For but a few minutes I would like to delineate three types of beef. More specifically, three types of people with whom I am almost entirely saturated: (1) Wishers, (2) Besters, and (3) Commentators. (FYI - I will refer to people as sneaks, which symbolizes the same species, as constituted in BarthEganese)
1. Wishers: Sneaks who are confused about their wants.
Wishers are the people you hear say things like unto the following commonplaces:
a. "I wish I read more."
b. "I wish I worked out more."
c. "I wish I was more organized."
d. "I have always wanted to know a lot of languages."
e. "I wish I was more into classical music."
These statements may seem harmless at initial glance, yet they are some of the most illogical utterances sneaks every let loose. If the shallow sneak really wished he read more, he would. If the slothful sneak really wished he worked out more, he would. If the careless sneak really wished he was more organized, he would be. If the talker sneak really wanted to know a lot of languages, he would learn them. If the poser sneak really wished he was more into classical music, he would be. Want is actualized, not verbalized.
2. Besters: Sneaks who are confused about their work.
Besters are the sneaks you hear submitting related, if not the exact following value claims:
a. "We did the best we could."
b. "I did all that I could do."
c. "I'll do what I can."
d. "Well, at least we can't say we didn't try."
e. "We'll see what happens."
These declarations are manifestations of weakness. They are unacceptable and pathetic. If one proclaims one of the aforementioned, and actually believes himself, then he is crippling himself. Sneaks cannot exceed their expectations, ambitions, goals, and ideals for themselves. Therefore, when the sneak accepts that his effort was sufficient even though the reality of it was ultimately worthless, he is constructing a self-ceiling through which he may never break.
3. Commentators: Sneaks who are confused about their worth.
Commentators are the sneaks you hear constantly radiating the following garbage:
a. "He is so..."
b. "She is going to..."
c. "Did you hear what she said about..."
d. "What do you think he will..."
e. "What's this about them doing..."
The frequency with which one affords colleagues similar opening words reflects the frequency with which their lives are becoming absolutely meaningless. Commentators find pleasure in talking about other people, whether it is gossip, hearsay, ratings, backbiting, whining, judging, appraisal, or whatever. I can't think of much that is publicly unleashed that is more distasteful and unbecoming as those who make the theme of their conversation the affairs of their neighbors.
I hope you enjoyed the beef.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Ambition
I spent my entire afternoon and my entire evening working on a project. I like extending my work beyond conventional demarcation for various motives - two in particular: (1) My ability to work is increased; (2) my ambition is more explicitly defined.
Concerning the latter motive, I am convinced that, as I defined my ambition by my work, I am defined by my ambition. The same principle applies to all intelligences: You define your ambition by your work; you define yourself by your ambition.
Without ambition, man is an awfully wasteful organism. I heard of a dialogue yesterday between Thomas Paine and a bystander. The bystander asked Paine of the difference between an educated man and an uneducated man. In response, Paine declared, "The educated man is to the uneducated man as the living are to the dead," or something to that effect. I submit that the same principle applies to man in relation to his ambition - the ambitious man is to the unambitious man as the living are to the dead.
It is my contention that all people, regardless of their current situation, should seek to enlighten themselves in two consecutive matters:
1. For what am I ambitious?
2. What must I subtract, modify, or add to my current program in order to more effectively and more efficiently pursue this object?
If our mental and physical faculties are not consistently expended toward this realm, then what in the name of Krylo Fesenko are we doing?
Concerning the latter motive, I am convinced that, as I defined my ambition by my work, I am defined by my ambition. The same principle applies to all intelligences: You define your ambition by your work; you define yourself by your ambition.
Without ambition, man is an awfully wasteful organism. I heard of a dialogue yesterday between Thomas Paine and a bystander. The bystander asked Paine of the difference between an educated man and an uneducated man. In response, Paine declared, "The educated man is to the uneducated man as the living are to the dead," or something to that effect. I submit that the same principle applies to man in relation to his ambition - the ambitious man is to the unambitious man as the living are to the dead.
It is my contention that all people, regardless of their current situation, should seek to enlighten themselves in two consecutive matters:
1. For what am I ambitious?
2. What must I subtract, modify, or add to my current program in order to more effectively and more efficiently pursue this object?
If our mental and physical faculties are not consistently expended toward this realm, then what in the name of Krylo Fesenko are we doing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)