Is physical world really that interesting?
You escape, said Abe Marx, into your books. I didn't have the wit then, quite, for the obvious riposte: I escape, when I feel the need, into what all you bullies insist is reality. I study birds, library patrons, local politicians. Sometimes I garden. Sometimes I watch the Sox. Sometimes I drink. I keep a neat house and I pay my taxes, all in the real world. But I don't live there.
— Jincy Willett, Winner of the National Book Award
I think this won't surprise anyone here, but I'm more of a bookish person. Sensory input is of course important to me, but I've never prioritized it over, or like it more, than more abstract stimuli coming from books, thoughts, systems, computers and so on.
Some might think that it's just an introvert speaking, but I don't think so, because there are many introverts that I think enjoy interacting with the physical world more than anything (SJ and SP, if you're into MBTI). I'm also not really a neurodivergent person, so I cannot really file it as that.
I feel that in general, in the current world, sensory things are valued more and are assumed to be the ones you should aim for. Traveling, seeing things for yourself, experiencing different environments, cultures, tasting food, dressing in nice clothes, sports are all nice things, I won't claim otherwise, but for me are not really that stimulating comparing to things from other genres.
I think every psychologist worth their salt will agree that life should be a balanced act, and I, of course, agree. But I cannot stop wondering, where is the line drawn? Is there even a line like that? How would one measure this, but not in like "let's ask people about that" way?
If I don't travel and read books instead, or develop some new system on my computer, does life really pass me by? or is it passing by the person who will never know why it isn't sustainable to live by rules of some broken system in the real world?
I wonder about Death, the I would say physical event par excellence. Even here, what's interesting seems to be what happens after it, not the event itself. Some people just assume nothing happens, because the physical plane is ending, then so is everything else. Some people assume that since the physical plane is ending, we can finally start living.
I've read an article the other day, again dumping on Zoomers, that they prefer to stay inside and chat and play online with their friends instead of meeting them in person. I wonder, as is often the case with such articles, what's really wrong with that? It's nice to meet in person, but is it by definition better than chatting or reading someone that we like, but can't meet for various reasons?
I might be getting too philosophical here, but I just hope you get the idea of my inquest. I'd still like to point out, just for safety reasons, that I don't mean that I'm better or smarter than someone just because I have preferences that are considered smartassy by some poeple. I've known and know many people that are intelligent as hell and can be inspiring while being pragmatic, doer-like and here-and-now. Just think about Tony Soprano.
And yes, sex is nice.