I am attempting to shift how I view work - my livelihood - and what I ultimately believe is possible for me in my life. My questioning today is grounded by Andrew J. Taggart’s words, drawing a distinction between the good life and the sustaining life.

The good life is defined as “the sake of which one ultimately lives.” The sustaining life is the “infrastructural support for the good life. One does not make a living for its own sake. One makes a living in order to live out a conception of the good life.” A simpler definition Andrew presents is that the sustaining life is how one meets their material needs and the needs of those dependent on them. However, for me this is a less complete definition. I believe that the sustaining life needs other psychospiritual technologies of contemplation, communication, life structuring, etc. to form a complete infrastructure that supports the good life. These are the other aspects of the "robot suit" from Venkatesh Rao’s Art of Gig:

I expand this into a conception of “building my spacesuit” - the systems, structures, and assets that allow me to independently survive and navigate the infinite, uncertain space of possibilities for my life. I’ll write more about this at some point.

I don’t know if I will be able to find my way, or how long it will take. But I can create that it is possible. And I really want to try.

I want to use the internal resistance I feel about sharing this part of my journey as a prompt, a chisel to find what is true.

The feeling of “risk” and “fear” is an indication of something that can be leveraged toward truth. Use it to find what is true. Notice how what you are saying is moderated, and say anyway the truth that is expanded with possibility. For it is already true.

Here's a study of finding and communicating the truth, through a sequential series of thoughts I had while contemplating:

1. I want to write and contemplate about “building my spacesuit,” and rewriting my relationship to work and the possibilities of my life.
2. What will mama-papa think? Will they want me to know already? Will they want a timeline?
3. Hm, I’m afraid to say that I might not know. So at the moment, I am refraining from publishing it.
4. But my not-knowing is the truth, in any case. I don’t know if I will succeed at this, but I want to create the possibility that I can. Others have, so perhaps I can as well. I don’t know for sure. This is the truth, so I will publish this!
5. Hm. I’m noticing that I’m actually moderating toward the negative. Fuck it, it is possible for me to do this. I believe it is possible. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be working toward it! This is the truth, so I will publish this.

This is how I can find a way to the truth and communicate it. Truth is not a positive or negative reaction to any belief, assumption, or emotion (an effect of beliefs and assumptions).

For our purposes, we might call (3) a “positive” reaction (a direct result of) a belief or effect. I am experiencing fear around (2) my parents’ reactions toward my pathlessness, so I do not publish or communicate that pathlessness.

We might call (4) a counter-reaction toward (2) and (3). It’s a step toward truth - I do not know what my life will look like. I am in a state of not-knowing. However, my communication of that is still influenced by (2). Statement (4) is still small and fearful, in a subtle way. And as a result, the possibility of my success in realizing the good life is briefly a casualty alongside my knowledge of the shape of that success.

In (5), I notice that, and the context expands beyond (2), (3), and (4). I am able to expand my vision to observe that I actually do believe it is possible for me to find success. That I actually am operating that way already. And so statement (5) is closer to communicating truth. It seems self-evident. And it doesn’t feel like there is further mining to do there... though there might be!