![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Each step of this is probably obvious. Nonetheless, the conclusion is worth noting, at least for me, and if I put it here, maybe I or someone else will remember it.
1. Humans, being as we are mortal and physical beings, have finite amounts of time and energy. (Whether there exist gods, angels, spirits, or aliens of whom this is not true is a potentially interesting topic, but whether they exist or no, we are not they.)
2. What those amounts are varies from person to person, time to time, and place to place--how much energy a given person has is affected by numerous factors of age, health, recent and long-term history (including how much sleep they've been getting).
3. These variables probably should be plotted on at least two axes--someone may have a lot of free time, but not much energy, or a lot of energy but also a lot of existing commitments. Or they may have a lot of both, or of neither.
4. Nonetheless, both variables are continuous rather than discrete--we may label them loosely as "lots", "average", and "not very much", or as "normal", "way too bouncy", and "very low energy" if we're feeling more judgmental, of ourselves or others, but there are no sharp gaps. There are probably places on the plane that have more and fewer people in them, but there are no chasms, either in the sense of being unable to move from one to another or in the sense of areas that are unoccupied. (Stipulated, in case anyoneelse is in the mood to pick nits--there's no way to move away from the points on the plane that correspond to death.)
5. Small variations are almost invisible, even to the person who is varying--if you need ten minutes' more sleep this Tuesday than last, or read a few more pages of your book, you probably won't notice the difference. This encourages us to lump energy levels -- which is more-or-less shorthand for time-and-energy here -- into clumps, and say "if a person is at or above X, they are healthy" or "below that level without medical reason means they're just being lazy." Yes, there's a lot of judgment in this, and it gets worse, not better, when the pronoun is "I" rather than "you" or "they."
6. For any given person, there are people who have significantly more energy than they do, and others who have significantly less. Ditto for free time.
7. There are societal levels of expectation for how much a person "should" be able to do--for a more-or-less healthy adult in my culture, that involves working a 35-40 hour week, handling some minimum of self- and household maintenance, and having a social life. It's much more accepted for someone to decline social invitations because they're working 60 hours instead of 40, or working full-time and in school, than because they just don't have the energy, and would love to see you if some accommodations can be made.
8. What's easy for me may not be for you; that applies in terms of physical tasks, intellectual ones, and emotional matters.
9. I am going to try to cut myself enough slack on such matters, and extend the same to my friends.
1. Humans, being as we are mortal and physical beings, have finite amounts of time and energy. (Whether there exist gods, angels, spirits, or aliens of whom this is not true is a potentially interesting topic, but whether they exist or no, we are not they.)
2. What those amounts are varies from person to person, time to time, and place to place--how much energy a given person has is affected by numerous factors of age, health, recent and long-term history (including how much sleep they've been getting).
3. These variables probably should be plotted on at least two axes--someone may have a lot of free time, but not much energy, or a lot of energy but also a lot of existing commitments. Or they may have a lot of both, or of neither.
4. Nonetheless, both variables are continuous rather than discrete--we may label them loosely as "lots", "average", and "not very much", or as "normal", "way too bouncy", and "very low energy" if we're feeling more judgmental, of ourselves or others, but there are no sharp gaps. There are probably places on the plane that have more and fewer people in them, but there are no chasms, either in the sense of being unable to move from one to another or in the sense of areas that are unoccupied. (Stipulated, in case anyone
5. Small variations are almost invisible, even to the person who is varying--if you need ten minutes' more sleep this Tuesday than last, or read a few more pages of your book, you probably won't notice the difference. This encourages us to lump energy levels -- which is more-or-less shorthand for time-and-energy here -- into clumps, and say "if a person is at or above X, they are healthy" or "below that level without medical reason means they're just being lazy." Yes, there's a lot of judgment in this, and it gets worse, not better, when the pronoun is "I" rather than "you" or "they."
6. For any given person, there are people who have significantly more energy than they do, and others who have significantly less. Ditto for free time.
7. There are societal levels of expectation for how much a person "should" be able to do--for a more-or-less healthy adult in my culture, that involves working a 35-40 hour week, handling some minimum of self- and household maintenance, and having a social life. It's much more accepted for someone to decline social invitations because they're working 60 hours instead of 40, or working full-time and in school, than because they just don't have the energy, and would love to see you if some accommodations can be made.
8. What's easy for me may not be for you; that applies in terms of physical tasks, intellectual ones, and emotional matters.
9. I am going to try to cut myself enough slack on such matters, and extend the same to my friends.
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Yes, I am lucky that we have the financial situation that means I don't have to work full-time and completely kill myself in the process - but I don't think that's really what they're getting at :/
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
And then there are people who have to work two jobs to afford childcare.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject