Chapters 6 and 7

I know, I'm behind. I haven't had a lot of time to respond to the chapters but this morning, since I'm used to getting up early, the morning was spent catching up on some much needed reading.

Having Lunch with Your Parents - Ch. 6

"So paramount is this responsibility to feed and nurtue the young lives the parents have created that it alters the value of their own" (Page 66).

This is absolutely beautiful and was the first thing I underscored (well second actually, the first one was "[women's] new job as milk machine" - next to a smiley face, too). The chapter goes on to mention the way parents lives are altered after they start bearing children. Also, the paradox of prioritizing once children come into a couple's life. I have often wondered, like the author, why adults are instructed by flight attendants to put their oxygen masks on before the children. Like Smith said, it seems strange and conflicts with the extinct to protect them first. The children are the priority now! However, it makes sense. Parents/adults cannot provide for children if they're not already taken care of first. For example, a mother must eat first before her embryonic baby can take "a bite". So although the instinct is to care for the child first, the parent needs to be in a position to care, ergo: put on that oxygen mask and don't feel bad for gorging yourself on chocolate pregnant ladies (your baby will thank you later).

So, this isn't new news, but I have an auto-immune disease which plagues my digestive system and wreaks havoc as far as physical nourishment and strength goes. I wasn't breast fed as long as was needed because the doctor said it wasn't good for me. I wonder, now from my adult perspective, whether it would have been that bad to have continued to have been breast fed regardless of the intolerance. Would I have been OK? I read an article while at BYU about necessary antibodies newborn babies recieve through their mother's breast milk. These antibodies bolster and begin to protect a new baby's immune system and cannot be acquired any other way but through the mother. In short, I'm thinking 'out-loud' about the importance of the role parents play in nurturing (providing food as Smith put it) their offspring. There's little use in dwelling on what could have been but I can't help but wonder, especially when Smith makes such a great case.

Playing Hooky - Ch. 7

I never really liked playing hooky when I was a kid nor do I like playing it now. I have always hated missing out on things and playing hooky always conjured up that fear of missing out - even if I wasn't completely happy with my job, I still didn't want to miss anything. Though, I am a huge proponent of individual freedom. Smith says that "Individual freedom is what makes life worth living, and society should back off to let it breathe" (page 77). Amen brother, amen!

I appreciated his thoughts on happiness being something that doesn't hit you in the face but that it could be something that you can "think yourself into". I guess I have had a hard time coming to terms with happiness when circumstances are less than desirable. I know that I can still be happy in spite of what goes on around me, but the truth remains, it's harder to come by. I heard a friend tell me in all honesty, "I don't do happy well". I whole-heartedly agreed with this sentiment and applied it to my own life. Last year, most specifically this past winter, was one of the hardest times of my life. I didn't feel like I had any freedom and I felt like a prisoner to my own fate. I wasn't happy at work and I wasn't sure I was making a difference in anyone's life for the better (my own included).

Now the contrast to this summer and into this fall, I am happy again. Individual freedom is at a high. Although, I'm still doing the same thing: teaching, the difference is I love it this time around (for whatever reason). I'm at a different school, yes, but I'm actually working longer days than I did before. The difference is tricky to pinpoint since little has changed - maybe it was happiness all along. I chose to 'think' myself into happiness. Actually, I think it was my attitude. I'm allowing myself to be myself 100% and it has make all the difference. All day yesterday, I had a grin on my face and I remember laughing a lot. I am happy and it feels good and it has given me that feeling of freedom that comes when life is good. I still have obligations, work and things to do almost constantly - but it's good. I like it.

Life is full of paradoxes. I have found happiness and freedom in work rather than when I play hooky (not that I've done it in awhile - I found the most joy playing hooky in elementary through middle school). I just feel better about myself when I work hard. That's when the sweet comfort of satisfaction settles into my bones. Hello freedom!

Chapter 7: Playing Hooky

It was interesting reading this chapter while here at work as I still am. I have down time at work due to the hours and markets I serve, where I am allowed to read, internet browse, listen to music, facebook etc. but am not allowed to watch tv shows or movies, something that used to be allowed. I am having a hard time dealing with this, as I see it, punitive restriction. This new restriction has been handed down over a month ago and I am still bucking against it. If it doesn't make sense to me, I don't want to follow it. If I can still do my job the same as I did before when I had these liberties then why now am I to understand these new restrictions that make work less enjoyable and more likely to play hooky from. As Mill says, "Individual freedom is what makes life worth living, and society should back off to let it breathe" (77)

I agree with this statement. I have always wanted, craved and needed more freedom than I felt I had. I felt very controlled as a child and teenager. I had an English teacher who was a former student of Dad's tell him at a party they were both attending that he needs to stop trying to control me. That I needed to be free to be me. I remember as a teen escaping out my window in the middle of a summer night and running down the streets on peoples lawns to Kiwanis Park to meet my friends. I felt so alive and free at that moment, running in my bare feet on the wet lawns of summer escaping the captivity of my home life. It was exhilarating and empowering. I think this need for "freedom" as I understand it has caused some problems for me in adulthood. I have issues with authority. I can do my job and follow the rules for the most part but when the rules go against logic and also impinge on my "freedoms" then I have a problem. I want to sneak and watch my shows whenever I feel "safe" to do so but always making sure to be careful to not get caught. This causes anxiety and stress of which is the opposite of happiness and the harm of which is mentioned by Smith: "for individual liberty doesn't actually work without it's sister concept harm". The irony here with my so-called freedom and "hookiness" is that the one I am harming is myself. The author is talking of harming others but here in my case it is myself that I harm trying to have more freedom at work. And if I were to get caught I could lose my job harming myself even more. It is quite frustrating to realize this especially since I am not harming anyone else in this process, so why can't I just be given this freedom?

I want to end in saying that freedom is a double edged sword. It is like the difference between a world governed by laws and one of anarchy. I was telling Dad the other day that I would enjoy some anarchy in the world. When I say that, I am only meaning that I would enjoy some freedom from laws to do whatever I liked. To speed as fast as I dared to go. To watch tv and movies at work. To run a red light if it was safe to do so. To run around naked if I felt so inclined. I wouldn't be doing things that endangered others but where do you draw the line? And how long would that joy last? Not long at all, I think. Freedom is enjoyed because we don't take it for granted. If I had all the money in the world and had no responsibilities what would freedom really mean? As humans we need some kind of purpose and responsibility to feel happy, at least I believe so. I want to be making a difference for the good in the world, not that I am currently doing that but this is what I aspire to. And as Smith says, freedom is subjective, "the sphere of freedom is not the market but the mind".

Smith chapter 7

I see Smith’s chapter 7 as series of variations on the theme of the competing demands of duty and desire. If, as Smith writes, “individual freedom is what makes life worth living,” (77) then does the freedom to do what you want to do (play hooky) and not what you have to do (work) determine whether the results are sweet or bitter? This is the key question for me, because doing your duty, however willingly, doesn’t produce the level of happiness that following your heart’s desire does. Case in point. Going to work is rarely as fun and going golfing or fishing, even if you like your job. My moral read on the difference between acting out of duty or out of desire has a lot to do with a principle I came up with after reading this quote from Hemingway: “You can always tell whether you did good or bad today by how you feel tomorrow morning.”

I expanded that notion into what I ended up calling the Bitter-Sweet Principle. Doing good, whatever that might be, is almost always hard (bitter) on the front end and sweet on the back end. Doing good makes you feel good in the end, even though it was hard at the start, because there seems to be some element of self-sacrifice in every good deed (giving of yourself for a higher end), like visiting a lonely, little old lady when you would much rather go to a movie. An interesting thing about this sequence is that the sweet back end fills us with a desire to do it again, for the emotional payoff, creating a good (rather than vicious) cycle that leads to ever greater bitter sacrifices followed by ever sweeter payoffs.

On the other hand, doing bad works in reverse. It is sweet (desirable) on the front end (if it weren’t enticing, who would do it?) but, because of our conscience, it leaves a bitter after taste (we feel bad when we do bad). Maybe we could call this the “Hangover Principle.” In a reverse parallel to the dynamics of doing good (it benefits others), bad deeds hurt others, which is one of Smith’s main points early in the chapter. So we have two factors that keep us from playing hooky: our conscience (we want to avoid guilt) and our altruism (we don’t want to hurt others). Traditionally in history, social contracts require that individual freedom of self-expression mustn’t threaten another’s freedom and happiness.

I’m also intrigued by Smith’s focus on the end result: happiness. This brings me to an inescapable conclusion about duty and desire. The more we follow duty to get to its sweet end, the greater our capacity to give of ourselves, even until it not only hurts but may even kill us. I think of the heroic “first responders” on 9/11 who, with barely a hesitant thought of putting their own lives in jeopardy, rushed into the trade towers to save others from annihilation. That’s one of the highest forms of self-expression because it is grounded in self-sacrifice.

In the context of Jesus’ teachings, this pattern creates a paradox at the apex of this path to greater and greater self-sacrifice for the sake of others. It is best captured in His saying: “He that findeth his life shall lose it; and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.” (Matt 10:39) Smith even uses the Savior’s favorite metaphor—“to bring the lost sheep back to the fold.” (84) Doing that successfully ensures the greatest freedom of all and creates the greatest paradox: the greatest personal freedom grows from the greatest devotion and obedience to God’s work.

Smith is right. Freedom without discipline “is not good for your health.” (84) But it can be a lot of fun, as both Smith and Annie suggest, which is one of the values of this chapter for me. To let go of duty and even desire and become, like my wife is naturally, more aware of the small and grand pleasures that lurk around every corner, “drifting from the norm and inventing possibilities you might otherwise. . . become inured to” (86) by unlocking “this playful, childlike self that’s more akin to the adventurer you always wanted to be.” (87)

Chapter 7 - Playing Hooky

I particularly enjoyed the part where it talks about play. A favorite line in this chapter is "By excusing you from the world, play allows for deeper engagement in it." This is so true. I think when we play it frees our minds from stress, and worry, so that when we are down, our whole being is lighter, and we appreciate everything more. It goes on to say "the more self-conscious, the less play-like play becomes, for play is nothing if not the suspension of self-consciousness, the relief from being held to account by the world." Why did this strike me so intensely? I think in being a parent of young children I, ironically, forgot how to play. I became too caught up in 'adulthood' and responsibilities, so when my kids got older and my responsibilities were less, I became more aware of how important it was to play, to become unself-conscious. And I regretted not doing more of it when they were younger.

In reading alot of this chapter, I was thinking of how I play scrabble at work. Scrabble being my hooky. I have to appear as if I am always working so I have to be discreet in my scrabble games. On page 78 it says, "Doesn't having to pretend you're still at work mean that the yoke of empowerment's very opposite, enslavement, still hangs aroung your neck?" YES, yes it does. So my 'freedom' is "of an inferior kind". Oh well, still feels like freedom. I'll take anything I can get.

Having Lunch With Your Parents

Erin:
This is the 6th chapter of the book we are reading, but the first one for me since I am a late addition to this convo. It brings to mind the lunches or linners, as I call them since my lunch is really my breakfast and my lunch/breakfast is usually my fathers dinner. I wake up around 3-5 pm from working a graveyard shift. My father has been taking his kids out to lunch/dinner on a semi regular basis for a while now that he is retired. It is a good idea because without the formal invitations I rarely see my parents or family in general, it is sad but true. So I am grateful that my father has offered his time and money to bring us together.

I have really enjoyed the times that we have spent together. I often don't want them to end. I have always been able to sit and talk with my dad about anything and everything. We are similar in a lot of ways and I have always felt a kindred spirit in him. I also love that he is someone I can talk to and learn from at the same time. If I think back to dinner with my family as a child, it is quite a different picture. I don't remember conversations, but I do remember questions asked about our day etc. I would tend to answer in monosyllabic words to get him off my back so I could resume inhaling my food in order to get seconds before Soren ate them before me. Dinner was usually a contest between myself and my brother Soren to see who could eat their first helping of food the fastest in order to get the scant amount of leftovers that lay on the table getting cold. And, of course, if we were still hungry after dinner we knew what we would hear from Mom, "If you are still hungry then have some toast." It was a cheap way to fill up if we were still hungry after any meal. Needless to say I became a carb addict quite early in life. I am happy to say that I no longer depend on bread at my meals in order to feel "satisfied".

As the author states in this chapter, "Because life depends on food, you've got to feed the lives that depend on you. If it's by virtue of having children together, of jointly forging new life, that parents become parents, they remain so by keeping that life alive and kicking". As a child I tended to focus on what I was lacking and not being grateful for what I had, which was at the least food and shelter which are the basic building blocks according to Maslow's hierarchy of human needs. Without these a person can not reach to the highest levels of self acutalization. So then people in Africa who are starving are not even attaining the most basic of human needs and don't get anywhere close to our human experience and understanding of the world around us. In a developed country we tend to take these basic things for granted. It makes you put things into perspective and realize how much we have to be grateful for.

 I remember hearing somewhere that when you overeat you are compensating for the love you didn't receive as a child. So it probably comes as no surprise that I am the fat one of the family, since I complained the most of not having my emotional needs met as a child and not getting the love I needed from my parents. Even with all my criticizing of my parents I do think that both my parents put their needs ahead of their children which brings up the first paradox in this chapter, "the otherwise impregnable triangle that yokes together parents, children, and food. Without their parents creating them, children can't exist, and once existing, they depend on those parents to keep them in existence with food and water. In this respect, the life of the parent is indispensable to the life of the child". Now instead of depending on my parents to feed me and keep me alive we eat together to sustain and enhance our relationships and enjoy one anothers company. How opulent and incomprehensible this might seem to someone who will never have enough food to eat. If I keep going in this vein I am going to get depressed about the world and all the deprivations therein. But if nothing else, at least it makes me realize how much we have and how much we take for granted. It is a lot better for the soul to be grateful for what we have rather than complain about what we don't have, and it really isn't hard to change perspective if you choose to.

The practice of Constellations that is brought up is very interesting and makes me think of how that would play out in our family. It makes me realize that no matter what our familial relationships are like in the family we are all connected in very profound ways whether we realize it or not, and that we may be affected more by each other than we know. This includes those that are dead in the family but still affecting those still alive. "For in the emotional algebra of the family, the dead count as much as the living". I feel that I have a stronger connection to Grandma Green now that she is dead than when she was living. I feel her comforting me when I am sad. I hear her telling me, in my mind, not to do something that she wouldn't approve of. I know that Dad and Annie are both very affected by dad's parents and always will be. It is the influence they had on us when they were here, and also the memory of them that we choose to keep alive in our minds that affect us now and probably always will until we meet them on the other side.

Breakfast with Socrates Chapter 5

Jon:

 I will make some general comments about Smith’s points in chapter 5 and then I will expand on some personal observations on the medical profession.
 I think we all suffer a little from what Smith calls the “God syndrome” because we all assume the doctor knows much more about illness than we do and that the end result of his diagnoses can often mean the difference between life and death. That’s a big deal to anyone. I’ll never forget my feeling when Dr. Landau first told me that he had discovered some pre-cancerous cells in the biopsy of my prostate. I thought: “I can’t die yet! I’m too young! This is unfair and unacceptable!” I was viscerally mad at someone, but rather than shake my fist at God, I took it out in the privacy of my mind on the doctor and his diagnosis. Ultimately, I’m glad I accepted his suggestion to undergo brachytherapy. It got rid of the cancer and I’m still alive. 
 I don’t agree with his dismissal of the natural human tendency to empathize with another’s pain. For me it has never seemed “as abstract as the suffering we watch on TV.” (54) Mom and I just finished watching a heart-wrenching documentary on TV about America’s aid to the victims of the Russian famine of 1921, a part of history I was totally unaware of. The photos of starving children huddled in suffocating rooms, sleeping naked on the cold floors with totally emaciated bodies was shocking and outrageous, because the Bolshevik authorities blithely ignored the log jam of trains filled with wheat that stood idle in rail yards for weeks while hundreds of thousands of people starved to death in Eastern Russia. 
 His observation about the self-awareness that comes with learning more about our illnesses reminds me of Socrates’ most famous dictum: “Know thyself.” Smith seems to suggest that there comes a point where knowing our ills can make us into hypochondriacs, that a bit of self-unawareness is probably healthy. I think pain can become a spiritual problem when it persists, because it forces our focus inward (we can’t stop thinking about it), thereby compromising our capacity to go outside of ourselves, which is the stance of any good person and the essence of altruism. I take my hat off to persons who can remain positive under conditions of terminal illnesses or long-term pain.
And I’m intrigued by his point that persistent illnesses can range beyond their causes, passing through the light of reason “back once more into the dark.” This touches on a problem I have with the medical profession in general, that doctors are trained in exclusively scientific methods, dismissing (as my own family doctor does) alternative modes like holistic medical practices, herbal remedies, and even ancient practices that still have efficacy. I find this attitude arrogant and harmful to the patient by dismissing other possible remedies because they haven’t passed the muster of scientific scrutiny. Not every malady lends itself solely to one regimen.* 
Even more problematic in modern medicine are the soaring costs of treatments that are often driven by pure greed (the stranglehold pharmaceutical companies have on the doctors who prescribe their expensive medications and the outrageous costs of one day in the hospital). Not only is it prohibitively expensive, it is dangerous to your health to be in a hospital. I don’t want to go there, but medical costs are a huge problem that will break the bank of our financial system unless we can find a way to rein in the costs of Medicare and Medicaid. 
Finally, his reference to the placebo effect is timely and true, because there is so much evidence in the history of medicine that non-physical factors often play a major role in either recovery or death. On the negative side, American soldiers held prisoner during the Korean War simply rolled over and died in captivity because they had lost their will to live. On the other hand, there seems to be ample experimental evidence to suggest that patients who are prayed for during terminal illnesses recover in far greater numbers than those who are not prayed for. 
Personal Observations:  
 I seriously could and well might have become a medical (instead of a philosophical) doctor, had I not had a dream when I was very young. Having lived in the St. George hospital during my year in Kindergarten (my father worked as a fireman at a naval base in southern California during the war), I grew to love the strange smells of disinfectants and the tall men in white coats who were my idols. But I dreamed one night that I was operating on a person, but forgot a procedure and he died. I woke up determined that I could never go into a profession where I might be the cause of another’s death. 

 I have a rather love-hate relationship with the notion of death. As I mentioned above, when I got cancer, I was suddenly overcome with distress over the fragility of my life and the possibility that I would die “before my time.” In the intervening years I have come to a much less stressful attitude, because I realize that the life we move to after death is so much more pleasant than this one. And yet, I also identify with Woody Allen’s concerns, when he said: “I’m not afraid of dying. I just don’t want to be there when it happens.” I feel the same way. I would much rather be “twinkled” than go through the process, which I suspect is generally very unpleasant, but I can think of nothing more wonderful than meeting with loved ones again and being in a more beautiful and pleasant place. What really puzzles me is how much effort is expended in our culture to save a person’s physical life and yet how cavalier we sometimes are about saving a person from spiritual danger. I often wish sirens would go off when someone is on the verge of doing something stupid that could really mess up his or her afterlife.
 One final point: I find it brainless and disgusting that prescription medications sold over the counter and through the media are almost exclusively designed to provide “fast, temporary relief” from what ails you, rather than “slow, permanent relief,” which is what any rational person really wants. But permanent solutions, which focus on treating causes rather than symptoms, would quickly lead to bankrupt companies, whose livelihood is linked to repeat customers. Duh!        


*Later in the chapter it seems clear that Smith, while admitting that some alternative methods can be helpful, they can and often are exploited at the expense of the patient’s well-being. True enough, but I have reverted to some herbal remedies and vitamin supplements for the very reason he admits that traditional medical treatments are often harmful and even deadly. I take Nattakinase instead of an 81 mg aspirin each day because the aspirin harms the lining of the stomach. I can thin my blood naturally without that obvious negative side effect. I have stopped taking statins for my high cholesterol because some doctors I trust claim that taking statin drugs to lower cholesterol does not avert heart problems but does harm your liver, often permanently. So, I think the key is to educate yourself and try to make informed decisions by relying on the best of all the available treatments. 

Annie:
Great observations, Dad.  The first thing I thought of when the book spoke of the doctor's authority was when I disregarded it in favor of my own understanding of high cholesterol in women.  And in study after study that I have read statins don't lower women’s risk of heart disease.  I even talked to Grandpa about this to get his take as a chemist and he agreed with me, and also had stopped taking his statins, granted he was close to 90.  My point is it hit me that the doctor works for me.  They can give me their expert advice but I don't have to blindly do what they say, they are not the boss of me.  (Clearly, I have issues with authority.)  However, when I gained confidence that I could disagree with my doctor and act in a way that I thought was best, I believe our relationship improved.


Tara:

Dad, I am excited to read chapter 5 after reading your great comments. I totally agree with you about doctors being closed minded. I'm married to one! Don't get me wrong. He's great at what he does but anything not "proven" or "known," to him, is a load of hooey. For example, I've become interested and involved with Doterra essential oils and he teases me all the time about them. But I know they work so I just laugh along with him and accept my title as his semi-crazy wife. I would much rather treat simple ailments with a natural remedy than load up on chemicals that the drug companies are shoving down our throats through shiny commercials and magazine ads when more often than not the real solution is a lifestyle change. They figuratively want us to believe that a band aid will heal a broken arm.

Yea, they think they have us over a barrel, but we're not stupid (at least, some of us are not stupid, even though some of us like me are too gullible for our own good). On our hike up Logan Canyon last Thursday, I told mom about my issues with the medical profession and she and I both realized my anger is just below the surface. I tend to overstate the negative. I like doctors (especially our family doctor, Dr. Kennedy), but it's sad that they're not taught some more practical things (like the value of good nutrition) in medical school. Doesn't that seem like a no-brainer? And what's with the food they serve up (throw up?) when you're in the hospital. That's a big red flag in my book. 
     Anyway, thanks for the reply. 
Love you, Dad

Breakfast with Socrates Chapter 4

Annie:
The chapter starts with his saying how 34% of lottery winners would stay at their jobs.  I don't think I would be one of them.  I'd want to travel, and I don't find much satisfaction in my jobs beyond the people I work with, which is a lot!  I'm not saving the world, or curing cancer, or teaching or learning anything new.  Day after day I pretty much do the same thing.  I work for the compensation, and, as I really think about it, to fill my time.  Sad, maybe, but true.  But ever since being done with college, I don't want to take 'work' home.  I don't want to worry about what needs to be done, or what I should be doing.  I felt like I could never just enjoy the moment when I was going to school.  I want work to stay at work, and home to be home.  Therefore, I haven't looked to increase my pay by increasing the requirements of me, and finding something more fulfilling.  I am sometimes plagued with 'what am I doing with my life?'  But I sometimes get paid to read, play scrabble, walk the canyon, etc., doesn't seem too bad, and also makes me think I can't ask for more compensation when I would do these things for free.

Jon:

July 4, 2011
Dear Annie,
      I’m sorry it has taken so long for me to respond to your comments on chapter 4 of Breakfast with Socrates. I had read the chapter a week or so ago and couldn’t remember much so re-read it today to provide a more articulate reaction. 
 Your feelings about your work struck home with me in more ways than one. First, it gave me a huge pang of regret that, whether student or teacher, going to school means having “home work,” work you take home with you. That bane of schooling was an albatross around my neck for all of my professional life. It seems I couldn’t leave my school work at school. I was always worried about what and how I would teach my next day’s class, which definitely interfered with my performance as a husband and father. I haven’t quizzed my colleagues, but I suspect their situation was somewhat similar. This bane of my life is paired to a benefit in terms of job satisfaction. I used to tell my students at the beginning of every semester that I had the dream job: “I would do what I’m doing now if I didn’t have to work for a living.” I then encouraged them to find a similar job situation. But as you can see, it was definitely a mixed bag—lots of pluses and minuses. If I had to do it over, I’m sure I would try to find a job I could leave at work, although I couldn’t have worked at something that was pure rote or doing something I didn’t think made a difference for good in the world, in spite of the satisfaction of liking the people I worked with and taught. Given a second chance, I certainly would have revised my priorities.

 In view of the generous portion of the estate we have inherited from Smith and Katie, I also have mixed feelings. I’m grateful that they were frugal folk. Their frugality was our fortune. Their early earning years forged a strong work ethic, but on Smith’s part, an almost draconian check on spending, which made Katie feel financially marginalized and demeaned, especially when Smith sent so much of their early meager paychecks to Lorana. I don’t know how to sort that all out, but it was unfortunate for them that he saw any discretionary spending (going out for dinner or to a movie) as profligate. Robert Rowland Smith’s emphasis on balance is important in money matters. Being careful, but also being caring, because for each of us, money means something a little bit different. Mom and I have had to compromise many times to work out our different attitudes toward money, borne of our families’ different sizes, attitudes, and practices.

Our commitment to the principle of tithing has helped immensely in resolving our differences and in ensuring our continuing solvency. My job, which I loved doing, has also been a boon to our post-retirement financial stability, with a life-time source of funds more than sufficient to do most of what we have dreamed of doing. Maybe that’s the ultimate test of job satisfaction. It keeps on giving to the end. 
 To summarize: a job should provide adequate financial security for the needs and wants of a family. It should also be a source of personal satisfaction, borne of the feeling that we’re doing something good with our skills and that in the doing, we feel we’re growing toward something better. We should be sure that we are giving a full day’s work for a full day’s pay but that, in the end, the job is always secondary to the primary duty of being a good spouse and a good parent. Striking the right balance is more than a staying upright on the
tightrope. 


Kristin: 

I really liked both of your comments. I have actually been thinking about this lately, namely "being-at-work". I have decided to stay and do this summer job at Tech Boston Academy because I figured it paid a lot, it was worth not going home for, and it would provide experience I need. However, when I woke up today I didn't want to go in and I wanted to quit right then and there. So, when I was reading the first part of the chapter, I felt that it somewhat applied to me. But, I think we often wake up and don't want to go to work (especially when it's summer). I love teaching. I do. I just don't like the disorganization that comes with secondary education. It has been a zoo these past two days and the aspects of team mentioned in the chapter could not be truer. I even noticed this in my school this past year. We were in discipline teams and had two meetings weekly. I noticed how a couple teachers did most of the work while a few others did nothing. It was easy to be a team member and do absolutely nothing. I found it ironic that we were so poor at successful teams yet when we would put our students in teams, we would give each member of a team (or group) a job so that everyone had a job to perform. We could learn from this and do the same in our meetings. I'm not at that school anymore so whatever. But at my next school, it's something that I will definitely bring up and try to cultivate. It doesn't have to be hierarchical but each team member must have a responsibility if we want to avoid overburdening the few and letting others off the hook.  
In other observations, I have noticed that a lot of the teachers I've come in contact with in Boston Public Schools have no life. Their life is teaching. They go to work early and stay late. They have no friends, no outside life, their life is their students. In fact, I was talking to a former TNYer today who is working at Tech Boston and has been for 6 years. He is Scottish and looks like the guy from Bridesmaids, the good cop...anyway, he said the same thing. All he does is work, he loves it and it's his dream job but that's it. I don't know, but I kinda don't like that. I want to have something besides just my work. It was ominous to think that my life could possibly become so one-dimensional. Dad, you made a good and vital point. We need balance. Work shouldn't be our life, even if we do love it. There's more life to be had, more experiences to have.