The Brain, Chaos and Whatnot

[PyratePhil]

Gee and I was beginning to think I was writing to myself in this thread. (Not that I mind doing that. Some day, I really must copy this stuff into a Word file so I can look back upon it in my doddering years and laugh at myself.  )

To paraphrase that old Rogers and Hammerstein song - "You'll never talk alone..."

I see your point, caustic though it tends to be.

*sigh* Labels...again with the labels...

(Some would also argue that the Eastern "religions" themselves work against embracing technology. In fact, it might be the basis of your argument.)

Sorry - I have no ties to any religion - Eastern, Western or any other style.

The author thus suggested that we may have reached the moon five hundred years earlier had this not occurred. (Think of it. The mind reels at what we might be doing today (er, restricting my imaginings to positive events as is my wont.)

Merely pushing a time-line backward or forward has, I believe, no effect on its ultimate destiny. It perhaps delays or accelerates mankind's recognition of his folly, but that's all.

And hopefully you recognize that by limiting your thoughts to the positive, you effectively negate half of the world. May I inquire as to which half that would be?

I must define "technology" though. (At least define it as I see it.) In my mental maundering, technology is simply a better way to do something. If you determine that putting your produce on a simple raft and poling down the gently wandering stream that flows through your property is better than carrying it by the armload, you have "discovered" new technology that will serve you. By the same token, if you figure that crushed gooseberries can be added to the wash to create a nicely hued cloth, you have a new technology.

Interesting view of technology, I grant you.

So correct me if I'm wrong (I have utter faith in this request ), but when I have an itchy eyeball...and I relieve the itch by violently poking my finger into my eye...then one day I discover I can merely rub it gently instead of poking it...

...that's technology? It's a better way of doing something, right?

And I take issue with your view that technology is always for the GOOD of mankind, but that dog won't hunt right now. (I love that phrase!)

Of course, technologies are, by their very nature, linked directly to commerce.

Are they indeed? I can think of several technologies right offhand that are not involved directly (or should not be, by their very definitions) with commerce...theoretical physics among them....

Our views on commerce are quite different, though. While the siren song of striving and accumulating calls many, I don't see it as a negative until it has consumed one's life and become an addiction.

Long before the effects of cancer are seen or felt, it is slowly eating away at the core of your being...

In fact, commerce is really an enabler of masters. After all, we can't all be philosophers. (In fact, most people aren't suited to it at all.) So people may as well do the work that they are suited for and that suits them as (I believe) it will make them happiest, give them the potential for mastery and (if they avoid the addictive aspects) ultimately make them the most prosperous.

I still don't understand what the connection is between mastery and prosperity. Are you speaking solely of financial remuneration (as I believe you'd need to be when discussing commerce) as a longed-for result of mastery? How can you ever hope to become master of anything except disappointment if you devote your life to chasing illusions?

...but when you factor Maslow's Hierarchy in...well, it just makes sense that we are best to embrace it - up to a point.

Are we??? Have we truly conquered our needs for health and shelter and community? Looking around me at the glittering shards of civilization (you can use that phrase elsewhere, if you like - I'll suspend the trademark-infringement proceedings in your favor), I see so many needs unmet, and by the very people that are striving mightily for the almighty dinero. They work themselves into mental, physical and spiritual sicknesses of all timbres in pursuit of...what? A plasma-screen DVD player in their new SUV? They barter their children's birthrights for self-enjoyment purposes, all the while singing the "technology is wonderful" song? They are despicable human beings, unable to show the slightest shred of mercy or humanity to those below them, but I'm supposed to believe they're empowered because they have more toys than I?

In my (possibly rose-colored) view, a master is someone who loves the craft of his mastery and is constantly searching for better, more efficient ways of producing top-quality output.

And with my State Trooper aviators, I see that mastery can also involve the pursuit of Nothingness. Efficiency has little or nothing to do with top-quality output - I'd rather own a hand-made bed by a Master craftsman that took one year to make than a high-quality, quickly mass-produced, efficiently -designed-and-manufactured fiberboard K-Mart special.

My point is that my "master" is ever exploring new technology, embracing that which adds and rejecting that which deducts. It's true even in the teaching field.

Not for ALL teachers, I assure you...

Just like the stone carving maxim that you remove whatever doesn't look like the finished product, in certain fields of mastery one needs to remove more than they add. Who would be easier to teach Catholicism - a dyed-in-the-sheep's-wool Protestant, or a 5-year-old who has never had a day of church indoctrination that he can remember? The difference is one of subtraction, not addition...

Your comment about automobiles... I can see why you think this, but I think the benefits outweigh the risks. (From an Eastern POV, I suspect this is practically an illogical statement.)

LOL!

Eh - like everything else in life, they are double-edged swords - useful but dangerous; beautiful but ugly; life-saving yet life-taking. It could be no other way. I just happen to fall on the horse-and-buggy side of the continuum these days. Of course, I've owned my Corvettes and Porsche's, too, so the pendulum in my case has swung full cycle.

I've a good friend, John, who is essentially a Luddite (and proud of this fact) and craves simplicity in all things, but grudgingly accepts the conditions of living in a Western culture. So he carves out a little Eastern-style niche in his home. (Although he doesn't think of it as being particularly Eastern - he embraced the, er, "technology of simplicity" through experimentation. His concession to spirituality is a small icon to the goddess of nature in his garden.)

Without ever having met him, I like John!

My view is that being able to move more things and with greater speed enriches our lives.

Or, as in the case of the Manhattan Project, take multiple lives, far more and far faster, with more horrifying effects, than was ever thought possible...yes, that enriched all humanity.

Or the spread of AIDS...the Plague...all attributable to modern modes of fast mass-transportation...

We could go backwards (as John might want) and return to transport by horse or some such - but we would also have to embrace the resultant spread of disease and the sullied conditions of the roadways - a trade-off of risks. Or we could go all out and say there is no reason to ever travel more than 20 miles from your origin and be right back in the dark ages (literally) when the church controlled innovation. The only difference would be that we choose to impede our progress rather than have it shoved down our throats.

Which all begs the question, "WHAT is progress?" Another thread, perhaps...

Me? I like eating a banana most mornings, purchased at 39¢ - 49¢ a pound - and I couldn't do that without modern ocean/air and motor/rail transportation, competition between large supermarkets and other, similar "technologies." So, for me, the benefits outweigh the costs. Of course, my pal John would say I have sold my soul for a banana. (This is why I am committed to having Sunday dinner with he, his wife, son and brother Rick (an ex-Cappuchin monk) at least twice a month for as long as they'll feed me. (Note: they buy bananas too.))

You're merely indulging your likes and, I dare say, your dislikes in this manner. If you never knew what a banana tasted like, you'd never miss it. We wait until we become accustomed to a thing, then we vigorously defend it to the death; yet, if we never had its acquaintance, we would never have to defend or argue for anything, thus making our lives easier - one of the stated goals of technology - hence, through subtraction we can achieve what many believe only addition can offer.

BTW - When I was 7 years old, I almost ordered a Cappuchin monkey from the back of a comic book. It was...

...

...umm...never mind.

Your serve, M'Lord.

[Caraccioli]

See, labels are a form of technology used to more quickly refer to something. Information is certainly lost as the the category of the label becomes broader, however. This is the trade-off. (We've never reached agreement on the concept of labeling. I doubt we will. (Words are labels. )

Nor do I see technology as being "folly." It's a tool. (In fact, tools are technology by my definition. So is "rubbing" rather than "poking" your eye.) I've said before (somewhere) that tools are neither good nor bad. It is how we conceive of them and use them (or, basically, "label" them) that gives them meaning. Fission gives us bombs...and a way to produce energy. (It took the government to produce the bombs. (Where's that little devil icon I'm always wishing for?))

Anyhow, being insulin-dependent since I was 7, I have a startling appreciation for forward progress and technology. In fact, you would not know of John had technology not brought us here (not to mention keeping me alive long past my due date - I'd have lived about 3-5 miserable years - miserable because of the exorbitantly high blood sugar. But I suppose I'm being somewhat melodramatic.)

As for the market for theoretical physics...ask Duchess. She'll open your eyes a bit. (Ever heard of quantum bit encryption? Very interesting. Not marketable yet, but it will be...)

On to my view of a master. I mentally understand your cry for simplicity and even embrace the illusionary nature of our nature, but there is also something to be said for listening to a guy explain Western economic history while driving to work causing me to ponder ideas that I would otherwise probably have not come in contact with. Is it ultimately illusionary? In a sense, I think you're right. Still, my greatest joy is to unravel ideas and reach a point where I can use them for something. I am reminded of a favorite Michener quote,

“Ideas! Ideas! They are the fuel that keeps a brain functioning at a high level...Ideas have been the joy of my life and in my ninth decade, I am still striving to understand those that are beyond my grasp while finding great comfort in those I do understand.” –James Michener

But I'm wandering OT again...

Prosperity results from doing good work. Is it the ultimate reward? No, of course not. The reward for doing good work is to have done the work and enjoyed the doing. In Western culture, it is just one of the pleasurable dividends. I might agree with you if you said, "The greatest joy is to do the work only to have done it." However, unless you are willing to go truly mountain man, you need to keep yourself fed and watered. The body may be the spiritual garage, but even garages have to have a solid foundation, strong walls and a well maintained roof. The dualistic nature of being human and all that. I indulge both sides. This reminds me of the completely irreverent (at this point) quote by Doc Brown:

"Wait a minute, Doc. Ah... Are you telling me you built a time machine... out of a DeLorean?"

"The way I see it, if you're gonna build a time machine into a car, why not do it with some style?"

Call me hopeless. (Go ahead.)

I can't for the life of me understand why you care a whit about the person with the SUV with the flat panel. My friend John (who is probably my best friend at this point) does likewise? Why spend any mental energy at all on people doing something that doesn't really affect you? They have their world and you have yours. (We established this in the mastery thread, I believe.) I do think some people are coming to better realize that happiness doesn't come from acquisition.

I'm not so sure about the pursuit, however. I suspect this has more to with personality preferences than anything else. Some people love the pursuit, it drives them. Some people think being driven is spiritual sickness. I think both are right in a way. If you were to take the competition away from the competitor, my suspicion is that they would find another way to gratify this urge. I guess that makes it subconscious as I'm explaining it. I don't have a problem with such views, myself. I think some people could unlearn them, but others...well I have my doubts. If only because they wouldn't want to. Enforcing anything is a serious crime in my book. (Not that I'm suggesting you would enforce anything, but how else to get that lover of competition to eschew it? Education? I'm sure you've met people (especially wily competitors) who squirm in their figurative seats when you try to educate them. More unlearning? You may be fighting an uphill battle with a spoon there.)

BTW, this tape actually suggests that it is the lack of development of several technologies (although he doesn't call them that) that has made AIDS such a problem in Africa.

[PyratePhil]

..Information is certainly lost as the the category of the label becomes broader, however. This is the trade-off. (We've never reached agreement on the concept of labeling. I doubt we will. (Words are labels.  )

Words are indeed labels - such imperfect ones at that, poets and scribes notwithstanding - but I think that as the categories grow smaller information can also be lost.

There, we've reached agreement.

Nor do I see technology as being "folly." It's a tool. (In fact, tools are technology by my definition. So is "rubbing" rather than "poking" your eye.)...

My apologies, then - you do indeed have a unique view of "technology"; one which I am not used to hearing.

...In fact, you would not know of John had technology not brought us here...

Now you KNOW that's a non-defendable position - John and I could very well have met while strolling a country lane in the merry, merry month of May...

As for the market for theoretical physics...ask Duchess. She'll open your eyes a bit. (Ever heard of quantum bit encryption? Very interesting. Not marketable yet, but it will be...)

Ah, but you confuse the pursuit of pure science with commercial applications, no? I merely stated that PURE theoretical science has no such goals - rather, it is the quest for knowledge for the sake of knowledge.

And with all due respect, I don't believe Duchess and I see eye-to-eye on many subjects. Getting us into discussion would be equivalent to caging a dog and cat in a small box and expecting a peace accord to develop.

On to my view of a master... there is also something to be said for listening to a guy explain Western economic history while driving to work causing me to ponder ideas that I would otherwise probably have not come in contact with.

Ahh...since my commute consists of waking up, walking 30 feet down the hall to my office and sitting down, I didn't appreciate the irony there...

Still, my greatest joy is to unravel ideas and reach a point where I can use them for something.

As I've always suspected, you DO use the subtractive method in your mental quests :>)

Prosperity results from doing good work.

Now are you purposely baiting me with a comment like that? Of course you realize that drug czars, contract hitmen, insider-trading stiffs and lottery winners live the life of Reilly without performing "good" work.

I might agree with you if you said, "The greatest joy is to do the work only to have done it."

How about if I offer you "The greatest joy is to do the work only to participate in the process, without regard to the final goal"?

However, unless you are willing to go truly mountain man, you need to keep yourself fed and watered.

Actually that seems to be the general direction of my path lately, but why could I not keep myself fed by growing and hunting my own food and having my own stream or well? These things can cost little or nothing and when performed properly have minimal impact upon the earth and its residents.

The body may be the spiritual garage, but even garages have to have a solid foundation, strong walls and a well maintained roof.

Or to paraphrase Clint Eastwood, that great Western philosopher:

"Spirit ain't worth spit without a little exercise".

Call me hopeless. (Go ahead.)

You're hopeless.

I can't for the life of me understand why you care a whit about the person with the SUV with the flat panel.

I "care" about them only because:

1. By creating demand for such products, they are depleting the natural resources of the planet upon which I must live my life

2. While they mess around with all the little buttons as they're going 85MPH down my street, they have been known to run over small furry mammals, stop signs and the occasional child.

3. They clog the earth with themselves and their progeny, thereby denying me a better parking spot at the mall. :>P

My friend John (who is probably my best friend at this point) does likewise? Why spend any mental energy at all on people doing something that doesn't really affect you? They have their world and you have yours. (We established this in the mastery thread, I believe.)

As in my previous reply, they DO affect my world - in many more ways than I can list here. It would take a book to fully expand upon my thoughts on this subject. Watch for it soon at your local B&N, or preorder NOW at Amazon.com...

I'm not so sure about the pursuit, however...

Perhaps I once again misspoke myself...

I don't mean to imply that I want to change them. Only that, in their present form, when they start to impinge upon MY territory I feel a call to action of some sort. Since snuffing them is generally frowned upon when you get caught, I seek alternate solutions. I can't move much further into the mountains, since they always seem to find me there. I've spent years living in their midst in large cities and for a while my "hide in plain sight" approach worked, but then the beasts became self-aware...

Right now I make my living teaching a select few students my Way - and believe me, the entry requirements I have for becoming one of those students are stringent. No optimists allowed, for one thing...

BTW, this tape actually suggests that it is the lack of development of several technologies (although he doesn't call them that) that has made AIDS such a problem in Africa.

Well, first i was expecting a vociferous argument over my use of the phrase "modern mass transit" in regards to something like the Plague...

What I meant was that, if people would stay separated by a "healthy" distance (ie - low concentration villages and hamlets), most diseases would simply burn out for lack of hosts. Commerce is one of the main driving forces behind travel, hence we once again (!) find ourselves having traveled a circle of sorts in this conversation.

Woooo...I'm getting dizzy with all these circles....

[Caraccioli]

I suppose, when it comes to categories, I like them small for things that don't interest me so that I don't have to waste any psychic energy on them.

Right now, words are the primary medium we have for exchanging mental pictures. Although I was thinking the other day how interesting it would be to be able to exchange a picture of something I have envisaged whole to another person. Since our minds actually think in pictures, it would seem to me to be the way to transmit ideas fully, with the least lost information. However, we haven't found the medium...yet.

Now you KNOW that's a non-defendable position - John and I could very well have met while strolling a country lane in the merry, merry month of May...

Possible, but highly unlikely if you both stay true to your professed types. (He also embraces the ne'er to travel 20 miles without cause philosophy. He only grudgingly turned in his no A/C, manual, AM radio (only because it came with it) 10-year old Chevy S-10 when its mileage suggested that it was more of a threat to the environment than an alternative might.)

Prosperity results from doing good work.

Now are you purposely baiting me with a comment like that? Of course you realize that drug czars, contract hitmen, insider-trading stiffs and lottery winners live the life of Reilly without performing "good" work.

Ah, but I never said prosperity couldn't result from other activities. (As a foot note, did you know that most lottery winners declare bankruptcy within something like an average of five years? They never learned to manage money, so giving them wads of it is like trying to carry sand in a sieve. There's a certain mastery of skill required for effective money-management. [There. Now I'm baiting you.])

And with all due respect, I don't believe Duchess and I see eye-to-eye on many subjects. Getting us into discussion would be equivalent to caging a dog and cat in a small box and expecting a peace accord to develop.

Too bad, really. She's terrifically bright. She also knows more about theoretical physics than the two of us combined. I might suggest that, in some ways, she's even a bit more of a realist than you (No offense intended. Just my observation having talked with you both. (BTW, I've sort of hinted at it, but, for the record, I not much of a realist any more. (Or am I?))

Everyone lives in their own world and thus has their own insights into life. I find that fascinating. Some insight are very acute - and they sting.

Still, my greatest joy is to unravel ideas and reach a point where I can use them for something.

As I've always suspected, you DO use the subtractive method in your mental quests :>)

Have I suggested otherwise? I've done a fair bit of unlearning myself. While I like shorthand for things that don't interest me, I also recognize that if I fail to explore the details of the things that do interest me, I can do nothing but parrot what has already been done. This is a tool of mastery. (That makes it technology.)

I might agree with you if you said, "The greatest joy is to do the work only to have done it."

How about if I offer you "The greatest joy is to do the work only to participate in the process, without regard to the final goal"?

Sure. You've essentially restated what I said with clarification of the phrase "...to have done it." ("it" being the work not the result of the work.)

I can't for the life of me understand why you care a whit about the person with the SUV with the flat panel.

I "care" about them only because:

1. By creating demand for such products, they are depleting the natural resources of the planet upon which I must live my life

Curiously, by improving technology, we often (in fact, I might even go so far as to say "usually") expand the resource or discover new resources that are more efficient. Take gasoline as an example. In the early 70's (more than 40 years ago) The Club of Rome told us that we would run out of oil within 40 years. By 1980, we had created the fuel injector which increased the potential supply of gasoline by improving fuel consumption. We had created a new pipeline to Alaska (new technology) which increased the supply. We have recently found ways to drill deeper into the ocean, use previously unusable oil, get oil from shale, etc., etc., etc.

Eventually, we will create something that will allow us to abandon oil for the most part in favor of something else (probably solar power, but I'm not a mystic, so I don't know for sure.) Then, like whale oil, it will eventually go the way of all inefficient technologies. (Incidentally, there were dire predictions of our running out of whale oil in the mid/late 1800s. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.)

2. While they mess around with all the little buttons as they're going 85MPH down my street, they have been known to run over small furry mammals, stop signs and the occasional child.

Weren't you just complaining about there being too many people? I sort of subscribe to the idea that when it's time to go, you're going. (This is not provable.) Besides, you know that life and death are the largest circles in the human lifespan (thus the term). I note again that everything results in trade-offs. Society seems prepared to accept this one, even if you are not. But I guess you have the right to be upset with society. (Well, obviously.) Check back in with me in 20 years and let me know how that strategy works for you.

3. They clog the earth with themselves and their progeny, thereby denying me a better parking spot at the mall. :>P

Oops, it should have been, "Aren't you going to soon complain about there being too many people? "

What I meant was that, if people would stay separated by a "healthy" distance (ie - low concentration villages and hamlets), most diseases would simply burn out for lack of hosts.

Mine won't. (What?! Melodrama, again?!)

Commerce is one of the main driving forces behind travel, hence we once again (!) find ourselves having traveled a circle of sorts in this conversation.

Hm. I've traveled for more for exploration and expansion of my horizons than for business. (I think. Well, I haven't kept track to be honest.) I like seeing new places. It can be very restive and often adds to and improves ideas.

[PyratePhil]

...Since our minds actually think in pictures, it would seem to me to be the way to transmit ideas fully, with the least lost information. However, we haven't found the medium...yet.

Have faith that technology - probably theoretical physics - will come up with a commercial application soon.

He only grudgingly turned in his no A/C, manual, AM radio (only because it came with it) 10-year old Chevy S-10 when its mileage suggested that it was more of a threat to the environment than an alternative might.)

Keep telling me John tales, please! I like him more and more...

Ah, but I never said prosperity couldn't result from other activities.

OK, then how about - Jesus, Mother Theresa and other do-gooders never achieved prosperity, at least in the commercial/financial sense we're speaking of.

(As a foot note, did you know that most lottery winners declare bankruptcy within something like an average of five years? They never learned to manage money, so giving them wads of it is like trying to carry sand in a sieve. There's a certain mastery of skill required for effective money-management.  [There. Now I'm baiting you.])

LOL - just once I'd like to win so that I could skew the stats.

Everyone lives in their own world and thus has their own insights into life. I find that fascinating. Some insight are very acute - and they sting.

Very true. And some are chronic...

This is a tool of mastery. (That makes it technology.)

Now I KNOW you're baiting me!

Take gasoline as an example. In the early 70's (more than 40 years ago) The Club of Rome told us that we would run out of oil within 40 years. By 1980, we had created the fuel injector which increased the potential supply of gasoline by improving fuel consumption. We had created a new pipeline to Alaska (new technology) which increased the supply. We have recently found ways to drill deeper into the ocean, use previously unusable oil, get oil from shale, etc., etc., etc.

By 1980 the fuel injector had indeed improved fuel mileage, which was more than outweighed by (1) cars becoming capable of achieving higher average speeds, thus negating any mileage increases, and (2) the increase in the number of cars, and thus the barrels of oil, produced.

The Alaska pipeline? Don't even GO there, bud! Environmental and societal upheaval and destruction in the name of technology (read: greed). Drilling deeper in the ocean? Great. Let's kill off even the bioluminescent critters that live 5 miles down. We've gotten rid of the majority of the species that once lived on land, so let's do it with the other 3/4 of the globe...

...all so we can cruise at 85 in our LuxoPig SUV watching some foul-mouthed comic on the DVD player cater to our base instincts whilst we run over flora and fauna and consume "meat" burgers laden with chemically-suspect substances...

Yeah - I'm a proud member of the human race.

Eventually, we will create something that will allow us to abandon oil for the most part in favor of something else (probably solar power, but I'm not a mystic, so I don't know for sure.) Then, like whale oil, it will eventually go the way of all inefficient technologies. (Incidentally, there were dire predictions of our running out of whale oil in the mid/late 1800s. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.)

Yes - once we empty the planet of its last drops of oil, we'll boldly use our advanced technology to rape and pillage ANOTHER resource.

Heh, heh - solar power is one of those "inefficient" technologies that was used for thousands of years around the globe. Maybe someday man will figure out the natural order of progression and the inevitability of cycles - but don't hold your breath.

Funny, isn't it, how groups like the Amish have managed to avoid many of the "necessities" of society while prospering? It's only when they're infected by our technologically-advanced culture that they begin to have problems.

Like the Sentinel in The Matrix said - we're a virus. We reproduce and consume, reproduce and consume, until it's all gone - then we move on to the next fertile field.

Society seems prepared to accept this one, even if you are not. But I guess you have the right to be upset with society. (Well, obviously.)

I had a sister who was killed on the Tappan Zee Bridge in NY on the night of her nursing school graduation by a drunk driver who crossed over the divider going over 75mph. My sister lasted a week before we took her off support.

2 years later, I did CPR for 1/2 an hour on someone on the very same bridge that was also hit by a SOBER driver going too fast and crossing over the divider.

I had a good friend in 6th grade get killed by a speeder.

It goes on and on. Cycles...

Check back in with me in 20 years and let me know how that strategy works for you.

If there's any justice at all in the universe, I'll be gone before then.

Mine won't. (What?! Melodrama, again?!)

My empathy.

Both of my brothers had adult-onset diabetes. One died the day after he was told he'd need a transplant. The other suffered for a year before using his Mossberg 12-ga to end the pain.

Hm. I've traveled for more for exploration and expansion of my horizons than for business. (I think. Well, I haven't kept track to be honest.) I like seeing new places. It can be very restive and often adds to and improves ideas.

You're very lucky. I think (without checking any stats) that the majority of travel these days is business-related.

[Caraccioli]

Let's us talk about unlearning. The most important thing I believe I unlearned was pessimism (né "realism"). I suspect I originally learned pessimism from the media and some of those around me then found it subtly pile-driven home by college professors. (What is it about them, education and the pessimistic view of the world? The more I learn the more optimistic I become.) It was during the slow churning of my divorce that I began to re-evaluate my outlook. (It often takes a crisis to initiate change.)

Before I begin my diatribe, let me note that there is a difference between what I think of as optimism and the Pollyanna view of the world. (Although there is probably some validity even in that. I suggest the Pollyanna lives a better existence than the "realist" any day. At the end of your days, what difference does it make how "correctly" you viewed things? I posit that this mania for correctness has some discernible overtones of peer pressure in it.)

Several elements gradually became linked in my consciousness that necessitated the unlearning of pessimism. I have been pondering them for the past few days and I hope I've gotten most of them. (For, surely, I haven't gotten them all.) To list, then!

First, as discussed several times, we define our own world and our world is different than anyone else's world. So it completely up to me to decide how I want to view what's going on about me. In every event, there are elements of good and bad. (Yes, I'll go on record is having committed the crime of listing an absolute.) Even Frankl found something to hope for in what had to be one of the most hopeless of situations. So now, what am I to choose from the pallet of goods and bads that the environment inevitably presents me? It's my choice. Everything contains a choice! (Oh, two absolutes. The shame, the shame...)

Second, we attract what we focus upon. Or, if you like the somewhat dour phrasing, "a moth is drawn to the flame." So, if I choose to see all the negatives out there (and, as stated above, they are surely there), then I get to live them every day. My world becomes as bleak and joyless as the garbage that I am focusing upon. This is why I do not intentionally follow newspapers and other media sources for the most part. They have all but openly admitted that they are committed to the mantra, "bad news sells." Why invite that into my life? (Oh, yes, that means I'm not being realistic. Such a pity, such a pity. Tell you what - you be twice as realistic to cover for me. Better you should choose wade in the stream of popular dung than I.)

Third, the environment reflects us back to ourselves. This is sort of a combination of the two concepts above, but I think it deserves a bullet point. Here's a simple test for the obdurate realist: for the next few days, smile at everyone you meet. Find one simple thing about the wait-staff or store personnel on which to compliment them. (If you are completely committed to a chosen unhappy world view, you may choose to limit your attempt to a day or even a morning.) What happens? People smile at you! The reveal things about themselves that are often interesting! You learn things! Why? Because they are reflecting you back to yourself. (Or at least the you suit that you have put on for the duration of the experiment.) Is it easier to go through the day with people smiling at you? I don't know, of course, but I find it is for me. People smiling at me make me want to smile for some reason...

Fourth, life is easier for an optimist. You don't have to spend all that time fretting about the past - focusing on how poorly you did this, how badly that went, how awful the other is - and how miserable the future will be. Instead you can begin to explore possibilities, unfold ideas, create new vistas and grow as a result. I suspect growth is much harder for someone who can only see the mired thicket of the past, the bleak outlines of the present and the dim, hopeless outlook of the future. Why bother going on? All is lost as it always has been and always will be... Pah. I love creating new things. I can't wait to see my Delorean themed kitchen. (Not because it's "stuff" and "technology" and whatnot, but because I envisioned it and I will get to breathe life into it. And, oh how I am learning in the process. I believe productive learning and optimism go hand-in-hand.

There was a fifth one, but I got all excited thinking about my kitchen project and I've forgotten it. Perhaps it will come to me later. Optimism - a great unlearned lesson for me.

For now, I'm going to go get to work on my cool shelves I designed. It's a beautiful day here and my table saw is calling. Perhaps I'll post photos of the shelf.

[PyratePhil]

I think you're confusing me (labeling me) as a pessimist. Let me explain why I am not.

The classical psychological definitions of optimism and pessimism always make reference to the subject's view of the future. This is what their entire categorization rests upon - it's called dispositional optimism (pessimism). Optimists believe the future will be better than the present; pessimists, that it will be worse.

I, on the other hand, view the present with an accumulation of knowledge of the past and no expectations, good OR bad, for the future. I see trends. I see what the largest percentage of the populace in my area do, and I make my pronouncements from that. I really don't care if what they do is good or bad - I merely observe, infer and deduce.

I am not a pessimist. I am a realist. Although you might not discern the difference between those two terms the exact same way I do, to me they are worlds apart. A pessimist views the world as one large steaming dung pile which will never change for the better (note the future reference).

I don't believe that.

An optimist believes the world will inevitably get better. (Again, note the future-oriented slant).

I don't believe that either.

To me, hope is a falsehood. It is a longing, a devout wish, a firmly-held desire. Hope is what you want to get in the future. This person spends so much time thinking about the future that their present is robbed from them before they realize it. Dreamers and schemers live for the future and barely recognize the existence of the Now. Pessimists are no better or worse - they assume that the future will be just as bad, or worse, than their personal pasts. They dread the coming of the future and consequently let their present slip by unnoticed.

As for the Law of Attraction - I'm sorry but I don't believe it the same way you do. I don't believe in coincidences, and to me that's what the Law of Attraction is - it gets the benefit of belief when good things happen; when only bad comes into your life, the mantra is to think more positively - you weren't bringing enough good karma in the front door.

Tell you what - you be twice as realistic to cover for me. Better you should choose wade in the stream of popular dung than I.

Sorry - I neither read newspapers nor watch TV; I listen only to classical and/or jazz music on NPR, or my own library of music. In this, I suppose I could be considered an optimist

At the end of your days, what difference does it make how "correctly" you viewed things?

It matters to ME because I want to die knowing I've known the truth and lived it to the best of my abilities. If I've lived a life of lies and padded perceptions, I'll pass on without really knowing if what I did, thought, said and striven for my entire life were worthwhile. That's a horrible death to die, an empty death meant for fools, and I for one don't want it.

...for the next few days, smile at everyone you meet. Find one simple thing about the wait-staff or store personnel on which to compliment them.  (If you are completely committed to a chosen unhappy world view, you may choose to limit your attempt to a day or even a morning.) What happens?

Unfortunately whenever I do this, they either:

1) Think I am a simpering moron and patronize me

2) Think I am up to something and stay away, or

3) They are so wrapped up worrying about their future, good or bad, that they don't even see me smiling

None of those reactions are what I need.

People smiling at me all day make me nervous... ...

...because I figure they're either morons, are up to something or...I don't remember the last thing - I was just thinking of something I have to do tomorrow...

Fourth, life is easier for an optimist. You don't have to spend all that time fretting about the past - focusing on how poorly you did this, how badly that went, how awful the other is - and how miserable the future will be. Instead you can begin to explore possibilities, unfold ideas, create new vistas and grow as a result

See my response above about the past - it's the future that shrinks claim defines optimism / pessimism.

And why could a pessimist NOT explore possibilities et al just like an optimist? Are they permanently crippled? I believe their path is no more wrong or right than the optimists. I understand the points you've made, and they're all valid - for you. Why could a pessimist not make equally valid points in THEIR defense?

The DeLorean kitchen sounds intriguing. Please do post pics as you go along...

[Caraccioli]

I, on the other hand, view the present with an accumulation of knowledge of the past and no expectations, good OR bad, for the future. I see trends. I see what the largest percentage of the populace in my area do, and I make my pronouncements from that. I really don't care if what they do is good or bad...

Yet you care about the SUV people. Or do you only care about those things which impact you personally? (Your three reasons suggest this to me, but I am inferring.)

To me, hope is a falsehood. It is a longing, a devout wish, a firmly-held desire. Hope is what you want to get in the future. This person spends so much time thinking about the future that their present is robbed from them before they realize it. Dreamers and schemers live for the future and barely recognize the existence of the Now. Pessimists are no better or worse - they assume that the future will be just as bad, or worse, than their personal pasts. They dread the coming of the future and consequently let their present slip by unnoticed.

Yes, this "live in the moment" thing has always been hard for me to grasp. I like possibilities and they are grounded in the future. The moment is fascinating and I have experimented with focusing on things here and now, but my mind always wanders to what could be and how it is I will get there. (I am also quite bad at eliminating stray thoughts during meditation, so I just take the "go with it" philosophy in regard to that sport.)

Now you might say, "striving but never arriving!" You might even be right. I most enjoy learning new skills and creating what I envision, however. It is the source of what I perceive of as my mastery. So if I am violating a core Taoist principle, so be it.

As for the Law of Attraction - I'm sorry but I don't believe it the same way you do. I don't believe in coincidences, and to me that's what the Law of Attraction is - it gets the benefit of belief when good things happen; when only bad comes into your life, the mantra is to think more positively - you weren't bringing enough good karma in the front door.

Kind of like "the only people who can see ghosts are those who believe in them" theory, eh? I see your point. However, there is good and bed in everything. According to the book The Adaptive Unconscious by Psychologist Timothy Wilson (and corroborated elsewhere in the psychology literature), we receive over 11 million pieces of information per second but our conscious can only process forty of them. Four-zero. (This sort of puts a kink in the "focus on the moment" theory of existence, but I'll leave that alone.) So, whatever our personal philosophies might suggest, these facts suggest rather firmly that we must choose what we focus upon. I figure about half are "good" and half are not (That's guesswork, admittedly, but probably not too far off. I'm sure 40 of them are good in any event.) I'd rather attempt to focus on 40 good things out of the 11 million than 40 bad things.

Tell you what - you be twice as realistic to cover for me. Better you should choose wade in the stream of popular dung than I.

Sorry - I neither read newspapers nor watch TV; I listen only to classical and/or jazz music on NPR, or my own library of music. In this, I suppose I could be considered an optimist

Have you ever listened to the Buddha Bar series? I don't know what the Buddha connection is (and, for the most part, doubt there is any), but the music is jazzy world music. Sample it if you get an opportunity, you might like it as we seem to have some parallel musical tastes.

At the end of your days, what difference does it make how "correctly" you viewed things?

It matters to ME because I want to die knowing I've known the truth and...

Know the truth! Good one! (There we apparently disagree drastically. I don't think we can know the truth. We can at best approximate it.)

...for the next few days, smile at everyone you meet. Find one simple thing about the wait-staff or store personnel on which to compliment them.  (If you are completely committed to a chosen unhappy world view, you may choose to limit your attempt to a day or even a morning.) What happens?

Unfortunately whenever I do this, they either:

1) Think I am a simpering moron and patronize me

2) Think I am up to something and stay away, or

3) They are so wrapped up worrying about their future, good or bad, that they don't even see me smiling

None of those reactions are what I need.

People smiling at me all day make me nervous... ...

...because I figure they're either morons, are up to something or...I don't remember the last thing - I was just thinking of something I have to do tomorrow...

A fine example of getting what you expect and interpreting your world using your inherent bias by focusing on certain elements in the environment.

And why could a pessimist NOT explore possibilities et al just like an optimist? Are they permanently crippled?

In a sense, yes, I think they are. I have been both at different times and much more enjoy being an optimist.

At the core of all this is probably the notion that I think our world view is almost unalterably skewed by our past experiences and so we live in the world of our own making. You previously agreed with this, but now you seem to be backtracking and saying there is an ability to see outside of our self-created world. (Assuming we can comprehend the truth, for example.) If that is so, I'm not sure there's much further for us to go with this. Perhaps we may as well agree to disagree.

The DeLorean kitchen sounds intriguing. Please do post pics as you go along...

Thank you. Alas, creating a web page is such a time-consuming process that I don't generally do much with that facet until the project is done. (End of summer?) Suffice it to say that the room will be grey, black and red with stainless steel appliances, a black contoured countertop and some other curiously appropriate items. One of the central features will be the upper cupboards, however, and I do have renderings of them posted on the kitchen page. (In fact, that's all I have posted there.) You can see that

here.

I have actually modified them since I drew that - all that possibility thinking - and the finished product will feature mirrors in the back, black "leather" inside walls and tinted windows mounted in the front of the cupboard door.

[PyratePhil]

Yet you care about the SUV people. Or do you only care about those things which impact you personally? (Your three reasons suggest this to me, but I am inferring.)

Exactly. My concerns end at the length of my arm - perhaps a limited world view, but as you mention later about the "40 things", it's all I care to take care of at this point - whatever directly affects me or mine.

Yes, this "live in the moment" thing has always been hard for me to grasp. I like possibilities and they are grounded in the future. The moment is fascinating and I have experimented with focusing on things here and now, but my mind always wanders to what could be and how it is I will get there. (I am also quite bad at eliminating stray thoughts during meditation, so I just take the "go with it" philosophy in regard to that sport.)

Well, the future will be here whatever we do, and we can certainly shape that future to a certain extent; my argument is against dreaming about it and spending the entire NOW planning for THEN. When we get old, hopefully we'll be happy in the NOW, whether through chance or planning.

So if I am violating a core Taoist principle, so be it.

Which in some eyes makes you even MORE Taoist.

Kind of like "the only people who can see ghosts are those who believe in them" theory, eh? I see your point. However, there is good and bed in everything.

Agreed.

... we receive over 11 million pieces of information per second but our conscious can only process forty of them. Four-zero. (This sort of puts a kink in the "focus on the moment" theory of existence, but I'll leave that alone.) So, whatever our personal philosophies might suggest, these facts suggest rather firmly that we must choose what we focus upon. I figure about half are "good" and half are not (That's guesswork, admittedly, but probably not too far off. I'm sure 40 of them are good in any event.) I'd rather attempt to focus on 40 good things out of the 11 million than 40 bad things.

Interesting - I never thought it was that many bits of data, but it could very well be. It seems there's that many commercials on public TV alone.

I choose to focus upon discerning the "truth"...

Have you ever listened to the Buddha Bar series?

Never, but I'll certainly search for it now - thank you!

Know the truth! Good one! (There we apparently disagree drastically. I don't think we can know the truth. We can at best approximate it.)

OK - how's about - "The Truth According To Phil"? Of course there's few if any universal truths that humans can know in this lifetime. I think most declared "truths" are emotionally-derived beliefs or school-of-hard-knocks lessons - both of which are subject to interpretation.

A fine example of getting what you expect and interpreting your world using your inherent bias by focusing on certain elements in the environment.

LOL - well put. However, when I clear my mental blackboard every morning, I get rid of some of my past associations and try to cover-up the remaining few.

I don't want you walking away with the impression that I am an unsmiling, nasty ol' cuss of a mountain-man, because I don't think I am. I'm hermetic in many of my ways, true; but a REAL psychotic loner wouldn't be on these forums, much less post some of the stuff I've posted here over the years.

But there's the rub: when I sensed my input on certain forums (most of them, to be honest) was no longer appreciated, I withdrew. Kind of like the Pink Floyd "Another Brick in The Wall" syndrome - each such blessed occurrence drives me more into myself, where I'm doing probably the most important work. My dealings with the "real" world have been, of late, disappointing, whether through my (!) cynical ways or simply due to the way of Fate; previously, I was a bon vivant who reveled in the pursuit of money and the company of fast cars and loose women (...or was it loose cars and...?). Both have taught me valuable lessons in balance, for which I am thankful.

...and so we live in the world of our own making. You previously agreed with this, but now you seem to be backtracking and saying there is an ability to see outside of our self-created world.

No, I'm merely acknowledging that although we can choose to live in self-created prisons, we can also glimpse the outside world and, if it is important enough to us, break out and live in that world. We do what we want in life - some more than others (my main supporting argument on the topic of pirate lifestyle), but all have the same ability to choose.

Perhaps we may as well agree to disagree.

I did that a long time ago.

You can see that

here.

I have actually modified them since I drew that - all that possibility thinking - and the finished product will feature mirrors in the back, black "leather" inside walls and tinted windows mounted in the front of the cupboard door.

Coolness! Are you going to have pneumatic arms on the doors? If so, will they be electrically actuated?

I'm not up on DeLoreans but I always loved their style and the Taoist nature of their creator. I suppose there's a ton of stuff you could do...

[Caraccioli]

My concerns end at the length of my arm - perhaps a limited world view, but as you mention later about the "40 things", it's all I care to take care of at this point - whatever directly affects me or mine.

Oh, yes...I seem to remember you getting into a big argument with someone about selfishness. (There is a certain limitation to your position - as there is to any position, I suppose. That's the trouble with models of reality.)

Well, the future will be here whatever we do, and we can certainly shape that future to a certain extent; my argument is against dreaming about it and spending the entire NOW planning for THEN. When we get old, hopefully we'll be happy in the NOW, whether through chance or planning.

I always enjoy planning then if only so I can live in the limitless world of possibility. The results are just the artifacts of the creative process.

Have you ever listened to the Buddha Bar series?

Never, but I'll certainly search for it now - thank you!

Por nada. I would expect you may have unwittingly heard some of it on NPR. It is very much in their style (depending on which hour they're on.)

OK - how's about - "The Truth According To Phil"?

Works for me. To thine own self...and all that.

I don't want you walking away with the impression that I am an unsmiling, nasty ol' cuss of a mountain-man, because I don't think I am.

Funny, I never had that impression at all. I'm simply highlighting something I disagree with you about and explaining my perspective. (Or, if you like, revealing the truth as received from the school of hard knocks.)

But there's the rub: when I sensed my input on certain forums (most of them, to be honest) was no longer appreciated, I withdrew.

Well, it would help if you weren't such an unsmiling, nasty ol' cuss of a mountain-man...

...and so we live in the world of our own making. You previously agreed with this, but now you seem to be backtracking and saying there is an ability to see outside of our self-created world.

No, I'm merely acknowledging that although we can choose to live in self-created prisons, we can also glimpse the outside world and, if it is important enough to us, break out and live in that world. We do what we want in life - some more than others (my main supporting argument on the topic of pirate lifestyle), but all have the same ability to choose.

"Prisons..." Such a choice of wording (or, a label). Rather than "we do what we want in life," I'd say, "We get what we want from life," and even, "We choose what we get from life." People who live in perceived unhappy surroundings take great exception to that statement, but I tend to believe it's true based on my experiences. It springs from the notion that we create our own world and then we live in what we've created. (Or, we attract what we put out into the world on some level. But you didn't like that one.)

Perhaps we may as well agree to disagree.

I did that a long time ago.

Maybe that should be my signature.

I have actually modified them since I drew that - all that possibility thinking - and the finished product will feature mirrors in the back, black "leather" inside walls and tinted windows mounted in the front of the cupboard door.

Coolness! Are you going to have pneumatic arms on the doors? If so, will they be electrically actuated?

Gas cylinder arms are a must for the cabinet. The girl I was working with at Lowe's (Sarah) was asking me why I was taking up the space to put them in until I explained it. (Which she quickly grokked. She suggested the windows in the cabinet doors and the mirrors. Sarah is very cool - quite creative. She's putting parts of my project on her resume. ) However, the electric sound was something created for the BTTF movies. Some ingenious DMC owner did create a little electric piston device that wired into the power door locks so that when the door was electronically unlocked, the piston nudged the door open, allowing it to swing up if the gas cylinders were working. (If not used often enough, they tend to become rather sluggish.)

I'm not up on DeLoreans but I always loved their style and the Taoist nature of their creator. I suppose there's a ton of stuff you could do...

He's probably not quite as Taoist as you think. He had plastic surgery so he would look more appealing. He was also quite driven (and angry at GM) until he got in too deep with the foolish drug thing.

[PyratePhil]

[quoteOh, yes...I seem to remember you getting into a big argument with someone about selfishness.  (There is a certain limitation to your position - as there is to any position, I suppose. That's the trouble with models of reality.)

There are only the limitations that I place upon it - none other.

How's THAT fer happy-happy-joy-joy?

I always enjoy planning then if only so I can live in the limitless world of possibility. The results are just the artifacts of the creative process.

And since the world of possibility is firmly rooted in the here and now, since by its very nature it doesn't know the future, you're living in the present. Well done, lad! ;>P

(Or, if you like, revealing the truth as received from the school of hard knocks.)

You're one of those alumni too, huh?

You'd think they'd at least lower the tuition, seeing as how the coursework is so brutal... but I think we must have had different majors.

Well, it would help if you weren't such an unsmiling, nasty ol' cuss of a mountain-man...

ZING! Boy, I walked into that one eyes wide shut!

"Prisons..." Such a choice of wording (or, a label).

Eh - I have first-hand knowledge of the topic...

Rather than "we do what we want in life," I'd say, "We get what we want from life,"...

Disagree.

...and even, "We choose what we get from life."

Agree.

...It springs from the notion that we create our own world and then we live in what we've created. (Or, we attract what we put out into the world on some level. But you didn't like that one.)

Ahhh...no, I didn't quite like that one - not because I haven't played with it myself (I have), but because the results were not forthcoming when I did. It's like when they say "How come the bad guys always end up on top?".

My son recently had an encounter with the fairer sex in regards to the Big Prom. She had evidently strung him along for 6 months, promising to attend the prom with him, then when the prom was 2 weeks away she dumped him. Exquisite timing.

His comment to me was, "How come they (girls) always go for the bad guys? I'm a good guy, right? How come they flock around the losers and the druggies and the jerks?"

My answer? "Welcome to the Game, son."

Maybe that should be my signature.

Naw - I was thinking something more along the lines of "Supercalifragilistic..."

Gas cylinder arms are a must for the cabinet...

Evidently you've spent some time checking this stuff out. I'm even starting to think you've owned one at one time or another...

He's probably not quite as Taoist as you think. He had plastic surgery so he would look more appealing.    He was also quite driven (and angry at GM) until he got in too deep with the foolish drug thing.

Hmph. Didn't know about the surgery - that's a shame. "Driven" and "angry" - no, definitely NOT Taoist (at least in the sense that I interpret it - of course, there are all sorts under the grand umbrella of Tao).

[Caraccioli]

And since the world of possibility is firmly rooted in the here and now, since by its very nature it doesn't know the future, you're living in the present. Well done, lad! ;>P

Aw, now you're baiting me.

Rather than "we do what we want in life," I'd say, "We get what we want from life,"...

Disagree.

You don't think we get what we really want? (Even if it's not what we spend our 40 thoughts per second focused upon?) Don't forget that we have this great vast subconscious that moves us in ways we do not fully (consciously) comprehend... so I submit that we get what we ultimately want, even if we're not fully aware of it. (Want a small insight into just how much you don't consciously know about yourself? Check out this fascinating battery of tests at the Harvard web site: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/.../takeatest.html --

I should post this somewhere where everyone but you and I and the occasional lost soul who peers into this apparently forbidding thread can see it. Maybe I will...maybe I won't.

(This reminds me of the peanuts class where Lucy is seen writing at a desk in an empty classroom -

"I will not talk in class,

I will not talk in class,

I will not talk in class,

On the other hand, who knows what I'll do?")

...It springs from the notion that we create our own world and then we live in what we've created. (Or, we attract what we put out into the world on some level. But you didn't like that one.)

Ahhh...no, I didn't quite like that one - not because I haven't played with it myself (I have), but because the results were not forthcoming when I did. It's like when they say "How come the bad guys always end up on top?".

My son recently had an encounter with the fairer sex in regards to the Big Prom. She had evidently strung him along for 6 months, promising to attend the prom with him, then when the prom was 2 weeks away she dumped him. Exquisite timing.

His comment to me was, "How come they (girls) always go for the bad guys? I'm a good guy, right? How come they flock around the losers and the druggies and the jerks?"

My answer? "Welcome to the Game, son."

And yet you're not a cynic... I could ask the question as, "How come guys always choose the girls who are likely to ultimately choose the loosers and the druggies and the jerks?" I recall several nice girls in h.s. who wanted nothing to do with such people. I contend that the cues are nearly always there, we just sometimes choose to ignore them. (Failure is just another way to say "opportunity for learning.)

Gas cylinder arms are a must for the cabinet...

Evidently you've spent some time checking this stuff out. I'm even starting to think you've owned one at one time or another...

11 years. The themes in my house are visual paeans to things that have been important to me in my life at one time or another up to this point. It's a fun exercise and an enjoyable creative challenge. You've seen my web page on the pirate-themed living room, haven't you?

[PyratePhil]

Aw, now you're baiting me.

Not at all - I'm being serious.

You don't think we get what we really want? (Even if it's not what we spend our 40 thoughts per second focused upon?)

Nope - not all of us, or even most of us, no matter WHAT our thoughts are focused upon.

We get what we're meant to get.

Don't forget that we have this great vast subconscious that moves us in ways we do not fully  (consciously) comprehend... so I submit that we get what we ultimately want, even if we're not fully aware of it. (Want a small insight into just how much you don't consciously know about yourself? Check out this fascinating battery of tests at the Harvard web site: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/.../takeatest.html --

I understand and agree about NOT understanding what our brain / mind / spirit do - but I don't see the leap from that to getting what we want. I would think that logic would work just as well for NOT getting what we want.

RE: the IA tests - had a ton of those in school and could always game them to be whatever I desired. Sorry.

I've had far too much training in psych and led far too many counseling sessions to give credence to their tests.

I should post this somewhere where everyone but you and I and the occasional lost soul who peers into this apparently forbidding thread can see it. Maybe I will...maybe I won't.

Naw - this is like a dark cozy pub; we're having and telling a few tall ones and in-between there are occasional glimpses of "Whoa" moments.

If you leak our location here and what we're doing, the Pub Policy Police will come and arrest us for not having a relevant conversation.

"I will not talk in class,

I will not talk in class,

I will not talk in class,

On the other hand, who knows what I'll do?")

LOL! Always that element of uncertainty that makes life interesting...

And yet you're not a cynic...

No, I'm not. That isn't a cynical comment - it's one based on experience and real-world observation.

I could ask the question as, "How come guys always choose the girls who are likely to ultimately choose the loosers and the druggies and the jerks?" I recall several nice girls in h.s. who wanted nothing to do with such people. I contend that the cues are nearly always there, we just sometimes choose to ignore them. (Failure is just another way to say "opportunity for learning.)

So if we participate in the mating process we're damned; if we don't, we're damned.

PS - nice girls are boring.

11  years. The themes in my house are visual paeans to things that have been important to me in my life at one time or another up to this point. It's a fun exercise and an enjoyable  creative challenge. You've seen my web page on the pirate-themed living room, haven't you?

No, I haven't seen that. I haven't been in residence here for a while and I really don't keep up with many threads.

I'm too busy honing my cynical attitude.

[Caraccioli]

Aw, now you're baiting me.

Not at all - I'm being serious.

I know. I'm not.

You don't think we get what we really want? (Even if it's not what we spend our 40 thoughts per second focused upon?)

Nope - not all of us, or even most of us, no matter WHAT our thoughts are focused upon.

We get what we're meant to get.

Predestination...prestidigitation. I don't buy it. Sheer force of will, pal.

RE: the IA tests - had a ton of those in school and could always game them to be whatever I desired. Sorry.

I've had far too much training in psych and led far too many counseling sessions to give credence to their tests.

So try one. I finally did when I posted that - I've known about them for a long time. I gamed it, but I bet you, like me, can't do so without cheating in the "slow response" direction. And then you know what it means, even if the report is wrong. (I'm not even asking you to report back, because I don't give a flip. I just bet you can't game it by getting in the "right frame of mind." At least not without multiple attempts.)

I should post this somewhere where everyone but you and I and the occasional lost soul who peers into this apparently forbidding thread can see it. Maybe I will...maybe I won't.

Naw - this is like a dark cozy pub; we're having and telling a few tall ones and in-between there are occasional glimpses of "Whoa" moments.

Amen, brother. Where is blackjohn (and Duchess)? Then the circle would be complete. (Maybe blackjohn and I should sit at another table...

I could ask the question as, "How come guys always choose the girls who are likely to ultimately choose the loosers and the druggies and the jerks?" I recall several nice girls in h.s. who wanted nothing to do with such people. I contend that the cues are nearly always there, we just sometimes choose to ignore them. (Failure is just another way to say "opportunity for learning.)

So if we participate in the mating process we're damned; if we don't, we're damned.

Maybe. I don't generally participate in the "mating process" per se. I'm not even remotely interested in the potential result. Why play with fire for fun?

PS - nice girls are boring.

Well then, you invest in your outcomes and I'll invest in mine. But I feel you should relinquish your right to complain if that's your operational principle.

Anyhow, nice girls are nice. Say... Interesting girls are interesting. Curious girls are curious. Fascinating girls are fascinating. Intellectual girls are intellectual. Ohh, I like the multiple meanings! I think that we have discovered a universal semantic truth. I was just reading today a theory that "" negate the meaning of the material inside the quotes. "Creative" girls are creative. Hm. I think the quotes negated the meaning of the sentence. Oh, never mind.

11  years. The themes in my house are visual paeans to things that have been important to me in my life at one time or another up to this point. It's a fun exercise and an enjoyable  creative challenge. You've seen my web page on the pirate-themed living room, haven't you?

No, I haven't seen that. I haven't been in residence here for a while and I really don't keep up with many threads.

Well, start from the beginning if it interests you: http://www.markck.com/images/My%20House/Ho...%20Overview.htm (It's not as forbidding as it might first seem; only the living room and bathroom pages are finished. I am almost done with the bedroom page, but the link isn't working yet since I'm not done. I'm too busy chatting over drinks in the pub.)

[Mission]

In between thinking about the Mexican word for 'open' (which sounds cool) and Holst's Jupiter, the Bringer of Jollity a random thought occurred to me about anarchy.

I think we are eventually going to get a huge slug of anarchy in order to counteract a century of e encroachment on freedom in this country if we are ever to return to such freedom. (And it will be really ugly. Kind of like the current correction to over a decade of inflated housing prices.) Everyone suffers initially when it's time for the game to be reset, but it appears to be a necessary condition to on-going progress. We never seem to be able to manage things as well as we believe we can.

However, if you follow anarchy through to it's logical conclusion - at least where humans and society are concerned - it never truly results in chaos. In fact, it flaunts the concept of entropy - which is that nature tends to move from order to disorder. (Arguably, you could predict that the ultimate result of the system that is humanity will be disorder - or, more likely, extinction following disorder. Curiously, extinction in this case is the ultimate order.)

While anarchy among humans starts out with chaos, it eventually seems to frequently devolve into "survival of the fittest." Those most capable of managing chaotic upheaval take over and establish fiefdoms which eventually coagulate and form governmental systems and the whole process starts over. So I postulate that, at least where humans are concerned, anarchy only produces temporary chaos. It's a little disillusioning. Then again, it does reset the game, which is necessary. Much of the history of the earth (at least as much as we understand) seems to be on on-going history of game resets.

[Mission]

This is a really interesting commentary by a writer on genius. It's long, but worth listening to if you enjoy the topic as I do:

http://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_gilbert_on_genius.html

I don't buy into the mystical elements of course, but I don't suspect she does either. In fact, my thought would be that calling someone a genius is misguided - as she suggests- but this has as much to do with the environment in which the person channeling genius tendencies exists. (That's a lot of wordy babble that boils down to a quote I once heard: "When it's time to railroad, you railroad" or, stated a bit more elegantly by Sir Isaac Newton: ""If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."(letter to Robert Hooke, 1676))

So what others see as genius is really just an accumulation of ideas by a person who is open enough to examine, combine and clarify them for public consumption. The ideas have always been there, the person is the conduit for them.

(On a side note, I think I am in love with Elizabeth Gilbert. Well, maybe it's just passing intellectual infatuation.)

[Red-Handed Jill]

Mission - you might want to read up on Lady Ada Lovelace. She was Lord Byron's daughter and when her mother left him and took Ada with her, she was determined that her daughter be nothing like dear old dad. So Ada's education was mostly in mathematics, science and engineering. But it was discovered that she had the same ability as her father in terms of creativity and her mind worked a lot along the same ways. This allowed her to be able to help Charles Babbage figure out his Difference Machine and she is also considered to be one of the first "computer programmers". She also predicted that calculating machines would be able to do more than just calculate and outlined their possible future abilities, something that Babbage and the other engineers on the project weren't able to imagine. I believe she also wrote a treatise on early A.I.

At any rate, her story is a terrific example of inherited characteristics that allow one to actually use one's creative powers.