Weakness is strength??

[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?

Suppose you’re ugly. I’m not saying you are. But suppose. Suppose you know, with sufficiently high degree of confidence, that you can never be – and when I say never I don’t really mean never, but more like within some arbitrarily chosen timeframe – that you can never be anything more than ugly. Now tell me, does it logically follow that ugliness is beauty?

We can take another example. Similar but a bit more concrete. Suppose you somehow know that your descendants can never be anything more than a little less ugly than you are. Does that mean, I have to ask again, that ugliness is beauty?

What is my point?
My point is that you are confusing two different questions. One is “what is within your capabilities?” and another is “what is beautiful?” I am afraid you are not willing to keep the two separate instead confusing them.

That’s what people who are emotionally reactive do. They confuse what was previously recognized as distinct.

Another interesting fact about emotionally reactive people is their lack of tolerance, or patience, for their unpleasant, which means overwhelming, emotional reactions. So, for example, when they realize they are not perfect, that they lack something others possess, they immediately start to pursue that thing. In other words, they cannot admit they are ugly (or otherwise inferior) without immediately positing a goal and pursuing what is beautiful (or otherwise superior.) So what happens . . . instead of simply accepting they are ugly (stimulus) as well as that ugliness is inferior to beauty (reaction to stimulus) and rejecting the immediate pursuit of beauty (reaction to reaction to stimulus) because it’s not within their ability, they are rejecting first reaction, that ugliness is inferior to beauty, so that they don’t have to make an effort to destroy the connection between first reaction and second reaction. Do you see where I am going?

What is better is independent from what you can do. It is also independent from what you personally want.

MA,

Where does taste, preference play into what is “seen” as better? Purpose? Fit?

Better is not useful as a blanket statement for what is better for you may not be better for me.

Are you now advocating for subjectivity? Objectivity is a blanket approach used to simplify an estimation.

Honey, when I say better I mean greater. I don’t mean any kind of better. But better as in greater. How the fuck is that subjective? It’s quintessentially objective.

You want me to repeat myself. Okay. A, B and C is greater than A. That’s simple mathematics. Hardly subjective. More and less. The basis of every judgment of general, rather than specific, value.

I don’t know, Maiden, I think that the purpose of consciousness is to discriminate – to recognize distinctions instead of blurring them.

Strength and weakness are opposites. That’s how it is. Deny this and it better be a metaphor. Otherwise, you’re committing a sin.

Consider this situation: I know in advance that my actions will miss the target but they have acquired a momentum, in the form of instinct, making me inclined to perform them anyways. By restraining myself I would make myself passive in that moment . . . I’d have no reaction to the external stimulus. But my intelligence says this is better than reacting because it estimates it will lead to less damage than otherwise. You can now say “weakness is strength”. My response would be rather simple “lol”. No, honey, it isn’t strength, it is simply wiser than the other option. My reactions would still be manifestation of my strength, even though, in this particular instance, they would be self-destructive.

Then, you have to ask whether restraint should be considered passivity. Though it makes you less active it also requires active effort to do so. Indeed, many people who act a lot are passive in the sense that they are inert: not restraining their instincts when their intelligence tells them they should, making their behavior very rigid, mechanical, repetitive, obsessive.

Finally, simply not acting, I presume outwardly, does not mean you’re weak. Weakness refers to your potential – to what you CAN do and not to what you DO. There’s a difference. If a lion does not react much, that does not mean he’s weak.