On movement

Movement is an interesting phenomenon in the sense that it is dependent on both temporal and spatial dimensions. As per definition, speed is the distance covered over a period of time. Thus speed requires two different metrics before it can be determined: a concept of distance/length (typically e.g. meters) and a concept of time (typically e.g. seconds). It is thus synthetic in the sense that it combines two fundamental building blocks to construct a third element. Speed is useful as it implies movement of sorts, and if we value movement, we can say that we value A more than B if the speed (or velocity) of A is higher than B.

This trail of thought is useful on a personal level as well, as it gives us a very simple framework for analyzing the relative movement and the associated speed that we are able to achieve in our personal lives. Very often, especially in western economies, the metric of distance is synonymous to wealth. This means that the faster we gain more wealth, the better. But the framework itself need not be this simplistic, as wealth is a difficult metric and spawns many different feelings from a wide range of people. Wealth may be a good metric in some cases and a very bad metric in others. But if we replace wealth with a function x(a, b, ...), which takes into account different aspects of ones life, and where each given attribute is given a weight of w(a), w(b), ..., this may become a very interesting exercise indeed. Thus, as per our definition, speed is measured by the delta of x(a, b, ...), when we also give the function a temporal dimension and judge the change in the value of x.

What I'm aiming at with this analogy is that people might be well off if the every once in a while evaluate what they've actually achieved (x(a, b, ...)) and reflect that against their on values (w(a), w(b), ...). If no movement is perceived, then something must be fundamentally wrong as the individual is stagnating. This might imply that the individual is already at a local or global maximum, i.e. the person is already as satisfied in life as he or she can be and thus does not benefit from any additional movements. But as this is rarely this case, we might as will just work towards optimizing our movement in general.

Class reunions are brilliant position of time to stop and see what your x() function looks like and compare it to that of others. Sometimes you get motivated by seeing how others are progressing with life, and at other times you get disheartened by the amount of confusion and lack of direction that young adults present. I was recently discussion about the fates of various people with an old classmate of mine at a local bar and this lack of coherent direction was one that was obvious, especially this the so-called mid-crowd. What I mean by this is that the ones who more or less dropped out of the "pre-academic" scene after junior high school are now already trying to manage a family. On the other hand, there are the people who aimed academically higher and possibly also have an academic career to show for. These are the two extreme opposites, but both are able to demonstrate tangible movement, albeit they have fundamentally very different values (as determined by the very different weights, i.e. w(a), w(b), ...).

Now, the third class are the people who fall between the two. The people who may have previously shown academic promise, but discarded that path in favor of other alternatives. What is typical in these people again is very often the situation that they have also discarded the career-building option that the people who began that phase right after junior high. Very often they are also ones who demonstrate long-term relationships that lack tangible progress as well. It is very difficult to see very rapid movement of any sorts for these people, as they seem to just idle away. But interestingly enough it may just be, that traditionally the easiest ways of interpreting this framework do not apply here. These are not the people who work their arses off at manual labor, making sure that the wheels keep turning. Neither are these the people who contribute the most intellect or the most effort into building the systems and constructs that the world is based on. These are the people that go home at 5 PM. But in fact, this might be precisely the group that is fundamental to the backbone of the society. I have to admit that very often I may poke fun at them and ridicule them for the lack of obvious movement, mistaking them for dead. But it is this more or less silent and unnoticeable group, the very middle, which may in fact be the one that is the crucial glue between the other two ends of the system. The connecting factors without which the wheels don't touch each other and things fall apart.

As a fairly analytical person, I analyze my doings very much through the framework of movement, as described above. If I don't see myself moving, then I try to figure out what has happened and try to solve it. But these traditional metrics of movement may not, in fact, be applicable to all. They may work for me, but maybe that's because I'm a lost cause in the first place. And maybe it implies that we are in fact using the wrong metrics at large and that even though I still argue that people like me are important, it may be that in fact even I might need to take a longer look at the mediocre people at the class reunions and actually see the slow but steady movement that they are demonstrating. Maybe that type of movement is more sustainable than the movement that may be more apparent in strongly competitive fields.