Why living in public is worse for you, but better for others
This has haunted me since you sent it out yesterday -- chatted about it with Jess Cole in the evening. The first line so poignant. Over the years I've had a similar thought on when to be an activist vs. not (e.g., good for the public and not great for the individual largely)
What kind of person thinks they're doing the world a favor by becoming a celebrity? Probably someone who's more likely to harm society than help it.
I suspect we need to resign ourselves to the fact that it's the scum that floats to the top, not the cream.
However, seeking to popularize superior ideas, rather than superior people (like Kim Kardashian & Justin Bieber?) could be of truly great benefit to society.
"They love you for being what they want to be but they hate you for being what they’re not." - What a statement!
Maybe would be useful to differentiate the kind of exposure. To be online and show off your personal lifestyle may be different than trying to spread your ideas and projects. One is the social value spreading in the social hierarchy; the other are intellectual values spreading in the social hierarchy - are they the same? Can I be famous and, at the same time, be low profile? I think we can - being famous as a consequence of the spreading of our work, but remaining personally away of unecessary debate.
Want to come on The Jonathan Kogan Show? Your work is fantastic and perfectly relevant. Reply if interested! https://jsk.transistor.fm/subscribe