The visual theme is a juxtaposition of an old person staring at the emptiness in a bowl (might be a reference to the theme picture of the second chapter in The Greatest Gift), with traces of morbidity, ugliness. And another old person, in a similar setup, inspiringly looking at a star sky, in a good style.

Audio theme: a play with the dual nature of the sun, which can bring warmth and light but also burn and blind, so a problem of relativity. The scenery is a mundane routine or a struggle on the verge of exhaustion, interrupted by the coming of the sun.

There is a movement in psychology that seeks to validate people in their belief that their mediocrity is okay, that they are enough. Yet in the long term, especially men in their 20s, experience so much hopelessness despite that validation, that they turn to the advise of people like Andrew Tate, who preach the opposite: that you should not feel okay with your mediocrity, in a sense that you should go through the pain of acquiring useful responsibility; that improving self beyond mediocrity is positive and ought to be done, regardless whether one is, in their core, a not very talented individual.

Now, one might argue that mediocrity itself is an average, therefore is dependent on what the society does, as a whole, and any so defined standard has this flaw that, for instance, a mediocre person among geniuses is a genius among other people. So it is a useless term. Besides, just excelling at something isn't necessarily a feature of being of higher value. However, the term mediocre used here I find to mean something else: "The word comes to English via Middle French from the Latin word mediocris, meaning "of medium size, moderate, middling, commonplace," and perhaps originally "halfway to the top.""

If the goal of a task is to climb a mountain, stopping halfway is negative. No climber goes climbing just to stop halfway for no reason, they would feel embarrassed of such idea and would try again later. This is a healthy reaction. We're not talking about a change in weather condition that would make any further climbing unnecessarily risky.

It needs to be remembered that we're talking about a task that has reaching the peak as a goal; if jogging and admiring nature was the goal, the mechanism can be applied all the same. The peak is something of value (how to differentiate value I describe in "The Greatest Gift"). The task of climbing the mountain could be a parable of life. The climber who stops half-way isn't really climbing, just as a person who accepts mediocrity, isn't really living.

//draft: (A climber wants to aim for the best peak there is, the more difficult the better. Not all peaks yield the same value, and so no mediocre climbs have the same value. Once getting to the peak, more higher peaks can be seen that had previously not been seen, so one might argue it's pointless anyways. Nothing more wrong.)

Now, if the climber felt like they're completely satisfied with stopping half-way; felt like their value-feeling doesn't desire anything more, it could be for variety of reasons. They can be divided in two basic categories: 1) the climber has transcended their past-self already mid-way, hence the value-feeling of satisfaction is true, authentic. 2) the climber accepted their current state as an absolute achievement, and in their mind, the peak is now half-way. In the second case, this is a form of a self-deception, because the peak is not half-way in its definition. The value-feeling is not authentic and requires continuous effort to maintain the delusion.

Hence I believe that psychologists like Racjonalny Psycholog, who's recently posted a video "Why desire Super-Man if you have Clark Kent at home?", do people more harm than good, by reinforcing them in their false beliefs. Could also be, that Racjonalny Psycholog defines a successful therapy as a short-term remedy for feeling bad about self.

(I think the reason why some psychologists or people go that corrosive path of thought is due to their great empathy and compassion that in their attitude towards mediocrity, they lose sight of purpose or of analytical methods that ought to be applied to emotions in order to not just feel but also understand in a truer sense. This overwhelming empathy actually at some point works against itself, as it prevents to see others in a more holistic way; to notice existential needs of others, buried beneath their bad feelings)

Now, it is worth to discuss, that the parable of climbing the mountain is highly reductive. For some, the peak could be a mediocre task, like being a good servant, cleaner, house caretaker (what aforementioned Super Man did throughout the video). And in those mundane yet meaningful and important tasks, they become extraordinary. To that, I say:

• these mundane tasks have a good dimensionality in "furthesity" and possibly depth, but bad in breadth and extremely bad at height - as per my model of meaning described in "The Greatest Gift", therefore a person who limits themselves to such peaks leads a very limited existence

• the absolute efficacy of a person who limits themselves to such peaks is very poor

• such person can be replaced by virtually anybody, as such tasks (peaks), because of not requiring any additional effort, are basic to life. The rest of the traits of such person, like character, values, are actually entangled with the establishment of such peaks, so one shall be wary of what they deem worthwhile.

• most tragically, the impact such person has on their surrounding environment is corruptive, as it deprives others from the ability to reach higher and broader existence.

One might further argue, that for some not very talented individuals, getting halfway to the peak is already an achievement. Firstly, the peak is already relative, so making something relative, again relative to prove a point is fallacious. Secondly, it is half past starting point but also wastes all the energy that was put to get there, since the objective is not reached. Beyond that we'd be getting into the fallacious "the journey is the real treasure". The mean to an end itself has only as much value as effective it is in pursuing the end. What appears to be the inherent value of the mean to an end (the journey) is in fact a lot of smaller, unexpected ends that were achieved without perhaps being intentionally aimed for. Any of such ends could be a separate peak within a journey to the final peak (like a recurrent journey) - the mediocrity that we're talking about in the parable is to finish halfway towards every of these recurrent peaks.

A small spring in the forest is meaningful to some bugs and maybe a few hedgehogs. A spring that turns into a river and flows through a desert, nurtures all kinds of life and civilizations. Is meaningful to beings of higher abstraction: ecosystems, cultures, societies. A civilization is undoubtedly more valuable than the thirst of a few bugs. (okay these bugs aren't on the verge of extinction, just some common Bill Gates lab-created ants).

Similarly to the abstraction height of beings, a mediocre person can only nurture a low level abstraction of experiences for people around them, as compared to an extraordinary person.

And mediocrity is a choice. (which each of us makes every day since birth)

The visual theme is a juxtaposition of an old person staring at the emptiness in a bowl (might be a reference to the theme picture of the second chapter in The Greatest Gift), with traces of morbidity, ugliness. And another old person, in a similar setup, inspiringly looking at a star sky, in a good style.

Audio theme: a play with the dual nature of the sun, which can bring warmth and light but also burn and blind, so a problem of relativity. The scenery is a mundane routine or a struggle on the verge of exhaustion, interrupted by the coming of the sun.

There is a movement in psychology that seeks to validate people in their belief that their mediocrity is okay, that they are enough. Yet in the long term, especially men in their 20s, experience so much hopelessness despite that validation, that they turn to the advise of people like Andrew Tate, who preach the opposite: that you should not feel okay with your mediocrity, in a sense that you should go through the pain of acquiring useful responsibility; that improving self beyond mediocrity is positive and ought to be done, regardless whether one is, in their core, a not very talented individual.

Now, one might argue that mediocrity itself is an average, therefore is dependent on what the society does, as a whole, and any so defined standard has this flaw that, for instance, a mediocre person among geniuses is a genius among other people. So it is a useless term. Besides, just excelling at something isn't necessarily a feature of being of higher value. However, the term mediocre used here I find to mean something else: "The word comes to English via Middle French from the Latin word mediocris, meaning "of medium size, moderate, middling, commonplace," and perhaps originally "halfway to the top.""

If the goal of a task is to climb a mountain, stopping halfway is negative. No climber goes climbing just to stop halfway for no reason, they would feel embarrassed of such idea and would try again later. This is a healthy reaction. We're not talking about a change in weather condition that would make any further climbing unnecessarily risky.

It needs to be remembered that we're talking about a task that has reaching the peak as a goal; if jogging and admiring nature was the goal, the mechanism can be applied all the same. The peak is something of value (how to differentiate value I describe in "The Greatest Gift"). The task of climbing the mountain could be a parable of life. The climber who stops half-way isn't really climbing, just as a person who accepts mediocrity, isn't really living.

//draft: (A climber wants to aim for the best peak there is, the more difficult the better. Not all peaks yield the same value, and so no mediocre climbs have the same value. Once getting to the peak, more higher peaks can be seen that had previously not been seen, so one might argue it's pointless anyways. Nothing more wrong.)

Now, if the climber felt like they're completely satisfied with stopping half-way; felt like their value-feeling doesn't desire anything more, it could be for variety of reasons. They can be divided in two basic categories: 1) the climber has transcended their past-self already mid-way, hence the value-feeling of satisfaction is true, authentic. 2) the climber accepted their current state as an absolute achievement, and in their mind, the peak is now half-way. In the second case, this is a form of a self-deception, because the peak is not half-way in its definition. The value-feeling is not authentic and requires continuous effort to maintain the delusion.

Hence I believe that psychologists like Racjonalny Psycholog, who's recently posted a video "Why desire Super-Man if you have Clark Kent at home?", do people more harm than good, by reinforcing them in their false beliefs. Could also be, that Racjonalny Psycholog defines a successful therapy as a short-term remedy for feeling bad about self.

(I think the reason why some psychologists or people go that corrosive path of thought is due to their great empathy and compassion that in their attitude towards mediocrity, they lose sight of purpose or of analytical methods that ought to be applied to emotions in order to not just feel but also understand in a truer sense. This overwhelming empathy actually at some point works against itself, as it prevents to see others in a more holistic way; to notice existential needs of others, buried beneath their bad feelings)

Now, it is worth to discuss, that the parable of climbing the mountain is highly reductive. For some, the peak could be a mediocre task, like being a good servant, cleaner, house caretaker (what aforementioned Super Man did throughout the video). And in those mundane yet meaningful and important tasks, they become extraordinary. To that, I say:

• these mundane tasks have a good dimensionality in "furthesity" and possibly depth, but bad in breadth and extremely bad at height - as per my model of meaning described in "The Greatest Gift", therefore a person who limits themselves to such peaks leads a very limited existence

• the absolute efficacy of a person who limits themselves to such peaks is very poor

• such person can be replaced by virtually anybody, as such tasks (peaks), because of not requiring any additional effort, are basic to life. The rest of the traits of such person, like character, values, are actually entangled with the establishment of such peaks, so one shall be wary of what they deem worthwhile.

• most tragically, the impact such person has on their surrounding environment is corruptive, as it deprives others from the ability to reach higher and broader existence.

One might further argue, that for some not very talented individuals, getting halfway to the peak is already an achievement. Firstly, the peak is already relative, so making something relative, again relative to prove a point is fallacious. Secondly, it is half past starting point but also wastes all the energy that was put to get there, since the objective is not reached. Beyond that we'd be getting into the fallacious "the journey is the real treasure". The mean to an end itself has only as much value as effective it is in pursuing the end. What appears to be the inherent value of the mean to an end (the journey) is in fact a lot of smaller, unexpected ends that were achieved without perhaps being intentionally aimed for. Any of such ends could be a separate peak within a journey to the final peak (like a recurrent journey) - the mediocrity that we're talking about in the parable is to finish halfway towards every of these recurrent peaks.

A small spring in the forest is meaningful to some bugs and maybe a few hedgehogs. A spring that turns into a river and flows through a desert, nurtures all kinds of life and civilizations. Is meaningful to beings of higher abstraction: ecosystems, cultures, societies. A civilization is undoubtedly more valuable than the thirst of a few bugs. (okay these bugs aren't on the verge of extinction, just some common Bill Gates lab-created ants).

Similarly to the abstraction height of beings, a mediocre person can only nurture a low level abstraction of experiences for people around them, as compared to an extraordinary person.

And mediocrity is a choice. (which each of us makes every day since birth)