MetabolicTrash
Member
We live in a constantly "updated" world now -- social media, technocracy, dog-eat-dog, etc. Mostly everyone is always trying to improve their game, often at the cost of many others -- nothing new probably in a sense, but it's the effect over time that might matter now. I find that it's hard to excel at anything because everyone is already excelled at it -- or nobody can scratch the surface anymore since a few "top dogs" have it done down a certain, superior way. It's a bit binary, but I feel that with so much saturation of things it does literally appear to function more as a binary where you're the one struggling to be noticed, or you're the one who everyone knows and has it good.
Plenty here have probably heard of the idea, "You need a job to get a job." Well, just imagine that applied to, well, anything:
1. You need friends to make friends;
2. You need to have money to earn more money;
3. You need to be an achiever to achieve great things;
4. You must be healthy enough to improve health further.
Ironically I see some truth in all, but it does depend on circumstances and viewpoint much like anything. Even here people agree with some sense that health is only going to improve if you improve it before trying to improve it -- or in other words you must swim yourself to a pool floaty while semi-drowning before getting a hitch on a fancy cruise ship or just a dinghy maybe. All people I have known tend to only make more friends from the friends they've already made -- it's a different ball park to just tell a cave hermit with poor hygiene, unpleasant looks and no connection to society in any way to "make friends" the same way you tell a college student who has made his/her marks as they developed through and within social protocols somewhat (even though you can have friends and not really be friendly too just as you can make more money with some money without really needing any "special skills" or such).
When there is less of something it makes it easier to make your mark. If there are small neighborhoods, towns or even villages it's easier to socialize more since your value as a person might be increased easier with less choices, much like a vanilla shake is a luxury when you can only come across one every week, no matter your richness or resourcefulness, whereas it's more bound to become a "meh" thing if you can and do have it very often. If I develop an app I have only millions to compete with, whereas in 2010 if I did so I could've been on the front few "pages" (as opposed to be buried in the thousands). When things get too big they become so abundant, in-demand and valuable that few might be so good and most are just there or not of much appeal other than a "maybe I'll try it" approach from some. You can't really feasibly expect success just by honing a skill since that very same skill has not only been honed but altered, modified and made with sprinkles, cream/whipped topping, candies and more above and beyond any basic selling point of something. It's like a turtle told to work on its speed to compete against a hare (rabbit) -- only this time the markets are filled with many turtles and fewer hares, but the hares are the ones always keeping the collective approach, tally, or regimen of footing/standing ahead while the massive swarm of turtles try and even do a single lap/basic rank. Even with friends and social interactions you get people taking it all for granted -- you get "friends group" rather than "friend" since you must divide the excess between more and stretch everything thinner, while at the same time not getting the genuine, fuller possible experience or value of some things because they are (resourcefully) "overspent" or (marketing-wise) "overdone" to where it's too much to go through, or too little to go around far enough.
When the "almighty dollar" stretches it seemingly has more hands to go to, but then what you can do with so little money and higher costs makes it seem bad that more money becomes available just on the basis of "more" physical money in more hands. What good is (barely) any more money for everyone when everything is always driving up costs more such as to make it no different than what you had previously? People sometimes say you need to be so "great" to even be deserving of a single dollar for a service you provide (in heed of excellent quality demanded) while then telling you to go work a menial job that pays much more, to the value of near nothingness. Isn't that ironic and demoralizing? Something I do is worth nothing unless it is of supreme value, but at the same time I am told to work for more value than what I requested on the basis of not having the supremeness to attain that lower value anyways (i.e., menial job paying more per hour than anyone will pay me for one single time for a work, goods or product I produce). The perfect example of the paradox of value is that you can get nothing for lots of work honing your craft because you aren't valuable enough to earn chump change, whereas you are supposedly valuable enough to go to college, become smart, get a high paying job at will and nothing else, and also make whatever you want anyways (but that $5 for video editing requires unique, God-like skills -- it's not just that it's not a feasible approach due to market saturation and other circumstantial factors). But anyone can always work for minimum wage at McDonald's and that should never be questioned.
I mean it's even so bad that people fight for ads/bidding on the internet in a way some just ten years ago may have not predicted. There is simply so much weight that the floor beneath starts to crack, and many cannot quickly enough solve how to remain supported rather than just fall down to the lower ranks in many life endeavors. Whether it be actors, doctors, "specialists" or just your low-earning, self-employed type person trying to scrape by with something they know in this world, all of the excess of everything only makes it harder for everyone rather than more convenient, as it enhances the market from the perspective of the potential seeker, buyer or looker, but destroys the ability for more and more to make anything of something so far stretched out and monopolized that few -- if any -- can have a share of the ginormous pie of abundance or opportunity. It's kind of a paradox because -- at the same time the "market" of things keeps seemingly growing (and presumably getting better at first) -- it seems like it keeps getting less and less possible to make any good use of it anymore.
Plenty here have probably heard of the idea, "You need a job to get a job." Well, just imagine that applied to, well, anything:
1. You need friends to make friends;
2. You need to have money to earn more money;
3. You need to be an achiever to achieve great things;
4. You must be healthy enough to improve health further.
Ironically I see some truth in all, but it does depend on circumstances and viewpoint much like anything. Even here people agree with some sense that health is only going to improve if you improve it before trying to improve it -- or in other words you must swim yourself to a pool floaty while semi-drowning before getting a hitch on a fancy cruise ship or just a dinghy maybe. All people I have known tend to only make more friends from the friends they've already made -- it's a different ball park to just tell a cave hermit with poor hygiene, unpleasant looks and no connection to society in any way to "make friends" the same way you tell a college student who has made his/her marks as they developed through and within social protocols somewhat (even though you can have friends and not really be friendly too just as you can make more money with some money without really needing any "special skills" or such).
When there is less of something it makes it easier to make your mark. If there are small neighborhoods, towns or even villages it's easier to socialize more since your value as a person might be increased easier with less choices, much like a vanilla shake is a luxury when you can only come across one every week, no matter your richness or resourcefulness, whereas it's more bound to become a "meh" thing if you can and do have it very often. If I develop an app I have only millions to compete with, whereas in 2010 if I did so I could've been on the front few "pages" (as opposed to be buried in the thousands). When things get too big they become so abundant, in-demand and valuable that few might be so good and most are just there or not of much appeal other than a "maybe I'll try it" approach from some. You can't really feasibly expect success just by honing a skill since that very same skill has not only been honed but altered, modified and made with sprinkles, cream/whipped topping, candies and more above and beyond any basic selling point of something. It's like a turtle told to work on its speed to compete against a hare (rabbit) -- only this time the markets are filled with many turtles and fewer hares, but the hares are the ones always keeping the collective approach, tally, or regimen of footing/standing ahead while the massive swarm of turtles try and even do a single lap/basic rank. Even with friends and social interactions you get people taking it all for granted -- you get "friends group" rather than "friend" since you must divide the excess between more and stretch everything thinner, while at the same time not getting the genuine, fuller possible experience or value of some things because they are (resourcefully) "overspent" or (marketing-wise) "overdone" to where it's too much to go through, or too little to go around far enough.
When the "almighty dollar" stretches it seemingly has more hands to go to, but then what you can do with so little money and higher costs makes it seem bad that more money becomes available just on the basis of "more" physical money in more hands. What good is (barely) any more money for everyone when everything is always driving up costs more such as to make it no different than what you had previously? People sometimes say you need to be so "great" to even be deserving of a single dollar for a service you provide (in heed of excellent quality demanded) while then telling you to go work a menial job that pays much more, to the value of near nothingness. Isn't that ironic and demoralizing? Something I do is worth nothing unless it is of supreme value, but at the same time I am told to work for more value than what I requested on the basis of not having the supremeness to attain that lower value anyways (i.e., menial job paying more per hour than anyone will pay me for one single time for a work, goods or product I produce). The perfect example of the paradox of value is that you can get nothing for lots of work honing your craft because you aren't valuable enough to earn chump change, whereas you are supposedly valuable enough to go to college, become smart, get a high paying job at will and nothing else, and also make whatever you want anyways (but that $5 for video editing requires unique, God-like skills -- it's not just that it's not a feasible approach due to market saturation and other circumstantial factors). But anyone can always work for minimum wage at McDonald's and that should never be questioned.
I mean it's even so bad that people fight for ads/bidding on the internet in a way some just ten years ago may have not predicted. There is simply so much weight that the floor beneath starts to crack, and many cannot quickly enough solve how to remain supported rather than just fall down to the lower ranks in many life endeavors. Whether it be actors, doctors, "specialists" or just your low-earning, self-employed type person trying to scrape by with something they know in this world, all of the excess of everything only makes it harder for everyone rather than more convenient, as it enhances the market from the perspective of the potential seeker, buyer or looker, but destroys the ability for more and more to make anything of something so far stretched out and monopolized that few -- if any -- can have a share of the ginormous pie of abundance or opportunity. It's kind of a paradox because -- at the same time the "market" of things keeps seemingly growing (and presumably getting better at first) -- it seems like it keeps getting less and less possible to make any good use of it anymore.
Last edited:
