Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joseph Silent who wrote (157098)	4/26/2020 4:42:12 PM
From: sense	1 Recommendation Recommended By Lee Lichterman III Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218251

Agree with most of that... Except... you've layered into the parts I believe to be true: Not thinking is the complement of thinking. In my experience (the few) people who can be without thinking say less and offer more whenever they choose to say. This is the essence of spirituality. When they need to think, they think. A couple of elements that are your own value judgments, which I disagree with, but only in part: Their every action is creativity at work. That's a simple romanticization of what we're hacking at defining as a difference between some people and most people. Creativity... isn't "not thinking", but is "thinking in a particular way", and that is usually informed by a different set of skills in observation. "Seeing it differently"... a part. Then, "thinking about things differently", another part. But, extending that to "must be doing all of that all of the time"... No. A difference in capacity, perhaps, but hard to say. A difference in learning, most certainly. A difference in skill informed by practice, no doubt. But the difference we're considering is still MINOR in terms of "how much different"... even if the impact in result of a small difference is not small. First consider... how much of the time in a day you spend actually thinking instead of going through the motions of the various learned physical performance elements in the daily tasks ? And, then, if that's less than 1% of your time each day... what percentage of that 1% is still "routine" versus entrained in enabling "the difference"? When Einstein or Picasso got up in the morning, they didn't think through putting on pants, tying shoes, or spreading the marmalade on the English muffin... but perhaps thought briefly about opting for the blackberry jam instead ? They don't rationalize. They don't compete. Again, a romanticization... which seems it has you seeking to impose your concept of perfection in some iconic figurehead... It basically has you trying to create a god out of an ideal, or from a man as a representative of that ideal... elevating some human representative into something "better" than the rest of us... Hero worship... allowed in becoming something more ? Better, instead, to more clearly define the reality of what it is you are saying is worthy of valuing ? Everyone rationalizes. We're hardwired to do that. Its a requirement for survival. Which doesn't mean everyone prosecutes a standard behavior to the point of making it a core pathology ? You pick your battles... and below that threshold of moral criticality... you let the wife pick the color scheme for the walls. Everyone competes. We're hardwired to do that. It's a requirement for survival. Which doesn't mean everyone prosecutes a standard behavior to the point of making it a core pathology ? People do opt for radically different strategies in the competitions they engage ? Jesus Christ... and the Buddha... were fierce competitors in a particular space... adopting particular methods of appealing to others... and they each succeeded in exercising enormous influence ? If they didn't compete... we wouldn't know they existed ? Competition gets a bad rap... for two reasons: In part because of the tendency to excess... but mostly because people fail to understand... by having adopted too narrow a perspective on the subject... that competition is a form of cooperation. It is in fact one of the means by which our cooperation enables success. You can't win the Superbowl... without there having already been a years long and season long effort in multiple layers of enabling cooperation... just to make each of the individual games happen. The teams were organized based on principles of cooperation. The teams that cooperate best in preparation and performance... succeed most. The rules that exist... require cooperation in the basic agreement requiring that the competition will be bounded by those cooperatively enabled rule sets... enforced through the cooperation inherent in mutual submission to the determinations of the officials. Even war, seen as a competition, has a set of rules ? Once upon a time, the rules of chivalry... defined particular limits. Today, there are also rules... and ostensibly a general interest in cooperation that prevents oneself, as ones opponents, being subject to excesses. Those who do violate the rules to seek advantage... will tend to find themselves made the losers by virtue of their choice... as the rest of the world aligns against them. Dueling to defend one's honor... not that distant a thing in human history ? You might die defending your honor that way... but, you can't win the competition to defend your honor by cheating to ensure your survival ? The rules for dueling... seem a rather odd thing if the only point of living is survival at all costs... rather than survival within the cooperative frameworks we've (randomly ?) defined to enable humanity in surviving ?