Mastering Things

[blackjohn]

I need a lot of that philosophy to help get my head back on straight.

Me too... then I throw it all away and start over again from scratch.

[Caraccioli]

Now the real question becomes, is a true master ever truly happy with his own performance or does he find nothing but flaws to be corrected?

A true master... might see happy/sad as judgment calls based on some human bias... some level of expectations...

Or...a true master doesn't care because he/she isn't attached to the outcome. It is the thinking of the other three types that say the outcome is important. (Now I have to go start a new thread so I can show off my work. Athlete.)

[PyratePhil]

And where is that coffee? Or Phil? I could use a good philosophy discussion right about now...

It appears you have your discussion without my meddling, young grasshopper.

[LongTom]

I didn't know Phil was Irish! (Phil O'Sophy...)

[Caraccioli]

I came across something neat in the book I'm reading (Godel, Escher and Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid). In it, the author says:

"Even if a system can 'think about itself', it is still not outside itself. You, outside the system, perceive it differently from the way it perceives itself. So there is a meta-theory - a view from outside - even for a theory which can 'think about itself' inside itself."

So, extrapolating, even when you step back and watch yourself and then step back once more and watch the watcher, you are still trapped within the system - your mind. So, if he's correct (and I intuit that he is - it's very logical and addresses something I have sort of wondered at from right angles when thinking on the whole 'watch the watcher' concept), you can never completely accurately view yourself from outside, even when you attempt to do so.

It actually sort of shoots down some of the (often more absurd, IMO) metaphysical concepts. However does this mean you can't be more objective by stepping back? Is it just a construct of the mind and thus a way of our mind fooling us? Or is there some validity to attempting to assume dispassion? After all, this concept is a major tenet of psychotherapy.

Perhaps it's just something that people who are inclined toward it do because (they think, at least) they are more objective/dispassionate than people who either won't attempt or don't consider attempting it. In this case, trying to dispassionately view yourself would just be a natural extension of who and what you instinctively are. (By the same token, those who don't consider attempting such an exercise may be acting out a natural extension of who and what they instinctively are. However, those who are afraid to do so...well, I guess they are acting out their natural inclinations, but they are doing so out of fear. That seems wrong to me. Fear of everything but falling and loud noises has been shown to be learned. You can unlearn anything you can learn if you decide to do so. So can fear of knowledge of self be 'natural'? It would seem to me not to be true.)

Of course, who's to say that the outside observer is any more dispassionate than you are? I suppose that would depend upon their relationship to you. On the one had, they may be distant enough not to have formed as many opinions about you as a person closer to you might. On the other hand, this may limit them to facile observations. On the other other hand, our appearance, much though we would like to think otherwise, has many elements that accurately reflect who we really are. (I can sometimes pick an SJ out just by their face - expressions, lines and so forth.)

Very interesting.

[William Brand]

My Dad is a leading instructor in his field. He's probably forgotten more than I will ever know, and yet, he still amazes me from time to time by demonstrating fresh wonder at new things he has discovered in a field he has followed most of his life.

The tall and short of it...one is a Master who is content to continue mastering. Anyone who believes they have learned enough has not learned at all.

[Rumba Rue]

I'd like to master the Force.

[SilasTalbot]

Makes me think of a story I read about the composer Claude Debussy when I was in college.

Debussy was visiting the U.S. in the early 1900's, and was being shown around one of the major music schools - Julliard, I think. When the degree programs were explained to him he replied in horror "My God! How can ANYONE ever be a Master of Music"?

[Matusalem]

Yikes, for a second I saw this topic on the board and it looked like the topic was "mastering thighs". I don't even own a Thighmaster.

[LadyBarbossa]

Something like this... I leave to depending upon the moment.

I know it drives me nuts when people believe they are Masters when they are not. It's not the belief of what you are... it is who you are and how humble you are especially in accepting that.

One of many quotes I love and this I've had since childhood is:

A man can face the most dangerous challenge so long as he believes he can Master it.

If the moment requires you to Master the situation, whether by God or Fate, then by all means, must do what you must. But don't attempt to Master a situation when you are not called to be the Master. Back off and let the Master do their required work.

I'm no Master, I know who the Master's are. And it bugs the hell out of me when people I know try to be the Masters and tell me what to do. This is where I get snappy and will tell them to bugger off as I would prefer to listen to the Master rather than someone who's just as much a Learner as I.

And... a Master... they may be a Master in one area, but not in another. Some areas have no Master one can go to for help. That's something you are meant to learn and master on your own and keep to yourself.

Live, learn, love, grow.

~Lady B

[Caraccioli]

You know, when I picked to resurrect this topic for my comment on the Godel book (which has nothing whatsoever to do with the original point), I'd forgotten what it was all about. I was just looking for our long gone philosophy thread and this seemed as close as I was going to get. Now everyone is responding to stuff that came before, which made me re-read and...I noticed I never really responded well to this.

Actually I was going to call BS. But not necessarily on the whole thing, just a small comment you made. But now I'm a bit too lazy to go find it exactly, but it was something to the idea that a master realizes it is better to teach than to do because teaching helps the students more. And I remember thinking when I read that a master teaches others to do becuase hes sick and tired of doing it for them. (This might be harkening back to personal belief that there is no such thing as altruism...but thats another discussion completely.)

1. I don't know if I said that, but if so it's not right. I think the master would teach because it is through teaching that you learn. Somewhere (bet it's from Illusions) I read something like, "the master teaches what s/he most needs to learn." And probably should have added "...or it pays the bills."

2. I agree that there is no such thing as altruism. (But if there were, only NFs could get near to it.) I had a friend in a volunteer organization who (being a master IMO) explained to me that everyone who was a member of this "altruism-oriented" group was so for selfish reasons. I could try and reconstruct the whole discussion, but there is no time, so let me sum up. I

In what was practically a parody of Plato, ("Yes, Arnie, it is just as you say." "No Arnie, no one could deny you are right." etc.) I offered up examples and he explained them away in straightforward fashion.

And now that I read what Blackjohn has quoted I'm going to call BS on the very last sentence as well. If you really aspire to this philosphoy it should be accepted that all things possess or can possess all levels.

I'm reminded of a quote from the television show House.

"So, you'd rather be valued for some inate gift of intellegence, rather than some inate gift of beauty?"  The point being that both things are to a product of our make up and we must work with what we are born with. So why value one more than the other? Each has its uses.

Hummmm, yes, I suppose. However, you can focus your development. Which is more worth development? Actually, neither; but intelligence seems to me to have more utility for problem solving and future impact. A innately "surface" beautiful person gradually loses that through time or takes it to an early grave. Inner beauty...well that's another whole discussion that I'm not prepared to discuss rationally. That probably trumps the other two in a vacuum. [so I guess I'd chose Kaylee, if forced.]

One of my favorite quotes sums it up best and lays both to waste:

"Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent." -Calvin Coolidge

[PyratePhil]

One of my favorite quotes sums it up best and lays both to waste:

"Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent." -Calvin Coolidge

Ol' Cal didn't live in a world where movers and shakers were responsible for the gutting of pension plans, the ripping-off of the public through stock fraud, the enslavement of young minds to electronic pablum, or a thousand other ills all wrought by those determined and persistent types.

So much for Willie Loman...

[Caraccioli]

One of my favorite quotes sums it up best and lays both to waste:

"Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent." -Calvin Coolidge

Ol' Cal didn't live in a world where movers and shakers were responsible for the gutting of pension plans, the ripping-off of the public through stock fraud, the enslavement of young minds to electronic pablum, or a thousand other ills all wrought by those determined and persistent types.

So much for Willie Loman...

Gee, Phil. I'm surprised to find such cynicism coming from you. The horrors of the world have always been around us (and are not due only to the efforts of persistant buisinessmen - which is what I think(?) you're suggesting), we just haven't been able to be made aware of them so quickly and with such graphic coverage.

[Caraccioli]

Thinking further on the topic of masters wanting to teach...I sort of recall my thinking on it, although I don't recall exactly where I was discussing it any more. But it comes from the idea that you teach in an effort to continue expanding a topic that you love (which is rather selfish in a way.) If you hand the knowledge to someone else, they can apply their creativity to it, expand upon it and increase it. At least, that's how I see mastery. Masters would want to see the things they love expand.

[PyratePhil]

Gee, Phil. I'm surprised to find such cynicism coming from you. The horrors of the world have always been around us (and are not due only to the efforts of persistant buisinessmen - which is what I think(?) you're suggesting), we just haven't been able to be made aware of them so quickly and with such graphic coverage.

With all due (perhaps well-earned) facetiousness aside...

The entire structure of society is tilted toward awarding those that are pirates in deed and thought, from early schooling to grave.

Businessmen are just the most visible manifestation of the lot. The technology to be aware of them is just icing on the cake - for those who are skilled in observing the human condition, they'll have ferreted out the truth long before the media gets its grimy hands on it and spins it around.

Re: Masters - I'm not ready to get into this discussion since in my field the term has a very different connotation than any forwarded here. My response was solely toward your Coolidge quote.

[Caraccioli]

I had to think on this before responding. Let me say if I can state your ideas in my words (and concepts).

Persistence in doing something that lacks personal integrity is bad.

If that's what you're saying, I agree. However, persistence is just a tool and, in and of itself, is not bad. In fact, a great deal has been accomplished by people who persevered when they wanted to accomplish something.

"For the resolute and determined there is time and opportunity." –Ralph Waldo Emerson

[PyratePhil]

I had to think on this before responding. Let me say if I can state your ideas in my words (and concepts).

Persistence in doing something that lacks personal integrity is bad.

If that's what you're saying, I agree. However, persistence is just a tool and, in and of itself, is not bad. In fact, a great deal has been accomplished by people who persevered when they wanted to accomplish something.

"For the resolute and determined there is time and opportunity." –Ralph Waldo Emerson

Poetically put, my friend.

My view is more of the Eastern type - wherein perseverance is often seen as a negative trait, at least in its more extreme manifestations. Coupled with its use to achieve questionable ends, it's a deadly tool indeed. The preferred approach in said system is to do only what comes naturally - perseverance warps the natural order and leads to discord. Of course, this assumes a certain level of ability in the chosen field, so that the wheel is not re-invented and time and effort expended for naught.

Although I realize with my Western mind that in many endeavors such as science, athletics, etc. perseverance is often a useful tool, it can all too often swing too far to one side and lead to over-achievement, fixation and something we're seeing more and more these days - symptoms of stress.

My son, who will be graduating high school this spring and is already accepted into his college of choice, has been exposed in the last 3 years to a battery of tests in an attempt to both pigeonhole and label his abilities, and to provide raw numbers for the school district to "up" their success ratios. They lay claim for his success solely with the school's drive, spirit, and progressive teaching structure. Bulldinky. The kid is smart, and would be whether he was in school or out.

But many of his friends are forced to achieve by both the school and their parents. These are probably the same poor kids whose parents were shopping acceptable nursery schools five years before the kid was born, so that he'd get into a good grade school, then a good high school, then...

And all the while, the school and parents tell him "You have to keep trying! You have to burn the midnight oil, keep your nose to the grindstone, you won't get anywhere in life if you don't try harder..."

Bleh.

Not saying that a slacker lifestyle is the answer - that goes to the opposite extreme. Somewhere in the middle might be nice, though.

Factoid: Japan has a huge number of student suicides every year exactly because of this drive to achieve and be #1.

As W.C. Fields once said:

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

Then quit. No use being a damn fool about it.

[Sir Beachem Quick]

I for one am quite happy Thomas Edison did not quit after his first week of trying to invent the light bulb.

[PyratePhil]

I for one am quite happy Thomas Edison did not quit after his first week of trying to invent the light bulb.

Thomas Edison, while his inventions have proved useful, was not the giant genius and world-saving inventor that people make him out to be.

He was an anti-Semite; he was a real ba$tard to work for; he regularly stole ideas from other scientists and inventors; he demanded that any ideas that originated from his workers be credited to him; he was conceited and arrogant; he was obsessed with money, and he had an excellent PR team behind him. There were scores of scientists and inventors working simultaneously on the same inventions, and it's mainly through luck, coupled with some ingenious industrial espionage, that he "stumbled" upon the great majority of them.

In short: the typical persevering businessman.

[Caraccioli]

"Striving but never arriving?"

Balance is always a good thing. I come from the western thinking into the Eastern. Some of it is good. I am particularly fond of the concept "When the student is ready, the teacher will appear." Of course, teachers take many forms...

Of course, we're far from my original point of that quote. I brought it up to counter the House quote. An average-looking person of average intelligence who perseveres will accomplish far more than a beautiful or brilliant one who won't. Even Taoists must persevere to some degree to resist the outer world in moving toward emptiness, flexibility, effortlessness and detachment. (It's something of a conundrum, really.)

[PyratePhil]

"Striving but never arriving?"

Of course, we're far from my original point of that quote.

Even Taoists must persevere to some degree to resist the outer world in moving toward emptiness, flexibility, effortlessness and detachment. (It's something of a conundrum, really.)

"Striving and never arriving" - correct.

I realize we're a bit removed from your original point, for which I apologize - but just like life, sometimes the circuitous path is the most valuable.

Actually, Taoists DON'T resist the outer world - at least according to Taoist philosophy, they shouldn't. "Resistance is futile" - pitting strength against strength. Better to go with the natural order of world progression, while not actively taking part in most of it. Sort of like being IN the world, but not OF it.

Blend, don't oppose.

(*Shrugs* - that's what the fortune cookie said, anyway...)

[Caraccioli]

I realize we're a bit removed from your original point, for which I apologize - but just like life, sometimes the circuitous path is the most valuable.

I was just thinking about the cyclical nature of things in the shower this morning. (There's a mental picture for ya'.) I started out with the 11 year sunspot cycle (an odd number from a human perspective for some reason) and the 1500 year temperature cycle which lead me to thinking about the annual seasonal cycle then on to the human aging cycle, the cyclical nature of chaos theory (repetitions of repetitions) and back to my book (Godel, Escher, Bach: A Golden Braid) which is (among other things) about recursive cycles.

So it's really funny that you bring it up.

[PyratePhil]

So it's really funny that you bring it up.

Not at all - I knew what you were thinking.

*eerie Twilight Zone music starts in background*

Or maybe I'm just a Master of Circular Reasoning...

[Caraccioli]

But, in a way, all reasoning seems to be circular - just in ever-widening circles. What actually started me thinking was your comment about robin and butterfly sitings. This occurs in a multi-decade (and possibly longer) cyclical patterns. (Although I understand there is also a mathematically chaotic element present in animal population sizes and behaviors. As I mentioned, this is cyclical in nature as well, but in really weird ways. Alas, I have only passing knowledge of animal studies, however, so I'll not wander too much further into the topic.)

Wandering around this overarching topic...I think the most important thing I've learned in regard to philosophy and the broad concept of mastery is that we each live in our own world and that that world is unlike anyone else's world. Most important to this idea is that we mentally construct the vast majority of our world and we can alter it in important ways. So we are each, in essence, the master of our created world. If we don't chose to consciously guide parts of this creation, it will be subconsciously and externally guided - meaning we essentially forfeit our mastery of our own lives.

[PyratePhil]

Wandering around this overarching topic...I think the most important thing I've learned in regard to philosophy and the broad concept of mastery is that we each live in our own world and that that world is unlike anyone else's world. Most important to this idea is that we mentally construct the vast majority of our world and we can alter it in important ways. So we are each, in essence, the master of our created world. If we don't chose to consciously guide parts of this creation, it will be subconsciously and externally guided - meaning we essentially forfeit our mastery of our own lives.

*bows deeply*

THAT'S the best definition of Mastery I've heard in a long time - thank you!