![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
daYesterday in Quaker Meeting, someone spoke about walking El Camino de Santiago. He saw wagon-tracks that initially looked like they were in mud, but on inspection, turned out to be worn into the stone. He said they also saw trees that he says were planted over 1,000 years ago. He concluded, "What impact could I have on the world that could last 1,000 years?"
This question can lead in all sorts of interesting directions. During Meeting, I was thinking how living with that as a guiding principle is invariably a recipe for Doing Nothing at All or ego-driven tilting at windmills. And simultaneously, I think there is value in being forward thinking; and there isn't harm in occasionally dreaming about the far future, even if it is hubris.
When I mentioned the original question to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
melted_snowball, he said nearly everyone's impact will be no more than the consumption of resources over their lifetime. This can be argued by looking at the number of people alive at any given time, and how relatively few people have an impact that we can see. (Right? Is that the best summary for that argument?)
My reaction was quite different. I say there are millions of effects we might not be able to directly attribute, but are still important. Granted, most of those effects couldn't be measured on the scale of a year or 100 years, let alone over the course of a millennium, but I say they exist. You might ask, "these effects are important in what way?" I would respond, either they're important to God; or they're just part of the bigger mystery. This is a common thread among mystics, I think, and one I can't find a good argument against.
At least, I think if one lives one's life as if any action could have an effect in a year, ten years, 100 years, it's good incentive toward wanting to be a better person.
I'd be fascinated to hear where this question leads you.
This question can lead in all sorts of interesting directions. During Meeting, I was thinking how living with that as a guiding principle is invariably a recipe for Doing Nothing at All or ego-driven tilting at windmills. And simultaneously, I think there is value in being forward thinking; and there isn't harm in occasionally dreaming about the far future, even if it is hubris.
When I mentioned the original question to
melted_snowball, he said nearly everyone's impact will be no more than the consumption of resources over their lifetime. This can be argued by looking at the number of people alive at any given time, and how relatively few people have an impact that we can see. (Right? Is that the best summary for that argument?)My reaction was quite different. I say there are millions of effects we might not be able to directly attribute, but are still important. Granted, most of those effects couldn't be measured on the scale of a year or 100 years, let alone over the course of a millennium, but I say they exist. You might ask, "these effects are important in what way?" I would respond, either they're important to God; or they're just part of the bigger mystery. This is a common thread among mystics, I think, and one I can't find a good argument against.
At least, I think if one lives one's life as if any action could have an effect in a year, ten years, 100 years, it's good incentive toward wanting to be a better person.
I'd be fascinated to hear where this question leads you.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
ripples
Date: Monday, 9 October 2006 08:05 pm (UTC)Dan and I went to see Steve Wozniak Friday night at UW.
I work with and go see a lot of famous people. Not a new experience. Dan, not so much. He got his old Apple II manual signed and said his mumbly inspiration bit and still felt vaguely dissatisfied.
There's a sad feeling you get when meeting someone who you admire greatly, who has affected the course of your life. They made such a big impact on you. But there's nothing you can say to them that will change their life, nothing that will be different from what they've heard from thousands of people before.
I'm glad you used the word 'ripples' because now I am visualizing it as a reflection of their action coming back to them.
Not everyone gets to be the stone chucked into the pond. Your positive interaction is still a gift back to that person, even if individually it won't have the same impact.
Every vote counts. Etc.
Re: ripples
Date: Thursday, 12 October 2006 01:06 am (UTC)I've actually asked that question of people who get themselves stuck onto pedestals despite their best wishes (Perl luminaries. OK, you can stop laughing. But perl programmers do a fair job at elevating the language authors to deityhood.)
The major comment from them is, it's just as annoying from the other side. They prefer to be treated as normal people, too. If they're forced to be up on this high pedestal... it gets lonely and annoying.
But yeah, you're pointing at one of those very asymetrical social situations which is bound to be a bit disappointing if you really want it to be symetrical.
But... person to person, it might distill down to "Thank you." "You're welcome." Which can be a meaningful interaction, if both sides want it to be!
Re: ripples
Date: Thursday, 12 October 2006 01:31 am (UTC)http://mapletree7.blogspot.com
Re: ripples
Date: Thursday, 12 October 2006 01:44 am (UTC)And now you're syndicated, so I won't forget. :)
Re: ripples
Date: Thursday, 12 October 2006 01:45 am (UTC)