On Life-Work Balance

These past few weeks have been interesting for me. I have had to readjust to working, and all the expectations that come from the person paying you to sit in their office for X hours per day. As well, I have to adjust to the idea of working more than X hours some days, and not being rewarded extra for it. It seems to be part and parcel of the permanent-job territory, but for someone whose hopes and thoughts are sometimes elsewhere, presents something of a challenge.

But it has been a little bit of a revelation to me that it is possible to work more than 8 hours in a day and still have a satisfying life. This is not exactly brain surgery, but to me it is new. A few weeks ago I was stuck in the office sometime after 6pm and not very happy about it, but later had time to enjoy dinner wine and conversations with some friends and that extra hour or so in front of the computer had no bearing on it. And again tonight, I left work late and frustrated but found time since to chat and chai with my sister, watch an inspiring presentation at tramping club, cook dinner, and write an amazing blog post. No wait, I mean and write this blog post… sorry for the confusion. I do not mean to imply that a busy life is necessarily a satisfying one and I hope that I’m not secretly dissatisfied or something and hiding it behind pointless business (idle hands, devil etc), but it is a welcome surprise to me that you can work for the man, and you can even work more than is contractually necessary, and still have enjoy life outside said work.

Like many an opinion, this one requires some perspective. If I were off traveling – or otherwise willfully not working – I’d look at myself writing this with a mixture of pity and mild contempt. But now, I mean it. And now, that’s enough.

Raskolnikov Right?

I’ve been re-reading Crime and Punishment lately. Lately being the last three months or so (when I started re-reading I thought it could never take as long as first time through. Now it looks like it’s going to be even longer). If you don’t know of it, this is wikipedia’s plot summary:

Crime and Punishment focuses on the mental anguish and moral dilemmas of Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, an impoverished St. Petersburg ex-student who formulates and executes a plan to kill a hated, unscrupulous pawnbroker seemingly for her money, thereby solving his financial problems and at the same time, he argues, ridding the world of an evil worthless parasite. Raskolnikov also strives to be an extraordinary being, similar to Napoleon, believing that murder is permissible in pursuit of a higher purpose.

The novel mostly deals with the psychology of Raskolnikov after he commits the crime, and his relationships with his family and acquaintances. It doesn’t deal much with whether or not he was correct in his premise… but I think it’s an interesting question. He thinks that some crimes are permissible to some people, if they would not be able to achieve some greatness without committing them. I think it’s true, in theory. If you can save 100 people with the death of one, is it right for that one to die? I find it hard to say no. Or at least, can think of specific situations for which I find it hard to say no. The pragmatic problem is of knowing for sure that 100 people can be saved, and that the cost would only be the death of one, and that is where Raskolnikov makes his mistake… He thought it would be a simple action and for the overall greater good, saving his own life from poverty, and his sister’s from submission, and at a much lesser cost. It eventuates that he achieves neither of those things, and is forced into another murder unwillingly in order to hide his first.

I don’t think he was right in killing Alyona (and Lizaveta), but I understand his theory. Isn’t there a philosophical name for that kind of morality, in which the total net gain or loss of each action should be calculated to know its moral right- or wrong-ness. Its opposite to the kind of moral rule that upholds that X is never right, no matter what its consequences (also has a philosophical name that I’ve forgotten).

So that’s the theory. But practise is different.  Since we shortsighted mortals can never know the consequences of any action or inaction, I think we should stick to the absolute laws that we currently use.

If it’s in The Press, it must be true

Obviously intimidated by the burgeoning readership of this world-famous blog, my bro Colin has gone and got himself in the newspaper.

Hat-tip to my dad for sending the clipping, larger hat-tip to The Transistors for dominating.

Sydney, on expenses. And other stuff.

Ha, just when you thought this was all about my musings on Wellington and whatnot, I’ve gone and got a new passport and already a couple of stamps in it. Work was calling this time, not wanderlust but it was good. I had to go to Sydney for some training, but had enough free time to explore a little too – see old friends, eat Sichuan fish in Chinatown, wander round Northern Beaches, and all that. I started this little ol’ blog from Sydney (I spent six months there a few moons ago) and it was interesting to return. I thought I enjoyed my time there well enough at the time, but with the benefit of hindsight, don’t really think I did. And though the five days over there lately were all good, my impressions and distrust of that city were re-affirmed. I think the problem is that I don’t really like the beach that much, and without loving that, what else is there to love? Urban sprawl, less friends, and extra job opportunities? Meh. But I do get to go back for another look on another training next month for a third chance. And in a new example of the ongoing saga of my hypocrisy, I have gone so far from my plan early this year of not flying that I’ve just payed $50 to join AirNZ airpoints. And then they put me on Qantas anyway. Sigh.

Back in the real world, I’m rediscovering the joys of couchsurfing after a few months away. Just hosted the first guest since those heady days and crowded floors of Leytonstone, and been meeting a few other CS peoples at and about the endless summer festivals of Wellington. (If only the summer could be as endless.) Good times indeed. It is the cliché of couchsurfing hosting, but hanging around travellers really is the next best thing to being sur le route itself.

The city of the verb

It’s good to be back in Wellington. There are a lot of things I like about this city, and but one of them is the writers’ walk. Around the waterfront there are a series of concrete blocks with literature on Wellington carved from them. Baxter, Mansfield, Manhire make their appearances, but my favourite is by one Lauris Edmond:

(Picture taken from flickr which I think is legal.)

It sums up most of what I like about living here. Stuff happens. People do stuff. If you’re bored in Wellington, it is because you’re boring, not because there is nothing to do. Eg. Tonight there is the Petone Fiesta, with a stack of Wellington-scene musicians. Tomorrow, the Newtown St Fair. Ongoing, the Jazz Festival. As well as the usual selection of gigs, exhibitions, sports events and whatnot, it all seems to be happening here. As I’m part of all that too! I’m writing this blog. And doing my washing. And thinking about maybe going to the supermarket. Whew. So many verbs, so much excitement. Better lie down for a while. See, see. Even Saturday mornings here are amazing.

I’ve no idea what’s happening in Auckland these days so couldn’t possibly comment… but if you were fooled by Metro’s marketing ploy of claiming Auckland to have become NZ’s cultural capital, try Wellington Tourism’s response. I’ve already shown my bias, but I’m convinced.