Lifespan is not appealing, unless you have a quality of life worth living. One maxim I've enjoyed is "Live each moment as if, if you were going to live it internally, that, that would be a good thing". Then, things (longevity) get really interesting. This is what is meant to be gleaned from Peter Attia's term "healthspan". It suits what it is. It just sounds dorky.
good (lifespan) = X
First off, if how you derive meaning in life is by doing good in the world, --whatever that looks like for you-- then poor lifespan is a non-starter. In other words, good is a function of lifespan.
One definition of better that I like, a nihilistic proof definition, is "everything you used to be able to do, and more". It's perfectionistic in nature. It's still an interesting one. Lifespan is the most obvious example of how can actually implement this.
Good is also a function of performance, of sorts, but they have to be factored into the equation of your life in a fascinating way
Thinking about why I have an obsession with the bulletproof lifestyle I have a few thoughts. Specifically there is this cluster of ideas that is very enticing. This being:
There is an effortless way to what you want, if you make the right decisions for your aim, strategically. Or in summery. Better choices.
The term "upgraded" summarizes it nicely, as well as the BP diet book's chapter 2's title “What you think is good for you might be making you fat, sick, and stupid“
This is what is captivating about Bulletproof.
Underplaying the role of hard work, unlike every fitness anything, is probably this "philosophy's" biggest downfall, while being its largest conversion asset.
Anyhoo, these are just some thoughts on lifespan, healthspan, bulletproof, and the like. I'm still working on clarifying my thoughts on how longevity should optimally be thought about for us humans. I'd be a delight to hear how other people think about this if you wouldn't mind leaving a comment.
See ya leter,
I'm thinking a lot about relationships lately. One primary perception augmenter are the Gestalts we have for relationships. Here are a few of the ways I would deconstruct our relationship types.
On a first date, you both want to get to know each other (date, not hookup). Yet many people have a hard time knowing how to cut to the core of someone. It can be tricky. Carrers are more or less chosen for money. Looks are inherited. How can you find out what is truly them? Their character?
That is this trait.
My tactic here is to ask what they do in their free time, or enjoy doing? This elevates the conversation to a level I want to have with just about anybody. (Thought there are "boring" people out there, who are dead set on making all the basic bitch life decisions they can, and oddly enough, actually telling you that!)
Some people love a volume of people, and keep a touch base with a fuck ton of people --extraverts-- .
Extraversion is normally distributed, so most people (like me) are only mildly extraverted or intraverted, but ohhh the outliers. Extraverts can have a huge advantage. As some aspects of socializing are largely a numbers game.
The 3rd independent variable I think about in someones relationship temperament is their long term conflict metablilisation. Metablilisation, not relationship resolution, or personal compromise, because a resolution is not always possible, and a compromise not always wise (especially if just dating). Though those attributes are more virtuous than not.
What I'm talking about is awareness, decrement, and wisdom when it comes to these kinds of relationship fuckery.
This ability essentially helps one to adapt when people around you are going haywire.
These are just a few ways of thinking about the constituents of our relationships with other human beings. It's definitely not conclusive. Perhaps I'll write more parallel thoughts about this as they pop into my head.
If you have any thoughts I'd love to hear how other people think about these topics so I can change my thinking for the better.