In February, I read [*Einstein* by Walter Isaacson](https://www.daltonmabery.com/essays/albert-einstein) and had my world absolutely rocked as I learned about Special and General Relativity. No concept of absolute time? Space and time are linked? Clocks slow down in motion? Gravity is just curved space-time? I saw the world in a whole new way.

That experience was the first time I could remember having a "viewquake." In the words of Robin Hanson who coined the term, a viewquake is an "insight that dramatically changes one's worldview, making one see the world in a new way."

![Viewquakes-01](//images.ctfassets.net/nk2hkdvz2uym/1mKhdxfCjTHQzdv8DyfKan/5517bc3417c6c2122898c5140d335a57/Viewquakes-01.png)

I heard about this term for the first time on [his appearance on the *Lex Fridman Podcast*](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBZP4rLk6bk). After about four hours of trying to comprehend grabby aliens, the hard steps of Earth, and AI revolutions, I finally came to a point in the interview where I wasn't completely lost. The idea of a "viewquake" was in itself, a viewquake for me.

Our knowledge is defined by our language. The more words you have to describe concepts and theories, the more tangible they become. This is why many creators have certain terms they've essentially created a monopoly on:

Tiago Forte - Building a Second Brain
David Perell - Personal Monopoly
James Clear - Atomic Habits
Ryan Holiday - Daily Stoic

It allows readers to segment their business-thesis into a neat box and package it in a way that's comprehensible to others. A long thesis about how habits form turns into one digestible phrase: atomic habits. This makes it easier to learn, easier to implement, and easier to remember. **Language expansion is a key factor in knowledge expansion.**

This explains why learning the term "viewquake" was a viewquake itself. I was able to expand the theories I've learned recently that have changed how I look at the world into a neat box. This lets me re-package the ideas in a much easier way. That repackaging leads to more natural conversations because the complicated language needed to describe the earth-shattering realities of relativity were no longer needed. Instead of fumbling my way through space-time conversations with someone about Einstein's theories, I could instead use a certain term that explains why I loved the book (and Einstein's ideas) so much: **It gave me more viewquakes per word than any book I've read so far.** 

Another example of a viewquake mentioned by Hanson in the interview has to do with politics. He said a political viewquake is when one understands that most politicians aren't trying to actually make their city or state a better place. Instead, they're just being loyal to their allies (read: political parties).

This explains why we hear so often in the news, "A red state will never vote for X." Or, "That left senator will never vote for Y, he needs to get re-elected this year."

On Viewquakes

I like schedules.

I like to be able to look at my week and know exactly what I'm doing when and what I'm supposed to be working on.

This is a beneficial attribute of mine, but at the same time it’s tormenting because it makes it nearly impossible to completely relax and take time off.

For the past four weeks though, I've been able to incorporate a time of deliberate leisure and it's delightful. Here's what I do:

During July and August, the company I work for is taking Fridays off. It's very nice. Not just because you have a three day weekend, but because the work week is only four days. Instead of using that Friday as a bonus Saturday, I've been using it to leisure deliberately. For me, that means planning a very structured day of rest.

I sleep in an hour later than normal, so I'm up around 6:00 or 6:30 am.

Once I wake up, I make my coffee and read for about an hour. I then take care of my dog and head to the gym. I workout for an hour but spend extra time in the hot tub and sauna to relax and think about my week. I then shower and head to my favorite coffee shop.

I order a bagel sandwich with an extra fried egg, bacon, and no tomato aioli with an iced pour over. While I wait for my sandwich, I unpack my backpack that contains my laptop, two or three books, my notebook, and headphones. I then scroll Instapaper to catch up on anything I saved that week. Articles that look interesting I read and those that seem boring I archive. I continue reading Instapaper while I finish my scrumptious bagel.

Once I'm finished with my breakfast, I put on my headphones, listen to brown noise, and read one of the books I'm currently working through. I typically read one for an hour or so and then move on to another book to spice things up. I like to stay for 3 or 4 hours, but sometimes I get much too hungry and can't focus. Whenever my stomach comes knockin', I head home for lunch and TV. If I'm up for it, I'll make another cup of coffee and read some more, write, and do some programming until about 4 or 5. At that point, my wife and I decide what we want for dinner (usually take out on Fridays), pick a movie, open up a cold beer (sometimes), and watch away.

I love it. For me, it’s true leisure, real otium. It’s not about sleeping in, having donuts for breakfast and binge watching Stranger Things for the third time. None of that is a true act of rest, it’s just an attempt to numb the mind in hopes you forget about your problems for a while.

Instead, a day (or time period) of deliberate leisure is a day filled with things you love but things that also make you feel refreshed and productive. Personally, the days I learn the most are the days I end up feeling the most refreshed.

Creating space for this routine was hard for me when I only had Saturday and Sunday off because I had errands to run, a honey-do list, or a side project to work on. But now, Fridays act as a buffer for me and I've been able to truly rest.

This wasn't a post to make you feel like you have to have Fridays off to leisure deliberately. Instead, it was meant as an exercise to recognize what truly makes me feel "rested" and to start thinking about how I can do this on a Saturday or Sunday morning when we go back to 5-day workweeks.

To figure that out for yourself, run a thought experiment planning a day full of deliberate leisure. Next, look at the different parts of the day and think about which you value the most. Is it sleeping in? Making breakfast with your partner? Going to dinner with family or friends? Whatever it is, try to do that once every other week, if not more often.

The part I value the most is reading at the coffee shop. Whenever I’m there, time withers away and I'm no longer focused on the next thing. Luckily, nothing is stopping me from getting there right when they open (just in time for my favorite lemon-blueberry scone to come out of the oven) and reading for an hour and a half on a Saturday morning. That would be enough time for me to feel relaxed and refreshed, but not take up too much of the day.

I'm sure there's something small like that you value just as equally that could be incorporated somewhere in your weekly routine. How should we expect ourselves to work deliberately if we don't leisure deliberately?


Deliberare Otium

Some of the kindest people in the world often have no reason to be. They've faced horrible circumstances, tough situations, and unreal pain in their life that have reshaped their worldview and, very unexpectedly, made them kinder.

Like most virtues in life, there is a Latin phrase for this. *Dulcius Ex Asperis, sweeter after difficulty.*

In our case, *people* have become sweeter after difficulty. But that saying applies to much more than just people.

Victories won, projects completed, and relationships nurtured through difficulties are much sweeter than those that form without any obstacles. Other than the relationships, I'm not sure why this is. Relationships are sweeter after difficulty because the psychological effect of experiencing hardship with someone else brings two people together. But when a project is difficult and has a lot of obstacles, it too is much sweeter to complete and send off into the world compared to one that was more of a walk in the park. I wonder why that is.

It's important to have language for the experiences and emotions we feel because **our world is only as big as the language we have to describe it.** That's why it's important to learn, or at least be aware of, obscure Latin phrases and famous quotes that have been around for generations. They communicate something in a way no one has been able to communicate before, expanding our world one Latin phrase at a time.

Dulcius Ex Asperis

I was reminded of this beautiful hymn I listened to during an extended period of my morning devotions in 2019. I later learned it was a hymn sung during Maundy Thursday, the day in which Jesus washed the disciples feet. Here is the original Latin paired with the English translation:

![Screen Shot 2022-07-24 at 7.38.06 PM](//images.ctfassets.net/nk2hkdvz2uym/5ACsy9ewz0eAkmTs8ednYt/1e8e0fe6a3a4df21fd6beabe9a4d35a1/Screen_Shot_2022-07-24_at_7.38.06_PM.png)

[This is a beautful version of it](https://open.spotify.com/track/00hBlI8O2jJyJjaQFQyrHA?si=c0f4c1917e704b72), sung by Audrey Assad.

Ubi Caritas

As he was standing in the musty Mississippi courtroom, arguing for what he believed in, he got a brilliant idea. Instead of arguing for the benefits of alcohol while hoping (and maybe praying) no one on the defense brought up all of the negative effects of alcohol, he would address the effects directly. This took the defense's argument right from their hands, just like a little kid in a candy shop.

"Mr. Sweat", the judge begins, "Do you have anything to add?"

"I do your honor, and please, call me 'Soggy'."  _(His real name was Noah Sweat Jr., but he acquired the nickname for potentially obvious reasons.)_

Our man continued,

My friends, I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about  [whiskey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey). All right, here is how I feel about whiskey:

> If when you say whiskey you mean the devil's brew, the poison scourge,
> the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys
> the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread
> from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that
> topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous,
> gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, and despair,
> and shame and helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am
> against it.
>
>
>
> But, if when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the
> philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get
> together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips,
> and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas
> cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the
> old gentleman's step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the
> drink which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and
> to forget, if only for a little while, life's great tragedies, and
> heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of which
> pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used
> to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind,
> our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and
> hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it.
>
>
>
> This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.

## The position depends on the audience

That dramatic introduction was my attempt at a narrative (How'd I do?) explaining the beginning of a rather fascinating fallacy known as "If by whiskey..."

Sweat, the character whom we observed in the musty Mississippi court room, was an American judge and state representative, famous for the former speech he gave in 1952 about whiskey. What made it so unique was that he wasn't arguing for one side or the other. Instead, he came down on both sides of the argument but took a different position depending on the audiences reaction.

Naturally, "If by whiskey..." arguments are used whenever the speakers position depends on the listener's opinion. It's a great way to take a position on something without really taking a position.

Another way to think about this is the  [Russel Conjugation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotive_conjugation).

## Russel Conjugation
The Russel Conjugation, or sometimes called the Emotive Conjugation is when someone uses different words to describe something depending on the feelings they want to invoke in the listener.

This is something most people do without ever realizing they are doing it. This happens because all words convey two meanings. The first is the factual information the word conveys. We all know what a dog is because the word "dog" describes it. The second meaning words coney are their intended  _emotional_  response. "Dog" is a kind, loving animal. "Mutt" is a dumb, unwanted creature. "Sleeping around" vs. "Having lots of sex." "Getting drunk" vs. "Having a few too many."

By using a select choice of words instead of another, a speaker is able to create emotional responses to what they're saying. They can invoke love and sadness or fear and anger by describing the same situation based on factual meaning but that carries a different emotional load.


If, By Whiskey

Computers are exceptional at doing really hard complicated things, but struggle at doing simpler things. In other words, tasks that humans think are hard, are easy to teach AI but tasks that humans think are easy are difficult to teach AI.

[Hans Moravec](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Moravec), a faculty member at the Robotics Institute of Carnegie Mellon, made this observation in 1988:

> It is comparatively easy to make computers exhibit adult level performance on intelligence tests or playing checkers, and difficult or impossible to give them the skills of a one-year-old when it comes to perception and mobility

Moravec's Paradox

> The researchers recently used a fluorescent marker to visualize and track the cell death and digestion process inside a living animal in real time. Using a novel tool, Davidson, a postdoc at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, observed immune cells rushing to gobble up any dead cells near them

From: [Cell death and digestion observed in real time inside a living animal](https://www.pnas.org/post/journal-club/cell-death-and-digestion-observed-real-time-inside-living-animal)

Where Dead Cells in the Body Go

I've always been curious where popular sayings come from. While they usually have an interesting origin story, most of them also have witty clap-backs.

Here are the second half of some popular sayings:

- Curiosity killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
- Great minds think alike, though fools seldom differ.
- For the love of money is the root of all evil. 

(Most people say "Money is the root of all evil." Money isn't evil. The love of money is evil.)
- An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
- Jack of all trades, master of none but better than a master of one.
- Birds of a feather flock together until the cat comes.
- The early bird catches the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese.

A lot of people hear these and wrongly assume these were the original and the second half got cut off sometime in the past. That's mostly wrong.

Instead, what probably happened was someone came up with a creative way to shut up the people who kept saying these quips to explain a point.

Naturally, they didn't catch on as well as the first half. But the idea that these are the "full" sayings is incorrect.

Popular sayings

[*Letters of Note*](https://news.lettersofnote.com/) shared a hillarious letter exchange this week from *Private Eye*, a satirical news publication. The instigator was *Private Eye*, after they published an article claiming James Arkell, a cred manager, had done some shady dealings. Arkell had his lawyers reply to *Public Eye* demaning they redact the article and pay him. They note, quite weirdly to be honest, "His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply."

*Private Eye*, not missing a beat, responded with this:

> Dear Sirs,
>
> We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr. J. Arkell.
> 
> We note that Mr Arkell’s attitude to damages will be > governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.
> 
>
> Yours,
> Private Eye

For reasons you can imagine, the response is quite notorious. Rumor has it, the phrase, "I refer you to the reply given in Arkell and Pressdram (*Public Eye's* publisher), is quite popular between lawyers and journalists.