OK, I'll try to reconstruct wat transpired ;-) Hopefully this will clear
any misunderstandings and allow us to move on.
Sorry for usage of all the bandwith.
First I posted something in response & support of Paul Hughes' post "Re:
Extropianis (Protestants in Disguise?)" about the apparent virtue that many
Extropians seem to place in Hard Work.
Below that post I put a text the I had received sometime ago from
www.inspire.com about the danger of fixation on hard work
Ii posted it because I consider it makes a clear point in a very eloquent
manner:
------------------------------------------------------------------
QUANTUM_LEAP
"I'm sitting in a quiet room at the Millcroft Inn, a peaceful little place
hidden back among the pine trees about an hour out of Toronto. It's just
past noon, late July, and I'm listening to the desperate sounds of a life
or death struggle going on a few feet away.
There's a small fly burning out the last of its short life's energies in a
futile attempt to fly through the glass of the windowpane. The whining
wings tell the poignant story of the fly's strategy - try harder.
But it's not working.
The frenzied effort offers no hope for survival. Ironically, the struggle
is part of the trap. It is impossible for the fly to try hard enough to
succeed at breaking through the glass. Nevertheless, this little insect
has staked its life on reaching its goal through raw effort and
determination.
This fly is doomed. It will die there on the windowsill. Accross the
room ten steps away, the door is open. Ten seconds of flying time and this
small creature could reach the outside world it seeks. With only a
fraction of the effort now being wasted, it could be free of this
self-imposed trap. The breakthrough possibility is there. It would be so
easy.
Why doesn't this fly try another approach, something dramatically
different? How did it get so locked in on the idea that this particular
route, and determined effort, offer the most promise for success? What
logic is there in continuing, until death, to seek a breakthrough with
'more of the same?'
No doubt this approach makes sense to the fly. Regrettably it's an idea
that will kill.
'Trying harder' isn't necessarily the solution to achieving more. It may
not offer any real promise for giving what you want out of life.
Sometimes, in fact, it's a big part of the problem.
If you stake your hopes for a breakthrough on trying harder than ever, you
may kill your chances of success.
Self-discipline and persistence are true virtues. Over a lifetime they
can make a powerful contribution to success and achievement. They are
fundamental to the development of your talents. It's extremely important
to apply yourself diligently, and sometimes, staying power is what
delivers a big win.
But ordinarily, you will find that trying harder produces only incremental
gains, not quantum leaps. Also, keep in mind that sometimes trying harder
(even a lot harder) offers little more than a straight path to burnout.
Attempting to succeed through 'more of the same,' being resolute and
relying on committed effort, can blind you to better pathways.
If you want to make a quantum leap, quit thinking about trying harder.
More effort isn't the answer. Get ruthless about trying something
different? Abandon the status quo. Change your behaviour. Look for a
paradoxical move. Ricochet? If you're trying to climb over the wall,
open a door and walk through. If you're pushing against the river, try
going with the flow. Use finesse instead of effort. The tendency when
you stall out or begin to level off in your performance is to go back to
the basics and 'do what you do best.' But doing what you do best could be
the worst thing you could do.
Quantum leaps come when you seek the elegant solution. So look for an
approach characterized by simplicity, precision, effeciency and neatness.
Call for a fresh perspective, a deft move, a path of less resistance.
- Bhagwati Prasad
----------------------------------------------------------------
Then Dan Fabulich <daniel.fabulich@yale.edu> seemed rather upset and
Responded:
>At 04:09 PM 9/12/97 +0200, Arjen Kamphuis wrote:
>>If you stake your hopes for a breakthrough on trying harder than ever, you
>>may kill your chances of success.
>
>Who ARE you talking to, Arjen?
>
>http://www.extropy.com/~exi/do.htm
>
To wich I responded:
>At 14:33 12-09-97 -0400, Dan Fabulich <daniel.fabulich@yale.edu> wrote:
>
> >>If you stake your hopes for a breakthrough on trying harder than ever,
you
> >>may kill your chances of success.
> >
> >Who ARE you talking to, Arjen?
> >
> >http://www.extropy.com/~exi/do.htm
>
>I pasted in the text because I consider it presents a very clear
>counter-meme (does this prhase already exist?) against the idea that 'I you
>don't succeed, you have not tried hard enough'. All the talking of working
>hard & harder reminded me of it.
>I did not mean that anybody on this list is a dumb insect trying to fly
>through a glass window and humbly apalogize if you felt I mistook you for
one.
To wich Dan responded:
>At 11:06 PM 9/12/97 +0200, you wrote:
>>I pasted in the text because I consider it presents a very clear
>>counter-meme (does this prhase already exist?) against the idea that 'I you
>>don't succeed, you have not tried hard enough'. All the talking of working
>>hard & harder reminded me of it.
>
>And *I* posted that URL to demonstrate that we don't even ADVOCATE such a
>work philosophy. We advocate Dynamic Optimism.
Then Rick came in:
> From a parable posted by Arjen Kamphuis:
>
> If you stake your hopes for a breakthrough on trying harder than ever,
> you may kill your chances of success.
>
> Dan Fabulich asks:
>
> Who ARE you talking to, Arjen?
>
> Rick Knight responds:
>
> To me. I was quite inspired, being a stubborn, try-harder type most
> of my life...'til quite recently. I might've died on the window sill.
>
> Peace
And I just wanted to thank Rick and say some other stuff I though needed
saying:
>At 21:36 13-09-97 CST, Rick Knight wrote:
> > From a parable posted by Arjen Kamphuis:
> >
> > If you stake your hopes for a breakthrough on trying harder than
ever,
> > you may kill your chances of success.
> >
> > Dan Fabulich asks:
> >
> > Who ARE you talking to, Arjen?
> >
> > Rick Knight responds:
> >
> > To me. I was quite inspired, being a stubborn, try-harder type most
> > of my life...'til quite recently. I might've died on the window
sill.
>
>Glad you didn't.
>Thanx Rick, again (for clarity) I posted that story underneath, and
>seperatly from the main post, not to make a specific point but just because
>I consider it very enlighting. I did not refer to any listmembers
whatsoever.
>
>Having susrvived many thing that I shouldn't have statistically, I am
>generally very optimistic about what can be done about al kind of problems
>(let's call them challenges, much better ;-).
>
> > Peace
>
>The world is always in short-supply of that. I do not Expect that we will
>settle all our differences anywhere soon, that's OK. Diversity is good. It
>prevents you from becoming lazy about your beliefs. Could we maybe, sort-of
>turn all the political threads into problem-solving-oriented discussions?
>(don't get me wrong I'm just as guilty as anyone in 'defending my belief')
>Point some of our combined brain-power to currently feasable solutions for
>some of the worlds worst economic & social problems.
>We have more resouces (mental, informational) than 99,5% of the global
>population, anyone interested in putting some of it to work for their
benefit?
>
>I was thinking about things like cheap medicine produced in the milk of
>genetically-engineered cows/sheep. Making the first cow is of course very
>complex and expensive. But once you have a working model they reproduce
>themselves (well almost ;-). This is the kind of technology that can be
>implemented *today* (we have a prototype bull here in Holland) and be put
>to work at very low cost in third-world countries, requiring only a simple
>infrastucture and little knowledge from the endusers.
>Millions of lives could be saved at only minimal cost to all of us (the
>reseach would pay for itself problably, we need medicine too).
>
>Ideas on stuff like this anyone?
Are we clear on this? I think that's about it, sorry everyone for the
consumption of precious bandwith.
I think any other communication on this should be done off-list ;-)
Greetings
Arjen
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Arjen Kamphuis | - But why do you want to climb so high?
mountain@knoware.nl | Surely you see that mother-nature never
| meant for you to go above 20,000 Ft?
| - That's why.