Post #17,716
11/10/01 8:59:56 PM
|
Um, not quite
My point is that concepts like blame and fault obscure our thinking about causes and possible actions. (Here where I say "cause" I really mean "contributing factors".) Blame and fault are tied up with the concept that there are one or more identifiable actors that caused the event to happen. Find who caused it, and that is your problem. But this only takes into account the most blatant level of cause and effect. Often it is useful to think in terms of more remote contributing factors.
For a programming example, in many languages you compare elements with ==, and assign with =. Well a certain amount of the time you are going to miss one of the ='s signs. That is just a common human typing error. This is why many wise programmers deliberately write things like this odd-looking:
if (5 == $variable_here) {
...
}
Yeah, it looks odd. But if you make that typo now, it will be more likely to be caught by your compiler or interpreter. (I have seen people point out that if you turn on warnings, it can catch a missing ='s sign in what looks like a comparison. So why have the habit? But now to a different compiler or different language, and the warning stops working, but the habit still does.)
This is orthogonal to the question of whether there is an element of luck and accident in the world. Whether or not you are ultimately fatalistic or think that chance is real, from a practical point of view we don't know the future or the rest of the world, and we will have accidents.
But the fact that things are random and unable to be predicted in detail doesn't mean that they are uncharacterizable. Above in the programming example, the tip is valuable even if you regard all typos as accidents. It doesn't matter why you make typos. The fact is that you do. And certain typos are more common than others.
Cheers,
Ben
|
Post #17,718
11/10/01 9:45:55 PM
|
Life is sorta like an onion
It has many layers.
(you'll have to forgive me for digressing, I saw Shrek last night.)
I think I finally see your point. The journey was quite intriguing.
P.S. Do you agree with Asimov's statement that "Luck is the laymen's term for genius"?
Just curious.
|
Post #17,774
11/11/01 4:05:24 PM
|
I am mixed on the Asimov quote
I do believe that there is an element of luck in life.
However I also believe that those who are prepared for it are more likely to notice and fully use things that come their way.
Furthermore it is also true that people like to protect their egos . One of many ways is to avoid comparison with people they think more successful. This can be done by putting them on a pedestal, cutting them down to size, or ascribing their successes to luck.
For all of these reasons, even though I believe that some things just happen, I agree with Asimov that people who seem to have "all of the luck" generally don't. And people often ascribe things to luck that aren't really luck.
But a final note. One point made in [link|http://www.jimcollins.com/ViewPub.asp?id=186|this article] by Jim Collins is that the very best CEOs always look to outside forces to ascribe success to. That means people around them, circumstances, and if all else fails, luck. So even the very best, it seems, may confuse their own accomplishments with sheer luck. :-)
Cheers,
Ben
|
Post #17,782
11/11/01 5:09:50 PM
|
Karma?
No, I have no slightest illusion that this concept (either) might be 'discussed' in any profitable manner. Mean only that - within context of above and your cite:
One may make as good a case for 'Luck' being merely an (only seemingly 'logically' inexplicable) Other process, a super- (er meta- ?) process atop the other appearances we imagine are random.. or realize we have no clue about.
At least Karma connotes an internally consistent metaphor, tied into other phenomena: no matter the impossibility of 'proving' (!) the ephemeral (or at least metaphysical, by def'n).
'Luck' is just so... conceptually sloppy! Y'know? :-\ufffd
Ashton
|
Post #17,801
11/11/01 8:18:57 PM
|
Which type of karma?
There is something like karma that I can accept. Then there is the popular version. The two are diametrically opposed.
The popular version of karma is that we are rewarded or punished in this life for the sins and good deeds of lives past. The world is fundamentally fair, we just don't see in this life the full causes.
This is a theory that is very comforting for the powers that be, and is good for soothing the downtrodden masses. Who after all must deserve a little downtrodding, else they would not be in the downtrodden masses! But I can't buy it.
Then there is another version of karma. It is the idea that your actions establish patterns that the world reacts to. Your actions create ongoing patterns with their own consequences. This isn't a theory that says that what happens is based on any cosmic fairness. Just patterns. The world is how it is because that is a stable pattern, and not out of any cosmic fairness.
This is a theory which the rulers don't like so much. It says that they rule because someone somewhere decided to enforce power and managed to succeed and hold it. Armed with a theory like this, the downtrodden masses are liable to think, "Hey, we are downtrodden because we accept downtrodding. Doing something about it may be dangerous, etc. But it is up to us to do something about it if we want to avoid remaining downtrodden!"
But from my (admittedly limited) reading of Eastern religions, this interpretation of karma is in perfect accord with what they say. (But note that the explicit goal of Buddhism is to try to break all of the patterns you are involve with. I do not think this possible, nor do I think that attempting it is good. But then again I am not a Buddhist.)
BTW karma is not just an Eastern concept. While Western religions may not believe in life after life with karma ongoing, karma is the concept encapsulated in popular sayings like, "You reap what you sow", "What goes around, comes around", "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", and so on.
Cheers,
Ben
|
Post #17,832
11/12/01 5:39:14 AM
|
Between the two, the latter.
The first idea - reincarnation (with 'forgetfulness' of some prearrangements made, pre-birth: of what is to be 'worked out on the Wheel? this time around') - does, as you suggest, mollify the Untouchables [cosmic plan and all] and facilitate the maintenance of privilege for the few. There are many reasons why I also find that model mechanistic and unconvincing.
The second view is ~ close enough to work with as a replacement for Luck, IMhO. Undeniably (per historic records) certain individual persons have profoundly altered civilization's next course. Their behavior, discoveries - sometimes their general wisdom and.. altogether - what else but charisma? might be the common denominator.
Thus "a One" Can affect all others, near-term and/or indefinitely. Agreed - any 'cosmic definition of fairness' is likely a Red Herring. While this branch of 'Karma' suffices as replacement for Luck IMO: it certainly doesn't settle metaphysical questions, reveal Truth - or any of those other wishful-things we imagine can be achieved with enough words (or a few Good Ones, even). That's the best we can do though - given common referents for words.
So I'd leave it there re Karma/Luck. If 'the world' is indeed maya/illusion: most things we'd say about 'it' would be circular anyway. Odd consequence though: all the 'physical, measurable' becomes evanescent and without any permanence; the impalpable er ineffable, becomes: that literally timeless [Reality] whose attributes we can't fathom, decribe! yet (some say) ... might be 'reachable', from life (never mind the 'death' bugaboo -- that might not be Real either). :-\ufffd
And people imagine Chess to be a challenging game (!) Now were there any sense of the rules for a Master Game - hmmm maybe there are.
Namaste Y'all
Ashton
|
Post #18,163
11/13/01 9:10:16 PM
|
Just being aware of the question is worthwhile.
And, once again, I appreciate your detailed answer. Sorry for not getting back to you sooner but biz is getting a little hectic lately.
With regards to luck, I prefer to consider the "luck" part of luck to be "random chance".
I agree that being aware and prepared for random chance improves the odds of a person being "lucky".
I've read your CEO article before (you posted it back in 1999?) and I think that level 5 CEO's were merely being humble when they credited their, er the company success, to luck. Humility is definetely an attribute of top-notch CEO's. IMO, luck more likely applies to Level 1 CEO's that just happen to be in the right place at the right time than it does to those that reach Level 5 status.
|
