
I am nothing - dwynings
http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2011/08/i-am-nothing.html
======
edw519
_...you shouldn't compare yourself with others -- you didn't start in the same
place or with the same challenges..._

Reminds me of this:

Reb Zusha was laying on his deathbed surrounded by his disciples. He was
crying and no one could comfort him. One student asked his Rebbe, "Why do you
cry? You were almost as wise as Moses and as kind as Abraham." Reb Zusha
answered, "When I pass from this world and appear before the Heavenly
Tribunal, they won't ask me, 'Zusha, why weren't you as wise as Moses or as
kind as Abraham,' rather, they will ask me, 'Zusha, why weren't you Zusha?'
Why didn't I fulfill my potential, why didn't I follow the path that could
have been mine."

~~~
ff0066mote
This immediately made me think of the line from Desiderata.

 _If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain or bitter; for
always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself._

Full text on wikipedia: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiderata#Full_text>

------
coryl
Study any martial art (preferably one where you can spar) and you'll forever
understand the meaning of ego. You show up, do drills/padwork, think you're
making progress and then spar someone who beats you up. You do the same thing
the next day, and the next, and the next. Eventually you improve and make
progress because you're training so hard. But there's always that one guy you
can't beat, and that new kid whose far beyond his years in talent. Coach is
also now telling you your making mistakes on things you thought you put behind
you, and its frustrating the hell out of you that you can't fix it fast
enough. Your technique isn't up to par, your cardio is garbage because you had
pizza and beer, and your training partners are running circles around you.

That's when you realize you know nothing, that even after these years of
training and experience, you feel even less knowledgeable about the art than
when you began. Depressed about your progress, you figure you have two options
to deal with it: 1) quit... or 2) keep showing up. But by now, you love it too
much and its become apart of your life, so quitting isn't an option. All
that's left to do then is to continue showing up.

Eventually, the ego is beaten out of you from every
failure/loss/disappointment in your daily training. You've tapped out to newer
people, younger people, smaller/bigger/"dumber" people that it doesn't even
shock you to perform poorly against a total beginner. From here, self-
realization naturally guides you into a more focused path for self-
improvement. What you want to achieve today is far different from what you
thought you'd wanted out of martial arts in the beginning. Telling apart
someone who thinks they "know", and someone who truly "knows", is far easier.
You'll realize how little you know, as it will humble you. But hopefully
you'll come to peace with who you are, and realize what it takes to be where
you want to be.

~~~
hnhg
I think this happens in any context where you're learning from talented people
and you still have your mind open. I think it's just part of growing up and
maturing.

~~~
cjg
Perhaps martial arts make the feedback more direct than other areas of
expertise.

------
jmtame
Reminds me of a lecture given on Beginner's Mind that emphasizes the pitfalls
of intellectualism:

'Can we look at our lives in such a way? Can we look at all of the aspects of
our lives with this mind, just open to see what there is to see? I don't know
about you, but I have a hard time doing that. I have a lot of habits of mind—I
think most of us do. Children begin to lose that innocent quality after a
while, and soon they want to be "the one who knows." We all want to be the one
who knows. But if we decide we "know" something, we are not open to other
possibilities anymore. And that's a shame. We lose something very vital in our
life when it's more important to us to be "one who knows" than it is to be
awake to what's happening. We get disappointed because we expect one thing,
and it doesn't happen quite like that. Or we think something ought to be like
this, and it turns out different. Instead of saying, "Oh, isn't that
interesting," we say, "Yuck, not what I thought it would be." Pity. The very
nature of beginner's mind is not knowing in a certain way, not being an
expert. As Suzuki Roshi said in the prologue to Zen Mind Beginner's Mind, "In
the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's there are
few." As an expert, you've already got it figured out, so you don't need to
pay attention to what's happening. Pity.'

~~~
skb_
_As an expert, you've already got it figured out, so you don't need to pay
attention to what's happening. Pity._

Not necessarily a pity. You have to be an expert at some things in order to
become a beginner at others.

~~~
jonnathanson
_"Not necessarily a pity. You have to be an expert at some things in order to
become a beginner at others."_

True, but I don't think that's the point of the passage. Rather, the idea is
not to seal one's mind off at the "expert" level in any field of endeavor. At
that point, we replace questions with assumptions. Those assumptions might be
based on knowledge, and they might be right (for now). But who's to say that
they're going to be right tomorrow? Or the next day? Or that a better way
won't emerge? (It definitely will not emerge from the one who assumes he's
mastered it, because he won't question what he assumes he's mastered).

------
alecst
Reminded me a little of this quote from The Picture of Dorian Gray:

Lord Henry stroked his pointed brown beard and tapped the toe of his patent-
leather boot with a tasselled ebony cane. "How English you are Basil! That is
the second time you have made that observation. If one puts forward an idea to
a true Englishman -- always a rash thing to do -- he never dreams of
considering whether the idea is right or wrong. The only thing he considers of
any importance is whether one believes it oneself. Now, the value of an idea
has nothing whatsoever to do with the sincerity of the man who expresses it.
Indeed, the probabilities are that the more insincere the man is, the more
purely intellectual will the idea be, as in that case it will not be coloured
by either his wants, his desires, or his prejudices. However, I don't propose
to discuss politics, sociology, or metaphysics with you. I like persons better
than principles, and I like persons with no principles better than anything
else in the world. Tell me more about Mr. Dorian Gray. How often do you see
him?"

------
zupatol
Thirty or forty years ago, people apparently had much stronger identities,
according to an old french psychologist I heard on the radio. People were much
more inclined to think of themselves as 'a communist' or 'an artist'. It's
true that these thoughts are prisons, but not having them sends people to the
psychologist for other reasons. Unfortunately I don't remember what he said
about these new problems.

I guess one problem with discarding your identity as a father is that you are
also questioning responsibilities that are vital to your children. Another
problem of going without identity is that having a sense of belonging to some
community becomes more difficult. That's something I have been missing
personally.

~~~
vacri
I once had a lecturer who asked us which particular school of thought on -foo-
we were - to which we responded that we were pragmatists - if it works, it
works. He denounced us as boring.

------
dpritchett
Looks like a riff on "Keep Your Identity Small":

 _If people can't think clearly about anything that has become part of their
identity, then all other things being equal, the best plan is to let as few
things into your identity as possible._

<http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html>

~~~
seri
And IMO isn't nearly as good as the earlier one. "I Am Nothing" has a self-
help tone that puts me off, and the number of sentences per substance is too
low for my liking.

Paul Graham did end up with a similar conclusion, but on the process of
leading to it, he kept exploring possibilities. What social behaviors could be
objectively explained by the excess of identity? Although he did end up
telling his readers what to do, that was just a coincidence. He looked out for
the truths and they happen to lead to something that could be applied in real
life.

But it all comes down to a matter of taste, and I do greatly admire Paul
Buchheit as a person.

~~~
gbog
> But it all comes down to a matter of taste

Sorry, but here you just klll in the egg your interesting point above. If you
think pg's article is better than pb's, why hide your opinion, which I happen
to share, behind this pudic relativist curtain?

It's like doing a solid dissertation on why Python is more x and x and x than,
say, Java, and then, in the conclusion, retract every statement behind a shy
"matter of taste".

~~~
seri
You caught me. In the past, I used to express my opinions, which are often
strong and controversial, aggressively, but over time, I learnt that it's in
my interest to make a consolation point toward people with opposite opinions
in public places. "So this is my opinion and that is yours. We differ a bit
but we are still friends, right?" I don't do that in my own writings, however.

~~~
saturn
> I learnt that it's in my interest to make a consolation point toward people
> with opposite opinions in public places

Well, you've just been shown the opposite. By dismissing your own argument -
by claiming it is just a matter of random, arbitrary preference - you kind of
write yourself out of the conversation. I guess you are less likely to offend,
but you're less likely for anyone to listen at all. You may as well have not
spoken in the first place.

------
dporan
What a wonderfully thought-provoking and inspiring piece. Thanks, Paul, for
sharing it.

In a similar vein, from David Foster Wallace's 2005 commencement address at
Kenyon College:

"If you worship money and things -- if they are where you tap real meaning in
life -- then you will never have enough. Never feel you have enough. It's the
truth. Worship your own body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always
feel ugly, and when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths
before they finally plant you.... Worship power -- you will feel weak and
afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to keep the fear at bay.
Worship your intellect, being seen as smart -- you will end up feeling stupid,
a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. And so on."

<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178211966454607.html>

------
mrphoebs
An oversimplification

suffering = your self image vs perception of reality self

The argument goes that man is a prisoner of his self image. This self image is
a mixture of his desires, wants, tastes, hopes, fears.... This can be seen as
a self image that arises out of conditioning by the society and self. You are
like a frog in the well and imagine the well to be the universe. You are
limited and shaped by the well. How can one know of what the possibilities are
unless they ascend from their own intellectual/egotistical/scoietal wells or
the well of self image?

On the other hand, I have noticed that rejection of natural tendencies leads
to suffering as well. No matter how hard we try the self will never be a blank
tape. When you reject the self image your self image becomes "Im he/she who
rejects self image imposed on me". So now you are straight back where you
started with a brand new self image, only this time you are more observant of
your flaws(tendencies of self). So there is still suffering here.

Let me oversimplify again the frog = Neo in the matrix, Ignorance is bliss =
Cipher in the matrix

~~~
thelovelyfish
It's about riding your life man. Not worrying about all the little details you
just brought up. Letting go and seeing what happens. Personally, I don't think
someone will acheive this by academic pursuit. You have to follow your heart
to it.

------
amirhhz
A recurring theme from great thinkers (perhaps mainly more in the East,
though) over the ages. Glad to see it finding an audience on HN.

This excerpt from Rumi seems apt:

    
    
      "Knock, And He'll open the door
      Vanish, And He'll make you shine like the sun
      Fall, And He'll raise you to the heavens
      Become nothing, And He'll turn you into everything."
    

My take on this line of thought is that as long as you consider yourself as
being a "someone" or "having a self" you are always in conflict with other
_selves_ and only if you become _nothing_ you remove the inherent conflict.

~~~
gbog
Zhuangzi: "Vomit your intelligence"

------
sidman
I think there is a fine line you need to tread. I agree with what paul has to
say but sometimes what we care about is what drives us.

For the longest time i worked as a consultant but i never cared. When someone
said to me so what do you do, i just said i work with computers, my rank didnt
matter to me, my role , my status nothing. I wouldn't come to work in a suite
or tie or even a shirt (i came in just a t-shirt and jeans) and it was very
weird to many who were watching. I guess cause they cared and wondered why i
didnt ...

They would say , "your a consultant, for a big4 how can you wear those
clothes, cause i personally cant".

I would respond by saying, well i dont care , just wanna make sure customer is
happy regardless of what my official role is, that way i could do my work ,
not have to redo things and then go home. Also one of the important things i
think is i detached myself from being a consultant, i was nothing, not a
manager, a consultant, a senior consultant , who has certain things _attached_
to them so i felt free and just wore what i wanted with the one rule that the
customer needs to be happy.

When i found out that i could get away with that i experimented with a few
other things too, like if i was tired during lunch i would sleep on the park
bench if it was a nice sunny day. I stopped thinking hey im a professional and
cant be seen sleeping on a park bench cause thats what bums do and once i got
over it and i thought , hey who cares, it was easy and i would come back to
the office invigorated cause of a 20-30 minute quick nap :)

However the caveat is when you CARE enough about say _programming_ . If you
start to tell yourself you dont care anymore you loose a certain desire which
if you care about it, isnt very good. if you keep telling yourself hey i am a
programmer then that comes with certain things such as , writing code, being
half decent at math, being logical etc etc and being good at those things isnt
a bad thing.

So i think i get what paul is saying when he says "i am nothing" but i think
you cant apply that to things you care about cause it will cause you to not
care. But applying that way of thinking to things what you might care about
but deep down know its just for perception or is kinda silly or even not
really important has some surprisingly good results :)

~~~
paul
It's true that fear, insecurity, etc can provide us with drive, but they are
not the only or best sources of drive.

~~~
nopassrecover
Great essay, but like the grandparent I'm confused how it allows for any sort
of drive. How can you have goals without identifying with them, or at least
their purpose? It seems great and healthy to stop identifying as a failed
attempt at reaching certain labels, but I struggle to imagine a singular goal
not attached to a label.

~~~
sidman
I think the essay is great but i think it applies more when you are already in
a happy place where your happiness is confirmed by your own view of yourself.

Its a way to stay happy once your happy. For example, lets say your a poor
entrepreneur, you tell yourself, if i can flip for 5m+ ill be happy cause i
will never have to work again, i can help my parents i can do so and so. Your
dream comes true and your startup gets acquired and you have that 5m+ in your
bank account.

You now have a label, people expect certain things from you. Your happy but
because of your new found label and because of peoples expectations of what
that label means "in this cause a successful startup founder acquired by XXXX"
it forces you to try and comply with that label which could possibly making
you unhappy again. (maybe you dont like doing talks, maybe you dont like
giving advice, maybe you dont like being criticised ... whatever it may be)

However if you dont care and dont classify yourself as "successful startup
founder acquired by XXXX" then there is no reason to comply with what that
means and because you achieved your personal goal of getting acquired for 5m+
... you stay happy.

I think for people that are not there yet, its still kinda hard to apply "I am
Nothing" to things you are still striving for or care about.

Well this is my interpretation of the essay .. :)

------
nevvermind
I don't know much Zen, but after the "Zenish" comments in here, I guess lots
of HN-ers do, right?

I maybe am a case of "western individuation syndrome", but for me, loosing
individuation for protecting _myself_ sounds rather like an oxymoron.
Actually, when there's nothing to protect, there nothing to improve, whatever
that guy says. And even if you might say that Buchheit didn't suggest to
actually dissolve your personality, it very much seems like he did.

Low expectations, realism when faced with your own challenges, sane
aggressiveness or indifference, confronting your own prejudices, vices and
frustration, are all possible when one's brain is mentally trained, not when
you're living with a general sense of "loosing yourself" or when one's
dissolving one's ego.

I don't think "letting go of your identity" leads to "a better version of our
selves" or "true self improvement", but to a toxic sense of not being who you
are.

"But I am nothing, and so I am finally free to be myself." - if you need to be
nothing in order to be free, you ARE nothing.

"By returning to zero expectations, by accepting that I am nothing, it is
easier to see the truth." - what do zero expectation has to do with
nothingness?

"If I were smart, I might be afraid of looking stupid." - that's not being
smart, that's being westernly-smart. Change "smart" with "wise" and see if
that sentence makes any sense.

Why does someone always preaches extremes to get rid of another? Now I'm being
artistically literal: when you say "I am nothing", just loose the "I".

Hey, I had frustrations, I had problems and conquered must of them, partly
with indifference, partly with matured ego, partly with higher self-
barricades, but not once I thought of dissolving my ego. What the deuce? - I
kinda need it! I was learned to fight and gain knowledge, but then I learned
that, when fighting something, you actually give it meaning, so then I learned
to give up. So this blog post _does_ resonate with my experience at some
extent.

Preparing for "He didn't mean to ACTUALLY renounce your personality": it's
dangerous to use metaphors or ambiguous expressions when your next paragraph
if a plain-life description. Just don't. Use "lower your expectations" instead
of "be nothing". This is logic/biologic-ally wrong. You can't be nothing, but
you can't be all of it, neither, so, in the mediocrity principle, just be
something, because you already are (how's that for metaphoric?).

~~~
gbog
It is not an oxymoron, it is a paradox, duly noted by Simon Leys an others:
Only the ones with the strongest personality (hear "self") can truly wipe out
their ego. For us normal people, the goal could be to lower expectations about
oneself, but for those rare birds, usually monks, I believe it means something
very deep (not much related to PB's note, though).

~~~
nevvermind
You're using "ego" with that "vanity" sense. I'm referring to ego as in
"self". I agree that strong people have less "ego", less "self-importance".
Try wiping out "your self" instead and see those strong people crumble.

------
mjijackson
I am a husband. I am a father. I am a child of God.

There is a fine line between putting yourself in a box that you (or others)
create for you and knowing who you are. The classifications that Paul lists in
his post are of the first kind. The second kind, you can't really change.

~~~
paul
Once you think you know, there's a risk that you stop learning, that you
discard other possibilities.

~~~
mjijackson
I absolutely agree with this sentiment. This is the "box" that I was referring
to above. It represents the limit of that which you are willing to believe, in
many cases because you believe that you have already reached some level of
understanding which cannot possibly be eclipsed by further investigation.

I also believe that it is at least as important to recognize that there are
certain characteristics (for lack of a better word) that each of us possess
which are an integral part of who we are.

Your claim that we are _nothing_ presents a serious ethical dilemma, and one
which I believe if not understood correctly can have disastrous consequences.
Allow me to explain.

Each of the characteristics that I mentioned above directly ties me to a
responsibility that I have to some "other". With regards to this other, I _am_
something. It is the very essence of existence. The mere fact that I exist
means that I will always have an effect on some other, whether good or bad.
Without an other, I do not exist.

To choose to ignore the responsibility I have towards an other is an action.
It may have a good or bad consequence, but it is still an action. I cannot
avoid acting, as inaction itself is an action with regard to the other.

For example, I mentioned above that I am a father. Now, I could of course
choose (as many men do for one reason or another) to simply walk away from my
responsibilities as a father. I could decide essentially that I am _not_ a
father. But that doesn't change the fact that I have fathered children and
that abandoning that responsibility will have some consequence on them. To
them, I _am_ something. I am their father, and I can't change that.

To pretend that I'm not a father is simply lying to myself. It's also being
very selfish. That's why I say that this belief system can have disastrous
consequences when applied broadly. Because if you're not careful it can lead
to very selfish behavior.

~~~
rytis
Totally agree. However interesting and inspiring these posts and toughs might
be, the ideas can be really applied verbatim only by people in their 20's - no
family, no commitments, and so on.

Similarly to @mjijackson I'm a husband and a father. If I made a decision to
become 'nothing' I might benefit myself, but that would be a disaster to
others that depend on me.

Somehow I find most of these Zen-like thoughts quite selfish, but I'm open to
suggestions, perhaps I'm missing an important point here...

------
maayank
This reminds me of the chapter about "The Cosmic Joke"[1] from a Tibetan
Buddhism book[2].

"[speaking about ego] We set up a background, a foundation from which we can
go on and on to infinity. This is what is called samsara, the continuous
vicious cycle of confirmation of existence. One confirmation needs another
confirmation needs another…

The attempt to confirm our solidity is very painful. Constantly we find
ourselves suddenly slipping off the edge of a floor which had appeared to
extend endlessly. Then we must attempt to save ourselves from death by
immediately building an extension to the floor in order to make it appear
endless again. We think we are safe on our seemingly solid floor, but then we
slip off again and have to build another extension. We do not realize that the
whole process is unnecessary, that we do not need a floor to stand on, that we
have been building all these floors on the ground level. There was never any
danger of falling or need for support. In fact, our occupation of extending
the floor to secure our ground is a big joke, the biggest joke of all, a
cosmic joke."

[1] The chapter is fully available here:
<http://www3.telus.net/public/sarlo/Ytrungpa.htm>.

[2] [http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Freedom-Meditation-Shambhala-
Libr...](http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Freedom-Meditation-Shambhala-
Library/dp/1590302893/e=UTF8&qid=1313925007&sr=8-8)

------
srjk
I am rarely moved to comment on a post. This one seems to be especially
thoughtful and sincere.

I understood the core message to be we shouldn't let labels that define _some_
aspects of who we are constrain us.

Or, in programming terms: mixins not class hierarchies :)

Favourite quote: "True self improvement requires becoming a better version of
our selves, not a lesser version of someone else."

------
pygorex
> But I am nothing, and so I am finally free to be myself.

But if I am nothing what entity is contemplating my nothingness? I most
definitely must be a _something_ \- thinking of myself as a non-something is
necessarily a delusion. It's illogical to engage in identity denial - instead
I should try to engage in identity variation, approaching myself (and others!)
with a different set of assumptions from time to time (which I believe was the
spirit of the original post). It's silly to start a process of self-
actualization by denying the very thing I am trying to actualize.

Or, as follows: I exist as a unique locus of space and time and so do you. I
can share a room, a table, a meal, a conversation, even a lifetime with you
but I can't be you - I can only be myself experiencing you. Your identity is
yours and yours alone and you are always free to be yourself. In fact you are
_required_ to be yourself - after all who else could you be?

I intend to own my identity for the brief flickering moment that it exists.
The mindless and momentous machinations of the universe have create the
fragile consciousness that I am, and very soon these same machinations will
erase me to nothingness. I see no reason to get a head start on being nothing.

------
BasDirks
The misinformation and misinterpretation of Buddhism and Western philosophy in
the comments is embarrassing, as well as the pop-spirituality babble.

------
bfe
Excellent. Any true hacker must understand every level of the development
process, and that includes one's own mind, standing back and questioning the
inner thought processes that one normally thinks of as the self.

------
Eliezer

      I have abandoned my path.
      I have forsaken my role.
      I have forgotten my name.
      I have lost my soul.
    

\-- unpublished fiction

------
shadowmatter
Good post. Reminds me of that quote by Oscar Wilde: "Be yourself; everyone
else is already taken."

~~~
gruseom
I don't believe Wilde said that. This is boomer self-actualization language,
and the underlying concept of authenticity is a 20th century creation.

Here is something Wilde really wrote: "Man is least himself when he talks in
his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth."

[http://books.google.com/books?id=xZlRfVy0LbcC&lpg=PA1002...](http://books.google.com/books?id=xZlRfVy0LbcC&lpg=PA1002&dq=%22give%20him%20a%20mask%22%20intitle%3A%22collected%20works%20of%20oscar%20wilde%22&pg=PA1002#v=onepage&q=%22give%20him%20a%20mask%22%20intitle:%22collected%20works%20of%20oscar%20wilde%22&f=false)

------
rinkjustice
I can relate. I too am trying to abandon my self and my "brand" because it's
spiritually suffocating. I don't want to care what - oh, someone just voted up
my last comment!

It's on the todo list anyway.

------
joseakle
...And it starts with nothing. ...

I disagree, it starts with love.

What is good?

Having zero expectations and being humble are both noble. But being nothing is
just impossible. You already are something. Goodness comes from love,
Integrity comes from knowing what is good, so don't be evil, be good.

What is true?

I guess the point being made is that knowledge of the truth starts with
knowing i am ignorant, like the beginner's mind, or a childlike curiosity,
free of prejudices, a free mind, or to paraphrase Plato "— This man, on one
hand, believes that he knows something, while not knowing [anything]. On the
other hand, I - equally ignorant - do not believe [that I know anything]." [1]

1\. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing>

------
davidhollander
Premise: we are what we think about. Being nothing requires one to think about
nothing. It's actually quite a lot of work to think about nothing! The brain
is constantly solving problems while awake and while asleep, building up
momentum.

Proposal: Instead of expending massive amounts of energy bringing an object of
such high inertia to rest, why not just change the inputs you are feeding it
to gradually alter its direction? Don't focus on the cessation and extinction
of the turning of mind. Focus on feeding the turning of mind solvable or
aesthetically pleasurable problems, to decrease the bandwidth occupied by
unsolvable\fear based problems.

tldr: I'm not convinced the epicness of ego destruction is necessary for ego
transmutation, if that is one's goal.

edit: Well, I just realized my analogy does not hold for all cases. In
Physics, if you want to change the direction vector of an object in motion, to
the opposite of its present heading, it will require at least as much energy
as bringing the object to rest. So focusing on ego destruction could be worth
it depending on where you want to go and where you are now.

Additionally, we also know from Physics that all motion is relative, velocity
cannot be measured without a frame of reference. I think the Buddhists would
argue that cessation of the turning of thought provides this otherwise missing
frame of reference, enabling the thought\ego vector to accurately be measured
when the turning of thought restarts.

~~~
Neodudeman
Being nothing is not the goal here. By being nothing, with no thoughts or
motion, we would be dead!

The point here is Understanding that we are nothing, to make it easier to let
go of the material world, or to let go of any pains that befall us. In this
way we have calmness, and gain wisdom.

As for your analogy, that our thoughts and selves are an object in motion,
which we must curb to reach a desirable point in space: the reality is, there
is no object.

~~~
davidhollander
> _As for your analogy, that our thoughts and selves are an object in motion,
> which we must curb to reach a desirable point in space: the reality is,
> there is no object._

Ah, how convenient, a single objective reality where nonexistence is possible
:)

To more precisely define my analogy and convey my understanding: current
thought is a recurrence relation with previous thoughts. Inertia is the
strength of the recurrence relation, the degree by which previous thoughts
determine present thought. This is measurable as neural adaptation and
learning. Ego or self is an observed distribution of thoughts occurring during
a certain duration. As with statistical distributions, we tend to construct
parameter estimators to make sense of the data[1].

Now, as with statistics, whether these generated parameters contain
information and are useful in describing the distribution is up for debate and
dependent on the question the investigator seeks to answer. But simply stating
'there is no object' is as sensical and productive as claiming 'there is no
mean, there is no standard deviation'.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_moments_(statistics)>

~~~
Neodudeman
Ah, I see. I'm sorry, I thought the object was ego, but if it's thought in
that abstract form, then that was my misunderstanding of your explanation.
Indeed, you are correct in that analogy, to that extent.

~~~
davidhollander
No apologies necessary, I did indeed use a newtonian object as the particular
for ego in the first analogy. In regards to abstract forms and mental
constructs as not existing in the same manner as objects, I'd disagree with
you and the OP and hold that they _do_ exist, at least in the same manner that
everything else can be said to, if anything else is said to. In other words, I
would assert there is no difference in types of existence nor duality between
existence and nonexistence, object and nonobject, that is derivable and non-
arbitrary. What I would concede is that an ego (and everything else) is
"empty" of perfect causal independence. In other words, it must be emergent
and generated.

------
greengarstudios
Reminds me of this:

"Remember, dear brothers and sisters, that few of you were wise in the world’s
eyes or powerful or wealthy when God called you. Instead, God chose things the
world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And
he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful. God chose
things despised by the world, things counted as nothing at all, and used them
to bring to nothing what the world considers important. As a result, no one
can ever boast in the presence of God."

\- 1 Corinthians 1:26-29 (NLT)

------
jonmc12
Love the post, but nothing? I say adopt 2 or more senses of self, and get
really good at using them at the right time.

I think moving beyond an ego-based sense of self is the best way to think
rationally and accomplish a goal. In fact, the biggest benefit is probably
being able to rationally understand other people's point of view without a
sense of self clouding up your interpretation. But, for me at least, it has
not been pragmatic to abandon a sense of self at all times.

For instance, it is much easier for me to relate to my grandmother with a
stronger sense of self - or at least project a persona that gives that
appearance. You can't really like people or things (in the most basis sense)
without ego. Nor, can you fully extend emotional empathy in the purist sense
when you have no sense of self. With no ego there are many professional
environments that will simply drain your energy - even if you have a decent
persona for relating emotionally with others.

For me, the better answer has been to look at my self (more specifically my
brain) as a library of different selfs. Yes, I am nothing, but I must at least
be a controller that responds to my environment with the most relevant sense
of self at any point in time. I would suggest there is an evolution of self
beyond nothing.

------
dkurth
On the one hand, he says, "if we aren't changing for the better, then we are
just slowly decaying," suggesting that there is such a thing as "better."

On the other hand, he talks about "returning to zero expectations" and being
"nothing."

I conclude that Paul wants to be a better nothing. Or possibly that he _is_
slowly decaying. I'm not sure you can be nothing and also have a standard for
getting better.

~~~
paul
It's about finding an unconstrained perspective. Perhaps re-read the last
paragraph?

~~~
dkurth
Fair enough, I re-read it.

I'm thinking about "perspective" -- the word suggests a relationship to
something bigger. For example, when an artist draws with perspective, there is
a point on the horizon toward which lines extend. Removing constraints may be
a useful exercise, but removing _all_ constraints would, in a sense, remove
all perspective as well. So I think I'm looking for a perspective that's
constrained by what's true, rather than one that's unconstrained.

I guess this is what I find inconsistent. There's this idea: "Until we let go
of our mental images of who we are or who we should be, our vision remains
clouded by expectation." But in the same paragraph, there's a notion of "self
improvement." If I remove all expectations of who I should be, how can I
measure my self improvement (assuming I intend to improve myself in the first
place)?

There's the potential here to replace stressing out over a question like "am I
a good father?" with stressing over things like "am I nothing? Am I improving?
Am I myself yet?" Might this be just another "path to insanity?" Just a
thought.

------
DanielBMarkham
This is good. Reminds me of my observations on Hugh Everett's life and my
conclusion to believe in anti-solipsism.
[http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2007/11/the_first_ant...](http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2007/11/the_first_antis.php)

I'd encourage Paul to take the next step, and realize that not only are you
nothing, what you do really doesn't matter at all (Perhaps very difficult for
Paul to believe, given his accomplishments! But true anyway)

Once you realize you're nothing, and what you do in life won't really matter
-- life is fundamentally and irrevocably absurd -- then you can really be free
to make the most with what you have. Because just realizing you transcend
labels doesn't take the existential pressure off until you realize you also
transcend existence itself -- you are truly and deeply nothing. At that point,
you realize that the decisions a person makes is the only thing they truly
own. This is the beginning of freedom.

It all sounds a lot like existentialism 101. Good stuff!

~~~
pygorex
If a person is "truly and deeply nothing" then how is that person making
decisions? I can understand feeling like nothing - but something has to exist
to have a feeling of nothingness in the first place.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I do not mean "truly and deeply nothing" in some sort of sense that it is
impossible to perceive you, or in the sense that somehow you should be
depressed. I meant "nothing" in the sense that in the cosmic scale of things,
no matter what you do, nobody will ever remember it and it will make no
significant difference ten thousand years after you are gone. Yes, in a very
temporary way, you have the properties of existence, but the time-frame is so
narrow, your impact so minuscule, that the limit approaches zero. I'm not sure
if there is some other word for it -- nothing seemed the most appropriate.

This is not nihilism. As I said, understanding the astonishingly small (and
basically non-existent) nature of your life is one of the necessary steps to
understand what it really means to exist in the first place. That is, as Paul
says, if you think you are X or Y, then you are never freed to be a better
version of yourself. This is because you are comparing yourself to some
external standard that you can never be. Likewise, if you think that somehow
"being a better person" is a journey that leads you somewhere that has lasting
consequences you are also lying to yourself -- it really doesn't matter. What
you need to understand that it is the daily decisions to be a better person
that matter, not the comparison between yourself today and some future state
that you are headed towards. This is the same mistake that Paul describes,
only he is talking about comparing yourself to some label, while I am talking
about comparing yourself to some future version of yourself that you are
headed towards.

Does that make sense?

------
thedigitalengel
Reminds me of Tyler:

It's only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything.

~~~
amourgh
i invite you lose everything ,and see how free you will be to do what you want

------
JDulin
Awesome essay from Paul, very insightful.

This mindset is good at not only helping yourself become yourself, but placing
the best people in your life.

If you spend your entire life trying to please everyone you meet, decide who
you should be friends with and who you shouldn't, and become a person that
others will like more, you will ultimately not make friends who you would have
by just being yourself. And those are the friends you want most.

Perhaps even worse, you could waste endless amounts of time on people who you
think you should be friends with or have in your life, but really shouldn't.
Sooner or later, the relationships with these people that you built on the
foundation of some artificial idea of yourself will crumble. If you know that
you are nothing, then become yourself, you will be surprised how many amazing
friends you will find in your life.

------
badclient
No so simple. Having no identity can pose its own set of problems.

Paul addresses the problems posed by over-committing to your identity. But if
you do run with the title of his post and _remove_ all identity, you don't
automatically get a self that is eager to learn new shit. That is the best
case scenario.

You can just as easily be the guy who knows a lot - but lacks confidence to
progress because he doesn't think he is a good developer or plumber. Or you
can be the guy who doesn't know much and thus doesn't have an identity.

We've all met people who know _exactly_ who they are("i am a kickass ruby
developer beyond anything else in life") and we know people who know shit load
of something but continue to ponder who they really are("kickass ruby
developer professionally but really what am i?"). Both, at certain extremes
can be equally harmful.

------
dan-k
These lines of thinking that involve rejecting an entire set of propositions
about something always end up devolving into something like Russell's paradox
if you take them to their natural conclusion. In this case, being in a state
of true nothingness would preclude the possibility of considering nothingness
an ideal state to be in, as that is in itself an individuating characteristic.
It's the same problem that arises with pure moral relativism, which is itself
an absolute moral position.

I'd be willing to bet that human nature is as complicated as the system of
natural numbers; perhaps we keep butting our heads into walls like this
because we're trying to find answers that would violate Godel's incompleteness
theorems...

------
nickmolnar2
I'm also reminded of Daniel Dennett's secret to happiness: find something
bigger than yourself and devote your life to it. That too allows you to drop
your baggage and become 'nothing'. And it's a great way to leave a lasting
impact on the world too.

~~~
paul
It seems a little ironic that he would copy the standard religious
formulation. The problem with this approach is that you may devote your life
to the wrong bigger thing and then end up in the middle of a "religious" war.

~~~
sadlyNess
From what i've seen, we all have something we worship, God or not. This entity
is perceived by us to be greater and may or may not benefit us. It's like
we're wired to worship, only we have different opinions on the deity.

~~~
0x0x0x
The only thing is life I worship are my kids. They are, consequently, both
greater than I and the direct benefit has already been apparent. With
continued effort, it is also likely to grow.

:)

------
corin_
This isn't relevant to the actual message of the post, but something that
caught my eye was in the paragraph about thinking you are "too _X_ to be _Y_
". Most of them make sense, and I can understand people thinking the _Y_
because of feeling the _X_. Except these two:

    
    
      too effeminate to be straight
    
      too smart to be kind
    

Am I being foolish or do those two not fit? I can imagine someone thinking
"I'm too sensitive, that's not how a man should be", I can't imagine someone
thinking "I'm effeminate, I guess I can't be straight after all".

~~~
paul
They are all false. The point is that people hide parts of themselves so that
they can more cleanly fit into whatever categories they identify with. How
many straight men act macho out of fear of seeming gay?

~~~
corin_
Ah, I mis-understood your premise for that paragraph then - sorry!

On another offtopic note, I think the whole having to be macho thing is
changing pretty fast though - not yet disappeared, but on its way. One of the
biggest things I've noticed (in England) is that it's very common to see boys,
aged 7-16 wearing pink tshirts. Even in my childhood ~10 years ago I don't
think I remember any friends or anyone my age wearing pink for it being too
feminine a colour. And that's just one random thing, but that trend seems to
hold true in my experience in adults too, and not just in clothing.

------
waffle_ss
Having a realistic sense of self is great; diminishing your self into a
nothingness (i.e. totally altruistic) is not something to be admired. Then
again, maybe I've read too much Ayn Rand.

~~~
nbashaw
I don't think Paul's saying he's an altruist when he says "I am nothing". It's
about not assigning attributes to our identity.

~~~
waffle_ss
True, I re-read the article and see it now, and agree 100%. However, I still
think "I am nothing" is a poor turn of phrase for it. I would prefer "I cannot
be labeled" or "I am none of the above".

~~~
nbashaw
But "I am nothing" is so much more poetic! :)

------
akivabamberger
Here's the thing, though: as long as others see themselves according to some
paradigm, they will likely see you in relation to them and cast you in some
social role.

In social interactions, we assume some identity to relate with those around
us. Inevitably, those interactions (if we're receptive and respecting of who
we interact with) will affect our own thoughts, including (sometimes) our
sense of self.

No man's an island, and no man's nothing so long as he lives in a society.
Saying "I am nothing" is just as bad as saying "I am X"

------
foysavas
There is clear resonance between his main point and Kazantzakis's famous
epitaph:

 _Δεν ελπίζω τίποτε. Δεν φοβούμαι τίποτε. Είμαι λεύτερος._

 _I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free._

That said, awesome post.

------
mannicken
I agree. Having ego is so outdated. Ego is like believing that blacks are an
inferior race, or earth is flat, or earth is 6000 years old.

In other words, "apple is being eaten by you just as much as you are eating
the apple". It's not so much that you have chosen to eat the apple, as much as
the apple chose to hit the receptors in your brain that will make you eat it.
But it's all ridiculous: you and apple are one harmonious system.

------
marknadal
Meanwhile Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Larry Page, and Mark Zuckerberg are focusing
on making the world a better place, not on being nothing.

------
zitterbewegung
This is why I like to do science. I feel like I am constantly learning. I know
that I know nothing and I can only know a little bit more by science. When I
acknowledged my limitations and just sat down and calculated then I performed
better. Sort of a zen like way of thinking. I know that I know nothing and
instead I must just calculate and manipulate symbols.

~~~
canistr
Conversely, this is why I like reading things in the realm of philosophy and
political science. As an engineer by trade, I feel there's a more freeform in
those areas and I tend to read philosophy and political science to escape and
relax. Perhaps I became an engineer out of expectation and my true nature
would have led me to the liberal arts. There's nothing wrong with either
science or liberal arts, as long as one is nothing and knows who they are and
studies what interest them.

------
sausax82
The article resonates with a branch of philosophy called non-duality. Lately I
have been reading a lot about non-duality, mainly from books written by J
Krishnamurti. It all boils down to living in an ego less state and getting rid
of the illusion of choice. It's very easy to understand it intellectually, but
problem lies in realizing it in everyday life.

------
rooshdi
Inspirational read. Our own insecurities mean nothing in the end. Enabling
others to erase theirs means so much more.

------
brok3nmachine
This post is great, and from reading the comments, I'm happy to see plenty of
people being touch. So not having read the Zen Buddhist book on my shelf, I do
have this to say... I am not nothing, I'm amazing. While I may disagree with
others, they are beautiful and I have much love for them. Nobody is nothing.

------
drungli
I'm sorry, but this article is saying a lot of nothing... and I felt like I
wasted my time when finished reading it.

------
surrealize
It's great to let go of labels--it helps you stop worrying about whether
you're being a good enough <whatever>. But saying that you're "nothing" isn't
a good way to put it. You're still something, you just don't have to worry
about being a particular, externally-defined thing.

------
g-garron
I've seen once on Discovery Channel, that Buddha said: "You will only be happy
when you kill all your desires, when you want nothing". It was something like
that, so, as soon as you want nothing, you are free, and then you are happy.

------
YuriNiyazov
I am kind of curious as to what prompted this post now than at any other time.

------
dave1619
The question is: are you genuinely trying to become nothing or are you trying
to become nothing in order to become somebody by accomplishing something,
which means that you really aren't nothing.

------
vannevar
Bliss is overrated. The greatest achievements often come from discontented,
even tormented people. I for one don't want to live in a world where every
book reads like Deepak Chopra.

------
euroclydon
Great essay! I'm definitely going to identify myself with others that value
the "I am nothing" mantra. I hope I don't begin to think I am something, that
could cause anxiety.

------
kwithl
"many of our weaknesses are actually strengths"

So when you say that you are nothing you mean that you have many strengths,
flip the ladder again, this is a circular double helix

------
username3
If I were nothing, I might be afraid of being something.

------
wolfhumble
To be completely honest I stopped reading when I saw the picture of a man with
a big automatic weapon.

Well known person or not, advices and weapons do not go together.

------
symptic
As I read this, I kept thinking of the movie American Beauty. If you found
this post through-provoking or disagree with it, watch this movie.

~~~
andyjenn
...funny, I kept on thinking of the line in WarGames when WOPR says the only
way to win is not to play.

------
skrebbel
I see the sense of this, but I find it very difficult to accept.

Anyone else struggling with this?

~~~
lloeki
It eventually becomes a necessity, else you simply go deeper in insanity and
exhaustion.

------
hussong
Your genuine humility and down-to-earthness never cease to amaze and inspire
me.

------
tmsh
You may enjoy early Socrates if you haven't already.

------
Alex3917
As Heraclitus would say, all flows.

------
andrewcooke
what's the implicit context here? it's hard not to think that this is related
to the nym-wars, but how?

(i hope it's not "if we can be happy with who we are, then we will not mind
using fixed identities"...)

------
mfceo
its not good to loose ones ego.

------
ristretto
I 've never seen so many "reminds me of" comments on a post before.

------
crizCraig
I find not caring about what people think ends up hurting my personal
relationships. I have to try _really_ hard to be aware of my identity and how
that fits in with the people around me. Naturally I am aloof. Is that what
this article is saying I should be?

~~~
danenania
I think identities are layered. Perhaps underneath your day-to-day persona,
you are aloof and solitary, but what's beneath that? Perhaps if you explore
where that comes from and try to understand it, you can find a way to engage
with others _and_ feel true to yourself. After all, a belief like 'I am
aloof', is exactly what the op is advising against. You aren't aloof. You
aren't anything except what you decide to be in any given moment. Your
aloofness is a box of your own construction.

~~~
crizCraig
Thanks. I think it's a matter of getting out more. You're right, we can choose
what we want to be. It may just take some time to get there. :)

------
maeon3
This is a major component of Christianity. (I'm not preaching here) I thought
it was interesting that the non religious world is figuring out things that
have been core teachings for the last 2800 years.

In the christian world, it is called "taking yourself off the throne and
putting another entity on it". The entity that gets put on it is variable, but
the constant is that you are not on it.

~~~
paul
That sounds like a very different concept actually. Worshiping a king seems
more likely to narrow your perception.

~~~
msg
Before we get too caught up in "what Christians believe" let's point out that
it is a big tent religion and the story is much more complicated.

Perhaps, as Chesterton said, GP is being "as narrow as the universe".

When I read your essay I immediately thought of the negative way, which is the
strain of Christian philosophy that denies affirmative statements about God,
and denies to some extent settled knowledge.

<http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology>

There is also an equal and opposite affirmative way that takes God as knowable
not literally, but by analogy.

And this to me is the missing element in the essay. This egoless vehicle that
we are cleaning so carefully, where are we to drive it? What shall we use to
measure improvement? How will we understand progress?

------
klbarry
It seems to me quite difficult to follow the philosophy described in this
essay. It also seems to me an undesirable life, though I can see why a person
would want it. Much satisfaction in my life comes from seeing myself as a
"good" x, and I experience very little dissatisfaction from these labels.
Perhaps this will change as I age.

------
donnaware
yes grasshopper, to be nothing is to be everything, to be everything is to be
one with the universe. Now snatch the pebble....

------
sdfkdfdfjdfng
So is this proof that money rots your brain? Because this guy is very smart,
but he sounds...like a homeless guy in Berkeley. I would know, I've had
conversations with them. I mean, I wouldn't want this guy on my board if I was
crazy/stupid/motivated enough to ask him for money for a start-up, just on the
basis of this slightly alarming essay.

Two things come to mind: PUA theory and having so much money that the boredom
literally drives you nuts. So I'm thinking this guy may be headed for
cautionary tale territory.

Anyway, rock on, faggots.

