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.