The 10,000 hour revisited -- and the disruptive economics of inspiration

A commentator to my blog yesterday wrote me with some of his thoughts regarding my previous post on talent and the development of skills, they are as follows:

“according to the rule of 10,000 it would take you 2.2 years to develop a skill, if you spent twelve hours a day on it.

there's only three alternatives you can draw from this

1. find a way to secure eternal life :-) (preferred)
2. find a way to make a lot of $$$ early, so that afterwards you can dedicate every shred of time you have to the accumulation of skills (most actionable)
3. c) come to terms with the fact that you will only accumulate one or two skills in life (defeat)”

It is true that time is a very real material constraint to the cultivation of all individuals. But 10,000 is not the time needed to “develop a skill” -- rather it is the time needed to master it. Someone who has put in a solid 10,000 hours ought to be able to jam like the Beatles and not sound like your average gritty garage band. 10,000 hours puts the individual in a position to innovate on the craft or artform, and it is true that such level of mastery will remain unobtainable to many under the current economics of human living: the necessity of wage-labor under present conditions, the necessity of time-wasting “consumer-culture” for the present economy. These two forces of neglect combine most strongly in the non-privileged classes to effectively give birth to the concept of the masses: uncouth, with little direction, walking to the beat set by another's drum.

But this does not mean that all skill-acquisition should be abandoned. I may not master a musical instrument, but even ~300 hours of practice and learning is already a world of difference for it has given me the capability and basis on which to stand if I want to bring music into my life in a way that is organic and spontaneous – instead of the commercial blaring of nonsense radio. And this begs the question – how much time does it take to really just develop a basic skill? The answer here really leads us to a notion of how one goes about living. My argument pertains to the fact that most people have really given up with regards to their own self-enhancement. Their game is really one of the moment, one of mud and worms and a little income. It is a whole other way of life to dedicate and devote time with a constant eye on extracting nuggets of wisdom and refining habits and practices so as to obtain a supremely harmonious sense of self, along with its complements in beautiful and cultivated skills and activities: in debate, in music and song and dance, in the arts of written argument, in distilling and capturing human emotion through performance, in sports and the competitive use of the body.

I think analyzing the “R&D process” of skills in this strictly cost-based way is a bit of a problem in itself. The distinction lies in the philosophical difference from “in-itself” to “for-itself”--i.e., whether or not the act pursued is done with itself as ultimate aim, or whether it is the mere means to something else. Let us remember here that the goal is not that we should all become amazingly talented in several walks of life – but rather, the goal is to illuminate our living with paths that all lead in a direction of human fulfillment and the ongoing exploration and unfolding of the life of the spirit. To use the old cliché, it is the walk and not the destination which is the point of it all.

If we steer our lives in a way where the ongoing routine is one of exaltation and development – then we would gladly pour in the time. I also think we underestimate our capacity to make do by other means than wage labor. I have never tried this last thing I preach, but I imagine that seeking ways to immediately commercialize craft and skill by reaching other people directly (rather than selling 100% of work-time to one buyer and then doing all ad-hoc tasks necessary to please this buyer) would allow for a good proportion of time invested in the ongoing refinement of the inner voice.

In conclusion – I agree that there is a fundamental economics problem that destroys the prospects of a life of enlightenment and ongoing exaltation through skill acquisition and the resulting outputs of the mastery of several skills. But I do not agree that the strategy should be to enter the workforce at 100% with the quick aim of surpassing the gravitational pull of economic necessity, and then using the means acquired to liberate oneself from all the things that have previously defined success (a high income, the praise of one's boss, quick returns for investments, etc).

The problem Is that uch economistic logic is already at odds with the spirit necessary in order to lead a life of ongoing cultivation, for it fixates on the tangible earthly matters—on the mud and water (cf. Hegel quoted in the last post). The habits of mind and body one develops while on the beck and call of necessity are highly counterproductive to the habits of inspiration. So it is important never to neglect the calling of a higher order. This means that devoting oneself to commercial employment fully is something that runs the edge of a razor and risks falling over to that place where men have become wage-laborers in soulless body. So although one may have entered employment with the thought that it is just “in-itself” and that a few years of such work should finance the “for-itself” of a more fulfilling life – the ongoing exertions of the extending horizon have a way of molding the inner self so that present occupations are “for-itself”, and what was once viewed as the ultimate aim is lost in the mirage of a desert of the soul.

For this reason I would rather set myself up for a daily struggle whereby I try to accomplish both cultivation and the expansion of my means. But it is true that at one point, perhaps fast approaching, a choice needs be made.