Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utcsri.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!ray
From: ray@utcsri.UUCP (Raymond Allen)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Hurting the other by a "no"
Message-ID: <1335@utcsri.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 18-Aug-85 14:20:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: utcsri.1335
Posted: Sun Aug 18 14:20:06 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 18-Aug-85 14:41:48 EDT
References: <5557@cbscc.UUCP>  <591@unc.UUCP> <1397@pyuxd.UUCP> <1310@utcsri.UUCP> <1487@peora.UUCP>
Reply-To: ray@utcsri.UUCP (Raymond Allen)
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Lines: 54
Summary: 

In article <1487@peora.UUCP> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes:

>Well, I certainly agree with Ray Allen's philosophy of optimism; I think you
>should always have high aspirations.  As Thoreau said, "In the long run,
>men hit only what they aim at.  Therefore, though they should fail immediate-
>ly, they had better aim at something high." (I hope you will realize that
>he means "men and women" when he says "men" here.)
>
>However, this doesn't make sense:
>
>>         If you can conceive an idea in your imagination then it is possible
>> for you to attain it.  If you did not have the potential to do so then you
>> would not be able to conceive of the idea in the first place.
>
>I can conceive of being in two places at once, and all other kinds of things,
>in my imagination, but this doesn't mean it is possible for me to make them
>real.  All it takes to conceive of something is for some recognizable image
>of it to be encoded, somehow, in your mind (so that you can mentally examine
>it and see it is there).   In particular, I think that randomly-generated
>ideas are not necessarily "attainable" in reality.
>
>				J. Eric Roskos

	All right already!!  Enough!  I've been taking so much heat about
my statement above that I guess some clarification is in order.

	I agree that to conceive of yourself as being in two places at
once (or being able to fly like Superman) (or even being a duck) would appear
to be so unattainable as to be ridiculous.  BUT I still claim that the above
bit of philosophy is both useful and valid.  The disclaimer (which I now add)
to all this is that the attitude that develops as a result of believing
in your dreams is the true value that such philosophy offers.  When you
think as I recommend you begin to realize that most things that you say you
CAN'T do are, in fact, things that you WONT do.  You begin to realize that
most limitations that you perceive are self-imposed -- rather that being
imposed by others or by your physical environment.

	If you insist on picking absurd ideas to believe in then my
philosophy does appear to wither.  BUT (again) I still challenge anyone
to PROVE to me that even the most absurd ideas are TRULY impossible.
I agree that, within our common experience it seems impossible (for example)
to fly unaided like Superman.  Is it truly impossible?  Perhaps some day
some scientific discovery will demonstrate that we all have a latent
flying ability.  Absurd you say?  Well, perhaps, but I would rather think
that the reason I can't fly is because I don't know how -- rather than because
it is impossible.

					Ray Allen
					utcsri!ray

P.S.  The investigation of what limits on human achievement are imposed by
a lack of faith in ability rather than actual limitation is a subject I
find very interesting.  Perhaps this article of mine will stir up some
conversation.