Respect, Esteem, Image
As many of you know, I possess a capacity for positivity that may sometimes be mistaken for something unhealthy. But that would imply that I do not possess in equal measure a capacity to immerse myself in negativity as well, to live in and with it. But with negativity, I do my thing while in there and I get the hell out of dodge after I've learned the thing(s) I needed to learn.
There is a trick, of course, to recognizing those things which are lessons, and also to recognizing that point of diminishing returns. End-game is all important when dealing with negativity, and for me, positivity requires an infinite-play strategy.
It's strange to invoke game theory in the matters that matter in my life right now, but here I am anyway. Tit for tat can be a good strategy. Hawks and doves populations vary wildly and unpredictably. Spannungsbogen is selfish behavior, but the delayed gratification can give birth to altruism.
And sometimes a dip into the arcane can be freeing in the more mundane world and that's the lesson and so I'll stop.
Bottom line is that it's often the most selfish thing in the world to be selfless, optimizing for general good will instead of personal payoff and trusting in the future.
Comments
sandra bernhardt on why she became a kabbalist, (and more subtly about madonna)
"you know what they say about karma? just make a big bowl of popcorn, relax, and enjoy the riot."
Posted by: jennie | June 28, 2005 01:49 AM
What? Sounds like Orwell. "War is peace, weakness is strength" and so on. To be selfless is selfish?
Methinks you are trying to hard to justify your own selfishness.
Posted by: Seeker | July 3, 2005 01:05 AM
Isn't it interesting how the potshots tend to come from people whose IP numbers can't be traced through ordinary means?
Ok, Seeker, that's one interpretation, but you know what? You're just wrong.
What I was talking about was the opposite of Orwellian. It's just about contributing to the general available good will. No top-down structures in place, no opiates for the masses. I'll leave the latter to organized religions and telecommunications giants.
It's about those things that the religious assume are the purview of the religious, but which really are not: trust, faith, decency, kindness, generosity.
All for their own sakes, and for each other's sakes and not because some god or other talking head told you to do those things.
A rising tide lifts all boats.
Posted by: GodOfBiscuits | July 7, 2005 10:23 AM
Ah. So, your declaration that I am wrong makes it so. Now THAT'S incisive argument!!!
And near as I can parse from your explanation, it is OK for you to go Orwell on us, but not for organized religion and AT&T.
Who made that rule?
And finally, why the interest in where my IP comes from?
Posted by: Seeker | July 9, 2005 09:39 AM
Well, chica, I *wrote* the thing, so I think I might have a little better insight as to whether I was being Orwellian or not.
No rule. Just my thoughts. And my thoughts were coming from a completely different place than Orwellian top-down-ness. So yeah, you were wrong.
As far as your IP goes, it's likely statistically significant the relationship between people who post stupid-ass potshots like you did and the inscrutability (well, mostly) of their personal origins.
Like you're enough of an asshole to post something, and too much the coward to own it.
Posted by: GodOfBiscuits | July 9, 2005 10:31 AM
Statistically significant? Let's see that study.
Seems you have a penchant for name-calling.
Oh, and your "intent" wasn't Orwellian. Be that as it may. Neither was the intent of the pigs in his novel malicious.
On the surface.
Posted by: Seeker | July 10, 2005 07:36 AM
Well, I didn't keep the evidence around, "Seeker", so on a purely scientific basis, I must withdraw the "statistically-significant" comment.
How's this: it has been my experience that the overwhelming number of people who show up anonymously here end up posting silly-ass potshots like you have.
Purely anecdotal, of course.
That said, which part of "a rising tide lifts all boats" is particularly Orwellian or top-down to you?
Please, be specific.
Posted by: GodOfBiscuits | July 10, 2005 07:58 AM
What about the boat stuff? I was addressing your inversion of selflessness.
Posted by: seeker | July 19, 2005 04:41 AM
So was I, "seeker".
It's an expression. when some do well, others can do well. by putting something back into the system, others can benefit and, in turn, put something more back in.
What do you "seek", Seeker? Because you don't seem to have much interest or much capacity for understanding something presented to you.
Posted by: GodOfBiscuits | July 19, 2005 10:55 AM
Ooh, truth! Capital-T Truth, even!
I challenge anyone who disagrees with me to come up with their own stuff and stand their own ground instead of hanging out and haunting/trolling, critizing with no constructive aim.
Where are YOUR ideas, "seeker"?
Seems like all you seek is to be the spoiler.
You take your haughty, empty pose and climb the soapbox and accuse *me* of hubris?
Ironic? or just pathetically hypocritical?
Posted by: GodOfBiscuits | July 22, 2005 06:58 AM
I seek truth. Apparently, to find its opposite, all I need do is spend more time on this site.
You appear to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is not in pursuit of truth. Your condition is called "hubris".
Posted by: seeker | July 22, 2005 11:41 AM