Weakness is strength??

Too much, too little, too weak or too strong,who be the judge?
The safest bet is average.

MA,

Is that an advocation for conspicuous consumption, greed? :evilfun:

I did sum it all up over the long haul and average wins! :astonished: :laughing: :-"

95% of people lack the aptitude to become “more” in ways that truly matter. What you consider all-arounders, I consider average which didn’t use to have the bad rap it does today. Now average is a dirty word which most people fall below unbenownst to themselves. Today, everyone is a specialist who doesn’t know jack about jack so its irony all-arounders me. :mrgreen:

I am interested to know why you think this - I have noticed that you have made a few negative comments about the west. I see a whole different set of mistakes that the west makes.

There is a western fairy tale that talks of contradiction. Western science has a good grasp on contradiction - magnetism is a good example where it turns out that the contradictory forces oppose each other - something that is felt by children. Individuality - notice where duality fits after Indivi. I think the west tends to go where the east is not willing. I wonder about the value of having an east and west in the first place - especially in 2017. This is a division of the human race - is that humane? - a first division turns out to be a duality. Would it not be better if everyone gets their s#%t together and unite.

It reminds me of the girls versus boys crap we used to do at school. Is it such good philosophy?

Just saying . . .

I don’t recall posting anything negative about the West … perhaps you could explain your use of the word “negative”.

Do you find the comment … “The West has yet to learn this lesson” … negative?

I suppose it may fall under the revelation JSS delivered recently … “Truth is destructive”

You have a good point here and I could be mistakenly identifying something here . . .

I only find “The West has yet to learn this lesson” a little negative, nearly pessimistic - I am certainly not saying you are wrong but rather less objective than you should be. What about the truth of the East?

:smiley:

Chill . . . I just like to be objective about things is all . . . that does not mean you have to or should . . . I might be falsely detecting negativity for that matter.

encode_decode … I mostly enjoy our bantering … though I’m still looking for a coherent position that glues your thoughts together … or at least threads them together.

For example … you rebuke me for being negative concerning the West … is the term “Banana Republic” pejorative?

[b]

[/b]

His overwhelming theme is that the East is spiritually superior compared to the West.

One can say that he makes negative comments about the West but more importantly … are those comments correct or true ?

I don’t think that he has shown any Eastern spiritual superiority.

Your argument makes sense to me(there is however a “but”):

I also enjoy our communication - my position is simply fair-mindedness on all subjects and I think that is fairly consistent in my behaviour. I am still not certain that anybody has any idea why we are alive in the first place - what purpose there is for us. For me to settle on any belief system, I feel is to give up on the truth which I am really not sure any human is capable of delivering. I am not convinced that I was rebuking you. Indeed the term Banana Republic is derogatory - I do however feel that myself being a westerner and applying that term to the west is simply stating that I identify with what you are saying about the west. I do think the west has achieved much in history and has a lot of mistakes it could learn from. The west has already learnt from its achievements and learnt many things from its mistakes. This is one world we live in - one globe - or for those who believe the earth is flat then one flat earth; this gives me an impression that humanities interests are best served by humanity not the notion of either east or west. I also wonder about the coherency when you talk about two separate entities of humanity - it sounds similar to the duality you profess the west has regarding the yin and yang yet I do not presume you are saying the west is inherently evil even though your words point to a slight probability of this being the case. I am willing to keep pursuing communication on topics that you bring up even if you are taking sides but know this - I do not take sides - I love all of humanity.

:smiley:

[b]

[/b]

[b]

[/b]

[b]

[/b]

Right, greed simply means wanting more and rumination simply means thinking a lot. Or is it perhaps that greed means consuming more than you can manage and rumination thinking more than you can manage? What do you think? What happens when you consume more than you can manage? You become less not more, right? I think that it is you, not me, who’s being greedy here. Ask yourself why do you have these self-defeating thoughts. Is it because of over-thinking perhaps?

Every measurement has a goal.

When you want to determine who of the two men is taller, your goal is to measure their heights and compare them to see which one is greater.

When you want to determine who of the two men is more able, your goal is to measure their abilities and compare them to see whose set of abilities is greater.

In both cases, the end-goal is to see which of the two measurements is GREATER.

The question is who has more and who has less. The question is not who can better achieve this or that goal.

Someone who is in possession of abilities such as A, B and C is greater, in terms of ability, than someone who is merely in possession of ability A. This is hardly disputable.

In reality, however, such an ideal containment relationship between sets is rare, so what we have to do is approximate.

MA,

If one lacks the aptitude to excel, it is greed to waste resources on one’s futility. Rumination is contemplation gone wrong or dwelling. For instance, it’s easy to ruminate on ILPers who lack the potential to change, to become more. Pity isn’t pretty.

What self-defeating thoughts?

In the wake of my now slowly-receding recently-acquired physical weakness, yes I did have to acquire a different kind of strength formed by the new state I found myself in… a lot of mental energy was involved during that time, which is maybe why the physical was not fully supported and so somewhat dis-abled by the brain… a case of self-induced life support?

If your goal is to be average then those with a goal to be the best will certainly outcompete you. This is why your goal is self-defeating.

MA,

Having a goal to be the best without the capability to be the best is more akin to being delusional. While confidence in one’s ability can be used to psych-out one’s competition at times, confidence does not translate into being the best nor does desire without the potential for vast improvement. Most people do not possess the necessary potential for vast improvements and they fall into the average or less than average categories. Also, most people do not know what their limits are in varying physical/mental trials. Modern folks aren’t required to understand much let alone be able to do much.

[b]

[/b]

[b]

[/b]

[b]

[/b]

Fascinating … astonishing … thanks for sharing.

Reminds me of something I read some time ago … can’t remember the source … the basic message was … “There are many ways to wake up.”

Wake up as in:

[b]

[/b]

One more tautological wisdom: unrealistic goals are unrealistic.

It doesn’t matter what they are. To be the best, to be average or to be the worst. If the necessary mobility, whether upward or downward, is lacking, then the goal is unrealistic.

We are discussing what is better. You’re saying average is better. It’s not necessarily. Only if you’re below average. Otherwise, you’re not making progress but regress.

MA,

It is better to not be delusional. Since you and I have differing definitions of average as well as differing ideas of realistic goals for ourselves, progress is lacking in this conversation. To reiterate, a jack-of-all-trades is a master of none, his ability is not the best in any area for he lacks the best capabilities, instead he has ample capabilities in many areas. Every label given to non-masters is arbitrary usually being self-referentially spawned through biased exaggeration, misuse of the word better.

Is it true that to Moderns the jack-of-all-trades is special? Survival throughout history required folks to be jacks-of-all-trades in order to continue their existence, it really wasn’t something special to be capable of doing many activities from fighting, farming, hunting, construction projects from sewing clothes to baking bread, building instruments, tools, housing, etc…

I don’t know, Wendy, I think that back in the day people used to be less of a “jack off all trades” then they are today. There used to be castes. Peasants were peasants, warriors were warriors. Tautologies worked well. It’s only nowadays that we hear that peasants are warriors.

When I hear “jack off all trades” I immediately think all breadth and no depth which is the worst combination.