Tom's Views

Dear [Mentat],

I’m inferring here that you believe that the faster and farther the human race progresses, the better.  But I don’t share this view, at least not so unconditionally. Indeed, practically all the people you’ve cited have raced ahead at blistering paces and accomplished truly remarkable things.  But, I submit that there’s something good to be said for those who can be content with how things are as well.  Change has its place, but so too does capitulation, as a Buddhist might say.  Accepting one’s fate can be just as liberating as breaking out of it, and is often quite a bit easier.  Albert Ellis and Robert Harper make this point in their [book] _Guide To Rational Living_.  In fact, they were the ones who mentioned the old age philosopher who extolled the advantages of having a healthy supply of resignation that I mentioned [earlier].  I don’t see that, generally speaking, either one or the other way to happiness is inherently any more likely to succeed.

Now I know you think that accomplishment reins supreme.  But I’m not sure that the world is in fact, _better_.  It’s obviously more advanced due to these movers and shakers you mention.  But better?  Again, I can’t make such a statement so generally.  Certainly, people have benefited from technology.  But it has problems too.  Now I’m not saying that we collectively should avoid advancements because of its difficulties.  However, its drawbacks should be considered, probably more so than they have been historically.  Short sightedness may allow us to innovate with greater rapidity, but in the end, may actually set us back to a greater degree than the advancements it afforded moved us forward.  The whole global warming business is a perfect example.  In some ways, yes, the world is better off [with the technologies that are creating the greenhouse gases, including the generation of electricity and the burning of fossle fuels for transportation purposes among many others].  However, human advancement has costs that we’re now [...] discover[ing], and whose long-term negative effects are as of yet unknown.

Another thing: Since innovation doesn’t typically come easily, I’m curious about why you [...] think that people must always be advancing in order [for] you to hold them in high esteem.    [If they are in fact, self acualized, then they may have no further need to advance themselves, but instead, take joy from basking in their wonderful life, as it is.]

Now to the upper bound [of success] not being constrained only by effort: Well, at least we agree on this.  But as noted above, I disagree with your dichotomous statement that humanity advances _only_ by overcoming its limits, and not at all by accepting them.  This is not an either-or scenario, because humans at the individual level advance best by _considering_ their limitations, determining what they’re best suited to do, and then accomplishing _that_ if they can.  They don’t advance well by blindly _ignoring_ their limits.  Well, at least, the ones who succeed to the highest degrees don’t.  Those who do, “waste [their] time in fruitless pursuits,” as Harry Flint describes it in the episode “Requiem for Methuselah” in Star Trek, The Original Series.  While it’s true that a good education opens many doors of opportunity, this training cannot be considered truly well-rounded unless the student learns about his limits as well.  A person may work as hard as he wishes.  But if he doesn’t work _smartly_, then no matter how much he works, he’ll probably fail.  Or, if he does manage to succeed, then he will have incurred excessive toil and heartache in the process.  He will have worked harder than he needed to, and this is a sad waste of a good life.

However, if, after careful consideration of limits, one chooses to pursue his dream, then yes, he should, even if it turns out fruitless.  Sometimes, picking the most fruitful pursuits is not the ultimate goal – sort of like my quest for my dream girl.  As fruitless as it has been and is likely to continue to be, I still work at it.  Perhaps when I’m 60, I’ll find her.

How do you know what Ben Carson was contending with at the deepest personal levels?  What makes you so sure that his success resulted from a steadfast refusal to succumb to _any_ limitation he might have perceived?  You’d be hard pressed to prove this negative.

Tom Hesley