Update: My Freaking Problems

So. In the post, My Freaking Problems, I blogged about the following exceedingly bad habit of mine:

So yeah, as mentioned before, my class paper will be a compare and contrast between Lewis (the above paper [edit: New Work for a Theory of Universals] and Against Structural Universals) and Armstrong's theory of universals.  My challenge, besides writing the thing, is to get it done on time.  I have a horrid habit of being very late with papers, so much so that I'm too embarrassed to admit how many papers I still have to hand in.  That's gotta change.  If Obama  (and David Bowie) can change, dagnabit, so can I.

Yes I can!

Well, sort of.  It's a good news/bad news kind of situation.  That is, I've gotten a lot farther on this paper considered in proximity to the due date (in this case, 6/15) than any other paper.  So that's very good news.  The bad news is that I don't know that I'll be able to produce a finished product by 6/15.  In fact, I don't think I can unless my powers of comprehension go into overdrive.  Unlikely.  If I get as far along as I expect to by the due date, I'll guess I could use another few days to finalize it.  I hope that won't be a problem.  I'll touch base soon and see what's what wrt getting an extension.  Kinda bummed if I'll need an extension, but kinda pleased that we're talking about an extension of days.

Back to good news: in that previous post, I enumerated some specific problems that contribute to my lateness.  I've made some progress in those areas.  Here are those specific problems, though shortened.  Fuller versions are in the original post.

1. I don't stick to a topic.  This is a biggie.  I can move goalposts with the best of them (where 'them' = 'the Bush administration').  I've stayed with the topic so far, although there's a chance it will focus a little tighter and be about structural universals.  I consider that acceptable.
2. I don't stop reading about it. Another biggie.  This time, I've managed to restrict myself to a) the two Lewis papers; b) Armstrong's lecture text; c) reviewing parts of Armstrong's Universals; d) reading parts of Mumford's David Armstrong.  This is an especially positive improvement for me.  In the past, I would have read (or died trying to read) Armstrong's entire oeuvre; the Lewis papers plus every paper or book that cited those papers; every SEP article that mentions universals, states of affairs, particulars, properties, laws of nature, etc.; and so on.  I mean, just way too much to try to take in, process and, very practically speaking, use in a 5000 word essay.
3. I overdo understanding the material.  I haven't done this, at least not yet.  There's still time.  Sometimes this is inevitable in that I end up making sure I understand material on an aspect of the subject that is eventually not covered in the paper.  But I could probably be proactive and better at identifying what will be the ultimate focus of the paper, or at least very close to it.  Avoiding problem #1 helps in a big way toward avoiding problem #3.  In this case, I had a very general topic.  I did not have a topic like, 'Structural universals suck'.  I might end up arguing something along those crass lines, but I couldn't know at the start what I'd focus on/what the argument would be bc I hadn't read the Lewis stuff yet.  I'm still not sure bc I'm not at that point yet.  This is always a very nervous stage for me.  When I settled on the topic, I had read most of the Armstrong stuff I needed to read, although I can't say my understanding was sufficient to evaluate it in light of others' criticisms.  I hadn't read the Lewis stuff before, so that was new.  So I'm basically hoping that, when I find that I understand the material, there's something interesting to say.  And that I'll recognize that something interesting, understand it and its implications, and be able to express it.
4. Probably related to #3: I go about understanding the material in the wrong way.  I.e., I focus on the details, take a long time to understand the details, and leave the big picture stuff until the end.  I've improved somewhat here.  I don't think that what I've done in the past is the worst way to go about things, but I have wondered if it would help me understand the details if I had and kept at least a basic understanding of the big picture in mind.  I've tried to do that this time.  Wrt this problem and #3, I caught myself a couple of times heading off into the long dark night of the detail when I didn't need to, that is, it's important, but it will likely fall far enough away from the focus of the paper that I should spend time on other stuff.  Although I don't totally understand something, I'm aware of it so that if it turns out to be useful I can always go back to it.  Of course, there's nothing wrong with understanding every detail of material, but it may not be an option when there's a deadline involved.
5. And then I think there's fear.  There.  I said it.  Fear that my paper will suck.  Suck beyond compare.  Suck without peer.  Hmm.  Haven't done as well with this as with the other problems.  This problem probably motivates some of the other problems, e.g., over-reading or over-understanding.  Over-reading is motivated by fear that I'll miss some universally-acknowledged important reading on the subject.  Over-understanding is motivated by fear that I'll - gasp! - get something wrong.  It seems like this is my default attitude so I have to actually remind myself: that this fear is unrealistic; that everyone makes mistakes; to do my best and accept that I'll make mistakes; that it's more important that I learn from my mistakes (bc it's guaranteed that I will make mistaked; it's not guaranteed that I'll learn from them); that 'all will be well', as Jane Bennett says in my absolute favorite novel, Pride & Prejudice.  What's the worse thing that could happen to a person?  I pretty much figure death or maiming is the worst thing.  Even if my paper stinks, I certainly don't think it will cause death or grevious bodily harm to anyone, or even a much lesser injury.