Optimistic Realism (was Re: Why height?)
Derick S.
In article <34A183...@XX.sympatico.ca>,
> Daeron wrote:
> > .....All I'm saying - is that realists are needed here, as
> > much - if not more, than motivationally -mindedoptimists,
> > whatever their particular 'schtick'.
Maria wrote:
> .....No amount of optimism or NLP are going to change the "isms"
> in this world.
I disagree. Optimism (or NLP, which I'm kind of apprehensive about
trying) is how people WILL MAKE changes in this world.
Being optimistic and hopeful that there ARE solutions to the world's
problems is the only way people become motivated to actually solve our
problems. This is how we set goals that we want to attain (changing the
"-isms" in this world for instance).
However, we should not be "too" optimistic. We must also BALANCE our
optimistic perspectives of life with being realistic in setting our
goals. If one is "too" optimistic and sets unrealistic goals, then one
sometimes loses hope and believes that the solution does not exist.
On the other hand, we must not be "too" realistic either. For instance,
the solutions to the problems in this world will not be easily
attainable. If one believes that these problems are so difficult that one
person cannot possibly make any adequate changes, then that one person may
decide to do nothing, or give up later on. The solutions that one is
seeking may still exist but his/her approaches to the solutions might be
the wrong or maybe just an indirect path to the goals sought.
Last week, I chose to be both realistic and optimistic when I had feared
that I lost a close friend (my "adopted" younger bro') of mine. Had I
been "too" realistic in my beliefs, I would have thought Kris was
successful in his intent of suicide.
Kris was well informed in self-deliverance and I had essentially nil to
hope for. Thank God I had some optimism and did not give up all of my
hope. The virtual loss of my friend during those few days last week
caused me to suffer a deep depression. But because I was also still
optimistic and had some hope that through a "miracle" Kris would still be
alive somehow, I made several (long-distance) phone calls to get the truth
of the situation.
The truth was Kris had been prevented from completing his intentions by
the police at his university. Although there was essentially nothing to
hope for, my optimism prevailed.
Optimism and realism are both some of things we need in this world. We
need to balance the positive qualities of various resources in life to
achieve our goals. There is no single best or better system in solving
all the world's problems.
Peace / Happy Holidays to all of you.
Derick S.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/7982/
"Things are not always as they seem to appear"
maria
Derick S. wrote:
>
> In article <34A183...@XX.sympatico.ca>,
>
> Maria wrote:
> > .....No amount of optimism or NLP are going to change the "isms"
> > in this world.
>
> I disagree. Optimism (or NLP, which I'm kind of apprehensive about
> trying) is how people WILL MAKE changes in this world.
This is my position: Realism usually makes me upset/annoyed/angry
enough to do something. Optimism can lead me to ignore harsh realities.
Realism combined with hope and action can lead to change. With respect to
Kris: someone probably acted because they were realistic enough to realize
that this was serious. An optimist might have thought Kris was just in a
"mood" that would pass.
All this optimism stuff really gets to me sometimes. My SO died a very
slow and painful death of cancer. I heard it all: cheer up, don't worry,
it will all work out, it's not the end of the world, etc. etc. Stuff
like that is NOT useful. The most useful, and cruel, thing said to us,
by his doctor, was: your cancer is serious, it will probably kill you, get
your affairs in order, use whatever time you have left the way you want to.
Holidays are a happy and sad occasion for me.
Daeron
Derick S. wrote:
> I disagree. Optimism (or NLP, which I'm kind of apprehensive about
> trying) is how people WILL MAKE changes in this world.
No - not without an informed education base. That iswhat both Maria and
I are saying. You can't begin to make changes - no matter what your
level of 'optimism' if you don't have clue one of what needs to be
changed! Our point is that too many are blissfully unaware of precisely
where the flaws are - because they are either too woefully ill-informed,
or unread in those issues where major change is needed (i.e. politics,
economics).
> Being optimistic and hopeful that there ARE solutions to the world's
> problems is the only way people become motivated to actually solve our
> problems. This is how we set goals that we want to attain (changing the
> "-isms" in this world for instance).
I think that a certain amount of *confidence* is, of course, assumed. I
have to have confidence that, if I take some effective action - i.e.
call my congressmen or senators, or send out petitions, they will bear
effects. This is not necessarily the same as optimism. (Which can exist
in a vacuum - devoid of having adequate information in one's
possession).
Let's take the case of Sen. Paul Sarbanes of MD (one of my state
senators). The man is doing yeoman service right now in pushing to get
the Fed (the Federal reserve) to change its tight money policies, which
are keeping many more underemployed or unemployed than need to be. He
ismaking a difference, but all the optimism in theworld would be
insufficient without a base in knowledge. As one of his opponents
(Republican - Sarbanes is Democrat) averred in the same article, "you
would be hard put to find a person in congress as well-informed".
And - while most of Sarbanes' peers merely nod off at the sound of
interest rates and the Federal Reserve, Sarbanes has done the research
and other work needed to familiarize himself with every aspect of the
Federal Reserve's functions. If he succeeds, in his proposed new
legislation, it will be this significant base of research that succeeds
in the change - by converting Greenspan and his Fed ilk to lower
interest rates, not any unfocussed optimism. For, make no mistake,
Sarbanes is first and foremost a realist.
> However, we should not be "too" optimistic. We must also BALANCE our
> optimistic perspectives of life with being realistic in setting our
> goals. If one is "too" optimistic and sets unrealistic goals, then one
> sometimes loses hope and believes that the solution does not exist.
Exactamundo, and this is where Sen. Paul Sarbanes efficacy is - he has
confidence (not necessarily 'optimism') that his base of research will
pay off in forging ahead with news legislation.
From the dictionary I have: Confidence = Self-reliance, assurance,
boldness.
Optimism = the tendency to look on the more favorable side of
happenings.
The one (confidence) is grounded in something substantive, i.e. the
self-reliance (say based on being well-informed) that isnpires one to
take practical methods of achieving a definite goal.
The other (optimism) is based on a 'tendency' - a fleeting, 'will-o'the
wisp' that can be here today, goen tomorrow. For my part, I would take
self reliance groomed by education and assurance, directedness over a
'tendency' (that may be based on nothing more than an extra cup of
caffeine) any day.
> On the other hand, we must not be "too" realistic either. For instance,
> the solutions to the problems in this world will not be easily
> attainable.
But - they *are* attainable if one's base of education an d research is
adequate to understanding the mechanics of the system he seeks to
change. (As in the case of Sen. Paul Sarbanes and the Federal reserve).
If Sarbanes were unread in economics, like many of his congressional
associates, he might be 'optimistic' as hell, but still doomed to utter
failure (though he'd never acknowledge it). But - with his research
spurring him, he has ample resources and knowledge to know precisely
where the 'Fed' needs to be fixed and the methods most likely to bring
success in doing so. He also has an appreciable realism - which is
clearly indispensable to this task. For example, his realism allows him
to recognize that interest rate decreases have to be tempered, or
staggered. A hopeless, economically unread 'Polyanna' might not
appreciate this at all.
> If one believes that these problems are so difficult that one
> person cannot possibly make any adequate changes, then that one person may
> decide to do nothing, or give up later on.
But you see you are confusing pessimism here, which is what I call this
- with *realism*. Let's go back to the dictionary:
Pessimism = the tendency to see only what is gloomyor futile in life
Realism = to describe or represent things as they really are.
It doesn't take much to see there is a vast disparity here. Certainly,
there cannot bean 'excess' of 'representing a thing as it really is'
(realism). However, one can have an excess of filtering out the positive
to see only the 'gloomy' or the'futile'. (Pessimism).
In Sarbanes' case, he is wholly a realist, not a pessimist. In my case -
I am also a realist - not a pessimist. If I were a pessimist, the
proposition of societal/system change would not even be on my radar
screen. I would believe it to be hopeless from the start. However, as an
absolute realist, I know I cannot effect change unless and until Ifirst
know what needs to be changed. What aspects of the system - as it is -
are dysfunctional? This is something that requires knowledge, before
anything else. After that- directed action. I do that by engaging in
groups that align themselves with the changes I am interested in, and
supporting those people (e.g. Sarbanes) in whose cause I believe.
> The solutions that one is
> seeking may still exist but his/her approaches to the solutions might be
> the wrong or maybe just an indirect path to the goals sought.
The recognition of the goals or objectives are contingent on being a
realist. Their direction - and this includes all steps needed to make
change - are a product of the same knowledge gained that made me a
realist in the first place, as well as a knowledge of the means
currently available to effect changes (even if incremental). Pessimism,
does not enter into the equation at all - and once more, it does no good
to confuse pessimism with realism - or 'having too much realism'.
(One cannot be too realistic, since one cannot over-represent 'things as
they really are').
> Last week, I chose to be both realistic and optimistic when I had feared
> that I lost a close friend (my "adopted" younger bro') of mine. Had I
> been "too" realistic in my beliefs, I would have thought Kris was
> successful in his intent of suicide.
No - correction: Had you been too *pessimistic* in your beliefs, you
would have thought 'he was successful in his intent of suicide'.
Please do not confuse the meanings of pessimism and realism, as this
doesn't help your case.
> Kris was well informed in self-deliverance and I had essentially nil to
> hope for.
That is unequivocally a pessimistic viewpoint being articulated.
> Thank God I had some optimism and did not give up all of my
> hope. The virtual loss of my friend during those few days last week
> caused me to suffer a deep depression.
> The truth was Kris had been prevented from completing his intentions by
> the police at his university. Although there was essentially nothing to
> hope for, my optimism prevailed.
You could say that - but the *realistic action* of the police also had a
role in this.
> Optimism and realism are both some of things we need in this world.
Agreed, but again - let's choose not to conflate realism and pessimism.
>We
> need to balance the positive qualities of various resources in life to
> achieve our goals.
Indeed, and again - the point underscored by Maria and myself is that
the most critical resource, for those trying to effect change, is
knowledge. Research is the directed (realistic) action used to obtain
this. And - as knowledge accumulates, the focus on the goal is more
finely honed and tuned (to what is achievable).
In other words, in all these arguments we are making, 'ignorance is not
bliss' - nor should it be construed to be.
> There is no single best or better system in solving
> all the world's problems.
No one says there is. However, there are more *efficacious*
ways than others - given some initial set of methods (m1, m2 .....mn).
The problem is that without realism, one cannot know a priori which
method is more efficacious than its competitors. Realism - copled with a
knowledge base, affords the necessary discrimination to select an
achievable goal, and the most efficacious method to arrive at it - given
current conditions and circumstances.
--
*DAERON*
"We can have democracy or we can have great wealth concentrated
in the hands of a few. We cannot have both."
- Justice Louis Brandeis.
Derick S.
In article <34A2D6...@ix.netcom.com>, Daeron wrote:
> Derick S. wrote:
> > I disagree. Optimism (or NLP, which I'm kind of apprehensive about
> > trying) is how people WILL MAKE changes in this world.
>
> No - not without an informed education base. That is what both Maria and
> I are saying. You can't begin to make changes - no matter what your
> level of 'optimism' if you don't have clue one of what needs to be
> changed!
Hey, be patient I'm not done explaining my opinion yet. I'm not saying we
make changes by optimism ONLY. Give me chance to make my point.
> I think that a certain amount of *confidence* is, of course, assumed.
> I have to have confidence that, if I take some effective action - i.e.
> call my congressmen or senators, or send out petitions, they will
> bear effects. This is not necessarily the same as optimism. (Which
> can exist in a vacuum - devoid of having adequate information in one's
> possession).
One must be optimistic in order to have confidence and attain the
knowledge needed to solve the world's problems. One who is pessimistic
cannot have confidence. Without confidence, then one will not likely seek
the needed knowledge to solve the world's problems.
[Some stuff snipped out to save space, not because it was irrelevant.
However, it was not very interesting in my opinion :-P ]
> > However, we should not be "too" optimistic. We must also BALANCE
> > our optimistic perspectives of life with being realistic in setting
> > our goals. If one is "too" optimistic and sets unrealistic goals,
> > then one sometimes loses hope and believes that the solution does
> > not exist.
>
> Exactamundo, and this is where Sen. Paul Sarbanes efficacy is - he has
> confidence (not necessarily 'optimism')
OK, that was my main point and I'm glad we agreed there. I just chose to
take an "indirect path" at saying that we do need realism in this world.
But we also need optimism (and knowledge) in order to be confident.
> ....But you see you are confusing pessimism here, which is
> what I call this - with *realism*.
Oops, my bad.
> > Last week, I chose to be both realistic and optimistic when I
> > had feared that I lost a close friend (my "adopted" younger bro')
> > of mine. Had I been "too" realistic in my beliefs, I would have
> > thought Kris was successful in his intent of suicide.
>
> No - correction: Had you been too *pessimistic* in your beliefs, you
> would have thought 'he was successful in his intent of suicide'.
> Please do not confuse the meanings of pessimism and realism, as this
> doesn't help your case.
Yep, realistic was used incorrectly there. Oops again. That's where I
think I and other people have confusion in their life problems. Based on
what we believe as being real (e.g. I'm shy, socially inept, etc.) and
lacking knowledge or skills to overcome our problems we think
pessimistically rather than optimistically.
> > Kris was well informed in self-deliverance and I had essentially
> > nil to hope for.
>
> That is unequivocally a pessimistic viewpoint being articulated.
Well, maybe the second half of my statement is pessimistic, but the first
half was (and still is) realistic. Kris had knowledge of various methods
and convictions in killing himself. Therefore, my viewpoint was based on
my being realistic.
> > We need to balance the positive qualities of various
> > resources in life to achieve our goals.
>
> Indeed, and again - the point underscored by Maria and myself is that
> the most critical resource, for those trying to effect change, is
> knowledge.
But knowledge sometimes goes unused when people are not optimistic and
don't believe they have the knowledge.
> In other words, in all these arguments we are making, 'ignorance is not
> bliss' - nor should it be construed to be.
No where in my article did I mention that having optimism meant being
ignorant of what is real. The point I wanted to make was that optimism is
needed so the one who lacks knowledge has hopes that a solution exists and
strives to attain the knowledge to make changes.
Peace / Happy Holidays
Derick S.
In article <34A2FA...@XX.sympatico.ca>, maria wrote:
> This is my position: Realism usually makes me upset/annoyed/angry
> enough to do something. Optimism can lead me to ignore harsh realities.
I'm not sure you and I have the same definition of optimism. I define
optimism as the tendency to take the most hopeful view of matters. Just
because one is hopeful that a solution exist doesn't mean the knowledge to
solve a problem exists presently and one may now ignore the problem.
> All this optimism stuff really gets to me sometimes. My SO died a very
> slow and painful death of cancer. I heard it all: cheer up, don't worry,
> it will all work out, it's not the end of the world, etc. etc. Stuff
> like that is NOT useful. The most useful, and cruel, thing said to us,
> by his doctor, was: your cancer is serious, it will probably kill you, get
> your affairs in order, use whatever time you have left the way you want to.
Optimism does not mean hiding the truth or ignoring what is real. My
point with optimsim - whatever is real you should think positive about
it. For example, if one has Non-Hodgekins Lymphoma, does one have a 25%
chance of dying or a 75% chance of living? Nothing hidden there... Choose
wisely though.
> Holidays are a happy and sad occasion for me.
Life is a paradox -
it's both gloomy and joyful,
complex but simple.
The world is a paradox -
it's screwed up in many areas,
but it's still a wonderful place.
I am a paradox -
I'm both unassertive and optimistic,
depressed but hopeful.
maria
Derick S. wrote:
>
> In article <34A2FA...@XX.sympatico.ca>, maria wrote:
>
> > This is my position: Realism usually makes me upset/annoyed/angry
> > enough to do something. Optimism can lead me to ignore harsh realities.
>
> I'm not sure you and I have the same definition of optimism. I define
> optimism as the tendency to take the most hopeful view of matters.
Webster's definitions:
optimism: 1. the tendency to look on the more favorable side of happenings.
2. the belief that good ultimately predominates over evil. 3. the doctrine
that the existing world is the best of all possible worlds.
realism: 1. the tendency to view or represent things as they really are
hope: 1. the feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will
turn out for the best.
According to those definitions, I am a realist with some hope that, with
action on my part and the actions of others, things will change for the
better.
> Just because one is hopeful that a solution exist doesn't mean the knowledge to
> solve a problem exists presently and one may now ignore the problem.
I hope not.
> snip
> Optimism does not mean hiding the truth or ignoring what is real. My
> point with optimism - whatever is real you should think positive about
> it. For example, if one has Non-Hodgekins Lymphoma, does one have a 25%
> chance of dying or a 75% chance of living? Nothing hidden there... Choose
> wisely though.
According to the definitions, the optimist would focus on the 75% and
the realist would focus on both (the pessimist would focus on the 25%).
A person would not have total control over whether they are in the 25%
or in the 75%, no matter how optimistic (some will die).
> > Holidays are a happy and sad occasion for me.
> Life is a paradox -
> it's both gloomy and joyful,
> complex but simple.
> The world is a paradox -
> it's screwed up in many areas,
> but it's still a wonderful place.
> I am a paradox -
> I'm both unassertive and optimistic,
> depressed but hopeful.
Thanks for the thoughts.
Gabor Barsai (barsai.2@osu.edu)
In article <34A591...@XX.sympatico.ca>, maria
<mari...@XX.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> realism: 1. the tendency to view or represent things as they really are
Once again: what is reality? Is there an objective reality, or is there a
subjective reality??
Daeron
There is an objective reality. (Fact # 1)
There is a subjective reality (Fact #2)
The latter is what is actually accessible to humans - what they end up
with when they attempt to process objective reality. In effect, our
brains are evolved only to the point *representations* can be grasped
and modelled, and it is these that we work with - i.e. in solar flare
models, or atomic models. The *real thing* (ding-an-sich) remains
forever out of our grasp, though we can approach it to a point.
I think Neils Bohr said it best, when he referred to the reality
underlying quantum mechanics:
"We do not observe an 'atomic system' as such, but rather *an atomic
system exposed to our methods of measurement.*"
That which governs limited human knowledge - inlcuding its subjective
representations is *epistemology*. That which attempts to portray the
ding-an-sich (Being, etc.) is known as *ontology*.
Gabor Barsai (barsai.2@osu.edu)
> The latter is what is actually accessible to humans - what they end up
> with when they attempt to process objective reality. In effect, our
> brains are evolved only to the point *representations* can be grasped
> and modelled, and it is these that we work with - i.e. in solar flare
> models, or atomic models. The *real thing* (ding-an-sich) remains
> forever out of our grasp, though we can approach it to a point.
>
> I think Neils Bohr said it best, when he referred to the reality
> underlying quantum mechanics:
>
> "We do not observe an 'atomic system' as such, but rather *an atomic
> system exposed to our methods of measurement.*"
>
> That which governs limited human knowledge - inlcuding its subjective
> representations is *epistemology*. That which attempts to portray the
> ding-an-sich (Being, etc.) is known as *ontology*.
So there is no objective truth to "who I am"?
Daeron
No - because 'who you are' will always consist of complementary
perceptions. There is 'who you are' - to *yourself*, which is what
Sartre (in his 'Being and Nothingness') called Being-In-Itself. Then
there is 'who you are' - as society perceives you: which is
'Being-For-Itself'.
Probably the closest one can get to an 'objective self' is a
superposition of the two. However, in practice, one chooses either one
or the other - excluding the alter-Self.
Derick S.
In article <34A591...@XX.sympatico.ca>, maria wrote:
> Derick S. wrote:
> > I'm not sure you and I have the same definition of optimism. I define
> > optimism as the tendency to take the most hopeful view of matters.
>
>
> Webster's definitions:
> optimism: 1. the tendency to look on the more favorable side of happenings.
> 2. the belief that good ultimately predominates over evil. 3. the doctrine
> that the existing world is the best of all possible worlds.
>
> realism: 1. the tendency to view or represent things as they really are
>
> hope: 1. the feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will
> turn out for the best.
>
> According to those definitions, I am a realist with some hope that, with
> action on my part and the actions of others, things will change for the
> better.
>
> > Optimism does not mean hiding the truth or ignoring what is real. My
> > point with optimism - whatever is real you should think positive about
> > it. For example, if one has Non-Hodgekins Lymphoma, does one have a 25%
> > chance of dying or a 75% chance of living? Nothing hidden there... Choose
> > wisely though.
>
> According to the definitions, the optimist would focus on the 75% and
> the realist would focus on both (the pessimist would focus on the 25%).
> A person would not have total control over whether they are in the 25%
> or in the 75%, no matter how optimistic (some will die).
True, no matter how optimistic one is about cancer, right now some people
will die. However, IMHO patients who are optimistic and have hope will
enjoy life better. People generally don't like being around other who are
depressed or negative all the time or too much of the time. Patients who
avoid being negative will most likely have more visitors and won't be as
lonely as patients who maintain a positive attitude.
Also consider that some cancer patients have spontaneously been "cured" of
their illness by being optimistic and believing that they will beat this
disease. Some people chose unorthodox cancer treatments including faith
healing, herbal therapy, various unapproved experimental chemotherapies,
accupuncture, and whatnot.
Happy New Year! :-D