What a heavy and sorry baggage it is to stay accountable to justify our yesterday's actions!
I am getting caught up at times with decisions made a year or even twenty years ago.
My mind feels obligated to justify these actions and decisions. So stupid is it. And so deteriorating one's thinking.
I love the kid that I was. I understand reasons for whatever miserable decisions I made when, say twelve years of age. I love this little sorry kid, along with his misaken and terrible decisions.
Yet, should I continue to think along the lines of these old days?
Should i spend an iota of my energy on these histories?
These issues also are very prone to bias. There are such strong emotional incentives to so many directions, and wee are far away from giving a good opinion.
In retrospect we have such a different perspective that any opinion is distorted.
Suckerdom! Living the yesterday is pure irrationality, dream living, and stupidity.
Life is now. To experience, to enjoy, to get the best out of it.
Cassanova tells in his memoirs (fantastic read!) that after he lost all his money he started reflecting on the events of his life.
A living person does not reflect on the past. Present Life is simply too precious to spend it on living a yesterday. (if it is a sorry yesterday in particular)
Friday, November 19, 2010
Between well functioning and happiness
Soceity (and somewhat we...) want us to perform well. To be efficacious, our emotions to be in order etc.
this is very different from the good life, and sometimes even opposes it.
The good life is about feeling good, about enjoying what we are doing, not about being an efficient soldier in the world.
Functioning well has clearly many advantages, and at times functioning well makes a happy experience. The mistake is when one mistakes functioning well to happiness. (or seeing hard work (Puritanism) or well functioning (normalcy etc.) as a goal in life or a reason to stay alive.)
I noticed the functioning happiness seperation clearly when seeing unhappy countries. you still see the full range of human experience in what feels like entirely healthy functioning. Yet the unhappiness is evident and saddening to look at.
this is very different from the good life, and sometimes even opposes it.
The good life is about feeling good, about enjoying what we are doing, not about being an efficient soldier in the world.
Functioning well has clearly many advantages, and at times functioning well makes a happy experience. The mistake is when one mistakes functioning well to happiness. (or seeing hard work (Puritanism) or well functioning (normalcy etc.) as a goal in life or a reason to stay alive.)
I noticed the functioning happiness seperation clearly when seeing unhappy countries. you still see the full range of human experience in what feels like entirely healthy functioning. Yet the unhappiness is evident and saddening to look at.
In praise of sour grapes
Sour grapes (the fox who convinces himself that the grapes highe up he cannot reach are sour, the employee who beleives that working hard is a great idea erc.) is irrational, but can be very useful psychologically.
Beleiving in work ethics makes the lives of many people much happier.
I believe very much is self delusion. Psychologists found that positive illusions ar good for mental health. And reality is not so important, yet psychological feelings about ones situation etc. Is crucial to his happiness and mental health.
The one who successfully convinces himself that he is well off will be happier and healthier.
only loss is that it leads to practical mistakes (he will not try to improve s objective situation). This loss can be much lower than the psychological and health value of believing he is in great shape. (beliefs have a strong effect on happiness and health. Satisfaction with some parts of life etc. Is more important to happiness than actual state)
If the psychological income is higher than the loss, it is very rational. Similar to self illusions that contribute to happiness. Talking about "being rational" here is nonsense and irrational.
Beleiving in work ethics makes the lives of many people much happier.
I believe very much is self delusion. Psychologists found that positive illusions ar good for mental health. And reality is not so important, yet psychological feelings about ones situation etc. Is crucial to his happiness and mental health.
The one who successfully convinces himself that he is well off will be happier and healthier.
only loss is that it leads to practical mistakes (he will not try to improve s objective situation). This loss can be much lower than the psychological and health value of believing he is in great shape. (beliefs have a strong effect on happiness and health. Satisfaction with some parts of life etc. Is more important to happiness than actual state)
If the psychological income is higher than the loss, it is very rational. Similar to self illusions that contribute to happiness. Talking about "being rational" here is nonsense and irrational.
No room for bad deals
Bad deals are bad deals. Losing is never a good decision.
But people many times consider it differently. As if a bad deal is not bad. As if it makes the smallest reason to allow oneself to lose. This is stupid.
There are many reasons where allowing to lose makes sense.
Not counting for the small. The general approach to focus on the big and be easy about the small makes sense. (it does not make losing on the small any reasonable, it only justified not paying attention to it)
Not taking life too seriously. And similar reasons.
My issue is with the unstated foolishness opinion that making a bad decision is a possibility. This is entirely stupid. (The only possibility for it to have place is not on its own, but as a false beleif that has psychological usefulness. Because believing in certain untruths can be good for their psychological effects. (see sour grapes post)
Ultimately, no earlier mistake of whatever, justifies taking losses as a reasonable thing. A mistake is a mistake is a mistake. A loss is a loss is a loss. And in a useful life one got to be a fool to think that losing is reasonable. Only eating oneself on losses, fearing them, or guarding too much against them is a mistake. Yet any claim that a loss is not a loss, is examplary foolishness.
But people many times consider it differently. As if a bad deal is not bad. As if it makes the smallest reason to allow oneself to lose. This is stupid.
There are many reasons where allowing to lose makes sense.
Not counting for the small. The general approach to focus on the big and be easy about the small makes sense. (it does not make losing on the small any reasonable, it only justified not paying attention to it)
Not taking life too seriously. And similar reasons.
My issue is with the unstated foolishness opinion that making a bad decision is a possibility. This is entirely stupid. (The only possibility for it to have place is not on its own, but as a false beleif that has psychological usefulness. Because believing in certain untruths can be good for their psychological effects. (see sour grapes post)
Ultimately, no earlier mistake of whatever, justifies taking losses as a reasonable thing. A mistake is a mistake is a mistake. A loss is a loss is a loss. And in a useful life one got to be a fool to think that losing is reasonable. Only eating oneself on losses, fearing them, or guarding too much against them is a mistake. Yet any claim that a loss is not a loss, is examplary foolishness.
the ugly advice of the rich
The rich have options. They can take a stop from work (?). They can do many things.
Same for rich in psychological resources (flexibility, adaptability, ability to convince oneself in stuff, ability to recover from pain, to handle certain emotions, to sleep well etc.)
Same for rich in thinking abilities
The rich tends to tell the poor what he would have done in their place. However, most of the time these ideas are entirely irelevant for the poor. He does not have the money, the job flexibility, the mind tools.
Even when technically able, the poor may not have the overal state of mind enabling him to do and take advantage of these options.
Besides, the rich wants to believe in the high value of his assets and strategies. It makes feel good to think that being rich is very good, even more than it actually is. Sending this message to the poor is doubly ugly. It is like buttressing your false joy with causing pain to the poor.
The poor will naturally. Resort to believing that after all his state is not so bad. Here again, shattering his illusion may not be useful for him (even though truth has value at times).
Ultimately we all want to convince ourselves of the value of what we have, and the lack of value of what we do not have. While it has problems, we also earn much from this as it wants to convince himself for the value of his richness, and the vlidity of the stories he tells hi8mself. Killing useful sour grapes of the poor is inhuman. Maintaining his own stories as to the value of his assets (its good for him to beleive in it but bad for the poor) is ugly
These kinds of advice may actually be inhuman in the sense that they are usually painful because they remind the advicee his general state of poverty aside from his local concern.
These are the folks who are happily (or want to beleive so) in love and terify every single about love. Those who have a stable life and somehow give the degrading message to those who are not so caged that there is a better life out there ( that is by having the delusional happiness of *their* presumed richness).
Ps. All this diatribe against the rich showering advice should not deviate us from the fact that the poor may learn a lot fro the rich. States of mind strategies etc. May actually be more available to. The poor than they feel to him in his contracted mind.
I am ultimately willing the rich to understand the full situation of the poor, yet the poor to understand the tngs he can realistically learn from the rich.
Same for rich in psychological resources (flexibility, adaptability, ability to convince oneself in stuff, ability to recover from pain, to handle certain emotions, to sleep well etc.)
Same for rich in thinking abilities
The rich tends to tell the poor what he would have done in their place. However, most of the time these ideas are entirely irelevant for the poor. He does not have the money, the job flexibility, the mind tools.
Even when technically able, the poor may not have the overal state of mind enabling him to do and take advantage of these options.
Besides, the rich wants to believe in the high value of his assets and strategies. It makes feel good to think that being rich is very good, even more than it actually is. Sending this message to the poor is doubly ugly. It is like buttressing your false joy with causing pain to the poor.
The poor will naturally. Resort to believing that after all his state is not so bad. Here again, shattering his illusion may not be useful for him (even though truth has value at times).
Ultimately we all want to convince ourselves of the value of what we have, and the lack of value of what we do not have. While it has problems, we also earn much from this as it wants to convince himself for the value of his richness, and the vlidity of the stories he tells hi8mself. Killing useful sour grapes of the poor is inhuman. Maintaining his own stories as to the value of his assets (its good for him to beleive in it but bad for the poor) is ugly
These kinds of advice may actually be inhuman in the sense that they are usually painful because they remind the advicee his general state of poverty aside from his local concern.
These are the folks who are happily (or want to beleive so) in love and terify every single about love. Those who have a stable life and somehow give the degrading message to those who are not so caged that there is a better life out there ( that is by having the delusional happiness of *their* presumed richness).
Ps. All this diatribe against the rich showering advice should not deviate us from the fact that the poor may learn a lot fro the rich. States of mind strategies etc. May actually be more available to. The poor than they feel to him in his contracted mind.
I am ultimately willing the rich to understand the full situation of the poor, yet the poor to understand the tngs he can realistically learn from the rich.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
When a happy person gets logical
He was full of life. Energy, enthusiasm. Projects endless. Never having time to anything.
He would call, ask "bob there?" hearing the "no" he would hang up on the spot.
He told me "I made the calculation that i have no free time for saying bye"
But everyone loved him. Because he was energetic and full of happiness and love to everybody.
His wife was a logical person. And depressed.
Her arguments were always logical, yet he was happy and successful. It was ironical, but i knew ia very deep and intuitive way, that he is right. Even if there was not always an easy way to explain.
She always told him that he wants to eat the whole world at once. That he never finishes his projects. He would smile and continue running.
One day he told me "i have started to finish projects. Gonza (wife) had a point"
And i knew that he started dying.
He would call, ask "bob there?" hearing the "no" he would hang up on the spot.
He told me "I made the calculation that i have no free time for saying bye"
But everyone loved him. Because he was energetic and full of happiness and love to everybody.
His wife was a logical person. And depressed.
Her arguments were always logical, yet he was happy and successful. It was ironical, but i knew ia very deep and intuitive way, that he is right. Even if there was not always an easy way to explain.
She always told him that he wants to eat the whole world at once. That he never finishes his projects. He would smile and continue running.
One day he told me "i have started to finish projects. Gonza (wife) had a point"
And i knew that he started dying.
Friday, October 8, 2010
The action and it's (entirely distinct) psychological construct
Action is what yo do. You eat. You buy. You walk.
It's psychological construct is extremely variable. It is almost entirely independent of the action itself.
You can imbued endless meanings and feelings with an action.
The emotional, experiential, and cognitive involvement with an aciton can change so much!
The very pgisiological feelings that come with an action can be very diverse.
Walking can be a technical got to do. Can be carried out with zero involvement of the psyche. Or it can be an experience. Even the nothing your whole being has then. Even a terrific experience.
The contruct has a life of its own, and the The distinctiveness of These aspects from the obvious and clear definition of the action are amazing.
Two people work. One enjoys every moment, the other suffers.
One sees the work as a very local experience. I move the chair. The other sees it in connection with his whole life, with his various dreams, goals. With full connectioand relation to his whole psyche.
One has his whole body and psyche involved. When he talks to you, you feel he lives every idea, every saying. The other has delegated the doing to some outer part of his personality
It's psychological construct is extremely variable. It is almost entirely independent of the action itself.
You can imbued endless meanings and feelings with an action.
The emotional, experiential, and cognitive involvement with an aciton can change so much!
The very pgisiological feelings that come with an action can be very diverse.
Walking can be a technical got to do. Can be carried out with zero involvement of the psyche. Or it can be an experience. Even the nothing your whole being has then. Even a terrific experience.
The contruct has a life of its own, and the The distinctiveness of These aspects from the obvious and clear definition of the action are amazing.
Two people work. One enjoys every moment, the other suffers.
One sees the work as a very local experience. I move the chair. The other sees it in connection with his whole life, with his various dreams, goals. With full connectioand relation to his whole psyche.
One has his whole body and psyche involved. When he talks to you, you feel he lives every idea, every saying. The other has delegated the doing to some outer part of his personality
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
