Weakness is strength??

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.

MA,

What does a caste have to do with capabilities? If anything, the undeserving often had their families’ stature/wealth to ensure their survival whereas the peasants had to be resourceful, had to learn to do it all for they couldn’t afford to pay others to do it for them.

Wendy and MA

Perhaps the following equation is mathematically correct.

In the Collective Consciousness … One Mind = One Unit … no distinction.

If true it becomes a numbers game … as more and more minds “awaken” … the 'how’or the ‘class’ is irrelevant.

The result is logical and rational … the stability of the Collective Consciousness is disturbed … this might explain the unusual turbulence keen observers are noticing.

Pilgrim wrote:

Western philosophy generally, looks upon weakness as a lack of power or moral failing but, there are those who have in their own way shown another view in defence of one’s passivity to be a strength. However, how are we to understand the collaboration between weakness and power, when there is a strong claim for them to be opposites of each other.

Examination of the nature of weakness has inspired many to write about the human condition. For example, Nietzsche and the feminist writer Simone de Beauvoir both explored the concept of weakness. Weakness can appear passive in a way pain and suffering do not, Virginia Woolf believed that ‘we have no language for physical pain’, but there are two sides to weakness. Weakness as acceptance of bodily need and weakness of a psychological or ethical failing of some kind.

Consider that weakness appears in many forms, whether it be “the flesh is weak” or Kierkegaard’s “despair in weakness” of which both describe the fundamental attribute of the Christian believer.

Nietzsche rejected religion and referred to it as “the weak ruling the strong”. If you accept that Nietzsche presented as a narcissistic personality, it would be only natural for him to see himself as superior. He was smart enough to see through the outward appearance of religion during the time he lived, but the hypocrisy of his thinking was, in the process of overcoming his own limitations, he most probably believed himself to be some sort of deity or supreme being who had the ability to guide the ‘sheep’.

Sometimes in our enthusiasm to explain power and strength, we neglect to identify their connection to weakness and in so doing we then reject the notion that weakness is a part of the character of a person and in reality it is a typical aspect of our shared humanity.

MA wrote:

:laughing:

Is that a Freudian slip?