Instrumentality.

[Genetic Reconstruction]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism
Instrumentalism

Every human has a shield to protect his soul against unbearable agony, to avoid facing reality, to protect his pride and dignity from the unknown.
We are all basically the same. Our minds lack something basic. We fear that deficiency. We fear it. That is why we are attempting to become one. We will meld with and fill each other. This is instrumentality. Mankind cannot live without being surrounded by others. Mankind cannot survive alone, although you, yourself are always unique. That's why life is hard. That's why life is sad and empty. That's why you want affection, the close physical and mental presence of others. That is why we wish to become one. The human soul is made of weak and fragile elements. The body and mind we made of brittle components as well. That's why, via instrumentality, Mankind must fill and complement each other.

I thought this would be something quite interesting to discuss. Above is a small portion of my thoughts on the matter.
 

[bluecherry]

Hey, sorry I didn't respond sooner. I was gone for the weekend. sweatdrop But now anyway, on to the topic at hand:

You know, I don't think that wiki article is talking about the same thing you are. What you are speaking of sounds like the concept in Evangelion's Human Instrumentality Project a lot. But the wiki article sounds like it's speaking about a theory of studying science which is pretty pragmatic in nature, that it doesn't matter how true it is, as long as it can explain everything away that's how it will be judged. It's just how well can it make people think "Oh, so that's the answer," and hence feeling they now know they feel comfortable in having answers and don't need to look further into it to see if it's really right or not. As long as it can LOOK right and serve that purpose, it's good enough. So that theory says, though I find it to be a bad approach to science indeed (and for a quite similar reason to why I find your proposal bad too actually.)

Now, what you're talking about-- I have some challenges for that idea. The claim in this statement posted is that people all are trying to avoid having to face reality as a way to protect ourselves first. This I find incorrect though because you can best protect yourself when you know what it is you're up against. For example, a person walks into a dark room in their home and hears a funny sound. They notice an open window and some broken glass. They think someone may have broken in and this thought disturbs them. If people tried to hide from reality always as the way to protect themselves, this person would then just close their eyes so they can't see what's going on and cover there ears so they can try to ignore the situation. At this point they are either a prime target for if somebody broke in open to either being injured or having things stolen from them with ease or, if there is nobody there they will now never know and can just stand there trying to pretend there's nothing scary until they either are found by somebody else who makes them come back to reality and leave the room or they admit to themselves that they had been responding as they were to the fear of a possible break in and that enough time should now be past that if somebody was there, they, the intruder, should be gone now and they themselves can now open there eyes and uncover their ears again. In either and any case, they must eventually come back to reality anyway and go back to operating in this world where they can either admit and investigate the potential break in, see if anything is missing and hopefully if nothing is found missing not go nuts obsessing over what could have been taken that they didn't notice or happened that they will now never quite be sure of or if they keep trying to ignore the event where nothing may really have happened but they are now trying to ignore admitting even the scare they had happening so they now don't even bother to fix the window because it means acknowledging it was broken and thus leave themselves open to a very easy real break in. However, this could all be avoided by acting to face reality-- you hear the noise and notice the broken and open window in that dark room and then act to get ready to possibly defend yourself as best as you can then get to the safest place you can with a phone at hand and turn on the lights to try to see if you can expose any intruder and then act upon what you do or do not find. This allows you to protect yourself, your stuff, and your sanity much better by seeking certainty then the living nightmare you could bring down upon yourself trying to ignore it.

Also, what is it you propose we lack? And if we lack something, again, is it not easier, better, to face a problem then merely fear it? It's much more constructive to seek solutions then forever stand and stagnate due to paralyses from fear. How exactly are people attempting to become one? I know lots of people take great pride in being a unique individual. And not everybody wants to be surrounded by people. Hermits sure don't seem like people persons to me. wink You can get things to survive off other people without needing to be always surrounded by them. I myself like many people even really require a good amount of alone time every so often or the inability to just be free of others, even those I very much may like, for a while for my own mental health's well being. I think the inability to escape other people at any time at all, being melded together, would give a horribly trapped feeling. And who says life has to be empty, eh? There's so much talk of depression and tragedies in the world. They garner so much attention, they're a bigger story then happy people. Good lives just aren't much of a story to most people. With a lack of conflict, people lack interest in hearing about it most of the time. I, to be my own first hand example again, find my own life to be quite good and know what I'll do to find fulfillment (As long as I get something published in my lifetime, I'll consider myself fulfilled. ^_^) I also find a very different reason to desire affection and closeness, both physically and mentally, to others. From where I stand, that desire is the result of observing in other people a reflection of things you value, a recognition of a greatness in other people and so in response you wish to give and receive of yourselves with that person, it's a deep honor. This affection, love between people, is the highest honor and respect people can bestow and exchange with other willing individuals because of it's statement of how much you think of them, how highly you value them, that you wish to be with them, close to them, to find happiness with and bring happiness too these other people and have such returned hopefully through a treatment of them completely and fully as the whole person they are, both mentally and physically, with the physical corresponding to the mental aspect that comes first. This though as you should notice hinges on people not feeling incomplete and needy, but feeling like they are whole individuals, glad to be such, proud of themselves and who they are. They need to value themselves first before they will be able to successfully go about professing value for and of other people and accepting being valued back. If the person does not value themselves first they will never be able to hold good relationships, share that affection with others, because when other people they value profess to value them back, the person will think the other(s) are "too good for them." They will then just end up making the person they value so much miserable by trying to run away from them, telling them that they, the person or people that this person values, are "better off without them." ("them" in the last statement being the person who does not think well of and value themselves. Sorry if my wording gets confusing in spots.) And finally, just what "weak and fragile" "elements" do you propose this "soul" is made of, huh? wink (*pictures a "soul" made out of sulphur and aluminum* rofl )

 

[Wertish]

First thing, I kinda sound like some old honery, crotchety old man right now, but still....Can we atleast keep the text the same size....Just came home from work and reading that was.....lets just say daunting.

But, back to the topic on hand. I believe that it isn't something that humans lack that they fear, I feel that it is the fear of not lacking something that people fear. As a whole people are a concieted and greedy lot. They always want the "newest" and "best" thing, everyone does, no matter how much you deny it, it is true in one sense. Subconciously, the mind fears and wonders what if there isn't another goal for the person to attain? What if it has nothing left to do? Will there be peace and tranquility? Or some unquenchable unrest to find something, anything for the person to desire?

As for a person to value themselves, I fear, that as a whole society has moved from selfworth to something scarier. Being worthy for other people. I think (at least in America) that how other people look at you has become paramount to how you look at yourself. Who (there are few) can truely say that they do things because they want to? Most people do things to look "cool" or the "grown-up" term "Daring" or "adventurous." Or why would one buy a two-hundred thousand dollar car, just because they want it? Don't you feel that they buy it, for the admiration of other people so they look more worthy in their eyes?  

[bluecherry]

Sorry, that's just my normal post style size. I've made this one bigger now. 3nodding

I have something i'm going to post tommorrow as soon as I get a PM back from somebody. (I was PMed about the topic and I just want to make sure it's ok with her if I post what she said to me first that prompted what I said back to her before I try to put it up.)

I think this idea may be a lot closer to the truth that you've said (though I see nothing wrong with wanting good things for yourself as long as it's just because you personally like those things.). There are lots of people who fear the accountability, being responsible for their own lives. If they really were whole, complete people who could do whatever they so chose to and there was no one and nothing else that is or needed to be the outside motivational factor behind their actions then everything they do has nobody and nothing else for them to blame things on or look to to default on when they need to make what seems like a hard decision. Their life is entirely up to them wether they succeed or fail within the extent possible to them.

I'll second that next part too. Too many people are just living their lives to get the approval of others. And it doesn't even seem like it matters too much who's approval it is often. Somebody, anybody, as many as possible.

 

[Wertish]

Heh finally someone who agrees with me...most people say I am too harsh or cynical...or just stupid.

*shrug* what eva,  

[bluecherry]

Being unpleasant alone is almost never a legitimate reason for something to wrong. xp

 

[bluecherry]

Woot! I got the ok to post the message I got PMed about this topic. 4laugh Here's what I was PMed and my response:

bluecherry

Amara Akuji

You may say something tomorrow if it is more convenient for you, I know you must be busy right now.

Now, to "business."

In the Philosophy sub forum, I was bothered by the seemingly intentional misinterpretations in the Instrumentality thread. It appeared as though you swapped from over to under exaggeration frequently, and towards the end you contradicted your previous comments (as well as having a few incongruencies throughout).

I've been left with a bad impression of your ideas as a result, and would like clarity on the matter.

His comment on creating a mental barrier would be pointing to the idea that the mind protects itself from a trauma (e.g. an entire family being slaughtered in front of "you," whilst being chained down and "you" not capable of doing something to help), not for something as simple and mundane as breaking and entering. It seems like your comment initially is that everything is a beginning action, with no antecedents. Tell me if I've misunderstood (preferable with a more thorough explanation). If I have not, then that removes the very obvious reactionary trait inherent in all people and for that matter all animals. Through an understanding of the human mind it becomes clear that facing the bluntness of reality can, and does, drive people insane. Some become suicidal, some shatter... and a few are left unaffected. Cantor studied the concept of infinity, and the process drove him insane. The inventor of FM radio was driven to suicide by the bluntness of reality. Sometimes the ability to protect ones self from how miserable life has the potential to be is one of the most invaluable tools that man is either born with, or learns over time (depending on whether or not you believe in the "blank slate" theory). You say that facing reality saves a person from living in the nightmarish shield, yet that "nightmare" of a life would only appear as such to an onlooker, while the person going through it would surely think they were living an ideal. Remember that the real world beyond our own fantasies has the potential to be far more nightmarish than any self deception.

I don't have anything to say about the "fear" part of the subject... I feel the original poster may have been layering it a little thick at that point.

From there, I am brought to the idea of value. Self worth, shared worth, and the value of others. As an Objectivist, can you explain to me how it is possible to assign yourself value? Bearing in mind the blank slate concept that is held true by both Rand and Peikoff. If one starts as an empty tablet, how does one assign value to the self before assigning value to the primary caregivers? You say that one must have self worth before worth can be given to others... how? How does an individual assign themselves worth without knowing what worth is?


As a side note, I would like to quote John Stuart Mill. "The value of an opinion is a matter of opinion." You may not believe in a soul, I won't go into my thoughts on the subject, but remember that each opinion is of equal worth, just a matter of how many people agree with it. You did not attack his idea, but your disdain of it was obvious. Each idea deserves equal respect, not more or less depending on who said it. Not more or less depending on how much you agree with it. If everyone in the world decided they disagreed with you, it would not be acceptable for them to silence you (a paraphrase of Mill). However, likewise you can not silence others or claim that an idea has any less value than your own, lest you be silenced or stifled.



You make a few points in your post, but I would suggest reorganizing your thoughts. You should not need to apologize about not being easily understood, as it should not have been an issue to begin with. I would suggest placing your claims and support in a more logical order, and to properly use the cognitive dissonance theory (an article of satisfactory quality is available on wikipedia, if you are interested). I know this is not the case, but by not going through the extra effort if all most appears that you have as much care for your idea as you do of his ("his" being the ideas held by the poster of the thread).


I eagerly await your response... as I do find myself quite confused.


Sincerely,
~Amara

I see my post has left you a bit confused perhaps or unsatisfied with how I handled responding. Admittedly, I'm a bit of a "scatter brain" and write things as the thoughts come to me. It makes sense to me and the set up seems like a logical progression, but as other people are not in my mind working on the same thought pattern I am, I suppose it may indeed be harder for them to follow at times. Though it leaves things a bit messy not having a more "professional standard" looking type of response in a conceptual debate like this, I have to write things down as they come to me or I end up losing my place or forgetting what I was saying. Attempting to re-organize things latter when i'm done often results in a loss of information and/or now things are not in the order that I thought of them it may well look like i'm jumping from idea to idea with no link at all between them. So in the end it's at least as often as not a wasted effort for me to try to re-structure my posts or might even make it worse. So, apologize is the best I can do for my meandering, wandering thought style really without having to practically submit all my writing to an editor to work out how to best put things all the time. Needless to say, I'd never be a professional debater. lol I do only as much as I do because I like to, as a "when I have the time" sort of thing, and just hope everybody really can follow what i'm saying. And when they don't, I try to re-state then and I almost always end up elaborating and getting much longer then how I had said it the first time. And as for cognitive dissonance theory, I had not heard of that before, but it makes sense from what I read of it. Rationality does not sit comfortably with contradiction. Contradictions can't be true at the same time (like something can't be both "A" and "Not A" at the same time as is the example always used) so since you know it's wrong you'll want to try to get rid of the contradiction. This is like what get's addressed later (This first paragraph I'm writing after everything else when I saw your last paragraph). As for what I need to do to apply the theory, I think I should have that covered enough in what i've already written later in this post, but if that's not the case, just tell me what I'm messing up or missing again. 3nodding Now to the main point of the message.

I could extend the example scenario, make it about something more gruesome like you described if need be. I think it still works. How about exactly what you mentioned: The chained down as people are killed in front of you thing. You can face facts, admit it happened and you couldn't stop it at that point and try to then seek justice for what happened later (see if you can give the police leads to catching the people that did it, testify in court if they get caught and so on) and work to make sure such a thing doesn't happen as again to the best of your ability, OR you can try to deny facts, spend the rest of your life policing your own thoughts, doing Orwell style "doublethink," always a hair's width away from going over the edge into a mental break down possibly from having all the denials and mental blocks you set up to try to forget the situation coming crashing down upon you and all the while being unable to try to improve the situation because you won't admit it exists to deal with it.

Any better now then the previous break in scenario? The stakes are higher in this.
As for the antecedant thing, I'm a bit lost there. Things have causes and contexts and things that come before them, sure. I did not think I implied or intend to imply that anything ever happens just out of the clear blue for no reason at all. If it rains, there's plenty of study to explain why that would be caused, it doesn't just happen and poof into occurence. If somebody smacked another person, the arm did not just start moving for no reason at all, they had a motive behind the action if it was done willfully and if it was accidental then there was still a cause but probably they tripped or didn't see somebody coming or something like that.

Also, that it has happened to some people does not mean it happens to all and is a rule. I know many people who do their absolute best to be facing reality as it is and they are not at all suicidal and/or insane. Really, they're some of the most well adjust people I know or know of for looking at what IS and dealing with that, not what ISN'T and trying to deal with that. (if that last sentences sounds odd, which it might be an odd way to say it semanticlly, here's an example again: Seing a rock blocking your path and climbing over itit instead of there being a rock in front of you and saying it's a giant penguin and trying to lure it out of your way with some fish. Again, I use some really extreme examples, but that's because those often illustrate points most clearly is all I find.)

And this is probably getting off topic, skip this paragraph if you want, but now that you mentioned it it was just something that had been on my mind recently so I'll mention it briefly. You mentioned the man who contemplated infinity and went insane. Though I know I'm no mathmatical genius for sure myself, I've come to think that it's quite possible infinity is not something that could ever exist in reality, only in theory. If matter can neither be created nor destroyed, that has a limit. If energy and mass can be related through the formula Einstein had, the E=MC2 thing, then if matter has a set limit, so does energy. The only thing that leaves is something like abstractions and ideas. However, not even those could be made infinetly as it takes concious beings or machines to create these things and those catagories both require energy to run, so if energy is limited, ideas and abstractions have the limit of energy placing a limitation upon them. Just a thought that's been floating around in my head for a few weeks. I'll get back on topic now.

And life has a great potential to be miserable, but it has a great potential to be wonderful too. If it didn't, I don't think many people would be sticking around long enough to die of natural causes. xp The thing is that people exist in a real world that's not controled and shaped by what they think or decide. Thinking 2+2=5 won't make it true even if you could get all people to agree upon it. So since we must live in this real world where thoughts alone don't control what is real, we will be most successful in this world if we deal with it and what's there. And to properly deal with it is best done by looking at and recognizing what is there in the real world. Another example again, say you want to make a pie. You'll never get a pie made by sitting and staring at a point in the air and thinking "There's a pie there." But, going and getting ingredients and a recipie if you need one and following the right directions and then baking WILL get a pie made.

Also, I wish I knew where this saying was from, (A friend of mine heard it some place, so I know this takes some credability away that I don't have the exact source) but somebody said about horror movies once that often some of the scariest parts will aim to show LESS because what the audience could imagine for themselves is very often far worse then whatever they might have shown themselves in the movie had they shown it. The imagination has the power to come up with some awful stuff. Reality and what people can make up can both be tremendously greusome.

And the value subject now. The blank slate idea is that you start off as a person and that's it. You don't have any inherited knowledge passed down to you from birth or anything like that. You're a person though still. There is value in that already due to the very fact that humans ARE the one thing we know of around smart enough to see reality, examen it, work with it, and by working in it's boundries, change it to advance ourselves. People have value because they have the ability not just to live, but to live WELL -- and know it and enjoy it too. The capacity for real, good rationality is what sets humans apart from everything else. As the one thing distinct to us, that would be what allows us to do so much more then any other thing and/or creature, so it's something we do and is what is distinct to us allowing us to excel, so that would make sense wouldn't you say that it's the best thing we've got going for us? Something Aristotle said here I'll paraphrase, the function of any "thing X" is what distinctly it, "thing X", does; the function of any "GOOD thing X" is to do what "thing X" does and do it WELL. So if rationality is the only thing distinct to humans and humans are the only things alive that are really living quite so well or capable of making life better then just being subject to the whims of the elements and recognize this so fully, understanding it, then it should follow that the function of a "good human" is doing what humans do but well, and rationality is that distinctly human most important part of our function, so a good human functions on rationality well.

Can we, human, also live porrly too though? Of course, that's obvious and I know it as well as anybody, but what other thing around that lives can on it's own without the help of humans do something like get heating and cooling systems set up on demand inside their shelter to help keep them properly heated or cooled and comfortable wherever their shelters may be? smile Sure, we may have power failures and what not at times, but it's still FAR more then any other animal. So while a portion of humans may end up exposed to the elements, homesless, all animals are always exposed to the elements as an example. And really, even if you have something like a house cat living with people getting all the comfortable conditions humans live in, the creature does not have the capacity to understand complex conceptual thought like "happiness" to know that they even are happy and that they want to be happy and that to be so is a good thing, or what "good" is even. Or if they do have these capacities, thus far it sure doesn't seem to be the case from anything I've ever heard that's for sure. (If you do by some chance know of something on the subject I don't, go ahead and point me towards a source that says that my previous statements are incorrect.)

So this is why people have to learn the concept of "value" but that need to learn it does not mean they have no value. That people DO learn things like this is what makes them valuable you could say I suppose. So once you understand the idea of worth that's as much as is required to start placing value on things. And placing value on yourself is a primary because if you don't even value yourself, then it renders your evaluations of everything else meaningless, void of value. It's like a million dollars if it is all fake money and nobody will accept it in trade for anything else is still worthless. It's an act of rationality to recognize and appreciate your own worth, and doing so is the starting point for any value you deem there after to mean something. (so your opinions on something don't become like the point system on "Who's Line Is It Anyway?" where "everything is made up and the points don't matter! That's right, the points don't matter, just like [insert one of many pointless things in the world]" xp ) It may also be worth noting that people often can know something vaguely or aquire through observation some kind of bit of an idea before having a real solid grip on it and/or knowing the full details and hearing the concept given a real formal name. Words are really all naming of things, like objects, actions, characteristics and concepts and such, so before you know a word for something you may kind of know it from things you've noticed, but not have a very good idea of it as an actual thing. It's like say you've seen people around gardening a lot in one particular area and in the same area you've seen many people painting. You've seen them, noticed them a bit, but most likely didn't think much of it. Then you hear that there is a club in that area for people that garden and then paint their plants and you're told the name. You know have a solid idea os this club as an actual thing all associated together and unified and collected with the word associated with it's meaning and the detail filled in of what is being painted and why the things are being planted. (Again, if my example is unclear I'm sorry.)

and as to each opinion having equal value, I don't agree with that always being the case. On something where all people have an equal knowledge and experience, their opinions are of equal value, but not otherwise. I'd say a very good art critic's opinion of a painting's technique counts for a lot more then an opinion of a man born blind about a painting's technique. Not only does one know the subject well, but while the other CAN express an opinion if they want to, they really don't have much of at all to base this opinion on whereas the other does. Or how about a good biologist's opinion on if somebody is living a "healthy" life style (for physical aspects, not counting mental health in this case) compared to an average first grader's opinion? and I do find problems with the statement in that topic, however I have nothing personal against the person who posted it. I don't know anything about him. Never saw or heard of him before that post to my recollection. I had been intending to judge the ideas presented, not the whole person saying them. (That would be a logical fallacy any way, ad hominem, attacking a person instead of an idea. I could hate somebody's guts but if they said "2+2=4" they'd be right and I'd agree.) After all, opinions should be based on facts generally for most things, but opinions do not dictate what facts are. I know this perfectly well. 3nodding and peple all have the right to hold opinions and ideas, but that doesn't mean they're right or I'm obligated to agree with them. If everybody was equally right, what happens when one person says "The Easter Bunny is real" and somebody else says "There is no such thing as the Easter Bunny"?

Hopefully, as tremendously lengthy as this message turned out, it will prove sufficient to answer your questions and challenges to what I had said before. xd And if not, well, I'll just have to keep going and explain so more again then is all. Haha. xp

Thanks for your concern and interest
in the topic and taking the time to write,
-- bluecherry

 

[Baulder]

...I could see myself plagarising this stuff for extra credit at school.  

[bluecherry]

lol I think somebody would be asking you why you have emoticons in your paper even if nothing else.

 

[Baulder]

bluecherry

lol I think somebody would be asking you why you have emoticons in your paper even if nothing else.

>.>.... I'd eventually edit those out...  

[bluecherry]

How about that the entire paper would sound like you were talking to yourself? And in fact at first did not understand what you yourself were saying, where you were coming from with these things said? xp

 

[Baulder]

....damn.  

[Metsu92]

I don't know why I chose this to be my first post in this guild, but here it is.

[Akira_Prince_Of_Hearts]

Every human has a shield to protect his soul against unbearable agony, to avoid facing reality, to protect his pride and dignity from the unknown.

Personally, I feel that all humans have subconscious (sorry for spelling) barriers that protect us from the reality of ourselves. I think that if a person was forced to see who and what they really were, all their mistakes, all their vices, all their evils, even in the light of their successes and good, they would be driven insane. We all have some part of us that we don't want to admit to, something that shapes who we are, but we still can't accept as being part of us.

[Akira_Prince_Of_Hearts]

We are all basically the same. Our minds lack something basic. We fear that deficiency. We fear it. That is why we are attempting to become one. We will meld with and fill each other. This is instrumentality. Mankind cannot live without being surrounded by others. Mankind cannot survive alone, although you, yourself are always unique. That's why life is hard. That's why life is sad and empty. That's why you want affection, the close physical and mental presence of others. That is why we wish to become one. The human soul is made of weak and fragile elements. The body and mind we made of brittle components as well. That's why, via instrumentality, Mankind must fill and complement each other.

I believe otherwise. We need to be surrounded by others so that we can tell ourselves that no matter how horrid we are, there will always be people who will accept us. But I aslo agree that the human soul/mind is very fragile. Life is sad and empty only for as long as you find yourself having to deal with your inner evils.

bluecherry

The chained down as people are killed in front of you thing. You can face facts, admit it happened and you couldn't stop it at that point and try to then seek justice for what happened later (see if you can give the police leads to catching the people that did it, testify in court if they get caught and so on) and work to make sure such a thing doesn't happen as again to the best of your ability, OR you can try to deny facts, spend the rest of your life policing your own thoughts, doing Orwell style "doublethink," always a hair's width away from going over the edge into a mental break down possibly from having all the denials and mental blocks you set up to try to forget the situation coming crashing down upon you and all the while being unable to try to improve the situation because you won't admit it exists to deal with it.

I believe all humans have something that they are in that situation with. You can't change your most base and horrid evil because you refuse to admit that it exists. Because if you do admit that your base evil exists, then it WILL send you over the edge. I feel that simply by developing as complex a conscious mind as that which we have, we have acheived a sort of "Instrumentality", where when we need it, we can fill and complement each other, but when we don't wish to be trapped in it, we can escape others and survive on our own.

That's all I have to say about this topic.

P.S. I'm only about 15 years and a month old. I surprise even myself with some of these things which I comtemplate.  

[bluecherry]

15 isn't a surprising age to think hard about philosophy at all. It's really about around the right time to do so. After having spent the previous years of your life without a mind developed enough and having learned and observed enough to think of these things now that you HAVE you do. Philosophy is about the big questions that everybody wants answers to (or most at least, beats me how complacent and un-inquiring a mind it must be to have no interest in these things) so, once you know the questions are there, they will be calling out to you to try to figure them out, and try you will. In fact, as we can see, try you did. 3nodding

As for the subject at hand-- I think it's exactly because you can't try to fix a problem you won't admit to that you SHOULD admit it's there. If you know you've got a problem but also know at the same time you intend to right the wrong as best as possible, it's not something that will drive you nuts because yeah it's here now, but as long as you keep working on it it won't always be. As I said before, you'll be better off admitting and fixing a problem then trying to deny it.

 

[Wertish]

I feel a mojor problem in our, well species, is that, sure a select few of us recognize are problems, but do we go out to fix them? The majority of us don't, it takes too much effort, I feel that many people recognize that they have a probelm but instead of trying to fix it and better themselves, they either lie about it or they seek out people with worse problems so they can point to them and say "Hey I'm not a bad person, he is, look at him not me."

I dunno.....Maybe, been a while since I had to think really.....