Are All Problems Solveable and obstacles surmountable?

Post Reply New Topic

Based upon the setup that you have given me, what are the worst consequences and outcomes that are possible? What are the consequences and outcomes of failure in life? What exactly are the worst cases of failure in life especially failure in the United States of America. Think this through to its' logical conclusion(s).

One of the maxims of life is nothing is guaranteed. This means one can do everything correctly and still have problems that could cause one to not only fail but fail to his detriment because conditions of our external environment can change that causes certain ideas one holds to be false and one's actions that may have been beneficial can become detrimental.

Based upon this logic the idea that one has complete control over one's life which is believed by people in the USA must be rejected based upon ontological grounds which means personality responsibility must be rejected in certain cases on ontological grounds as well? The ontology being that we as individuals have control over certain aspects of ourselves and our external environment and there are aspects of ourselves and our environment we do not have control.

Based upon this right here, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/resear ... morton.pdf, I have to ask what is the extent of control that all individuals in the USA over his economic mobility? Why is Relative Mobility lower than other lower than other countries?

So, how are we faring as a nation with this pull yourself by your bootstraps, you're in complete control of one's life, personal responsibility, etc? Are we really in control of our lives? How? What is the extent?

By the way, I apologize for derailing this but if any of you have children I urge you please go here. viewtopic.php?t=274131

I don't think most people in America ackshuly believe that they are in complete control of their lives, because most have eggsperienced situations in which they were not. I don't know why you keep insisting that they believe that.

Because one can choose to believe something despite the evidence against it. You've have empirical evidence of situations in which people were not in complete control of their lives. People can believe they're in complete control of their lives in spite of the overwhelming evidence against it. Here is one anecdotal example right here.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/forums/viewt ... 5#p5872475

What Emile Mulder chooses to do is to accept two contradictory maxims at the exact same time. It is a form of double-think and what I'm beginning to understand is that people do this on a regular basis.

Seemingly logical contradictions could turn out to be noncontradictory in "real life."

I am saying that people don't believe that they have complete control over their lives.
I haven't met anyone who believes that.

The thing is I do have a problem with American cultural thinking. What people are being asked to do metaphorically is to make a business investment with to many unknown variables. These are the possibilities. I can be in the black, I can break even and lose nothing and I can be in the red. Red is equivalent to failing and running in to problems. Scenario a: Let's look at a specific type of red which is the type of red that would be to my detriment. What people are saying is that I and everyone is not protected from Scenario a. If something happens like the market changes or the environment changes I have no guaranteed protection from Scenario a. I do have the possibility of being in the black as well which I will call Scenario b.

Based upon the maxim of Nothing is guaranteed including a knowable plausibility what this means is outcomes are dependent but loosely and not strictly dependent upon what actions or inactions I decide to take? What does this mean?

Whether I do or I do not I'm still making an investment which could land me in the black, breaking even, or land me in the red to my detriment. Based upon this logic, by my doing without any protection or some kind of assurance why would I expend my energy doing. By the logic of the maxim of "nothing is guaranteed" it would be better for me to meditate in the lotus position and do nothing since doing something expends energy which would cost me more than doing nothing except meditating, eating, drinking, using the restroom and reading because the possibility exists that I could do nothing and still end up with a job, successful and in the black(metaphorically).

Don't try to look at my emotional state or try to change my attitude. Look at my analyses and my rationality. If I have a faulty premise(s) then please show me. I can provide you empirical evidence which is my experience in which I had some jobs in which I didn't have to look for or consciously earn them which means I got them by chance so therefore I was more successful with chance than my doing anything. Metaphorically and as an analogy and using inductive reasoning If the sun rises today and has risen since I was born won't more than likely the sun will rise again tomorrow?

If my doing has gained me nothing day after day, month after month like filling out resumes and looking online has gotten me nothing then let's use inductive reasoning again. More than likely tomorrow won't doing be a waste of my time again?

I had a bit more success in certain areas by doing nothing it seems like than doing something. So, why actively do? This isn't me complaining or whining. It's me asking a very logical question.

Because if you do nothing, nothing comes to you.

One must do something in order to be able to be passive later on.

True but not absolutely true.



True but not absolutely true.

I can hit a home run without ever swinging the bat or playing baseball. Do you want to know how?

I can say that I was able to be successful at obtaining jobs here and there by my doing nothing than actively looking for them.

I've proven that maxim is true that there are no guarantees in life including plausibility since change occurs from time to time and is unpredictable.

What this entails is

a. I do something >>> I can succeed or fail including fail to my detriment.
b. I do nothing >>> I can succeed or fail including fail to my detriment.

1. I want to know how you can successfully hit a home run without playing baseball. Tell me tell me! (Do you mean figuratively or something?)

2. Looking at the maxim that you say you've proven, I don't see how that's a good argument for doing nothing. Apparently the possibilities for both are the same, so you might as well do something, no?

I don't understand how someone could be happy doing nothing. I could never. I'd feel like a useless waste of space...which wouldn't make me happy.

As far as I know, all you can accomplish by doing nothing is successfully doing nothing. People do things because while there may be a small or even great risk involved, the payback of doing something is also much much better. What huge risk is associated with applying to volunteer? I don't see any risk. The worst that can happen is they don't get back to you... That's not exactly a catastrophe.

Easy! Through propaganda and manipulation of the people's minds as used by Joseph Gobbels! If one controlled the networks then one can create advertising campaigns that can slowly brainwash the masses. Objective reality can be subsumed to relativism and to what people believe is true not what actually is true. So, did I hit a home run because I actually played and swung or did I hit a home run because people were manipulated to believe it?



Depends upon how you look at it. If you do >>> you're screwed and if you don't do >>> you're screwed type of situation (which has been my experience) then what? Metaphorically If I'm going to starve in the streets whether I do or don't and one's fate is sealed then what would be the only difference? The only difference is expending energy. Why expend when it is useless to do so? When one is fighting and struggling for his life one feels stressed and is in fight mode. There is though a moment that when one has finally accepted his fate a certain calm comes over you. Existence takes on a new meaning for you and one discovers a different purpose beyond even life and that transcends his own life.

It is why after I write and I correct for grammar, inconsistencies and other holes
https://cubeangel.wordpress.com/2014/08 ... k-patrick/

and

https://cubeangel.wordpress.com/2014/10 ... es-sister/

After that, I shall write my auto-biography detailing out my life and my experiences and your questions shall be answered including what I mean by doing nothing. When you and other parents read and you take your child in a better direction then the path I took that will help them to succeed in both the physical and the spiritual then you will understand why I don't do but yet do. Words and actions have power and they can reverberate across time and space. Sometimes the best choice is to lose so he may win and sometimes if one must live then one must die. When I'm done writing all of my fanfic, auto-biography then I want them to be my legacy for the autism community and that will be your answer(s) to all of your questions. Consider them to be a metaphorical black box for you, your children, etc after I long perish and my body decays and turns to dust.

Screw Joseph Goebbels...he was pathological in many ways. Maybe he had some "good ideas" about propaganda--but, obviously, he didn't make use of them in any morally appropriate manner.

Obviously, one could hit a home run metaphorically, without swinging a bat.

In order to give you a better chance at success, one has to DO something. One cannot wait for something to COME TO him/her.

The Romantics in literature tried that approach--maybe they have a decent legacy--but many of them died quite young, unable to enjoy the fruits of their innovations. Wordsworth was an early Romantic who disavowed the ideology later. Perhaps he overdid it the other way? Perhaps he was too "unromantic?" Same with Stravinsky: a maverick early on, a arch-conservative later.

True, but not the point.







Based upon the maxim that nothing is guaranteed then the concept of higher or lower plausibility of x is non-determinable.

You state "In order to give you a better chance at success, one has to DO something." If nothing is guaranteed then how does your maxim hold up? Your logic is inconsistent. Your argument is a Non sequitur.

Let's look at the inverse to your maxim. In order to give you a better chance at failure, one has to DO nothing. If nothing is guaranteed then how is my inverse to your maxim guaranteed as well? How is better or worse guaranteed at all in any action whatsoever? Why can't a scenario play out in which if I did something it would be worse if I did nothing? Why isn't this a part of the equation if the maxim "nothing is guaranteed" holds up, is true, and is guaranteed? Why such inconsistent and Non sequitur reasoning? Why leave an aspect out of the equation?

Why do people look at only one side of the plate?



true. Why do I always have to enjoy the fruits of my innovations? Why can't one simply enjoy the development of the innovations?

I would like to enjoy the process, too.....but not only the "process" for the rest of my life.

What I say may seem like a "non-sequitor" in a purely logical sense--but it makes sense when one looks at empirical existence.

Nothing is guaranteed--but we have to seek. Otherwise, there's a chance that we might "get." If we don't seek, there's very little chance that we'll "get."

Please note: I'm no materialist at all. I was quite content in my 20's with a mattress on the floor and a few books and newspapers to read. There were no personal computers yet--except maybe some primitive ones which were glorified word-processors.

Or you could get the position and end up being treated like crap and suffering psychological damage over it...like especially if you already have anxiety problems associated with social interactions, you might show up for the interview only to get degraded before being informed you aren't what they are looking for....Not saying those things would happen but there are worse things than simply not hearing back that could happen as a result of attempting to volunteer.