"Tony Tanzillo" <·············@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Popularity is my yardstick. One you can't argue with.
What you seem to be missing is that your measure of "good" or "successful"
isn't necessarily very interesting for everyone else. As difficult as you
may find it to believe, some people do have a notion of quality which isn't
dictated by the lowest common denominator of incompetence, but based on
understanding what they are doing. Not everyone wants to become a winner
in a race for maximizing foolishness, which is what much of society seems
to be about. One can also aim to optimize what one perceives to be right
within the constraints of being able to survive sufficiently well. It may
not necessarily make one a millionaire to be invited at every business party,
but it may still enable one to lead a life which one considers worth living
despite the necessary compromises, instead of becoming a mindless supporting
example for the thesis that intelligent life can't be found on this planet.
-- Marc Wachowitz <··@ipx2.rz.uni-mannheim.de>
Marc Wachowitz <··@ipx2.rz.uni-mannheim.de> wrote in article
<············@trumpet.uni-mannheim.de>...
> "Tony Tanzillo" <·············@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > Popularity is my yardstick. One you can't argue with.
>
> What you seem to be missing is that your measure of "good" or
"successful"
> isn't necessarily very interesting for everyone else.
This is an old argument for a musician. Should one write commercial
"pop" tunes that sell millions of records, or should they write the
kind of music they like, and eat bread and water?
Unfortunately, you're the one that's missing something. As superior
as you may view yourself, you are part of a dying culture that will
not even warrant a footnote in the pages of history.
> may find it to believe, some people do have a notion of quality which
isn't
> dictated by the lowest common denominator of incompetence, but based on
> understanding what they are doing.
Fortunately for us mortals, it isn't always necessary to
understand everything one does. That is only a requirement of
a pig-headed elitist that is so hopelessly immersed in their
own implementations, that they are incapable of distinguishing
the means from the end.
I know others who see things your way. Their basic problem is that
they never get anything done, because no matter how good it is,
it is not good enough. Hence, they are stuck in a never-ending
cycle of improving on what they did yesterday, as a result of
what they learned today.
> Not everyone wants to become a winner in a race for maximizing
> foolishness, which is what much of society seems to be about.
Would euthanasia be a solution for you? I mean, if you are so
enamored with looking down your nose at the rest of society,
and how 'foolish' it is; how superior you are to it, then
then why not go out and get yourself a 45, and just blow your
brains out? I would certainly consider it, if I were forced
to walk amidst so many 'foolish' mortals.
> One can also aim to optimize what one perceives to be right
> within the constraints of being able to survive sufficiently well.
You obviously have very little real-world business experience.
My advice to you is to stay within the confines of your academic
sanctuary, where one doesn't have to pay for their mistakes, and
hence, tends to learn very little from them.
In spite of how superior you obviously consider yourself,
you have much to learn.