a daost-adjacent(?) principle for [utopian/humane] economy
One should only do what one is best at – even the best at
One should commit ones life to what one is the best at – one shouldn’t choose an occupation/career if one knows that someone else will be better than one at it.
If there is no profession that one can be the best at, one can still find something that one is the best at – whether this means opening a [unique] new path or performing a roll (better than anyone else could, due to your identity) in your community/family, in your unique position relative to your specific web of relations…*
Imagine this world, where things are only done by those who are best at them.**
Every individual going that path that fits them, as opposed to being forced down a path that fits the demands of capital/reality – thus equal opportunity for fulfillment of ones desire for life and meaning.
*Or if you want, think of this analytically and more generally in the typical way: as increasing the number of relata in the relational ‘best at’ predicate…
**All but the very best worker, i.e. the master of craft, replaced by machines [and of course apprentices…But do those apprentices simply learn the same craft in the hopes of becoming the best, or simply learn it because it’s what one feels one could do best in among all things one considers doing? Or does apprenticeship change its meaning, so that in every apprenticeship it is implicit that the end of the path is not doing the same as your master, but doing something at least slightly different, something that you will be better at than even the master?]?
February 11th,
a [quasi-]corollary occurred to me:
[whenever possible,] One should only give attention to something if there is no other person who is more interested in that thing…
Obviously, this has particularly weird consequences for mass-media/social media and cultural content.