inferior (perhaps quite-rightfully)), the answer to some folks here might be clear. But that's a pretty false dichotomy. What if one could find a way to exist in our culture in the most meaningful ways possible (ones that give you the most amount of of positive human interaction with others I'd argue is the best measure), while optimizing one's own personal decisions when they see them as being in-opposition or not in adherence with our culture. I'll come back to this in part 2.

One more thing to hit on with culture... If you have kids, I've noticed from an outsider's perspective, this magnifies the dilemma considerably. I won't even go into it as I know most people here know far-better than I do all the small and large dilemmas with how to navigate your children through the cultural maze of our modern culture(s).


Self-Improvement

I'm not gonna lie... I love self-improvement. So much more than participating either passively or too enthusiastically in "culture." I see them as simultaneously in stark opposition but also not needing to be. As an unmarried (with awesome GF) kidless white male, I've found that a lot of our "culture" is just code word for "ways to interact with each other in a positive, productive way." There's been a lot of discussion about "Making America Great Again." To me, I'd amend this to "Make yourself great and spread the word." The problem is, I see making yourself great as being in very stark opposition to many aspects of American culture that seem to be the natural alternative to seeking how to be more "multi-cultural" with Muslim, Asian, Hispanic and African influences.

To me, self improvement consists of optimizing various aspects of your personal life, only part of which is enriching how you interact with your friends, family & coworkers. To me, there are so many areas of "American" or "Western" culture, if there is such a thing, that seem utterly un-optimized from the stand-point of human health and happines... hell even if it's just in-terms of how we interact with each other (which, if I'm not mistaken, is the main point of culture - improving human interactions). How does football really improve American culture? It makes you want to each cheetos and drink beer with some people and angry at others. When I want the answer to the question, "how do I make the best pork roast" or "how do I find the best strength training routine," or "how do I optimize my sleep" or "how do I adapt to the cold," or the fact that I even ask myself these questions and am willing to put real time and resources into the answers is decidedly NOT a substantial aspect of American "culture."

And from what I've found, you really don't NEED to participate in all the useless or negative aspects of any culture to interact positively with people that participate in that culture. I drive a Toyota Prius, love cooking & lifting & guitar & philosophy & the outdoors (short of having real survival skills) & shooting guns, somewhat despise consumerism, am nausiated by spectator sports in the guise of physical adaptation optimization, am nervous about the effect of chronic electronic pass-timing... so while I'm not in love with multi-culturalism, I think I just simply hate the fact that culture makes us so lazy at really examining our lives. When I see my friends sit around and eat garbage food and drink every Saturday and Sunday while watching football, and if anyone represents standard midwest "American culture," it's these guys (and they're really good dudes), then come to politics they talk about what "pussies" we've become and how feminized and over-sensitive we become, and it's the democrats and feminists and Muslims/Mexican's fault, I just want to say, "what the f*ck are you talking about."

I think I've said it before, but Muslims & Feminists aren't destroying our culture... they're having some negative effects on some aspects of society, but look at us!... X-Box, air conditioning, Cheetos and spending 14 of our 16 waking hours a day sitting on our asses are destroying us. Not your goddamn feminist professor from college or Hillary Clinton.

Simply put, while Americans are pretty cool people on a personal level, our culture sucks, IMO. If I want to look at how to positively grow myself as an individual, I'm NOT going to look at "western culture." I'm going to look at "self-imrovement culture," and that takes elements from nauturalism, evolution, eastern medicine, stoic philosophy (and some others... but stoicism has an eastern and western version), and largely trying to IGNORE so much of the noise peddled at us either overtly or covertly on a daily basis.


So the question is to me...


How do we reconcile all this for ourselves, our kids and our communities? We DO need a healthy culture to thrive, but as we focus on how BAD "those people's" culture is, how do we improve our own? Do we look backwards at our grandfathers? Do we look at the most popular aspects of American culture to distract people from multi-culturalism? How much do we either turn away or actively deride consumerism when the economic infrastructure of our societies DEPEND on said consumerism to thrive in their current state?

ALL of our "GDP"-economic activity eventually requires some person trading their money for a product or service, many of which they do not NEED. However, many of the people providing those goods/services either directly or further back in the value-add process DEPEND on that income to survive. So we can't just abandon consumption on a macro-level without creating some real negative dividends.



To me it's all hopeless on a macro-level. I can "fix" myself and still be a positive social presence for others, but I'm essentially an "economy's worst nightmare." I don't really buy much... I research the crap of what I do buy... buy in-bulk and on-sale as much as I can OR buy quality from a good meat source, etc. All the cold-adaptation and other interests I have cost me little-if-any time/money. It works great for me. I'm happier than I've ever been, and when we get into these self-improvement discussions I feel at home. But when we bounce over to more macro-discussions, I start to feel hopeless, because while "multiculturalism sucks," so does monoculturalism. American culture sucks. Why? Because culture, by it's very nature, doesn't critically examine itself... it's just "what we do because this is how we've always done it." All cultures suck because they promote lazy thinking. I guess what I'm getting at is what the hell is the "point" of all this "culture" that we lean so much on? So we get along? Fuck that! (I say that with a smile) I'm less a product of "our culture" than I've ever been in my life, and I have more positive/productive interactions with folks as ever, partially as a result of adopting stoicism in my life. I had to dig to find stoicism... it's not something that was taught to me by my family or culture, but discovering Harry Browne and other thinking that naturally leads you down that path.

So I guess I'm wondering how all the fine folks on this board who seem to focus a lot on self-improvement and also seem to be hung up on "saving Western culture" reconcile those two seemingly opposing thoughts.

Sorry it took me such a damn long rant to make that point.

Peace!

[Mountaineer]

So I guess I'm wondering how all the fine folks on this board who seem to focus a lot on self-improvement and also seem to be hung up on "saving Western culture" reconcile those two seemingly opposing thoughts.

Peace!

It's pretty simple for my simple mind.

I'm all for self-improvement. I think of the areas: body, emotional, mental, spiritual. I try to improve in all those. I'm better at some than others. Thinking about all the dimensions is the key.

The "western culture" that is most important to me is to consider: we in the USA are a nation of law, not a nation of one top dog in charge - that was the brilliance of our founding fathers in contrast to all previous ways of organizing a society or civilization. That frees people to do what is best for themselves, not to have some do-gooder decide what is best for me. We flourished for a couple hundred years and became the best in the world (my opinion). We seem to be headed toward many of our citizens becoming overly dependent on others to solve their problems; call it entitlement, call it racist, call it being too "emotional" about wanting everyone to be the same and accept "my ways", call it getting soft, call it forgetting the past, call it desire for utopia without hard work or without a stake in the future, call it a me focused bunch of slobs ..... call it what you will. This will ultimately destroy the ideas upon which we flourished - rugged individualism with a belief in God, a belief that all things come from God for His good purposes, a belief that most governments are inherently self serving and corrupt (look at the example of Venezuela - went from the SA country with the most resources to one of the poorest under corrupt leadership not based on the rule of law). What can I do about it? Not much on the macro level. On the micro level, continue my love of the triune God, my reliance on God, my trust of Jesus' promises, my daily reading Scripture, and treat those with whom I come in contact with respect, kindness, and belief they know what is better for themselves than I do, and focus on the gifts God has given me, be satisfied with what I have, concentrate on the self-improvement areas of body, emotion, mental, and spiritual and try to get better at each area over time. None of that requires any particular type of culture, only faith in Jesus and His promises. The "government" can do what it will; it's all good. I know how the story ends. Recognize God is in charge regardless of how much I'd like to be. Turning off the TV helps considerably in being able to focus on the eternally important. Focus on my circle of influence vs. my circle of concern as Covey would say. Or, as Shakespeare would say, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

[moda0306]

So I guess I'm wondering how all the fine folks on this board who seem to focus a lot on self-improvement and also seem to be hung up on "saving Western culture" reconcile those two seemingly opposing thoughts.

Peace!

It's pretty simple for my simple mind.

I'm all for self-improvement. I think of the areas: body, emotional, mental, spiritual. I try to improve in all those. I'm better at some than others. Thinking about all the dimensions is the key.

The "western culture" that is most important to me is to consider: we in the USA are a nation of law, not a nation of one top dog in charge - that was the brilliance of our founding fathers in contrast to all previous ways of organizing a society or civilization. That frees people to do what is best for themselves, not to have some do-gooder decide what is best for me. We flourished for a couple hundred years and became the best in the world (my opinion).

If you're into podcasting, I'd encourage you to check out the "Dangerous History Podcast." The guy who does it is a self-ascribed right-leaning anarchist but he really does a handy job of eliminating a lot of the fondness of the American "civil religion," if you will.

Statements like "we are a nation of laws" is essentially a BS facade on what is essentially a big cronyist protection racket, and he points out why in ways I'm not entirely equipped to go into, but from the very get-go, the "success" of America was more about annexing, privatizing and monetizing property as we moved West than some grandiose exceptionalism. The cronyism and genocide during the 1800's is astounding. We were never a nation of "laws." As always, laws have been established to protect what is important to those with power at the time, and mostly ignored when they don't serve the intended goals.

But that's quite a rabbit hole. I'd highly encourage you to check out his podcast. It's lead me to be more of an anarchist than I ever have been.

If we're going to go back to the culture of the 1800's, we're going to have to abandon not only the culture of "multi-culturalism," but abandon much of current American culture, period. I'm not so sure that "rule-of-law" describes the nature of what we'd go back to. Nobody wants to respect laws that they starkly culturally disagree with. Nobody would. The law is just a codification of priorities that we're willing to have backed by state force. It's not a set of principles in and of itself.

The funny thing is, the culture of the 1800's is probably a lot closer to conservative aspects of current Islamic culture than it is to today's American culture. Religion as a central role in life AND the state, subservience of women, conservative sexual norms, anti-multi-culturalism.


In almost every example I can think of, with those that lament about the rule of law, once you scratch a layer or two deep, their real priority is not the rule of law, but instead some other priority that the law serves. The only people who seem to have a lock on that term are certain civil libertarians who think that the law should be applied most stringently on those with political and economic power rather than on those who are far-removed from those institutions, but even then that's simply stating a priority of which laws should be enforced the most and against whom.

Culture is about far more social and personal aspects of our lives than whether we "respect laws." A guess at the very least that's how I see it. Perhaps I'm not getting the full picture.

[Mountaineer]

So I guess I'm wondering how all the fine folks on this board who seem to focus a lot on self-improvement and also seem to be hung up on "saving Western culture" reconcile those two seemingly opposing thoughts.

Peace!

It's pretty simple for my simple mind.

I'm all for self-improvement. I think of the areas: body, emotional, mental, spiritual. I try to improve in all those. I'm better at some than others. Thinking about all the dimensions is the key.

The "western culture" that is most important to me is to consider: we in the USA are a nation of law, not a nation of one top dog in charge - that was the brilliance of our founding fathers in contrast to all previous ways of organizing a society or civilization. That frees people to do what is best for themselves, not to have some do-gooder decide what is best for me. We flourished for a couple hundred years and became the best in the world (my opinion).

If you're into podcasting, I'd encourage you to check out the "Dangerous History Podcast." The guy who does it is a self-ascribed right-leaning anarchist but he really does a handy job of eliminating a lot of the fondness of the American "civil religion," if you will.

Statements like "we are a nation of laws" is essentially a BS facade on what is essentially a big cronyist protection racket, and he points out why in ways I'm not entirely equipped to go into, but from the very get-go, the "success" of America was more about annexing, privatizing and monetizing property as we moved West than some grandiose exceptionalism. The cronyism and genocide during the 1800's is astounding. We were never a nation of "laws." As always, laws have been established to protect what is important to those with power at the time, and mostly ignored when they don't serve the intended goals.

But that's quite a rabbit hole. I'd highly encourage you to check out his podcast. It's lead me to be more of an anarchist than I ever have been.

If we're going to go back to the culture of the 1800's, we're going to have to abandon not only the culture of "multi-culturalism," but abandon much of current American culture, period. I'm not so sure that "rule-of-law" describes the nature of what we'd go back to. Nobody wants to respect laws that they starkly culturally disagree with. Nobody would. The law is just a codification of priorities that we're willing to have backed by state force. It's not a set of principles in and of itself.

The funny thing is, the culture of the 1800's is probably a lot closer to conservative aspects of current Islamic culture than it is to today's American culture. Religion as a central role in life AND the state, subservience of women, conservative sexual norms, anti-multi-culturalism.


In almost every example I can think of, with those that lament about the rule of law, once you scratch a layer or two deep, their real priority is not the rule of law, but instead some other priority that the law serves. The only people who seem to have a lock on that term are certain civil libertarians who think that the law should be applied most stringently on those with political and economic power rather than on those who are far-removed from those institutions, but even then that's simply stating a priority of which laws should be enforced the most and against whom.

Culture is about far more social and personal aspects of our lives than whether we "respect laws." A guess at the very least that's how I see it. Perhaps I'm not getting the full picture.

Cool. I'll check out the podcast. As for the nation of laws, perhaps a better way to phrase it is a nation of limited government that allowed people to flourish to the best of their abilities. Was it pretty? No. Was it perfect? No. Was it cronyism? Probably. Does a nation of laws allow cronyism? Maybe. Is government's purpose to reduce chaos and provide order? Yes. Why? So we can focus on how God wants us to live with each other. Was our nation founded on separation of church and state? Yes. Do I want a theocracy like Islam? Absolutely not! Do I want a theocracy like pre-exile Israel? No. Theocracies do not endure and are not God's desire. God does not wish us to rely on earthly kings. Do I care if you call me a racist? Not really. Do I care if you humilate me in front of others or persecute me? A bit, but not really. Am I overly self-confident? Probably. Do I believe all I have is a gift from God? Yes. Do I covet what others have? Not really. Am I satisfied with where God has seen fit to place me? Yes, most of the time. Do I believe in unconditional love? Yes. Do I practice it? Not so much. Am I a sinner deserving of hell? Absolutely. Do I think others believe they are sinners? Not so much. Am I a saint? God says I am. Do I believe God is a God of mercy and forgiveness? Yes. Do I believe God is a God of wrath? Yes. Do I believe God is trustworthy? Absolutely. Can I reconcile a God of wrath with a God of mercy? Absolutely. Do I believe: Grace = getting what you do not deserve, Mercy = not getting what you do deserve. Yes. Do I value the thoughts of those on this forum? Yes. Do I think faith in the promises of Jesus is the ONLY way to an eternal life with God? Yes. Do I think most would agree with me on that? No. Does that sadden me? Yes. Do I wish others had the peace that surpasses all understanding? I sure do. Do I think people will get exactly what they deserve when they die? No - those who have faith in the promises of Jesus will get a free pass when God judges them according to their merits and not go to to hell as they deserve; yes - if they are depending upon themselves to have done more good than evil in their temporal life. Sorry for getting religious in my answers, but I do not believe one can successfully separate the now from the not yet or the already happened. They are intertwined, interdependent, and inseparable.

You suggested a podcast to me. I'll suggest a book to you: Evidence for Faith (Deciding the God Question) 1991 - edited by John Warwick Montgomery.

Can you suggest which episode of the Dangerous History would be a good place to begin, or get a feel for what it is about?

Peace be with you.

[Kriegsspiel]

I'm listening to 0133, Crisis and Leviathans: The Not-So-Civil War, good so far.

[Pointedstick]

I don't see the contradiction between improving yourself and affecting your society. You're just a blip. If you stopped consuming entirely and became an ascetic monk, Minnesota wouldn't care.

And it almost doesn't make sense to say there's still any such thing as "American culture." What Mountaineer sees as "American culture" when he looks around his universe is vastly different from what Dragoncar sees.

We're firmly in the atomized mode now. The last time there was an "American culture" was the early 1960s, and we all know what it looked like: the 2.1 kid Leave it to Beaver nuclear suburban family driving in the family cadillac to their boring white mainline Protestant church. It's iconic and instantly familiar--and lost to the ages.

Every culture has shitty parts and bad history. Every single one. All of us are standing on the backs of millions who were killed, enslaved, or pushed off their land to make our lives possible. Every human alive is the winner in an age-old struggle for societal supremacy. I don't see the USA as especially wicked in this respect because there really isn't any country any better when you dive into world history.

I sympathize with your proposition, but in the end you need to just let it go and live. Over-analyzing everything just makes you miserable. And this is where I honestly recommend conservative society. I live in a town with no homeless shelters; a large, well-funded, and well-respected police force; a completely auto-dominated layout; no prestigious university. It's a lovely place. It's safe, with great public schools, and a very family-friendly atmosphere. Lots of downright nice people and their nice families. Yes, a lot of them like football. Most of them go to church. A goodly number of the men are soldiers, police officers, or FBI agents. But you know what? They're all great people with their own quirks and secrets. For a young family, it's perfect. And that's the nice thing about our atomized society: I can live here while I have kids in the house, and single men can go off and to their own thing somewhere else. Nobody gets on each other's nerves.

[I Shrugged]

Moda, you have spelled out something that bothers me too. And probably most smarter/educated people. It's closely related to "what is the meaning of life?" Mountaineer explained the religious answer to that. I am not atheist, but not as trusting as Mountaineer in these matters.

One thing that comforts me, a little, is when I come across anecdotes that show that for centuries of recorded history, each generation of elders felt that the younger generation was soft/lazy/distracted/shallow/etc. I just finished reading Thoreau's Walden. In the wrap up, he lectures about the same things. Consumerism, lack of sensible thrift, shallowness, etc. And this in the mid-1800s before electricity and all the rest.

Trying to change society is just overwhelming to me. So yeah, I take the advice of HB, and Scott Adam's The Dilbert Principle. I try to stay out of the way. Our society is so prosperous that there is plenty of low hanging fruit for you or me to pluck, and live our lives.

Optimization is another matter. Do you ever find yourself a bit envious of those who are just enjoying themselves and their relationships, without trying to optimize everything? I do. In fact I have reached the point in life where I think it's time to optimize less, and be more like them. There should be a payoff for all of the work I did to get to this point. So now I can afford to do it.

One thing that appeals to me is to look around for a better culture, as Craig R seems to be doing. But most of us value our established relationships and people too much to do that.

[I Shrugged]

I don't know if this is giving up, but lately I have been having the following thought.

Namely, that the history of mankind is not the history of living in peaceful societies under beknighted rulers. Even in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries, there has been a lot of the contrary. We shouldn't expect to get the kind of government we want, the President we want, etc. We can say it's our divine right. But we are lucky it's not worse. I think we don't appreciate how good we really have things. We are way out on the right end of the bell curve tail.

OTOH sometimes you have to make a stand.

I dunno.

[moda0306]

PS

We are hitting on a couple issues that seem to want to "talk past each other." I'll try to hit on those individually.

As far as I can tell, here in MN, living in a "conservative" community isn't a good guarantee of the type of harmony you speak of. I completely agree with what you're trying to say though. Live where your personal priorities seem to align with folks. I can totally see that and agree with that to a decent degree.

But the self improvement vs "culture" paradox I mentioned I probably should've been clear not to conflate the desire to mold society (a fool's errand) so much as what "self-improvement" gains can be met by simply participating in "culture." To me, any time I want to "optimize" some core element of self-improvement, I have to actively tune out the "culture" around me that has allowed me to carry certain conscious and sub-conscious presumptions about how we should go about X or Y. My participation in culture seems to simply come down to (as you mentioned) living somewhere you feel like you can make home, and to arrange your social affairs to make those interactions as positive as possible. I see people that dive too deep into a culture find themselves in a group trap, and become quite disturbed and bitter towards those that don't fit into that culture in ways they'd like. Even if they're mostly decent, happy people.

So I guess I'd say "who's overanalyzing and who's living?" I guess we all find happiness in different ways. I know I found mine when I did an HB-esque analysis of reall what were the fundamentals of my happiness without passively accepting certain aspects of our culture. I feel like a lot of us have so that's why I wanted to tease out this dilemma. I do think social cohesion is important... but when I see folks spending a pretty sizable amount of their time and money trying to keep up with some sort of under-examined aspect of American culture, and then later on in the day, week, year, or decade why they are half-depressed in-spite of their opportunities, wealth, etc, I have to think that trying to adhere to culture (or more specifically, passively accepting that vast sums of $$'s and time NEED to be spent on these elements) really isn't where the goods are at. At least not if the narrative is a rich "culture," for lack of a better term, of simply finding and sharing self-improvement techniques.

[Pointedstick]

i think it might help to separate underling American culture from surface culture, separating rugged individualism, liberty, justice, freedom, the common distaste for excessive government, tyranny. corruption and dictatorship from surface culture such as football, big cars, stupid houses, keeping up with the Joneses and eating junk food. the former (to me) does not seem in any way to be in conflict with self improvement the latter may or may not be depending on personal goals and the results you get from engaging in them..
the underlying culture which we often fall short on now, and have come up short on throughout our history, drives things in the right direction, the surface culture keeps us busy, it changes over time, and as you point out in your op often is shallow and sucks, and (as you also point out) it constitutes a large part of our economy, i don't see any conflict in bailing on the surface culture or whatever nonsense it is up to today, in favor of self improvement because the underlying culture is the real glue, there will always be an ever changing yet perpetually the same pop/surface culture making money whether of not i care about it or participate...

I guess I agree that blindly following your culture is likely to lead to self-disimprovement. So don't follow it. Just partake of the parts that you do like, that bring you closer to your fellow human beings. Participate, but don't obsess. Go to that Super Bowl party and enjoy the athleticism and vibrancy on display, and make fun of the commercials and the halftime show along with everyone else. You don't need to be a die-hard football fan to enjoy other people's presence.

This is awkward because it requires wearing a lot of hats. You have your self-improvement hat, your social event hat, your parent hat, your job hat, and so on. Each one demands something different from you and be inappropriate if you wear the wrong hat at the wrong time. This is a modern phenomenon. In a tribal village, people only had one hat: the me hat. You were the same person all day. This unnatural multi-hat state of affairs is simply a consequence of living in a modern, technical civilization. I wrote a bit about this here: http://hommelscitadel.com/the-many-stages-of-life/ Most of that is cribbed from David Chapman's Meaningness online book, particularly https://meaningness.com/systematic-mode. Highly recommended.

[Mountaineer]

I guess I agree that blindly following your culture is likely to lead to self-disimprovement. So don't follow it. Just partake of the parts that you do like, that bring you closer to your fellow human beings. Participate, but don't obsess. Go to that Super Bowl party and enjoy the athleticism and vibrancy on display, and make fun of the commercials and the halftime show along with everyone else. You don't need to be a die-hard football fan to enjoy other people's presence.

This is awkward because it requires wearing a lot of hats. You have your self-improvement hat, your social event hat, your parent hat, your job hat, and so on. Each one demands something different from you and be inappropriate if you wear the wrong hat at the wrong time. This is a modern phenomenon. In a tribal village, people only had one hat: the me hat. You were the same person all day. This unnatural multi-hat state of affairs is simply a consequence of living in a modern, technical civilization. I wrote a bit about this here: http://hommelscitadel.com/the-many-stages-of-life/ Most of that is cribbed from David Chapman's Meaningness online book, particularly https://meaningness.com/systematic-mode. Highly recommended.

Your comments (bolded) are similar to the Lutheran concept of vocation which has been around for five hundred years or so. For example, I have many vocations, some of which I had little to do with and as you said, requiring several different hats (i.e. knowledge, skills, behaviors, contributions). Some of my vocations: son, father, grandfather, great-grandfather, husband, uncle, nephew, neighbor, financial planner, investor, church member, home repairer, friend, home cleaner, car maintainer, etc. I find the concept of vocation to be helpful as I think about and define my responsibilities. I find that if I consciously consider appropriate goals, strategies, principles for each vocation, I'm less likely to drop something significant in the cracks, and if I focus on what I should be/do for others it helps me be far less self-centered than if I just focus on me and my pleasure. It also helps me make sure I'm using my time wisely and not sitting in front of the TV for hours of meaningless blather. For example, if I wish to be with my wife for as long as possible, I should take care of my health, stay financially astute, be kind and compassionate, meet her needs. If I care about my church family, I should support them with my time, talent and treasure. And so forth.