Pretty sure Odysseus did listen to the Sirens, lashed to the mast while his crew stopped their ears with beeswax. Contrary to what is reported in this article.
Getting something as basic as a detail from literature wrong when you're using it to make your point puts everything else in the article in a shadow of doubt for me. Can I believe what he's saying about kava when he hasn't got basic reading comprehension down? I'm probably being harsh, the detail probably doesn't matter. Or is it a "No yellow m&m's" in the rock band rider as a telltale for "do these guys take care about detail?"
And then there's the image of Odysseus as slave-driver, "holding his unwilling crew to the oars" or thereabouts. Did the writer of this article read the same Odyssey as everyone else?
>> The lotos is a drug, but it stands for something more: the refusal to engage with the world of progress and economic productivity, and [the refusal] to maintain a society in readiness for war.
The short version: Hippies gonna hip'.
The Lotus Eaters in their various emergent forms throughout history are the other side of the pendulum from hard work and endeavor taken to extreme.
There should be a balance that doesn't require completely giving up.
> There should be a balance that doesn't require completely giving up.
I think beyond this, there should be a spectrum of engagement that anyone can choose from - maybe working crazy salaryman hours, maybe living on a subsistence reservation, but more likely something in-between, at various levels. It's important for a person to be able to choose how ambitious they want to be, and I find that the options are lacking in my society.
I guess my take-away is, I wish I could more easily opt to work, say, 30 hr/week for 75% of my salary and benefits. It seems like my only choice is to work 40 hrs, take a lesser hourly job, or go freelance/startup which entails a lot of personal overhead.
You might try looking around, for another company which does what you do now. I did 32-hour weeks for about nine years, both at a small company (~ 850 people) and the comparative behemoth I work for now (~ 90,000 people).
Getting something as basic as a detail from literature wrong when you're using it to make your point puts everything else in the article in a shadow of doubt for me. Can I believe what he's saying about kava when he hasn't got basic reading comprehension down? I'm probably being harsh, the detail probably doesn't matter. Or is it a "No yellow m&m's" in the rock band rider as a telltale for "do these guys take care about detail?"