You can't really have an epiphany every day. Actually, you can, but it would take great mental stamina. That's because "chance favors the prepared mind." In a sense, you have to look (hard) for an epiphany. We usually think of an epiphany as something that strikes you over the head when you least expect it -- but that is the "passive mind" view. That's my first epiphany.
My second one today has to do with the notion of "luck." There isn't an extra force in the universe called "luck." Instead, humans use the word "luck" in a colloquial sense -- in order to retroactively explain an event that went in their favor, a good fortune. In order to get into the epistemological position to use luck as a real (read: true) explanation of events, we would have to start with omniscience.
Starting with omniscience -- having our finger on the pulse of the very unfolding of the universe -- we could explain things that didn't unfold just like they were supposed to as "luck" (when they turn out for the better) and "bad luck" (when they don't). But we need to know in advance that something wasn't supposed to turn out the way that it did in order to make that judgment. That's my second epiphany.
My third epiphany has to do with a certain kind or style of thinking. It's the control freak. It's becoming real clear to me that there are some folks on this planet who cannot or do not understand or see anything as not resulting from a struggle for power or control. "Capitalists have become rich?" they ask. "It's because capitalists won a battle of control." they answer.
I asked a beloved socialist in my life what he thinks about the paraphrased quote that 'if you're not a liberal when you're young, you're a heartless demon; and if you're not a capitalist as you mature, you're a brainless fool.' He told me the quote is foisted on us by rich, white guys trying to protect their lifelong accruel of riches. In other words, he sees the success of some only as the outcome of power struggle involving winners and losers.
I've recently coined the term: "cosmopolitan snob" for ivory-tower liberals like Malcolm Gladwell, who seem to speak to us 'lower folks' from a sense of grandiose, high-minded condescension.
Now, I'm looking for a catchy term -- besides "control freak" -- which captures the spirit of these folks I'm describing (folks who only see humans as jungle animals, who only see success as control). "Warring tribalist" comes to mind, but doesn't have the nice ring to it which "cosmopolitan snob" does (or "ivory-tower liberal" for that matter).
I can't just call them "Cro-Magnon liberals" because that would be an insult to Cro-Magnons.
:-)
Any ideas out there?
For further, and more extensive, review: Robert Malcom has written articles on this last subject (Trading vs. Taking) here.
Ed
|
