Do Easy, a good approach for clumsiness

Post Reply New Topic

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qNkWml3ztA[/youtube]

I think about "doing easy" all the time, (and often fail to do so, miserably- I spilled a toxic substance in printmaking class today and clay dust was all over my lap in ceramics). Martha Stewart does easy all the time. I am so jealous of her.

Hope this video helps, or at least serves as comic relief for some of you.

It's an excellent idea, for us clumsy Aspies, to go back and redo the action, developing strategies of how to do it without accidents. Thank you for sharing ! !

That was a good watch. Thank you for the video. I might have to try some of the simple DE techniques sometime.

Useful thing that one, i do stumble on my chair and my brother's bed a lot, I've always been clumsy but maybe not enough for me to go and seek help about it.

Why are you all taking this as a literal how-to? It's a rather nice piece of fiction, not a branch of philosophy.
Besides, Burrough's aim was terrible.

Then what are the alternatives?

That's great.

it makes a lot of sense to me.

it makes a lot of sense to me.

I only hope I can really live with this maxim

It's not true, it's fiction. It's a fictional advert for a fictional mail-order course. If you try to follow these principles, you will not get anywhere.

Wow, not that serious. Obviously - it's fictional.

What "aim" are you referring to? It's spoken word, as you mentioned: fictional. It is not a serious serious proposal for anything. Plus, you have to take into consideration that this was interpreted by another person, Gus Van Sant. If you're referring to the mail-order quality, that could be Van Sant. Who knows?

I believe the only aim in writing/creating this is to make people laugh. He may even be remotely serious about this. Who knows? Who cares?

And obviously, I don't think it's a "branch of philosophy". Did you even watch it? I just thought it would be helpful for the clumsy ones here.

(<sarcasm>Yes, I can appreciate literature/films without taking it literally. </sarcasm)

I'm mostly going from the short-story. And Burroughs possibly did mean it literally, or rather, not make the distinction between literally true and symbolically true (see: his later life hanging around with chaos magicians and idly threatening scientists). It was just that I'm equally fond of the writing and empiricism, and it irritated me that someone could read it and not think "that was well written and fun" but "that was well written and convincing". I still stand by that it will not work in practice, and that Burroughs was a terrible shot.