From: Olie Lamb (neomorphy@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Jul 24 2006 - 00:26:24 MDT
Below...
On 7/23/06, Richard Loosemore <rpwl@lightlink.com> wrote:
> Olie Lamb wrote:
> > ... it's pretty unusual to have a goal-goal, or to promise
> > to have a set of goals. Far more common is the goal of pursuing an
> > activity, promising to engage in an activity, or promising to deliver
> > an outcome.
> >
> > I can think of only one example (Set) from my past...: at 14... if I... 3. Liked the
> > French for being French
>
> Huhhh?!
>
> The mutability of goals is something important, IMO, but I am not sure I
> can make sense of your point in this essay. Maybe you lost sight of
> your initial goal?
Well, the examples from my past are NOT the point. What my goal-goals
were at 14 is not the point, and whether I have so far "satisfied"
those goal-goals is immaterial.
The fact that I can only think of a single incident where I have set
myself goal-goals is used as anecdotal support for my contention that
humanpeople don't work that way.
> And besides, I love the French for being so ..... French. They got such
> a darling culture!
That's exactly the kind of viewpoint that 14yo Olie didn't ever want
future Olies to adopt. But as I said, this is immaterial.
(If you _really_ want, we can discuss off-group.)
Also, responding to Joshua Fox,
>> the goals that are human universals tend to be those that
>> are more obviously preserved.
>
> These are a few goals built into our genes. Humans have the unique
> a bility to set higher-level goals, but this is a shallow, recently
> evolved ability, and often breaks down, especially in the face of the
> built-in goals. That's why it is so hard to diet.
Yup, the built-in goals are powerful. Which makes it easy to preserve
built-in goals.
(Again, my "point" is a bit obscure, which, combined with my odd way
of putting things, tends to lead to furiousness without disagreement)
-- Olie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:56 MDT