Meaning and Purpose; The Renaissance Approach

In the last two blogs I considered two possibilities of finding meaning for our lives; an extrinsic approach, wherein we assume an Outside Source, God, Etc., as the source of meaning and purpose, and the designer of the system we know as reality, or; an intrinsic approach in which we assume that definitions of meaning and purpose come from within ourselves, that the universe as we experience it has no purpose, that we, along with all living things, slithered out of the primordial mush a few million years ago and here we are, responsible for creating our own meaning.

 Such a huge subject should not really be blogged, and my intent is not to pronounce some new insight. Rather, I’m asking myself, “What is the Renaissance approach to the quandary that these approaches presents?”

 Which of the two views of reality is most likely to be true? How should we live if we honestly find neither approach completely fulfilling or consistent, or broad enough to answer our wonderings?

  Here’s what I’ve come up with. I’ve called it, “Provisional Universalism”.

Provisional Universalism

 Provisional Universalism has only two Creeds:

•  The Golden Rule
• “What ever is true, I believe” (Admit it; it’s a lot easier to memorize than the Apostles’s Creed…)

The Golden Rule

  The first credo is pretty straight forward. Most of us agree that the Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you“ works. Not so many would propose it as half of a religion, perhaps, but stick with me.

 The nice thing about the Golden Rule is that it pretty much covers all the details of decent behavior and social law in one swell foop, so to speak. In fact, nearly all the detailed laws and rules and advice for getting on together come back to this simple idea. Oddly, following the Golden Rule is not as comfortable for us as we first think, because if we take it seriously, it must cause a bit of discomfort. Here are some applications:

•  If you would not enjoy losing all your money in a Ponzi scheme, don’t start one yourself. (Easy!)
•  If you don’t like getting your nose smashed in, don’t smash someone else’s nose in. (Easy!)
• If you don’t like it when someone screams at you when you nearly missed your exit, and you merge into the right hand lane more abruptly than you should, don’t throw the bird at someone who cuts you off:  They may be lost rather than obnoxious. (Not quite as easy…)
•  If you do not enjoy it when people get upset with you if you don’t understand something on the first try, don’t put your spouse down when he or she seems a little dense to you. (It’s getting harder..)
• If you don’t enjoy being thought of as a complete jerk because of your diatribes against those with whom you disagree, give the opposing thinkers a chance to respond in a civil manner. (Glen Beck will probably remain a Mormon rather than join the Provisional Universalist Movement…)

Interestingly, we all know that the Golden Rule works – it’s a basic part of all major religions – but we have a terrible time living by it. Hence, it presents a great option for monk-like dedication ( without the discomfort of celibacy and monastery isolation). Think what would happen if, every day, your Holy Goal was to simply treat everybody you met as you wished to be treated. This is not trivial! It could be transformational!

  The Second Credo (seems it should be capitalized if this religion is to gain any traction at all) gets a bit dicey.

“What ever is true, I believe”

 My earlier blogs on this were a shot at acknowledging the difficulty in honestly figuring out what is really going on here. What’s it rally all about?

 On one hand we have the “godly”, on the other the “ungodly”. On one hand we have meaning and purpose defined for us by The Creator.  On the other we are on our own.   And for the Renaissance Person, there remains the apparently unsolvable riddle of which of the two is right. Which really defines reality?

 Both are riddled with the unbelievable. Perhaps a Great Big Guy In The Sky spun this whole reality of our into existence, but His plan rather stinks. It’s got lots of unneeded problems like cancer and genocide and the Taliban. On the other, it is a pretty big stretch to imagine the complexity of the world we know as the result of some Big Bang, and a subsequent series of random chemical reactions, mutations and natural selections that led to a human being named William Shakespeare (or Thomas Jefferson, or Steven Hawking).

 So the Renaissance approach, “Provisional Universalism” simply admits that the whole thing is a mystery, endeavors to understand that which is understandable and gets about the business of living the Renaissance Life. Hence the Second Credo, “What ever is true, I believe”.

 Next time I’ll drill down a little into Provisional Universalism. (It really does have some substance…)

 For now, give it some thought.

 You have your beliefs; are they unassailable?  Others have their beliefs; are they really nonsense?   Since you really can’t know the whole truth, what are you going to do if you want to follow a Renaissance path?

 Cheers until next time.

Intrinsic Meaning and the Renaissance Life

Last blog I took a poke at extrinsic meaning (or purpose) for our lives. Today I’ll chat a bit about the intrinsic aspect of life’s meaning.

 (By the way; forgive me that this stuff is a bit superficial. Smarter folks than I have spent lifetimes plumbing the depths of this question, as should we, if we want to live Renaissance lives. I’m simply sharing an approach that has been helpful to me in my exploration.)

Meaning & Purpose are What I Make Them

Simply stated, intrinsic meaning or purpose means we cook up our own meaning for our lives. We don’t rely on anything outside of our own thinking; not God, or other people, or tradition, or whatever. We check out the landscape, figure what is meaningful to us and get about the business of living in ways that are consistent with our definition of meaning and purpose.

 This approach, without a few constraints or guidelines, makes it hard to judge whether our purpose or our view of meaning is of real value. Indeed, there are no judgments to be made, since whatever I decide is meaningful for me is my meaning. It matters not what you think. And it matters not what I think of your definition.

 In a purely intrinsic world it’s all up to each of us; purpose, morality, our definition of right and wrong, our allegiance to integrity, the whole ball of wax. The limit on our personal purpose is legal; if I decide my purpose is to steal as much money as possible because I am clever and it makes me feel good to outsmart the schmucks of the world whom I can fool, eventually I will come up against a few laws that derail my purpose, if I get caught. But who wrote the law that derails my purpose? Other human beings who decided my view was untenable. So morality and meaning are a kind of subjective democracy; most people feel that it’s wrong to murder; hence, it’s wrong to murder.

Should the moral consensus swing (as apparently it has in certain quarters of late) and if murder became widely acceptable, a die-hard intrinsicist could only accept it.  Maybe, (he or she would be forced to think), the overpopulation of the planet is pushing our evolution toward the view that ”murder is fine” so we as a species can be instrumental in relieving the burden of too many humanoids messing about with our dwindling resources.
Religious people label this approach subjective and not much more than a precursor to anarchy. They invoke God as the original law-maker and morality-definer and the foundation upon which we build meaning and purpose. But atheism is not a necessary tenet of intrinsic purpose. Everyone I know who believes in God adds a hefty dose of intrinsic interpretation to God’s ideas. (One wonders if God recognizes some of His ideas after the religious zealots get finished with them.)

 Thoughtful “intrinsicists” recognize a consistency in mankind’s definition of meaning and purpose. But rather than ascribing it to God, they assume that through eons of evolution, during which self-preservation and the passing on of genes to the next generation were the driving forces of human life, and during which our brains became capable of self-consciousness and complex thought, we came to realize that certain ways of behaving increased our chances of survival. One supposes what happened next was the biological internalization of a sense that “purpose” and “meaning” are real aspects of human life, along with the development of what we call a conscience and a categorization of “right” and “wrong”.

They Eat Lions, Don’t they?

If the somewhat universal development of purpose, meaning and morality are intrinsic, the remarkable consistency of humankind’s notion of what is meaningful is peculiar and not all together logical. I have spent a lot of time wondering how the amoral biochemical-mechanical-physical system that is I, could come up with even the concept of morality, purpose or meaning. We know, for example, that when a younger, stronger lion takes over a pride from an aging male, almost immediately he kills any young cubs that are in the pride. Biologists attribute this to some instinct that tells him the females will come into heat if they are no longer nursing young. Or maybe the young male just wants to get rid of his rival’s kids so the pride becomes his, with his genes being passed down to the next generation. Whatever: It works.

 Now, we may anthropomorphize and wish that the new male was not so “mean” or “cruel”. But most people don’t ascribe a moral component to the young lion’s action; he’s behaving as evolution has led him to behave and there is no moral issue involved. Neither is there a moral problem when the pride goes hunting and takes down the youngest or the oldest nearby wildebeest for dinner. We don’t say, “Those lions should go after a strong wildebeest; give them a fair chance; be a bit more sporting”.  Both of these behaviors work for the lion and we accept them.

 But if I, in the years of my peak virility, had married a young woman and immediately killed her infant son to ensure that my offspring would get her attention, headlines around the world (seriously, it would be that good a story) would excoriate me as a moral reprobate of the vilest sort. And they would be “right”, I suppose, in doing so.

Morality or Evolutionary Expedience?

 So clearly something happened in the last few million years as we progressed from lions (or monkeys, or whatever) to people. Something that imbued us with this sense of morality and purpose and meaning we hold so dear today. Somehow we live as though we believe certain purposes are noble, certain actions are laudable, while others are not, whether we believe in God or not. The question with the not-so-obvious answer is: Does it really seem likely that our amoral forebears evolved into beings with an apparently built-in moral compass?

Logically, intrinsicists should not react with horror to murder or rape.  They should simply observe that the perpetrator, for one reason or another, is not acting consistently with behaviors that ensure the continuation of the species.  No outrage; just curiosity about why. 

 Interesting stuff, this! On one hand Believers, on the other Unbelievers. On one hand extrinsic purpose, on the other, intrinsic. Both are riddled with mystery.

 If there is a God, why all the rigmarole associated with getting to know Him? Why all the differing opinions about His true character and his plan for humankind? Why all the hocus-pocus and ritual and funny hats and silly robes of the religious élite?

 And if there is no God, what’s with the moral, purpose-driven illusions we have conjured up around our lives?  How can we biochemical beings sit in judgment on anything? Anything?

 And, finally, how does the Renaissance life deal with this stuff?

 Next time I’ll give you my read on a Renaissance approach to the mystery.

Extrinsic Meaning for the Renaissance Life?

 If we agree that the Renaissance Life must have some meaning for us, we are faced with the question: From where is that meaning going to come ? 

 The two broad possibilities are, ‘from outside of ourselves’ or ‘from within’; extrinsic meaning and intrinsic meaning. 

A Quick Look at Extrinsic Meaning

 

Basically this quickly becomes a question of whether or not we believe in God. And whether or not we believe that God can imbue our lives with meaning or has some sort of plan for our lives from which we will gain meaning.  Maybe “purpose” is equivalent to “meaning” in this discussion. 

Those who believe in God tell us that God is really the only source of meaning. That it is senseless to pretend that man on his own, without a creator and designer of the universe, could somehow conjure up meaning or purpose. If we are nothing but mechanical entities, complex cauldrons of biochemistry spun out of the vast universe, living on a chunk of mass that, by chance, happens to support life, then our birth and life and death are meaningless chemical reactions of no more significance (with no meaning or purpose) than any other chemical reaction that takes place in our corner of the universe. 

An offshoot of this reasoning, by the way, is the fascinating question of where we get the idea of “free will” or “choice” if we are spirit-less lumps of biochemistry, spinning out thoughts and decisions purely as the result of the passage of neurotransmitters between and among gobs of brain cells. We all know that chemical reactions cannot “decide to happen”.

Chemical reactions take place because the temperature, pressure, equilibrium, and possibly catalysis of the system make it impossible for them not to happen. The molecules of polyisoprene, in the presence of sulfur and at elevated pressure and temperature do not “decide” or “choose” to form covalent bonds with the sulfur and produce what we know as rubber. It happens because all the conditions are right. Mix all that stuff together, put it in a mold, crank up the heat and, voilà; you’ve got a tire, baby. 

But we humans have a consciousness of choice. We think, at least, that we can make decisions. Indeed, the mind starts to boggle if I consider that the typing I am doing now as I write this piece is simply the product of an incredible number of incredibly complex biochemical reactions that are going off in my body because the environment is right for the reactions to take place. 

 I am not really creating any of this stuff; it’s just little biochemical explosions predetermined by previous chemical reactions, (in turn predetermined by even earlier reactions, ad nauseam back to the womb, I guess), that put my alleged brain in the proper state for this drivel to come spewing out. 

Choice and freedom and purpose are very closely related in our thinking.  And to think they are all the result of some kind of random natural selection, translated into basic chemistry is tough to fathom. 

God Gives Meaning and Purpose

 God is required for meaning; that is the position of the “extrinsicists”. Indeed the religions of the world which posit a Divine Being, seem all to include the idea that we realize purpose by becoming one with the Eternal. That our purpose is to “glorify God and enjoy Him forever”, as the Greater Catechism advocates.

 We were put on earth by God (didn’t just spring up out of the primordial goo) in an act of love and, as Krishna says in The Bhagavad Gita, “But for them whom I am the End Supreme, who surrender all their works to me, and who with pure love meditate on me – these I very soon deliver from the ocean of death… because they have set their heart on me,” (Chap 12; vs 6 & 7). 

 Purpose becomes pretty clear; we are to become one with God. This is our life’s purpose and from which it gains meaning; our constant pursuit of oneness with God. 

Translating this into daily action gets a little hairy, of course. This God-centered purpose or meaning for our lives has meant everything from living passive lives of isolated contemplation to cranking up the war machine to conquer and save the infidels (from themselves and their delusions of God, one guesses, or perhaps to punish them for not seeing the truth).

 And the mind boggles again at the number of ways, the number of gods and the various creeds that have sprung up, all of which purport to teach us how to find and follow God’s purpose for our lives. To find the real meaning of our existence. To live in oneness with God. 

Of course, herein lies arguably the biggest problem of God-centered meaning: Which of these gods and which of these approaches to meaning is the right one? Are they all “right”, and merely different facets of some Great Eternal Diamond of reality?

 If they are all facets of the same Truth, why are they at each other’s throats so often?

If most of the world’s population claims to believe in a god of their choice, why are so few striving to follow the purpose or meaning of life that they claim the god of their choice advocates? 

It’s a Bit of a Mess

 If we set aside the nasty disagreements between sects, each believing it has “the answer” to meaning and purpose, if we pretend that they simply disagree peaceably on which has the real insight, the whole business is still a bit of a mess. Why can’t thoughtful people convene a huge meeting of all god-believers and hammer out which approach is the real one, the true one, the most likely to reflect the real God? 

  Problem is, not only can they not agree, they really don’t disagree peaceably. They are trying to convert each other (with varying degrees of energy, piety and nastiness) to each other’s point of view. 

 But the Renaissance Mind seeks an answer that is removed from presuppositions and personal preference. We should take a shot, at least, at trying to understand what is most likely to be real and true and workable, setting aside what we have been taught or steeped in from our youth.  Then we might hope to find some useful extrinsic meaning and purpose for our Renaissance lives. 

 I think there is an approach. But first we’ll take a look at “intrinsic” meaning and purpose… next time.

Finding Meaning in Our Renaissance Life

When I developed the Practices for the Renaissance Project I included, “Find Meaning” as one of them.  The notion was that unless we feel our lives have some overall meaning, or significance, or purpose, the Renaissance Life becomes a kind of circular endeavor that amounts to little more than an ego trip.  That is, if we’re trying to ‘do the improbable’ simply so we can say we did the improbable – we had a lot of interests, and poked around in a lot of creative areas, were Renaissance people in our own minds - and it’s all about us, it rings a little hollow.  For me, at least.

Seems like we are hard-wired (if we are not personality disordered) to want to contribute something to the world.  Maybe our contribution will be huge, maybe it will be small, but most of us seem to want to do some kind of good in the world.  (I know!  You can argue that our desire to make a mark is really just a desire to be recognized for making our mark, and so, in the end, it’s all about us anyway.  We’ll get to that in a bit.)

For the next few blogs I’ll poke around at this idea of meaning.  It’s pretty big really, and worth the dedication of a few blogs.  After all, smarter people than I have wrestled with it for, what, 5,000 years? 

Maybe a helpful way to think it through is to look at the possible sources of meaning in our lives.  Seems to me there are two; extrinsic and intrinsic.  Simply put:  Is there a God who has already defined what a meaningful life looks like, or are we on our own and responsible for coming up with meaning for ourselves.  Be careful!  If you are too certain of either side of this argument ( and it is an argument), you’re probably wrong.

Extrinsic Meaning

This approach assumes a God, (god, gods, Source, Common Ground, etc.) and She (He, he, it, Tao, etc.) has either a plan for our lives or a divinely authored set of guidelines for what a “meaningful life” looks like.  A few of the great religions (those with the most adherents) include this idea in the fabric of their belief system.

To the atheist this idea is readily dismissed.  To the believer it is central.  Interestingly, there are a bunch of very smart atheists and a bunch of very smart believers.  Fascinating that they have arrived at opposite points of view on an issue that, arguably, is central to our life on earth.

I think a peek at the possibilities and implications of extrinsic purpose is worth our effort.

Intrinsic Meaning

This approach, of course, sees no higher power involved in anything.  We’re here on our own, having somehow emerged from the primordial goo through millions of years of evolution, and now we find ourselves in the unique position of being able to conceptualize the notion of meaning for our lives.  Where the primordial goo came from is a mystery, but that’s okay because if there was a God, where would He have come from?

 To the atheist this idea is obviously reasonable and true.  To the believer it is impossible to embrace.  May I repeat myself?  Interestingly, there are a bunch of very smart atheists and a bunch of very smart believers.  Fascinating that they have arrived at opposite points of view on an issue that, arguably, is central to our life on earth.

A shot at wrapping our minds around the “intrinsic meaning” perspective is also a worthwhile effort.

Is There a Middle Ground?

Next blog, I’ll take a poke at Extrinsic Meaning,  after that, Intrinsic Meaning.  Then, the place at which I have arrived.  (It will probably annoy you at first glance, so I’ll be asking you to give it a chance…)

Renaissance Restart

One of the modules of the Renaissance Project centers on discipline.  The notion is pretty simple:  Those of us with a renaissance bent are full of ideas, things we want to do, places we want to see, so if we want to see our ideas and projects flourish, we must put some effort into self-discipline.

We might take heart from the fact that Leonardo apparently was notorious for starting and not finishing projects.  Maybe it comes with the turf.  If we feel drawn to the renaissance life we must fight the urge to try each new idea at the cost of following through on ones we already have going.

I’ve noticed that it is easy to be disciplined about certain things and hard to stick with others.  I spent some time thinking about why I slouched off on the blog.  I like the idea of sharing ideas with you.  I like that about 50 of you are following the string of ideas.  So why was I able, in the 6 weeks I’ve missed, to take a course in thrown pottery, and work hard to sharpen my equity trading skills, while leaving the blog unattended? For me it is simply that I have not mastered WordPress.  The details of making WordPress work are far less interesting to me than  getting the ideas across.   I want it to be easy to write the blog.  But since I haven’t taken the time to master the tools, I can spend a bunch of time laying out each piece, sticking in the right HTML code for links and headings, and so forth.

So I think I’m learning that, for me, a key to self-discipline in areas where the “trivial” (learning how WordPress works) stands in the way of the substantial (getting the ideas into the blog – forgive me for assuming the ideas are substantial) is taking the time to master the skills that make the trivial easy.  That way I can get to the substantial without a lot of hassle.  I have a feeling this is true for many of us.  So there may be a bit of renaissance insight here.  Two insights, actually;

• We should take time to learn systems that can help us get to the core stuff we want to accomplish (don’t let the trivial stand in the way of our substantial offerings).
• If part of our renaissance offering includes a system, or course that others must learn, make it easy to follow the tutorials (don’t make it difficult for our customers to get through the trivial in order to get to the real meat).

It’s good to be back.  You’ll know pretty quickly how effective my “kill the trivial” approach is.  Meanwhile, I’m off to figure out WordPress.

Renaissance Bread

Part of the Renaissance Project principle, “Get Fit” is learning to eat right.  I think we all know by now that most store-bought bread is pretty grim stuff, but baking our own can be a time-consuming affair.  Here’s a recipe for a simple and healthy bread, easy to make, delicious to eat, and good for your health.  I’ve called it Renaissance Bread.  The recipe is one that I got from my daughter-in-law then played around with a bit.

• 3 cups warm water
• 2 packages yeast
• 1 tablespoon salt
• 1 tablespoon white vinegar
• 3 ½ cups unbleached white bread  flour
• 3 cups whole wheat flour
• cornmeal

 

Pour the water into a large bowl or plastic container and sprinkle in the yeast, salt, and add the vinegar. Use a wooden spoon to stir in the flours, and mix until there are no dry patches.  You don’t need to knead it, but I use my hands to get the flour mixed in well. (I also transfer the dough to a clean bowl for proofing because a bit of dried junk coats the sides of the mixing bowl.) Cover it with plastic wrap and let it rise at a warm room temperature for at least 3 hours.  Don’t sweat it if it goes longer.

 The dough will make 3 loaves, about 6 inches in diameter.  You can bake all three of them at once (I do because the bread remains fresh over the week and a half it takes us to eat it), or you can refrigerate part of it and bake it up to a week later.

 To bake it: sprinkle some flour across the surface of the dough and use a knife to cut it into thirds; refrigerate any dough you’re not going to bake immediately.

Turn the dough in your hands to stretch its surface,using your fingers to tuck the dough under the bottom, letting your palms draw the dough on the top firm and smooth as you rotate it in your hands.

Sprinkle a pizza peel or wooden cutting board lightly with cornmeal, put the loaf on it, sprinkle the top with flour, cover it lightly with a dish towel, and let it rest for 40 minutes (if you’re using refrigerated dough, increase this rest time to 2 hours or until it has risen fully).

 Half an hour before the dough is ready, heat the oven to 450˚F, and put a heavy, covered pot inside to heat.  I use a 2 ½ qt. ceramic (Corning-type) casserole dish.

When the dough has rested, use a serrated or very sharp knife to slash an X across its top about a quarter-inch deep. Remove the hot dish from the oven (remembering at all times that it is mucho hot), place the dough, with the X-cut facing up, into the casserole and put it in the oven.

Bake for 25 minutes, covered, then remove the cover and bake another 15 minutes. If the top is not a rich brown, give it another 5 minutes until the loaf is golden. Cool on a rack before slicing.

This bread is great for toasting and for sandwiches (though the slices get pretty small as you use the loaf up).  Ligthly toasted and used as a dip for olive oil and balsamic, it’s incredible!  I like it because it is easy to make, it’s healthy and I control the ingredients that go into it. And it really does taste good.

Finally, you can cut  the whole wheat flour and add a quarter cup of healthy stuff like flaxseed or wheat germ.  The bread gets denser, of course.  I’m a fan of the recipe above because it yields a nice firm bread, that’s not a hockey puck.

Give it a shot.  I think you’ll like it.

Renaissance Expertise Redux

In my last blog I talked a bit about the “10,000 hours to expertise” concept, and suggested it’s hard for those with a Renaissance bent to become experts.  Geniuses excepted, of course.  The rest of us have a problem because of our multitude of interests and the real time limits we face.  There simply isn’t time to become an expert at four different things. At least not if we buy the 10,000 hour theory.

Becoming “Very Good” vs. Becoming an Expert

But suppose we could be become very good at the things that interest us most.  How many hours of attention and practice would make us “very good”?  To even hope to answer that question we need some sort of definition of very good, then some notion of how many hours of practice it takes to get there.

K. A. Ericsson and his collaborators studied musicians who had achieved a “solo performance”  level of expertise, (the people who perform as guest soloists with known orchestras), and compared them to other musicians, often musicians who had studied at élite music academies.  It was the “soloists” who had put in the 10,000 hours. (Interestingly, the researchers concluded that the difference in “raw talent” between the groups was minimal.)

But what about the musicians who put in 5000 hours?  Turns out they are accomplished musicians too.  Just not at the top of their field; perhaps members of orchestras, not soloists.  And the people who practiced 2500 hours?  They became music teachers! Other things, too, but you get the idea.  That is, they’re not too shabby at this “music thing” either!

Now, if you want to put in 2500 hours of practice in 10 years, you need to practice 41 minutes every day of the year.  You’re not going to do that, most likely.  But, if you carve out an hour on each day of the weekend, and spend a half hour during the week, you’ll get to the 2500 hour level in a decade.

But even the 2500 hour guys are better than what we would typically call “very good”.  They have the capacity to teach others; they probably play at a level that is pretty enjoyable to listen to, probably at a high “regional” level.

An Experiment in “Getting Good”

So what does this all mean to us who covet a Renaissance Life?  It means if we want to become good enough at something  we can really get into, something we can really enjoy and “take public”, we’re going to have to put aside some real time to practice.  The question for the Renaissance Project is, what’s the best way to do it?

I’m going to experiment with a couple of renaissance pursuits; drawing and juggling.  Drawing is one of the art forms that intrigues me most.  I’ve taken drawing lessons and have begun to develop some reasonable pencil drawings.  Since realistic drawing is a good gateway to becoming an artist, and since “Become an Artist” is one of the Renaissance practices, this is a good fit. 

Juggling I’ve chosen as an exercise under part of the “Get Fit” practice.  One aspect of getting fit is to develop our balance, coordination and grace.  Juggling is a cool device for that.  It’s also a fun skill to take public; grandchildren love it.

Now, since I would like to get better at drawing than at juggling, I’ll dedicate less time to juggling, and I’ll try getting the needed practice in small chunks of time.  Drawing requires more concentration and longer sessions to really get going.  Here’s the experiment:

• 30 minutes of juggling practice per day, broken into 10 minute sessions.  These I’ll grab when I can, after my morning workout, around lunchtime, when I need a break from working, etc.  I’ll log my progress, and make a starting video of my juggling for later reference.
• 6 hours per week of drawing practice (with another drawing course or two thrown in as I progress).  I know I can’t get an hour of drawing in every day, so I’ll have to set aside longer spells when I can carve the time.  (By the way, if you’ve tried drawing or any art form that really captures you, you know how easily an hour or two can slip by.  It’s that “peak experience” thing working.)

The key is discipline; sticking with it.  I’ll be honest in reporting progress.  And progress will be easy to measure.  (By the way; in 5 years I’ll have just under 1000 hours of juggling practice and a little more than 1500 hours of drawing practice.)

Meanwhile, consider the art that represents the artist you want to become.  Why not have a shot at setting some time aside to practice.  And if you’re wondering where the time will come from, try John Prine’s suggestion in Spanish Pipedream:  ” Blow up your TV, Throw away your paper…”

Here’s to doing the improbable.