Where's PKM? Can't miss a party like this one.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Longest Thread Ever
- Thread starter babe
- Start date
Where's PKM? Can't miss a party like this one.
separated?
I actively teach my girls to question everything adults say. . . . including me.
I tell them people make more mistakes in life when they don't ask the questions and don't go get better answers. In all the history of mankind, there's never been anything we thought or believed that hasn't been improved by further thinking, more questions, and the attitude of solving problems rather than just accepting "what is" because of "authority".
But I also tell them the same attitude is most useful when examining a persons own assumptions, notions, ideas, or beliefs. They are their own most relevant "authority" that they need to question.
separated?
I make no effort to stand on my "authority" in my home. Once early on when my wife asked how a man should be the head of a family, I said "It's not something the man does, it's what the wife does." She didn't see what I meant. Once in a while I will ask her where I fit in on a plan or a project, or in her life. . . . .
I also deny to her that I expect her to just listen to anything I say.
So here's the logic: If she doesn't understand a principle I like to use, she won't understand why I do what I do. If I try to tell her, what she will hear is something invented in her own head. . . not my idea, nor placed in my intended context, nor suited to my purpose. I might say it would help if could talk things over until we understand each other, but generally that just looks like too much trouble for her. She wants some kind of one-line zinger she can hang out on the clothesline as "Exhibit A" that we are doing the best thing and nobody can be tolerated for thinking otherwise. I think that's what pride usually is. . . .
I want people to engage their own abilities as much as possible. Letting me a crutch, even as a "leader", doesn't accomplish that.
So, anyway, her father used to teach her to "think for yourself", and she is still, years later, literally his ideological disciple. What he said stands, and she will defend it to the death. And try to nail me down to it exactly.
So, anyway, I do my own thinking and go my own way, and she goes hers. It's just the fact that it turns out we have so much more in common with each other than any heavily-worked discussions can accomplish for most couples. We do our little individual lives and maybe give each other some hell, but nobody is going to work out better for either of us.
I am usually amazed when we do have a peaceable discussion about something to understand how she came to the same belief I have, from such diametrically opposite facts and reasons. . . .
We are both people who like our own way, and who will not submit to anyone happily, and nobody would ever "fit" the way we fit. Me on my ranch or on the road, she on her job or with her girls. I get out of her way, and good things happen, and happen faster and better than I could direct. I go off on my own and do the same with my work.
Still, however that may seem to be the case, fully one half of my time is used doing things for her. And half of her time at least is doing stuff for me.
It could be, we both have this delusion of independence we love. . . . .
Marriage
Ambrose Bierce can succinctly get to the core of an issue:
https://talltalestogo.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/the-devils-dictionary-love-marriage/
Ambrose Bierce can succinctly get to the core of an issue:
Marriage, n. The state or condition of a community consisting of a master, a mistress, and two slaves, making all, two.
https://talltalestogo.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/the-devils-dictionary-love-marriage/
Ambrose Bierce can succinctly get to the core of an issue:
https://talltalestogo.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/the-devils-dictionary-love-marriage/
Reading Ambrose Bierce, it's pretty clear to me that for his time, he was on the intellectual wave of his day. As a socialist/progressive he had implicit faith in his brain, and actively questioned everything normal about life, everything he found assumed or understood in everyday usage. I am pretty sure he had a short bout of Mormonism, at least to the extent of living in Utah for a few months, not that he could or would abandon himself to a world view essentially defined by another man, like say an aspiring or established "prophet". So I'm sure he was never baptized, but did observe Utah mormonism and think about it some. I'm sure it sharpened his ironism and wit. As a liberal of his day, he was committed to respecting various people and cultures on an equal basis in terms of no one being better than anyone else, except of course everyone was wrong himself excluded.
Faith in ones own self is the religion of socialist progressives to this day.
Not especially an evil "faith" until it goes unhinged and morphs into a sort of "Divine Right of Kings" to actually seize the reigns of the world and make everything "right".
There is an analogy to feminism comproble perhaps to the former presumption of men of an inherent patriarchy in the domestic quarter of life. . . .
Used to be, in the early spin off from medieval statism, a doctrine of "The Divine Right of Kings". For Henry VIII it legitimized his presumption of independence from Rome, for Bloody Mary it legitimized vicious retaliation against non-Catholics. For King James, it legitimized his authorization of an official new Bible translation. Being a King was like being installed by God as a national head of State with implicit perogatives.
The feminist agenda of the last fifty years plus is essentially a similar assertion of priority in rank. The dowdy old biblical-based notion of male pre-eminence, the same thing. Oh, there have been cultures where women held sway nevertheless, all over the world. There is just this natural fact of life that somebody has to be the reference point in society. It can be a Church. Today's LDS families don't really have a male or female "head of the family", the "authority" has been handed over to the Church, to the "Prophet" and the "Prophet" and assorted other "Talking Heads" have institutionalized it in the bureaucracy, in the committees like the old "correlation committee" which has I think now been reorganized into the "Strengthening Membership Committee" or something like that, if not ubber-organized into several committees.
It's call "professionalization", a major trend in society worldwide, from the UN supragovernment on down to your local grocery cartel outlet.
Going forward, unless people specifically and vehemently reject the notion, it will be "the government" that is the reference point for everything in life. The LDS Church has already institutionally made it the de facto rule of law as a Church. . . . "We believe in obeying the law" essentially translates into a statement that the faith is the servant of "The Law", which Bastiat with acrimony, pointed out to be "An ***."
The next question. . .. Who is going to make the laws? Corporate-owned politicians? This is how we have become a fascist nation.
Used to be, in the early spin off from medieval statism, a doctrine of "The Divine Right of Kings". For Henry VIII it legitimized his presumption of independence from Rome, for Bloody Mary it legitimized vicious retaliation against non-Catholics. For King James, it legitimized his authorization of an official new Bible translation. Being a King was like being installed by God as a national head of State with implicit perogatives.
The feminist agenda of the last fifty years plus is essentially a similar assertion of priority in rank. The dowdy old biblical-based notion of male pre-eminence, the same thing. Oh, there have been cultures where women held sway nevertheless, all over the world. There is just this natural fact of life that somebody has to be the reference point in society. It can be a Church. Today's LDS families don't really have a male or female "head of the family", the "authority" has been handed over to the Church, to the "Prophet" and the "Prophet" and assorted other "Talking Heads" have institutionalized it in the bureaucracy, in the committees like the old "correlation committee" which has I think now been reorganized into the "Strengthening Membership Committee" or something like that, if not ubber-organized into several committees.
It's call "professionalization", a major trend in society worldwide, from the UN supragovernment on down to your local grocery cartel outlet.
Going forward, unless people specifically and vehemently reject the notion, it will be "the government" that is the reference point for everything in life. The LDS Church has already institutionally made it the de facto rule of law as a Church. . . . "We believe in obeying the law" essentially translates into a statement that the faith is the servant of "The Law", which Bastiat with acrimony, pointed out to be "An ***."
The next question. . .. Who is going to make the laws? Corporate-owned politicians? This is how we have become a fascist nation.
Liberty
Every scheme we can hatch, every "ideal" we can love, has it's limits in utility and effectiveness.
The fact is, higher sorts of organizations we can install will all fail somewhere along their path. Human beings have a nature in real terms of cognition, sociality, and motivation. It is a limited nature. We have "intelligence" but it is a limited intelligence.
The level of intelligence we can with concert apply to a problem is limited because it ultimately goes into the hands of a few "elites", a few "decision-makers", who will always reduce all the information to a view they can handle, and make a decision that is essentially no better than one individual can "see" as the right one. And every such "decision maker" has a limited perspective derived from the information accessible. It may be there are a thousand "intelligence agencies" in the government, or a thousand "committees" in a church, but it will always be one human brain with the lever of power, the one decision-maker.
If you look at nature, there are some species of life that are "social", that are a perfect order of say "insects", which act as one. There are also herds of animals as well, in nature. Birds flock together and gain some advantages. . . .But it is always some kind of trade-off, the sociality enhances the survival of the individual. But the gains come with limits in utility that are real.
If you include evolutionary concepts in the discussion, it is pretty clear that there is something to be gained by "diversification" as well. Sometimes the resources impose the limits on one or several species exploiting the same niche of resources, and a group or species that can go looking for some other niche, or that grows into a pattern of using different resources will survive.
there are also plenty of "mavericks" in nature, species with very high individualization, perhaps in a very small "niche" of nature. . . .
Humans who are in the drive for "globalization" are making a fundamental mistake, a mistake that is a threat to the survival of mankind, in assuming that a few highly intelligent professionals are the best ones to "solve" a problem.
There is a more compelling argument that our best future will come from highly diversified if not "individual" decisions at the most local level possible. A megalomaniac is certainly no better than say, a redneck hayseed, as a decsion-maker. It is still one very limited little human brain.
The risks go with the decision maker. A central decsion maker is a high-risk option with a large probability of failure. A local decision maker is a low-rish option with large probability of failure. . . . but the consequences are also small. . . . and the probability goes with a large number of decision-makers that some will "get it right".
As long as people are free to "get it right" for themselves, we as a society have a good probability of going forward through any problems we may face.
Every scheme we can hatch, every "ideal" we can love, has it's limits in utility and effectiveness.
The fact is, higher sorts of organizations we can install will all fail somewhere along their path. Human beings have a nature in real terms of cognition, sociality, and motivation. It is a limited nature. We have "intelligence" but it is a limited intelligence.
The level of intelligence we can with concert apply to a problem is limited because it ultimately goes into the hands of a few "elites", a few "decision-makers", who will always reduce all the information to a view they can handle, and make a decision that is essentially no better than one individual can "see" as the right one. And every such "decision maker" has a limited perspective derived from the information accessible. It may be there are a thousand "intelligence agencies" in the government, or a thousand "committees" in a church, but it will always be one human brain with the lever of power, the one decision-maker.
If you look at nature, there are some species of life that are "social", that are a perfect order of say "insects", which act as one. There are also herds of animals as well, in nature. Birds flock together and gain some advantages. . . .But it is always some kind of trade-off, the sociality enhances the survival of the individual. But the gains come with limits in utility that are real.
If you include evolutionary concepts in the discussion, it is pretty clear that there is something to be gained by "diversification" as well. Sometimes the resources impose the limits on one or several species exploiting the same niche of resources, and a group or species that can go looking for some other niche, or that grows into a pattern of using different resources will survive.
there are also plenty of "mavericks" in nature, species with very high individualization, perhaps in a very small "niche" of nature. . . .
Humans who are in the drive for "globalization" are making a fundamental mistake, a mistake that is a threat to the survival of mankind, in assuming that a few highly intelligent professionals are the best ones to "solve" a problem.
There is a more compelling argument that our best future will come from highly diversified if not "individual" decisions at the most local level possible. A megalomaniac is certainly no better than say, a redneck hayseed, as a decsion-maker. It is still one very limited little human brain.
The risks go with the decision maker. A central decsion maker is a high-risk option with a large probability of failure. A local decision maker is a low-rish option with large probability of failure. . . . but the consequences are also small. . . . and the probability goes with a large number of decision-makers that some will "get it right".
As long as people are free to "get it right" for themselves, we as a society have a good probability of going forward through any problems we may face.
The Chessmatch thread has pretty much gone under the intitial wave. Some of the players have found a more convenient internet option for playing their matches. . .
So the question of the day, for me, is whether chess exhibitionism, or for that mater "intellectual" exhibitionism, can have a life of it's own in a sports forum. . . . . .
So the question of the day, for me, is whether chess exhibitionism, or for that mater "intellectual" exhibitionism, can have a life of it's own in a sports forum. . . . . .
Well, just a bit of braggadocio here. . .
In the Chess game with One Brow, I made the brag about 4 moves ago that the move was a "game-maker". At that point, his King was squarely in the center of the board, and I put it in check, and he moved towards the side where he has a passed pawn, a pawn that does not face an opposing pawn in its forward progress, often a future Queen. I had just surprised him in turning my King to the other direction. My scheme in doing so was unspeakably irregular in Chess logic.
However far-fetched my idea was, I thought I saw a way to win the game outright, and indeed the subsequent moves have brought that possibility up to reality.
The moves necessary to advance that passed pawn to Queen are equal to the number of moves I need to achieve a Queen on the other side of the board. My Rook and Bishop are more mobile, and project more power across the board giving me a slight advantage.
Whichever way OB moves in the present situation, the advantage I have will be realized.