The Decline of Zen Habits

Principle 1: By setting limitations, we must choose the essential. So in everything you do, learn to set limitations.   Principle 2: By choosing the essential, we create great impact with minimal resources. Always choose the essential to maximize your time and energy.

LEO BABAUTA

In circa 2008, I discovered Zen Habits and Leo Babauta. I want to say that Leo changed my life, but he didn't. I was still an atheist back then. I was never a smoker, so I didn't need to learn how to quit smoking. I had no interest in his vegan advice, but I did like what he said about minimalism and simple living. Basically, Leo was a very practical giver of advice. Today, he is not practical at all with his turn to life coaching and fearless living and whatever. Today's Zen Habits is not the one I was reading back in 2008.

In 2011, Leo took a different direction and eschewed productivity advice in favor of simple living. He advised his readers to Toss Productivity Out and do less stuff. I think this is the moment that Leo lost his popularity and initial fanbase. This was the beginning of the decline of Zen Habits.

I remember that this was the time I stopped following Leo. I found his new posts to be insipid and unhelpful. The simple fact is that Leo tapped into the desire for people to improve themselves and gave them simple and practical advice for that improvement. Those tips still hold up today. Then, Leo started "washing his bowl" and meditating and telling people to "breathe." I couldn't breathe because I wanted to vomit.

The thing that Leo inspired in me was to create my own simple and practical advice. The nickname I gave to my version of things was "Blue Collar Habits." Basically, it was Zen Habits without the Zen. I think it would make a good book except my advice keeps changing as I learn better ways. The gist of the blue collar habits is to find simple and practical solutions to the problems of living. Leo got the simple part right, but he has lost the practical part.

There are other people in this lane. One of them is Tim Ferriss with his weird schemes. Another is Ryan Holiday with his modernized stoic philosophy. Then, there are The Minimalists who know one note of the song and play it over and over. All of these people have some good points to make but none of them nailed it like Leo did back in 2008. Leo was the complete package.

What do you do when you have quit smoking, eradicated your debt, achieved physical fitness, and learned how to manage your time and money? You face the fact that your life is empty and meaningless. Striving to achieve these goals gave your life purpose. With achievement comes emptiness which breeds anxiety. Hence, you have to go in a religious direction to find that fulfillment. For Leo, it was Zen Buddhism or his version of it. It doesn't matter because Zen is a dead end.

My religion is Roman Catholicism. I can recognize nuggets of wisdom in Buddhism, Confucius, the Stoics, the ancient Greek philosophers, and military leaders. As they say, "All wisdom is God's wisdom." The problem is that all of these paths are fundamentally a way to have religion without having God.

I have tried the religion without God stuff. It doesn't work. Your meditation is time you could have spent on taking a nap. Stoicism aims to make you feel calm in this awful world except you are never going to achieve this calm. Your emotions are never going to leave you. All you can do is control them and hide them.

I miss the old Zen Habits. But I don't really need it anymore. I find practical advice from other bloggers and YouTubers. I also aspire to give practical advice. The Gentle Reader will have to judge the practicality of that advice.

Common Sense From A Cyclist

And therein lies the rub, and where it gets toxic. As mentioned earlier, cyclists who aren’t riding fast or wearing lycra are looked down on and treated as “less than” by those cyclists who do. I see it every time I ride my bike. Every time.

RON FRAZELLE

This quotation comes from this very enlightening opinion piece:

Op-Ed: It’s Time for More of the Bike Industry to Evolve Beyond Toxic Racing Culture

https://bikerumor.com/op-ed-bike-industry-toxic-racing-culture/

Now, I am not a cyclist. In fact, I think cycling is stupid. It's not my thing. But the cyclist that wrote this opinion piece has touched on a subject that I have discussed here on various occasions. This would be the subject of marketing especially as it pertains to fitness and outdoor activities. Magazines and websites market these activities as sports as they drive up the price on unnecessary products and drive out the fun and pleasure. The consequence of this is that people choose to remain on the couch instead of getting old fashioned exercise like they used to before all of this craziness took off.

I have already seen this with walking versus running for fitness. Walking is an activity. Running is a sport. For some reason, running is seen as good exercise. People hate running, so they throw in the towel on fitness not realizing that walking is the better way to go.

The "toxic racing culture" is a product of marketing. Sports are nothing more than spectacles of marketing. They inspire people to buy the same gear and apparel as their sports heroes. It could be a pair of Air Jordans, a bike like Lance Armstrong, or name brand ski apparel like your favorite skiers. The irony is that most of the people who buy this crap don't do anything approaching what their heroes do. It is all vanity.

Those of us who have learned to reject this vanity get used to being looked at with disdain and derision. This comes when you reject the mindless herd and chart a new path. For me, the new path is really just the old path of common sense.

In the 1990's, I had a friend who drove a basic Nissan pickup truck. It was the small truck, so it was good on gas mileage. But it didn't have four wheel drive. It was not a sporty truck for off road adventures like a Jeep. It was as basic as a basic truck gets. When I asked him about the four wheel drive thing, he gave it to me straight. "Why do I need four wheel drive when it never leaves the pavement?"

My friend was absolutely correct. He needed a vehicle for light hauling and the daily commute to work. That's it. There's no snow in Florida, so he had zero need for the four wheel drive. It made an impression on me, and I resolved to buy the same kind of truck for myself.

Marketing is not aimed at showing you what you need. It is aimed at making you want what they have to sell to you. When it comes to bicycles, I think those utilitarian Dutch bicycles are awesome. They are not sporty, but they are great for transportation. They should sell those bicycles here in the USA, but they don't. The American public is too brainwashed to buy utilitarian bicycles.

I see the same thing with mothers and women who buy and drive meaty SUVs instead of sedans and minivans. They tool around in these off road vehicles that never leave the pavement. This burns considerable gasoline. That is a high price for vanity.

It is a real liberation to be set free from the mental prison of marketing. You begin to see all of the propaganda and manipulation for what it is. You realize that doing things you love to do doesn't take a lot of money. And you can ignore the herd.

Combox To The World And Other Things

My blog is a collection of answers people don’t want to hear to questions they didn’t ask.

SEBASTYNE YOUNG

On my Purpose page I wrote, "The purpose of this blog is to give me a platform to say what I think while giving everyone else the opportunity to ignore it." I have been blogging since 2005. This blog is actually the 2.0 version of Charlie's Blog. The first incarnation of the blog was filled with so much atheistic and libertarian idiocy and pornographic filth that it was easier to nuke the thing from orbit than try to salvage anything from it. My conversion to Roman Catholicism and a return to political conservatism made it necessary for me to resort to the nuclear option. I have no regrets on this.

I became a blogger after an accidental career as a messageboard and combox poster. Many of the things I wrote then were as long and as thoughtful as what appears on this blog. I also enjoyed the conversation and banter with the people that replied to those posts and comments. Then, some jerk running the site would delete what I took an hour to write. I know this impulse came more from jealousy than disagreement. The simple fact is that my comments overshadowed the creativity of the original writer of an article. The answer came when a fellow poster recommended that I start a blog. Blogs and blogging were new at the time, so I went for it. I never looked back.

Today, this blog is nothing more than my combox comments on things I read, watch, and hear. The difference is that what I write here can't be deleted. This is my platform. Charlie's Blog is my combox to the world.

I still write comments on things like YouTube videos, but I limit those comments to one or two sentences. That brevity makes it less irritating when my comments get deleted. No, I am not a troll. Trolls receive more toleration than me. What people want from a combox is an amen corner from people who are borderline imbeciles. Stupidity will be tolerated. Common sense will not be tolerated.

When social media came along, I was a natural for that medium. Today, those pits of distraction have the same problems as the comboxes and messageboards. For myself, I hate the addictive nature of social media. The delight is reading responses to what you have written and checking back in again and again. This is pride and vanity, so I eschew social media entirely now.

I used to get that same social media thrill when I had a combox here at the C-Blog. I don't care for an amen corner, but I do love when people disagree with me or challenge my thinking. I have a tremendously thick skin on things, and I get an adrenaline thrill from a contrary comment. I regretted having to shut down the combox after that doxxing incident, but I can't manage a combox at all. Rod Dreher said that you could have a good combox if you managed it well which means being a constant policeman. I don't care to do that. I find that it is easier to close the pool than sit out there being a lifeguard.

My policy now is to respond to things with blog posts instead of combox comments. I write what I think which leads to the being ignored part. When you write a combox comment, you have hijacked that audience for a bit. This is OK if you post forgettable comments. When the comments are unforgettable, you have problems. With a blog post, few people will ever read what you think.

In the real world of flesh and blood, I keep my opinions to myself. I just listen to people and try to take it all in. Once in a blue moon, I will slip and say something. I regret it every single time. I take those opinions that I keep to myself and share them with you, Gentle Reader.

I read other blogs, and those bloggers do the same thing I do. From their electronic soapboxes, they respond to news items and other bloggers. I think it is a good thing. The difference between those bloggers and myself is that I don't post responses to everything I read or hear. They post ten things per day. I publish one post weekly now. I don't think everything needs my commentary.

This is a long and drawn out preface to my thoughts about a recent Walking is Fitness podcast entitled "A Runner's Thoughts About Walking." Dave Paul's podcast is his combox to the world, and this podcast was in response to an article by a woman who took up walking to rehab from a running injury. Dave has this annoying habit of talking about things without giving a link or even a title to the source material. I had to do some googling to find the article. Here is the relevant quotation from that article:

I’ve always found walking boring, slow and, in all honesty, a waste of time. Why walk when you can run and get an adrenaline rush at the same time, and cover the distance twice as fast?

But running can take its toll on the body, which I discovered after completing a 250km ultra-marathon this summer. I tried cutting back on running but by September my physiotherapist advised me to have a "proper rest". This meant no running.

I have already said this before, and I will say it again. Running is stupid. Dave's podcast essentially said this without saying it. Dave Paul is polite to the point of being annoying. He also contradicts himself. In a previous podcast, he cited research that said running was not bad for your knees. In this podcast, he tells how his wife was on crutches with (wait for it) a knee injury from running. This injury was so bad that her doctor told her to not even walk on that knee or risk permanent impairment.

The cure for all running injuries is to stop running. Additionally, those running injuries can lead to crippling conditions where you can't even walk much less run. If your fitness activity puts you on crutches, that is a huge signal that you need to give up that activity for something safer and saner.

Dave Paul knows all of this. He just doesn't come out and say it. He resorts to a sort of telegraphy where he sends the message, but you have to know Morse code to decipher it. I know the code, so I will do the deciphering.

Running is stupid, but runners derive "personal satisfaction" from this fitness activity. This personal satisfaction is vanity. Runners are Type A people. When that runner is a Type A female, it means that she is a bitch.

WebMD says, "The phrase 'Type A' refers to a pattern of behavior and personality associated with high achievement, competitiveness, and impatience, among other characteristics." Any study on Type A characteristics will show why these people are attracted to running and uninterested in walking. Lily Canter said as much when she said that walking was boring, slow, and a waste of time. I appreciate her candor on the matter. She told me everything I already knew about her.

I am not a Type A person. Any Type A characteristics that I may have had developing were destroyed in my accident. This is why I am on the Gentle Path. This is also why I have a hard time fathoming why people continue running when it causes so much injury. They would rather be crippled than give up the pursuit of their vanity.

A Runner's Thoughts About Walking

https://dcs.megaphone.fm/TNM4449561210.mp3

I stopped running for a month and tried daily walks instead. Here are five things I learned

https://www.fitandwell.com/features/i-stopped-running-for-a-month-and-tried-daily-walks-instead-here-are-five-things-i-learned

What Is a Type A Personality?

https://www.webmd.com/balance/what-is-a-type-a-personality

The Mid-Tech Manifesto

 Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-two million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.

DOUGLAS ADAMS, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

People call me a Luddite. I get this when I whip out my flip phone to make a call or send a text. I don't have the latest and greatest technology. I admit this. But I reject the Luddite label because Luddites don't use flip phones or any phones. They send handwritten letters by Pony Express. I am a mid tech user, and this is my manifesto.

1. Technology should solve problems not create them.

I like wearing cheap Casio digital watches. Nothing epitomizes the mid tech user like those watches. They are not wind up analog watches that cost a fortune nor are they smartwatches that also cost a fortune. They are cheap watches that get the job done of telling time, the date, etc. Those geeky watches solve problems. Those other watches create problems especially when you have to wind them or recharge them every 8 hours.

I also use a flip phone instead of a smartphone. I make calls and send text messages. I do not have a landline telephone. As you can see, I am in the middle between the landline user and the smartphone owner. This is the mid-tech zone

2. Technology should be cheap and reliable.

I do not upgrade to the latest and greatest thing. This is because I can't afford it. Instead, I buy the low cost alternative which would be a Chromebook instead of a Macbook. You can get a Chromebook for less than $200 at Walmart. I can't say the same for the Macbook.

3. Technology should be simple.

I don't want a car with a touchscreen. I want a car with physical buttons. I don't think taking your eyes off the road to do things on a touchscreen is safe or smart. I also see no point in having all the appliances in a home connected to the internet. All of this amounts to ridiculous complications of devices that worked totally fine without them. Always go with the simple.

4. Be a late adopter.

I bought a Sony Walkman radio two decades ago. Later, I bought an iPod. Both are out of production now. I no longer use an iPod, but I use my Walkman daily. I wish I had never blown the money on the iPod. That experience taught me to not be in a rush to buy the latest and greatest piece of tech especially when it will become obsolete a year or two later.

You're not missing out on something by being the last person to adopt a new piece of technology. It will still be there when you decide it is worth buying. It will probably be better and cheaper as they have worked out the kinks and bugs. The reality is it will likely turn out to be a fad, and you will save a lot of money by not buying it.

5. Hang on to your old tech and physical media.

I did not throw away my books when I bought my Kindle. Today, I am more inclined to throw away the Kindle. I also keep my CDs and DVDs. I hate vinyl records, but I still like cassette tapes. I subscribe to my town's newspaper. I am never in a rush to declutter "obsolete" tech and media.

Conclusion

The mid-tech strategy is just sensibility applied to the field of technology. It is not a rejection of technology but simply taking the slow road on gizmos and gadgets. When a new piece of tech proves itself to be cheap, simple, and reliable, I will buy it. I have not regretted being the last person in line on this stuff. I regret being at the head of the line. This will never happen to me again.

Sensibility Applied To The Political Dimension

There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs.

THOMAS SOWELL

When I was young, I was a Republican and a conservative. This began when I was in middle school and ended when I turned 30 and became an atheist. The reason I was a conservative was because I was a Christian. I think politics is an extension of your religious beliefs. When I lost my religion, I did a pivot into libertarianism. I could never become a Democrat or a Marxist. I am grateful that reading Ayn Rand was as nutty as I ever got. Then, God opened my eyes, and I became a Roman Catholic in my forties. This led to me becoming a "born again" conservative. Today, I consider myself to be a paleoconservative which I define as a reality based libertarian. I think paleoconservatism is the most sensible political position to take. Here is that sensibility applied to a few topics.

1. The lesser of two evils

When I was a libertarian, I considered voting to be a waste of time. When I did do it, I would waste that vote on libertarian candidates. If voting is a waste of time, voting for candidates who have no chance of winning is certainly a waste of time. This would be anyone who isn't a Republican. Third party voting or not voting ends up being a vote for the greater of two evils.

I have never been happy with the GOP candidates that made it to the general election. I vote my beliefs in the primaries, but I pinch my nose in the general election. When Romney ran against Obama, I couldn't vote for Mitt. Four years later, I wish Mitt Romney had won. Life in the USA would have been better. Today, we are still suffering from that election in 2012.

I am totally for voting for the lesser of the two evils. I am not so naive as to believe my single vote matters, but I do have a moral obligation to participate in civic affairs. I am not voting for Utopia. I am voting to prevent this world from descending completely into chaos and hell.

2. Minarchy

One of the things that I share with libertarians is a belief in small government. I believe government should be as small as possible. This makes me a minarchist. I am not an anarchist. I believe in law and order, the police, national defense, and public roads. I don't think all functions of government can be replaced with a profit driven corporation. I accept that taxes are the price we pay for government, but those taxes should be as low as possible. Sadly, small government conservatism has vanished, but I still believe in it.

3. Republics

I am not a monarchist. Some Roman Catholics champion monarchy forgetting what God had to say about monarchy in the Bible. Here is what God said,

And the word was displeasing in the eyes of Samuel, that they should say: Give us a king, to judge us. And Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel: Hearken to the voice of the people in all that they say to thee. For they have not rejected thee, but me, that I should not reign over them.  According to all their works, they have done from the day that I brought them out of Egypt until this day: as they have forsaken me, and served strange gods, so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken to their voice: but yet testify to them, and foretell them the right of the king, that shall reign over them. Then Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people that had desired a king of him,

And said: This will be the right of the king, that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and put them in his chariots, and will make them his horsemen, and his running footmen to run before his chariots, And he will appoint of them to be his tribunes, and centurions, and to plough his fields, and to reap his corn, and to make him arms and chariots. Your daughters also he will take to make him ointments, and to be his cooks, and bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your best oliveyards, and give them to his servants. Moreover he will take the tenth of your corn, and of the revenues of your vineyards, to give his eunuchs and servants.

Your servants also and handmaids, and your goodliest young men, and your asses he will take away, and put them to his work. Your flocks also he will tithe, and you shall be his servants. And you shall cry out in that day from the face of the king, whom you have chosen to yourselves. and the Lord will not hear you in that day, because you desired unto yourselves a king. But the people would not hear the voice of Samuel, and they said: Nay: but there shall be a king over us. And we also will be like all nations: and our king shall judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles for us.

1 SAMUEL 8:6-20 DOUAY-RHEIMS

Before King Saul and King David, judges and elders governed the people of Israel. This was essentially a republic much like the Romans had. It was not perfect, but it worked. Today, most countries around the world function as republics. This is the form of government for nations with modest ambitions. It is when they turn imperial that they clamor for a king and an emperor. This is the "strong man" impulse which is inimical to peace, freedom, and prosperity. Today, the neoconservative movement champions this imperialist viewpoint.

I am a monarchist because I believe in the Kingship of Christ. Jesus Christ is my only king. Unlike the Israelites, I want God for my king. Unlike the neoconservatives, I think we should withdraw from meddling in international affairs. I do not believe in Empire America. I think the USA was better off when it minded its own business. Today, we are on the verge of bankruptcy and war because of this neoconservative garbage. Everything God said about the king in the Bible remains true even today. 

4. Religion

The Founders believe that there could be no liberty without self-government. Without religion, virtue, and morality, your nation will descend into anarchy followed by tyranny. If you fear going out at night because of the criminal element, you grasp the concept. Our country has become estranged from God, and we are suffering the consequences.

Religion makes people better which leads to people having the freedom to do the good. This is opposed to those silly libertarian notions that freedom is the ability to do as you please so long as no one gets hurt. For some reason, this libertarian garbage is ending up with a lot of hurt people.

We need religion to be free. We cannot be free without it. Abstract libertarian notions of freedom will not suffice. The laws of the land should reflect the laws of God. Without God, life in this country is rapidly declining. This is why a guy like Putin acknowledges the need for religion's role in building a strong society. He is no saint, but he can see reality. Atheism didn't do any favors for Russia.

Conclusion

I am in the minority with these viewpoints except I have God and reality on my side. Libertarianism, socialism, and neoconservatism are idiotic. They are out of touch with reality and common sense. Sensibility demands a return to Christianity and embracing paleoconservativism. There is no perfection in this world. But there is a better world that we can have that beats the nightmare of the perfectionists. This is the world I want to live in until my particular judgment and the Second Coming.