Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - A Liberal Decalogue: Russell's Ten Commandments
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

A Liberal Decalogue: Russell's Ten Commandments

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 6>
Author
Message
Logan View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Online
Points: 21765
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Logan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: A Liberal Decalogue: Russell's Ten Commandments
    Posted: July 13 2018 at 13:43
Bertrand Russell felt that the best answer to fanatacism was a calm, unflustered search for truth, and I think this is worth sharing.

"A Liberal Decalogue" is quoted from The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell, Vol. 3: 1944-1969, p. 71--72 and originally appeared in the December 16, 1951, issue of The New York Times Magazine, "The best answer to fanaticism: Liberalism.".

"Perhaps the essence of the Liberal outlook could be summed up in a new decalogue, not intended to replace the old one but only to supplement it. The Ten Commandments that, as a teacher, I should wish to promulgate, might be set forth as follows:

1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.
   
2. Do not think it worthwhile to produce belief by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.

3. Never try to discourage thinking, for you are sure to succeed.

4. When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband, [wife] or your children, endeavour to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.

5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.

6. Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.

7. Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

8. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.
   
9. Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.

10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fools paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness."

See: https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/05/02/a-liberal-decalogue-bertrand-russell/

Edited by Logan - July 13 2018 at 14:19
A witty saying proves nothing" (Voltaire).
Back to Top
dr wu23 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 16070
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dr wu23 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 13 2018 at 14:22
I don't even see that as 'liberal' per se but as common sense and fair.
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin
Back to Top
Logan View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Online
Points: 21765
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Logan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 13 2018 at 14:29
It should be common sense. It can depend upon what means by Liberal. He uses it in the sense of being a free-thinker, is open to new ideas and is open to abandoning old ideas when new evidence is presented... Enlightenment values.

The following captures thoughts of his on Liberalism. Russell wrote:

"The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment."

Liberal-thinking should be flexible/ mutable, unlike the rigid and dogmatic thinking of fanatics and very conservative people. It tends to be reason and evidence based -- not surprising that one commonly finds more conservatives in religious communities and less in the secular humanist crowd. I'm quite conservative in some ways, but generally am open to exploring new ideas and love the Platonic/ Socratic idea that "The first step on the road to wisdom is the recognition of one's own ignorance."

EDIT: Incidentally, how much would Trump (or his fanbase) follow these "commandments"? I guess he has no, or very little respect for the authority of others, preferring to see himself as the ultimate authority (even if does respect Putin and various dictators and would like as much authority for himself). He doesn't seem to mind being eccentric much, assuming a level of self-awareness.


Edited by Logan - July 13 2018 at 15:20
A witty saying proves nothing" (Voltaire).
Back to Top
micky View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46583
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote micky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 13 2018 at 15:20

urrggg.. sh*t like that hurts my brain.  He talks a good game but bet you he hasn't seen the business end of life for smoking his pipe in some f**king ivory tower somewhere.  Real life demands real philosophy.

 

I like this book better...

 

"A Pramagist's Deca-whatever" is quoted from The Autobiography of Mick the Dick, Journies between Hell and Heaven: A life fully lived: 1969-2021, p. 69--169 and originally appeared in the November 16, 2016, issue of The Ass Kickers, Skirt Chasers, and Beer Drinkers Magazine, "The best answer to fanaticism: who the f**k cares.". 

"Perhaps the essence of the Pragamist outlook could be summed up in a new deca-whatwever, fully intended to sh*t upon ivory tower types who have never slept in their vomit, been f**ked until the next by a voodoo priestess, taken a life, given life, seen the best of mankind, and seen the worst.. and even married a Satanic redheaded freak of nature. The Ten Commandments that, as a survivor of all that life can throw at you, I should wish to prophylacticize, might be set forth as follows:

1. Feel absolutely certain of anything... until you find reason not to f**king be....
   
2. Do not care if it worthwhile to produce belief by concealing evidence, for the evidence ivory tower types think is sure to come to light will be ignored by most if it doesn't match their particular sense of reality.

3. Never try to encourage thinking  for you are sure to fail.

4. When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband, [wife] or your children, endeavour to overcome it by authority and experience not reason, logic or argument for a victory dependent upon authority is earned and powerful for being complete and undeniable based on real life experience.  For a victory one thinks they have based upon reason and logic is merely jerking one's self off. 

 
5. Have respect for the authority and experience of others, for it is rare that are  contrary pertinent experiences to be found.

6. Use power, and one's knowledge and experience to destroy opinions you think bullsh*t for most ivory tower f**ks and kiddies spout opinions and stupid philosophy with any real knowledge or real life experience.

7. Do not be a pussy and care if you are thought to be eccentric in opinion, for .. well.. who gives a f**k what they think.

8. Find more pleasure in in booze, broads and blow than in intelligent dissent or passive agreement, for, if you value the experiences of living life as you should, you are smart enough to know that booze, broads and blow absolutely rule man.
   
9. Be scrupulously truthful, even when truth is unpopular.  Respect is far more valuable than being liked.

10. Do not feel listen to f**kers telling one how one how should be happy.  Life is short and often hard and unsymphathic, live it to the fullest and find and revel happiness whereever the hell you find it.
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Back to Top
Logan View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Online
Points: 21765
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Logan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 13 2018 at 15:24
Nicely compiled, Micky.    Have a clappy.
A witty saying proves nothing" (Voltaire).
Back to Top
micky View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46583
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote micky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 13 2018 at 15:38
why thank you Greg.

A great book btw. Highly recommended though the chapter about the Satanist Redheaded sexfreak with mad skills tossing pots and pans is not recommended reading for young readers.

bad sh*t man...
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Back to Top
Logan View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Online
Points: 21765
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Logan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 13 2018 at 15:58
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

...A great book btw. Highly recommended though the chapter about the Satanist Redheaded sexfreak with mad skills tossing pots...


As long as she's not madly tossing out Russell's teapots, I'd be game.



Sorry, I couldn't resist as this teapot analogy may be what most people know Russell for.

Originally posted by Bertrand Russell Bertrand Russell wrote:

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time


A witty saying proves nothing" (Voltaire).
Back to Top
micky View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46583
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote micky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 13 2018 at 16:07
I need a fresh beer before reading that one Greg...
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Back to Top
Logan View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Online
Points: 21765
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Logan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 13 2018 at 19:05
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof / evidence falls on the person who makes an extraordinary claim rather than on the sceptic who asks Why should we believe that?

Believer: If I prayed for a beer God would grant me my wish.

Sceptic: Prove it.

Believer: Prove that He wouldnt.

Sceptic: I cant, why dont you demonstrate your beer praying powers?

Believer: The power is His.

Sceptic: Come on, pray for a beer and lets drink this miracle.

Believer: Im not thirsty right now.

Sceptic: I am.

Believer: Okay, guess I will join you then. Grab a couple from the fridge.

(Sceptic goes to fridge, Believer quietly starts praying, Sceptic come back and hands Believer a beer)

Sceptic: Here you go, buddy.

Believer: Ask and ye shall receive. God answered my prayer.

Sceptic: No, I did.

(Sceptic chugs beer)

Believer: The spirit of God worked through you.

Sceptic: Well, at least it seems the spirit of God is working through me, gotta take a whizz.

Believer: Its a miracle!



Edited by Logan - July 13 2018 at 19:18
A witty saying proves nothing" (Voltaire).
Back to Top
Tuzvihar View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 18 2005
Location: C. Schinesghe
Status: Offline
Points: 12621
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tuzvihar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2018 at 05:37
Great thread so far, guys! Clap

And long time no see, Mick! Hug
Back to Top
micky View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46583
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote micky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2018 at 06:51
^ yeah been a crazy few months at work. My boss is an idiot, the office staff incompetent, and the work more challenging (ie dangerous) than ever.  My tried and true defense mechanism to stress is to withdraw into myself and drink heavily hahah

Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof / evidence falls on the person who makes an extraordinary claim rather than on the sceptic who asks Why should we believe that?


ahhh... leaving aside the religious undertones there is a interesting notion there that the Big Mick's book really dives into.

you illustrate believer and skeptic in terms of proof with religion/faith/prayer

Where this really hits home is a more general concept. The nature of reality itself.

2. Do not care if it worthwhile to produce belief by concealing evidence, for the evidence ivory tower types think is sure to come to light will be ignored by most if it doesn't match their particular sense of reality.

what is the value of proof when reality itself is not universal but highly individual and subject to many interpretations.


Edited by micky - July 14 2018 at 06:52
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Back to Top
twseel View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 15 2012
Location: abroad
Status: Offline
Points: 20748
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote twseel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2018 at 06:54
I know Russell mostly for his sayings on semantics, through university, but his statements on other stuff are also very interesting. I still feel closer to Micky's citation though, I'm a big supporter of the scientific method but even scientists would do better living by Mick's rules outside of the job.
Back to Top
ExittheLemming View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 10399
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ExittheLemming Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2018 at 09:14
Originally posted by twseel twseel wrote:

I know Russell mostly for his sayings on semantics, through university, but his statements on other stuff are also very interesting. I still feel closer to Micky's citation though, I'm a big supporter of the scientific method but even scientists would do better living by Mick's rules outside of the job.


The idea that those deemed to be 'men of ideas' have no corroborative life experience on which they draw their conclusions is getting pretty tiresome i.e 'better to live than to know'

The man himself put it best:

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.
(Bertrand Russell)




Edited by ExittheLemming - July 14 2018 at 18:37
Back to Top
Logan View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Online
Points: 21765
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Logan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2018 at 09:59
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

^ yeah been a crazy few months at work. My boss is an idiot, the office staff incompetent, and the work more challenging (ie dangerous) than ever. My tried and true defense mechanism to stress is to withdraw into myself and drink heavily hahah
Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof / evidence falls on the person who makes an extraordinary claim rather than on the sceptic who asks Why should we believe that?

ahhh... leaving aside the religious undertones there is a interesting notion there that the Big Mick's book really dives into.

you illustrate believer and skeptic in terms of proof with religion/faith/prayer

Where this really hits home is a more general concept. The nature of reality itself.

2. Do not care if it worthwhile to produce belief by concealing evidence, for the evidence ivory tower types think is sure to come to light will be ignored by most if it doesn't match their particular sense of reality.

what is the value of proof when reality itself is not universal but highly individual and subject to many interpretations.


Sorry to hear about your work stresses and dangers. Watch the drinking, though. I've been drinking more of late as stress-reliever.

To b*****dise Descartes: "I drink therefore I am."

I speak of evidence & proof which are related but also separate concepts. The burden of proof is used in law and logic, and formal debate, and in logic means that one should adequately demonstrate a thing to be if not absolutely true, valid reasoning for the assertion (premises should be considered acceptable, relevant and sufficient enough to convince people who have no skin in the game that the conclusion/assertion logically follows), or something similar, been ages since I studied it. Of course what's considered valid etc. depends upon the person, but in logic (and mathematics) the propositions should support the conclusion in acceptable ways that should satisfy the standards of logical reasoning. Making arguments in formal academic logic does have fairly universal standards, and it is a closed-system of propositions (within particular frameworks).

In science, it's about evidence as there is no proof. It's not a closed system and every theory is open to questioning, adaptation or scrapping when new evidence comes to light. Science is about trying to understand how the universe works, but it shouldn't be making absolute truth claims as everything is open to reevaluation -- hypotheses, theories and claims are provisional and tentative -- they are subject to change. For myself, I'm agnostic, in the sense of not knowing for certain, in all things. As Russell says in his first commandment "Do not feel absolutely certain of anything."

So there is only value in proof when it comes to frameworks in logic, mathematics and law (maybe some others), but there is great value in seeking evidence in science, logic, law, and I would say life in general.

What is evidential to one, or a concept of proof, may not convince or be valid to another, but at least the means for determining what's acceptable (the framework of analysis) should be understood and make sense beyond one's particular biases. Standards of evidence and interpretations of what constitutes proof do vary. I know someone who claimed that a rainbow proves God's existence, well it wouldn't under the standards of logic that I was taught as I would have to accept certain assumptive premises as true that are unprovable through such formal logic, but seem evident from a certain theological perspectives if you accept that God exists and a host of other assumptions.

Perspectives do matter. So the value of proof depends upon how you seek truth, and all too often, I would say, it fits our confirmation biases. There is a universal reality and also an individual one and the two need not be mutually exclusive. There is subjective truth and objective truth, bust some go too far, I think, in saying that there is no objective truth -- say that all truth depends upon one's perception and experiences. Not only scientists, but philosophers commonly accept the idea of a priori truths (reasoning or knowledge that proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience). That we can't know for certain what is objectively and even to extent subjectively true doesn't negate the worthiness of an attempt to determine objective truth -- to try to understand through empiricism and logic.... Like I paraphrased from Plato before, "The first step on the road to wisdom is the recognition of one's own ignorance."

Incidentally, I wrote my last post including the dialogue stream on my phone, and not quite sure if the poor, tasteless joke worked. I was tempted to do whiskey to make the idea of the spirit passing through one's body clearer, but opted for the liquid gold of beer (depends on what beer) for the sake of parallelism with your mention of beer. No offence intended to any who are Theists or Deists with it, was just a bit of frivolity in attempt to keep up the humorous momentum. The existence of God or gods (or some related concept) can neither be proved nor disproved and I ultimately remain "agnostic" on the matter, but yeah, I don't want to turn this into another religious thread, though religion and Theism is hard to avoid when discussing such a topic. Long post, and I expect many silly mistakes here.
A witty saying proves nothing" (Voltaire).
Back to Top
ExittheLemming View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 10399
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ExittheLemming Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2018 at 10:10
Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

^ yeah been a crazy few months at work. My boss is an idiot, the office staff incompetent, and the work more challenging (ie dangerous) than ever.  My tried and true defense mechanism to stress is to withdraw into myself and drink heavily hahah
Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof / evidence falls on the person who makes an extraordinary claim rather than on the sceptic who asks Why should we believe that?

ahhh... leaving aside the religious undertones there is a interesting notion there that the Big Mick's book really dives into.

you illustrate believer and skeptic in terms of proof with religion/faith/prayer

Where this really hits home is a more general concept. The nature of reality itself.

2. Do not care if it worthwhile to produce belief by concealing evidence, for the evidence ivory tower types think is sure to come to light will be ignored by most if it doesn't match their particular sense of reality.

what is the value of proof when reality itself is not universal but highly individual and subject to many interpretations.


Sorry to hear about your work stresses and dangers. Watch the drinking, though. I've been drinking more of late as stress-reliever.

To b*****dise Descartes: "I drink therefore I am."

I speak of evidence & proof which are related but also separate concepts. The burden of proof is used in law and logic, and formal debate, and in logic means that one should adequately demonstrate a thing to be if not absolutely true, valid reasoning for the assertion (premises should be considered acceptable, relevant and sufficient enough to convince people who have no skin in the game that the conclusion/assertion logically follows), or something similar, been ages since I studied it. Of course what's considered valid etc. depends upon the person, but in logic (and mathematics) the propositions should support the conclusion in acceptable ways that should satisfy the standards of logical reasoning. Making arguments in formal academic logic does have fairly universal standards, and it is a closed-system of propositions (within particular frameworks).

In science, it's about evidence as there is no proof. It's not a closed system and every theory is open to questioning, adaptation or scrapping when new evidence comes to light. Science is about trying to understand how the universe works, but it shouldn't be making absolute truth claims as everything is open to reevaluation -- hypotheses, theories and claims are provisional and tentative -- they are subject to change. For myself, I'm agnostic, in the sense of not knowing for certain, in all things. As Russell says in his first commandment "Do not feel absolutely certain of anything."

So there is only value in proof when it comes to frameworks in logic, mathematics and law (maybe some others), but there is great value in seeking evidence in science, logic, law, and I would say life in general.

What is evidential to one, or a concept of proof, may not convince or be valid to another, but at least the means for determining what's acceptable (the framework of analysis) should be understood and make sense beyond one's particular biases. Standards of evidence and interpretations of what constitutes proof do vary. I know someone who claimed that a rainbow proves God's existence, well it wouldn't under the standards of logic that I was taught as I would have to accept certain assumptive premises as true that are unprovable through such formal logic, but seem evident from a certain theological perspectives if you accept that God exists and a host of other assumptions.

Perspectives do matter. So the value of proof depends upon how you seek truth, and all too often, I would say, it fits our confirmation biases. There is a universal reality and also an individual one and the two need not be mutually exclusive. There is subjective truth and objective truth, bust some go too far, I think, in saying that there is no objective truth -- say that all truth depends upon one's perception and experiences. Not only scientists, but philosophers commonly accept the idea of a priori truths (reasoning or knowledge that proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience). That we can't know for certain what is objectively and even to extent subjectively true doesn't negate the worthiness of an attempt to determine objective truth -- to try to understand through empiricism and logic.... Like I paraphrased from Plato before, "The first step on the road to wisdom is the recognition of one's own ignorance."

Incidentally, I wrote my last post including the dialogue stream on my phone, and not quite sure if the poor, tasteless joke worked. I was tempted to do whiskey to make the idea of the spirit passing through one's body clearer, but opted for the liquid gold of beer (depends on what beer) for the sake of parallelism with your mention of beer. No offence intended to any who are Theists or Deists with it, was just a bit of frivolity in attempt to keep up the humorous momentum. The existence of God or gods (or some related concept) can neither be proved nor disproved and I ultimately remain "agnostic" on the matter, but yeah, I don't want to turn this into another religious thread, though religion and Theism is hard to avoid when discussing such a topic. Long post, and I expect many silly mistakes here.


Clearly an erudite and well reasoned post that I agree with wholeheartedly but all said and done, you are only appeasing a bald man with the offer of a hair dryer.

Edited by ExittheLemming - July 14 2018 at 18:34
Back to Top
Tuzvihar View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 18 2005
Location: C. Schinesghe
Status: Offline
Points: 12621
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tuzvihar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2018 at 06:03
Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

^ yeah been a crazy few months at work. My boss is an idiot, the office staff incompetent, and the work more challenging (ie dangerous) than ever.  My tried and true defense mechanism to stress is to withdraw into myself and drink heavily hahah


Sorry to hear about your work stresses and dangers. Watch the drinking, though. I've been drinking more of late as stress-reliever.


What he says! You make me worried, Micky... Exclamation
Back to Top
Logan View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Online
Points: 21765
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Logan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2018 at 09:34
^ It can be especially worrying in a high risk job where safety issues are a major concern. I wouldn't expect someone drinking a mickey or a beer on the job, but someone getting DTs (delirium tremens) on the job could end up being very shocking indeed for an electrician.

^^ I think Micky might need a few more beers to try to get through what I wrote as it could be a real slog to read.

Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

Originally posted by twseel twseel wrote:

I know Russell mostly for his sayings on semantics, through university, but his statements on other stuff are also very interesting. I still feel closer to Micky's citation though, I'm a big supporter of the scientific method but even scientists would do better living by Mick's rules outside of the job.


The idea that those deemed to be 'men of ideas' have no corroborative life experience on which they draw their conclusions is getting pretty tiresome i.e 'better to live than to know'

The man himself put it best:

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.
(Bertrand Russell)


Great quote, and as he also puts it: "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."

This helps to explain the apparent idiocracy which we seem to live in.



Edited by Logan - July 15 2018 at 09:35
A witty saying proves nothing" (Voltaire).
Back to Top
micky View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46583
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote micky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 18 2018 at 15:06
you guys are too sweet.  I wish I could say not to worry but I do so I can't say not to worry hahah. Stress is a killer and unfortunately I have a lot of it in the job and it is hard to deal with and on top of the physical issues that I am dealing with with thanks to our stellar health care system have yet to be resolved. I am never sure if I will drop dead or worse pass out on the job, or behind the wheel.  It is a lot to deal with I suppose and yeah, booze does help.  

Greg, you might remember I have mentioned I have had my experiences with alcholism, after the Gulf War.  Trust me,  though I drink a lot, it is a drop in the hat compared to drinking Jack by the gallon and smoking 
dope like they were Winstons.  The job I do is seriously dangerous. I love dope,  but can count on one finger the times I've smoked it in the last 20 years.  We are drug tested and all that jazz because if we f**k up, we not only could blow ourselves up, but do so to others.  Never once come to work drunk or drank on the job. 

I think the think I am dealing most with, 7 days short 49, is my own mortality.  Well into my 30's I was still carded for Winton's.. well into my 40's I was carded for booze.  However I have aged rapidly in the last few years, stress man, and with my emergency room experience last fall, my bulletproof and 10 foot tall mental outlook took a big hit.

It's funny Greg, Bartek. I noticed that in the last year my appreciation of music has really suffered. I find it hard to get involved in the scene, care about new releases, or really music in general. Even to the point where Raff and I had a serious dicussion about even going to Progday this year. However today I had a wonderful reminder of just how music can soove one's soul. I had another day today where the heat and stress were just eating me up so I took an extended lunch to get my head back on task. I was smoking a Winston and flipping through radio stations and I came upon a station that.. bam.. within 5 seconds I recognized the piece of music.  I am legendary among friend and coworkers for doing just that, able to pick out music from the shortest of samples.

The piece... Rhapsody on a theme of Paganini by Rachmaninoff

oh my.. I cried tears of beauty during the famous 18th varation that might be one of the single most beautiful pieces of music man has ever made

yet by the 21st.. I was pounding the steering wheel with the greatest of fury in the best air piano one would have ever seen.

when I came off of lunch, I was cool. Relaxed... smiling and even sent Raff a text that made her blush.  Sometimes music really can refill the soul, I wasn't really sure how empty it was, until it was refilled.

Peace brothers....




Edited by micky - July 18 2018 at 15:08
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Back to Top
Blacksword View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 15145
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Blacksword Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 19 2018 at 03:22
Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

I don't even see that as 'liberal' per se but as common sense and fair.


They're liberal because they advocate tolerance of beliefs and opinions you may not personally share.

People have also forgotten what 'liberal' means by dictionary definition. I've known many so called liberals whose outlook is actually quite controlling and authoritarian.
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
Back to Top
dr wu23 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 16070
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dr wu23 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 19 2018 at 14:57
Originally posted by Blacksword Blacksword wrote:

Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

I don't even see that as 'liberal' per se but as common sense and fair.


They're liberal because they advocate tolerance of beliefs and opinions you may not personally share.

People have also forgotten what 'liberal' means by dictionary definition. I've known many so called liberals whose outlook is actually quite controlling and authoritarian.

Still don't see the liberal tag needing to apply...I know plenty of conservatives who are more tolerant and open minded than some of the liberals I know.
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 6>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.133 seconds.

Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.