Curt, your Fletcher-as-universe metaphor hits home for anyone who's wrestled with intellectual growth. At 82, I recognize that relentless drive you describe - I felt it throughout my engineering career. What strikes me is how you've identified the catalytic power of productive uncertainty.
Your channel does something remarkable: it shows people that concepts they thought they understood (like "energy") aren't as clear-cut as they believed. Rather than discouraging viewers, this creates what I'd call productive curiosity - the kind of not-knowing that opens possibilities rather than closing them.
The big shift for me came just two months ago through Emily Adlam's appearance on TOE. Her "all-at-once" view - the universe as a completed Sudoku puzzle rather than a film playing forward - fundamentally changed my thinking from a "systems, process" worldview to understanding constraints. That's no small pivot at my age, but it's been energizing rather than overwhelming.
The Charlie Parker principle you mention is spot-on: authentic creators can't be discouraged because they're participating in something larger than ego-protection. They've moved beyond proving themselves to discovering what's possible.
Having watched TOE since its inception, I think what really drives you - even if you don't always recognize it - is the same thing that's driven my whole life: doing what you love. That passion comes through in every episode. You're not just chasing approval or trying to be the smartest guy in the room. You genuinely love wrestling with these deep questions about reality.
Your approach creates optimal challenge - the kind that strengthens rather than breaks the learning system. You're modeling how to maintain intellectual courage in the face of uncertainty. Keep following that curiosity. Some of us old-timers are still learning alongside you.
Hey, Curt. Huge fan. Regarding your insecurity concerning your contribution to or understanding of any particular subject or field, “comparison is the thief of joy” and the universe does not care whose brain or whose body is doing what. You, my friend, are doing tremendous, invaluable work. Period.
Thanks for all you do, Curt. Besides being inspirational, your podcast has helped me to discover and question my assumptions about the world, at least some of them.
They critique your coverage of Weinstein and Langan in the ep. Supplementary Material #28, and you are mentioned in their video on the Sean Carroll / Eric Weinstein debate.
I stopped worrying about losing chess games and started resigning games as soon as I made a blunder. I even resign games where somebody refuses to resign and drags out a hopeless position. Then I felt a lot better about losing because it put me back in control. My previous behaviour of struggling against insurmountable odds might have made me better defensively, and players who wouldn't resign are not teaching me anything, instead opportunities for unleashing attacks improved as did my rating. Not to mention enjoyment. Losing is an opportunity, not a defeat.
"To me, Fletcher is the same as the universe. Or more precisely, my perception of how the universe treats me. I’m unconscionably motivated by wanting to prove myself to myself, almost to the point of harm. Not quite there, fortunately, since I have a wife who keeps me grounded, but without her, then yes, I would perhaps destroy myself because I’m so insecure. Whatever knowledge I have or whatever skill set I currently possess, it’s not enough. It’s not good enough. It’s not fast enough. It’s not intelligent enough. It’s not original enough..."
Curt, you appear to be suffering from a sickness of the heart. It's not about your marriage or romance or childhood or whatever – for we all share this totally different sickness to one degree or another. My sense is that it results from a feeling of having been invited to a beautiful – yet fleeting (and occasionally chaotic) – garden party by a mysterious admirer who appears to have entirely ghosted us. The clock ticks and confusion turns disappointment turns agitation – and we seek things to fill our void. Acutely heartsick people scorn themselves, believing that the wounds are somehow valuable (which they are, but only insofar as they call us to things more wholesome).
The apotheosis of all this is when we project onto that Other a cruel heart, demanding us to perform great and difficult feats such that we might earn their love (a la Fletcher). But these feelings are entirely ahead of themselves – for perhaps our garden party goes on much longer and more subtly than we might imagine? Perhaps our admirer is bashful, understanding ourselves better than we do – and understanding that doubt, sadness, longing, patience, and the weathering of time and circumstance, make the object of admiration even more beautiful? Perhaps they withhold themself, standing back, watching from afar because this is how they can love most fully?
This love is the antithesis of a Fletcher, who scorns and manipulates others because – like all of us – he suffers from this same sickness of the heart. Tell Fletcher to meditate on this (or else you'll bugger off and do something else). I think he'll quickly come to understand. And then he might surprise you and ease up a little.
Curt, I got what you are wishing for. My effords to reach you via paid substack didn't work out.
Since you do communicate by mail, pLease let me send you a dozen ingredients for explaqining EM where QM departed. BTW it could be of interest to get an idea why they just abandoned EM without the nitty gritty. For others; vosforr@gmail.com
You amazing channel (Theories of Everything) has given me prompts that advanced my research into relativity and the nature of motion (inertia, if you prefer). After a decade of admittedly amateur study, I have finally arrived at real answers through the acceptance of bounded potential energy as a field. Everything is so much conceptually easier than is usually taught. I have no idea why nobody teaches relativity and the laws of gravity and motion this way - they can easily be derived from very basic principles. It's all so simple and solves so many fundamental problems, I can't possibly be the first to realize it, can I?
I know I'm not the first to realize Bell's inequality is a straw man argument (with two separate bad assumptions, no less). Why is it still taught? Why did three researchers receive the Nobel Prize for "proving" it a couple years ago? (No shade on their experimental expertise and ingenuity, but proving a tautology isn't exactly earth shaking.) What else are they lying about?
Thanks for this frank and insightful disclosure, which has your characteristic generosity of spirit. May I offer a suggestion? I'm a psychoanalyst, a former professor of English and American Literature, with an interest in consciousness studies (e.g., my review of Christof Koch's 2024 book appears in the upcoming issue of the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association). One of the things I help people with is precisely this issue of motivation.
As you say here, you often help people to realize that their understanding of, say, mass or energy is not quite so fine-grained or grounded as they had thought, but you also supply them with greater access to the terrain where a more robust and nuanced definition can be developed, one that would serve them better. Similarly, I introduce people to the idea (though it is at least as emotional an experience as it is a cognitive one) that their motivational system may not best work quite the way they think it does. We tend to assume that the main engine of our achievements is discipline, pushing and shoving us from behind and warning us against negative consequences in quite unkind terms ("lazy... backsliding..." etc.).
Discipline has its place, and those high standards of yours are not going anywhere. Neither is the somewhat vexed self-esteem that it affords (Nietzsche: "The self-despiser nevertheless esteems himself---as a self-despiser"). But the super-ego works for you, not the other way around, and like most police forces, it can do its valuable and necessary job quite well without all the military hardware it thinks it needs ("protect and serve").
But the other motivational system, which I believe to be far more powerful (at least in the hands of people who have been studying for even a few years already), is what Feynman called "the pleasure of finding things out." It draws us forward from in front, as curiosity, fascination, an innate desire to explore the world, which Aristotle named in the very first sentence of his Metaphysics. Heroes of knowledge like Odysseus, Dante, Shelley, or Bruno may have used discipline as an early rocket stage to achieve escape velocity out of their youngest years and into the world at large; thereafter, their thrusters (to extend the spacecraft metaphor) had the new purpose of novel changes in velocity, mainly directional ones. Perhaps you now have more freedom to modify your motivational style than you may currently realize?
Here's a brief post of mine on this issue. Needless to say, I'd be delighted to discuss this with you further, and my contact information's on the site. Thanks again Sir, for all you do.
Everyone loves you Curt and what you do. And sees how clever and committed you are. Rest is a necessary part of sustainability.
Curt, your Fletcher-as-universe metaphor hits home for anyone who's wrestled with intellectual growth. At 82, I recognize that relentless drive you describe - I felt it throughout my engineering career. What strikes me is how you've identified the catalytic power of productive uncertainty.
Your channel does something remarkable: it shows people that concepts they thought they understood (like "energy") aren't as clear-cut as they believed. Rather than discouraging viewers, this creates what I'd call productive curiosity - the kind of not-knowing that opens possibilities rather than closing them.
The big shift for me came just two months ago through Emily Adlam's appearance on TOE. Her "all-at-once" view - the universe as a completed Sudoku puzzle rather than a film playing forward - fundamentally changed my thinking from a "systems, process" worldview to understanding constraints. That's no small pivot at my age, but it's been energizing rather than overwhelming.
The Charlie Parker principle you mention is spot-on: authentic creators can't be discouraged because they're participating in something larger than ego-protection. They've moved beyond proving themselves to discovering what's possible.
Having watched TOE since its inception, I think what really drives you - even if you don't always recognize it - is the same thing that's driven my whole life: doing what you love. That passion comes through in every episode. You're not just chasing approval or trying to be the smartest guy in the room. You genuinely love wrestling with these deep questions about reality.
Your approach creates optimal challenge - the kind that strengthens rather than breaks the learning system. You're modeling how to maintain intellectual courage in the face of uncertainty. Keep following that curiosity. Some of us old-timers are still learning alongside you.
Hey, Curt. Huge fan. Regarding your insecurity concerning your contribution to or understanding of any particular subject or field, “comparison is the thief of joy” and the universe does not care whose brain or whose body is doing what. You, my friend, are doing tremendous, invaluable work. Period.
Thanks for all you do, Curt. Besides being inspirational, your podcast has helped me to discover and question my assumptions about the world, at least some of them.
Thank you, Curt. I admire your final words. What you do is not to leave us bereft, but instead instill in us a curiosity to investigate further.
“I see other people exceeding me in each domain that I care about, and it bothers me.” …. We felt that one …
Personally, I would love to see you invoke the right to reply and go on Decoding the Gurus. I think that would be a very interesting conversation.
Did they do a podcast on me, specifically? I didn't know.
They critique your coverage of Weinstein and Langan in the ep. Supplementary Material #28, and you are mentioned in their video on the Sean Carroll / Eric Weinstein debate.
I stopped worrying about losing chess games and started resigning games as soon as I made a blunder. I even resign games where somebody refuses to resign and drags out a hopeless position. Then I felt a lot better about losing because it put me back in control. My previous behaviour of struggling against insurmountable odds might have made me better defensively, and players who wouldn't resign are not teaching me anything, instead opportunities for unleashing attacks improved as did my rating. Not to mention enjoyment. Losing is an opportunity, not a defeat.
"To me, Fletcher is the same as the universe. Or more precisely, my perception of how the universe treats me. I’m unconscionably motivated by wanting to prove myself to myself, almost to the point of harm. Not quite there, fortunately, since I have a wife who keeps me grounded, but without her, then yes, I would perhaps destroy myself because I’m so insecure. Whatever knowledge I have or whatever skill set I currently possess, it’s not enough. It’s not good enough. It’s not fast enough. It’s not intelligent enough. It’s not original enough..."
Curt, you appear to be suffering from a sickness of the heart. It's not about your marriage or romance or childhood or whatever – for we all share this totally different sickness to one degree or another. My sense is that it results from a feeling of having been invited to a beautiful – yet fleeting (and occasionally chaotic) – garden party by a mysterious admirer who appears to have entirely ghosted us. The clock ticks and confusion turns disappointment turns agitation – and we seek things to fill our void. Acutely heartsick people scorn themselves, believing that the wounds are somehow valuable (which they are, but only insofar as they call us to things more wholesome).
The apotheosis of all this is when we project onto that Other a cruel heart, demanding us to perform great and difficult feats such that we might earn their love (a la Fletcher). But these feelings are entirely ahead of themselves – for perhaps our garden party goes on much longer and more subtly than we might imagine? Perhaps our admirer is bashful, understanding ourselves better than we do – and understanding that doubt, sadness, longing, patience, and the weathering of time and circumstance, make the object of admiration even more beautiful? Perhaps they withhold themself, standing back, watching from afar because this is how they can love most fully?
This love is the antithesis of a Fletcher, who scorns and manipulates others because – like all of us – he suffers from this same sickness of the heart. Tell Fletcher to meditate on this (or else you'll bugger off and do something else). I think he'll quickly come to understand. And then he might surprise you and ease up a little.
Curt, I got what you are wishing for. My effords to reach you via paid substack didn't work out.
Since you do communicate by mail, pLease let me send you a dozen ingredients for explaqining EM where QM departed. BTW it could be of interest to get an idea why they just abandoned EM without the nitty gritty. For others; vosforr@gmail.com
You seek immortality… there are better solutions
Such as?
Everyone will have their own answer. Check out Denial Of Death by Ernest Becker. Personally, I would say to develop a relationship with God.
Interesting, thanks
Hear, hear!
Impostor syndrome is a real thing.
You amazing channel (Theories of Everything) has given me prompts that advanced my research into relativity and the nature of motion (inertia, if you prefer). After a decade of admittedly amateur study, I have finally arrived at real answers through the acceptance of bounded potential energy as a field. Everything is so much conceptually easier than is usually taught. I have no idea why nobody teaches relativity and the laws of gravity and motion this way - they can easily be derived from very basic principles. It's all so simple and solves so many fundamental problems, I can't possibly be the first to realize it, can I?
I know I'm not the first to realize Bell's inequality is a straw man argument (with two separate bad assumptions, no less). Why is it still taught? Why did three researchers receive the Nobel Prize for "proving" it a couple years ago? (No shade on their experimental expertise and ingenuity, but proving a tautology isn't exactly earth shaking.) What else are they lying about?
Thanks for this frank and insightful disclosure, which has your characteristic generosity of spirit. May I offer a suggestion? I'm a psychoanalyst, a former professor of English and American Literature, with an interest in consciousness studies (e.g., my review of Christof Koch's 2024 book appears in the upcoming issue of the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association). One of the things I help people with is precisely this issue of motivation.
As you say here, you often help people to realize that their understanding of, say, mass or energy is not quite so fine-grained or grounded as they had thought, but you also supply them with greater access to the terrain where a more robust and nuanced definition can be developed, one that would serve them better. Similarly, I introduce people to the idea (though it is at least as emotional an experience as it is a cognitive one) that their motivational system may not best work quite the way they think it does. We tend to assume that the main engine of our achievements is discipline, pushing and shoving us from behind and warning us against negative consequences in quite unkind terms ("lazy... backsliding..." etc.).
Discipline has its place, and those high standards of yours are not going anywhere. Neither is the somewhat vexed self-esteem that it affords (Nietzsche: "The self-despiser nevertheless esteems himself---as a self-despiser"). But the super-ego works for you, not the other way around, and like most police forces, it can do its valuable and necessary job quite well without all the military hardware it thinks it needs ("protect and serve").
But the other motivational system, which I believe to be far more powerful (at least in the hands of people who have been studying for even a few years already), is what Feynman called "the pleasure of finding things out." It draws us forward from in front, as curiosity, fascination, an innate desire to explore the world, which Aristotle named in the very first sentence of his Metaphysics. Heroes of knowledge like Odysseus, Dante, Shelley, or Bruno may have used discipline as an early rocket stage to achieve escape velocity out of their youngest years and into the world at large; thereafter, their thrusters (to extend the spacecraft metaphor) had the new purpose of novel changes in velocity, mainly directional ones. Perhaps you now have more freedom to modify your motivational style than you may currently realize?
Here's a brief post of mine on this issue. Needless to say, I'd be delighted to discuss this with you further, and my contact information's on the site. Thanks again Sir, for all you do.
https://www.drjameyhecht.com/blog/motivation-discipline-vs-curiosity