What Is A Constructive Use Of Time?

I more often tend to use I dunno at the beginning of the sentence, mate. Don’t I? I dunno.

It’s Matsui. Not Masui. The vast majority of Asians in the major leagues are pitchers.

Why on earth would you want to model Taco Bell in your cooking? Why not model edible food?

Growing up, and even when I go home now, my mom was always on my case about being constructive with my time. You know what? I have no idea what that means. Being constructive. This may sound weird and dark, but to me, unless it’s spiritual, everything else in life almost seems like just a way to entertain yourself until you die. I have a hard time seeing how certain things are inherently more constructive than others.

So like, my mom reads all the time. Which is wonderful. It’s just, why is reading particularly more constructive than say watching TV or movies or playing video games? Because it makes you think more? Who cares? Why does that matter?

For the record, I read a lot, watch almost no TV, and watch movies and play video games sparsely. And when I do, I tend to be thoughtful about it. Thoughtful about the movies I watch. And when I play video games, that’s my thinking time. I have no idea if that makes any sense. But it’s like, when I play Minesweeper, I let the game take over my surface thoughts, which can be all over the place, so there’s room for more weighty thoughts. No clue if that makes sense but that’s how it works for me. But regardless, I really don’t see how reading is fundamentally better than these things.

Same goes for developing skills. I dunno, I’m working on certain music things. Thing is, in the end, you die. So I’m not sure of the philosophical point of that either. It’s not bad. It’s just, why is that inherently better than watching anime or whatever?

There’s a flaw in my reasoning. Developing certain things help you serve people better, like music, or cooking, or whatever. So OK, maybe I understand that. I just don’t understand why reading is more constructive than other stuff.

I dunno, maybe I’m being overanalytical. I remember a long time ago I was talking with a deacon at my old church, in which both Cal and Stanford students were in the college group. He was saying one of the differences between the two groups were the Stanford students were always asking “why”. They wouldn’t do something unless they knew exactly *why* they were supposed to do it. I dunno if that’s a fair characterization but that was interesting to me.