The universe in which we live is a vast, impossibly infinite place.
Yet when I consider most of my distastes for our modern society the origin tends to fall towards the over-connectivity in which we experience.

The constant, grinding, pressure of over-connectivity to other humans - not only in the form of conforming to a standardised social system, in which for 90% of the 1st world populous results in the reknowned 9-to-5 - extreme in the form that constant, instantly shareable, perfectly capturing and yet context lacking memory devices prevent the vast majority of potential raw human experiences from being born due to the unrelentingly powerful anxiety of future regret.

Such thoughts make it perfectly natural, to lay blame on two key foundations that do seem, for their own part, to directly cause this: social media; and governmental systems; some may even find go a step further and blame capitalism as a whole.

Although I won't neccesarily dismiss these blames, I have come to think there is something far more fundamental at play here, and by solving the root cause, the issues of governments and social medias no longer seem quite so dramatic. As far as I see it, the core problem with humanity - at it's current moment in time - is simply that we're all far too close together.

Now, at first, this may sound either: a little obvious; or plain stupid; but I promise there is reasoning behind these statements. I believe we humans are simply not meant to know, interact with and be so instantly accountable to so many of ourselves at once - paired with those of us in the 1st world having our fundamental needs met - and it's a recipe for disaster. We are slightly smart apes, and we require a mix of both order and chaos to properly function, we require order for our day to day lives, yet chaos to find ourselves within.

My theoretical answer to this problem is simple to write, but extravagantly hard to execute: we must remember that our planet, is not our whole universe.

It's easy to take quality for granted, but the moment it is, it tends to disappear.
Quality is not the standard result; it must be actively sought out — pushed for, fought for. No matter if in a product, process, or action, to do something of quality requires attention, care and focus.
Yet we take quality for granted throughout life, it's easy to, when something works exactly how it is expected is when we think of it the least. When something is not of quality, that's when we notice it, we feel the anger, frustration, disappointment, and so on.
So notice it. Seek it out. Search for Quality. When you start to actively look for quality you realise how much pure obsession and focus has gone into so many of the things around you by so many countless people, and equally when that is not the case. But it's the former that is of the greatest benefit, because it brings the further realisation that somewhere in this world of ours somebody really genuinely cared about their thing, whatever it is, they cared about it, they ensured it was Quality.

What is the meaning of life? What is the meaning? What is meaning?
It seems all the same, we're all stumbling around trying to understand why we're stumbling at all, and at the same time joyous and in pain from our stumbling.
If this all ended tomorrow would you be glad for how you spent your time? For I believe that's all the meaning you have, all that I can get. There's a certain short sightedness that can be approximated from that idea in shallow, yet in depth it unveils why we do what we do, why we push so hard, why we must move ever forward.
Nothing matters, so everything does.

Is the self the internal monologue, the identity it observes, the mind seen of the eyes in the mirror? Is it the perspectives of those outside, a combination of views that piece together like the greatest jigsaw to fulfil a vibrant identity? Is it something greater, something indescribable, such that we mere humans may never understand what the self is?

Maybe it's a combination. Maybe it's conflicting.

I had a conversation with my colleague Louis a few weeks ago, one where I admitted that I believe you need atleast two internal selves: one purely internal, where the ego runs wild and believes it deserves all that is possible, believes that it is better than most; and the other much more external, reasonable, humble, that holds an incredible level of empathy and appreciation for all others.
I believe these selves must self-govern, but that each one should be channeled when needed. That without the egotistical self-absorbed believer, it would not be possible to achieve greatness for the whole self would not reach for it - yet without the sensible appreciator, the whole self would become an insufferable asshole, nothing would be enjoyable, no relationship sustained.

I'm unsure what exactly my self is, what combination of internal and external selves compose it, but the deeper I look, the more ever-carefully balanced parts I see.

Every few of weeks I take the train back to my hometown to stay at my childhood home. While I'm travelling and upon arrival I make a point of doing absolutely nothing that follows the vein of my work: Listen to the birds; meet up with friends; go for a drive; and just enjoy the vibe.

There's something so refreshing, so freeing about putting your mind into such a different state that all the worries of company progress can be ignored for a while in exchange for a more personal progress, a soulful progress, one that only comes from the willingness to simply vibe.

Everything can seem threating, large, and urgent - but to take a step back and see all those temporary problems as those which you have encountered before and will encounter again allows you to truly understand that is all they are, and the soul can be free.

The age old saying "you get what you deserve" has a major missing caveat. In order to get what you deserve you must input effort towards that result, and one does not input unless they believe they will receive an equal or greater output. As such in order to achieve what you deserve, you must believe you can attain it, for only then will you provide the input which allows you to receive the output.

If you do not believe you should have something, you will not attain it. If you believe you deserve something, and I mean truly believe, then you will naturally put yourself in a place to receive it.

Whenever I truly break down why something creates value for people, the result is typically one or some combination of the following concepts:

• Provide time
• Provide information
• Provide emotion

To "provide" any of this set can take a variety of forms, but the core idea remains the same. Google provides information by converting questions to websites, Amazon provides time by delivering goods instead of requiring them to be physically collected, Facebook/Twitter/Youtube/etc provide emotion on demand at ease.
You could even apply this to more abstract value creation - such as employees "providing time" by taking and doing tasks that their bosses otherwise would've had to do, or friends and relatives "providing emotion" that is returned to create mutual value and form connection. Regardless of the scenario, these three types of value always appear.

Ask yourself this, does what I'm working on create value in these ways? To what extent? And can that extent be increased?
Whenever I am unpleased and confused with the results of something I've worked on I ask myself these questions and almost always see the answer.

I hate how distinctly and forcefully opposing the internet, and to a lesser extent society as a whole, has become. Everything seems to be reduced to a fundamental good vs bad, a right and wrong, with everyone needing to be on "the right side" regardless of the subject or their knowledge upon it.
I believe that in order to live a truly consequential life you must be aware of two core principles that directly oppose this trend:

1. That nothing is ever perfectly concrete, such that even the simplest of claims may have environments in which they break down.
2. That in order to truly understand a subject to a great enough extent to confidently make an assumption to a "right", you must input such a level of effort that it would be effectively impossible to do this for every subject.

The result of these principles is that you may realise a certain level of abstraction is required for the vast majority of subjects in order to truly understand the few you are dedicated to. Then, and only then, may you be able to give a valuable insight into what may be "right" and what may be "wrong", whilst also understanding the cavets and naunces of that claim.