Yay Edinburgh!

Elliot. my wife and I need to take our son to Brazil to see his grandmother. We only need the three tickets.

kthxbai

I was a little worried from atak's post that you might be living in Glasgow.

Hell no!

It would have been a bit of a shame for him to come all that way and end up in Glasgow.

Well, aorn I have met zero POGgers irl (plus two non-POG 2p2ers); if we meet up with LB it will soon be two. 2/0 = infinte ratio.

(I'm currently being regaled with stories of pre-depression life. They're about as long as mine...)

omg, i know how you feel, long stories are just sooo boring to listen to...

thoughts on K reading your well?


one of your key values seems to be hard work (like when u talked about everyone starting equal and hard work being rewarded). why should we work harder than is necessary to survive (and help others survive) and find happiness? i'd think that this would not involve overly hard work. if you really like working then you work more because it brings happiness to you, and if i don't like working then you don't work so hard.

I don't worry that he'd read it any time soon, as he's not much of a reader, but the answer to the implicit question is that I would be OK with him knowing the things I've said here — in fact, he already knows more than I would guess most people would assume. He is not on balance a mature child, and in fact is a few years behind in emotional development in many was, but at his bets he is remarkably mature and can deal with with difficult stuff.

For example, I've discussed with him wheter he has Asberger's — he had heard his mother talking about something thaty spunded like it was about him, something about a "syndrome", but then they said it was about his school and wouldn't talk about it — so he asked me if I knew what it might be (because, basically, they had been wolfy about it, to put it in POG terms). And so I told him all about what it was, and how we'd discussed whether he might have it. His first comment after I'd finished describing was, "I think I might have that. Will it get better?" — and so off we went down that road. (I think I've worked out that he doesn't.)

He knows that he was an accident; he knows that his mother has sought to get full custody with me having only supervised visitation, and that I would like full custody and think it's best for him but won't fight unless he want it. He knows that she won't let him have a passprt, and he knows why. He knows, too, that I am not well, and that I am inclined toward depression at times and anxiety in certain situations. (He's particularly wonderful when we neeed to get ready for travel, because he knows that things like packing suitcases upset me, so not only does he always pack his own but he offers to help me and so forth.)

So yeah, I'm OK with him reading the well.


Re hard work: I recognize that so much of my attitude about work making one worthy of respcet (much more than success or aptitude) is a reflection of my upbringing and of the fact that I feel good when I'm working. It's irrational, I suppose.

If someone wasn't to do only as much as is necessary to survive, I think that's OK, but I also reserve the right to withhold a level of respect that I would accord to someone who works harder. Again, me reason for this is mostly personal predilection — I respect effort. I don't particularly respect success. Further, pople who work hard probably (excepytions abound) tend to make others happier, because their work will mosre often babanefit htan harm others. I value that even more highly. Again, personal preferences that were essentially hadn't down form my parents and grandparents, but that doesn't stop me from believing them. To do things for others is worthy of respect — not a radical concept, I think.

This can be carried to extremes, as we can prove from looking at me. I value myself most when I'm working so much that I don't have time to sleep, and when I'm doing things that hurt because I think it will make other people happy. That's nice, in a a way, but pathological at that extreme. It's also ungood that it means I really can't live up to my own standards on a continuing basis. (or, lately, ever) Moderation is not something I'm good at, obviously; I'm learning to see shades of gray, but it doesn't come naturally.

With all that in mind, I'm pretty sure that if one could take my basic value set and moderate it a fair amount (OK, a whole lot, but work with me here), he'd have a nice framework for happiness. Everyone can work hard if he chooses; everyone can do things for others and place others' desires above his own at least some of the time. (Contrast a value set that hinges on material success: if you accept that not everyone has a reasonable opportunity to achieve material success, then you see the corollary that not everyone has a reasonable opportunity to be happy. And that, imo, demonstrates that such values are ****ed up.) If these are the things you value, then it always withing your power to do things that you value, and that make you feel valuable. A certain amount of faith is required — faith in the importance of other people, primarily.

(Note that I'm aware that other value sets provide just as much,a and perhaps more, opportunity for happiness. I one finds happiness in being at peace with oneself, or in some concept of god, for example, again we are looking at a value set that provides that everyone has a reasonable shot at happiness. I'm just offering my own version.)


Ironic, me giving a recipe for being happy.

do you fear that you hooking up with an 19 year old could be used as evidence against you in a custody dispute?

Tree making a sound: I assume it does. Moreover, that's a completely reasonable assumption, as the simplest explanations for sounds and trees and such that comport with all the data we have provide that the sound doesn't give a damn whether it gets heard. And finally, assuming otherwise doesn't really get us anywhere, while assuming it doesn't allows us to understand the world, or at least believe we do.

(So if I think it's 99.999999999999% likely that it does, does that make me agnostic on the matter?)

Btw, I don't know what a solipsist is. I think I've actively avoided all organized consideration of philosophy. I have always had the impression, from the outside, that philosophers are almost always attempting not so much to answer the questions but to show that they aren't answerable definitively, preferably while appearing very clever in the process (and, in the modern world, getting their theses accepted or maybe their tenure applications approved.)

I feel mildly inadequate for the above; I feel like educated, intelligent people are supposed to know about such things, and especially to care about them. My caring is on a less formal level, and my knowing is all about what I believe and not at all about what others do; I pick my spots, I guess, and this isn't one of them. If that makes me less interesting dinner conversation, or a less worthwhile human being, then, well, darn it.


Favorite Philosopher: see above.


Opinions: Goodness no. Most opinions are stupid. (This includes some of mine.) The idea that everyone is entitled to his opinion is excellent; the oft-posited corollary that they should all be taken seriously is ridiculous and harmful. (See, for a mundane example, the nature of political debate, at least in the US: every side gets equal time, even when one is clearly ridiculous and almost everyone knows it, and the result is that everyone gets worn out debating obvious stuff and the discussion of truly difficult decisions is tainted by acrimony and polemicism from the start.)


The comic: I agree with the father, as I assume will not surprise you by now. I admit that I kind of wish the daughter were right.

Meanwhile, I am an organ donor. (At least I was in Texas, and before that; I think I probably need to make a new election now that I've moved.) Not because I think I'll live on, in a sense, if my corneas wind up in someone else's eyes but simply because it feels good and right, today, to know that I'm doing it. I can't prove it's the right thing to do (and there's an argument that it's not, given my views on population), but I'm also sure that doing as I do makes me happier than if I did otherwise.


I think OTI asked about comic book character; I skipped the question, but then realized that I'm obviously a Batman guy.


I don't remember what I wanted to be when I was really young. At ten I had people telling me I should be a lawyer and I may have accepted that. Some time thereafter, and certainly by fifteen, I wanted to win a Nobel Prize in theoretical physics. (I also wanted to change the word politically, but by then it was clear that I would never be the type who could get elected to anything significant.) The physics dream stuck through freshman year of college, but when I wound up at Michigan I gave myself a math-heavy schedule instead (no labs), and never went back.

I hadn't thought about it. Having done so now: no, not really. I think these days most such battles, particularly when older children are involved, are much more focused on the child in question, and not so much tainted by the casting of nonspecific aspersions at the other parent's character. In any case, there's so much better ammunition against me — just reading this well should make that clear — that this is a raindrop in the ocean.

(I know more specifically that under Texas law, once a child hits twelve it takes compelling evidence to go against his wishes; there's no way either his mother or I could meet that test. Under Illinois law, which unfortunately now governs if I were to sue while he's with me, the status quo hold unless there's compelling evidence against it. I couldn't meet that test regardless, as on paper his mother is mostly fine. I forget the standard under the law of the state his mother lives in, but it's likely along one of those lines.

Recall, also, that I have said, including to K, that I will not have a fight for him unless he wants it. I also wouldn't do it unless it were quite likely I'd win. I think no matter how hard parents try, they can't go throw that without causing the child pain.)


If the implication of the question is that some people would say that what I'm doing is immoral, then I accept that there are some such people but hope there aren't many. I have thought a great deal about it, and am aware of the ore obvious issues... and I'll remain so. I certainly don't want to damage anyone, and if anything I'm likely to err on the side of caution in that regard (though I suppose it could easily be argued that that boat sailed already).


I have dated people fifteen years or so older than myself, and eighteen years younger. That such matches can work are rare, but I think precluding them absolutely is shortsighted. Certain imbalances tend to appear, but they can be managed.

Given what I know of you, which is limited I grant you, I would think you would enjoy reading some philosophy.

If I was to recomend a branch of philosophy that you might enjoy - I would suggest

- European circa 20thC.

Heidegger, Levinas - phenomonologist
Nietsche, Foucault - "post-structuralist"" Post modernists"

All of the above would reject my descriptors but as a broad descriptors that would suffice.
Certainly it would require some intellectual heavy lifting on your part - but I think that you would find each rewarding.

Per request, a bridge story, and then I need to sign off for a bit — those who have sent me PMs to which I haven't responded, it's because they're worthy of more careful consideration than I can give them today or tomorrow.


One of the wonderful things about bridge is that anyone can play against the best players in the world. Bridge is seriously competitive (not fro everyone, but on the tournament circuit). Worldwide there are tens of millions, at least, of people who would call themselves bride players. Yet if I pay my $14 per session or whatever it is, a lucky draw (unlucky, by most people's standards, by the way) will find me pitted against a world champion. It's as if you could pay your greens fee and have chance of finding Tiger Woods in your foursome at a PGA event, or put up a few bucks and maybe play Roger Federer if that was what the rand() decided to do. (Poker tournaments are like that to some extent, except that there is so little randomness in ridge compared to poker that I don't think it's really comparable. Another way of putting it is this: in poker, those great players lose to nobodies a lot. In bridge it essentially never happens. Great bridge players are truly great; there is no such thing as the Phil Hellmuth of bridge.)

For me this has always been somewhat a big deal. I'm good enough that I won't usually be embarrassed when I'm playing world class competition, but I'm not a threat to be world class myself. I like playing against great players because of the challenge... but I also like meeting them, seeing what they're like. Usually, they're smart and articulate and, more importantly, likable.

On to the story. Partner and I (partner being my fiancée at the time) are playing in an open pairs event in San Antonio. In these events you play two hands against one pair, and then one of the pairs moves to another table; this continues until everyone has played two deals each against thirteen other pairs. Anyway, some time early in the event, we are playing against the top-seeded pair in the event: Bob Hamman is on my right (I sat south, btw), and Shawn Quinn is on my left. For the non-bridge players, I can sum this pair up easily: Hamman was the top ranked player in the world for something like 26 years; Quinn was the top ranked woman in the world [though she may have been second or third when this took place].)

The second deal of the round features a contested auction with Quinn winding up declaring two notrump (an odd spot at which to stop, given the calls that had gone before, and the auction felt very strange; I had a very hard time working out what Quinn held). I won partner's opening lead, and was faced with a decision whether to cash a winner (a side ace, I believe, though I'm not sure) or try to set up things for later. After a moderate amount of thought I exited without cashing the winner. Quinn proceeded to execute a pretty little squeeze (As the lie of the cards was awful for my side), and took the rest of the tricks; I never got my ace. Making six, –240 for us.

As that had been the second board and the hand had been played fast, we had a few minutes to talk, and we discussed the squeeze a bit. I lamented that I could perhaps have changed the outcome with different discarding, and Hamman disagreed, saying I had been "crushed like a bug." (This sounds kind of mean to a non-player, I suspect, but in fact he was saying that the cards [and his partner] had done it, not me.) Then my partner pointed out that I could have cashed the ace at trick two. Then, after I agreed but said I didn't know whether I should, she said it again, less nicely this time. (Fwiw, she was a decent player, though not as good as I; she was not always forgiving of what she perceived as mistakes.) After the second comment, Hamman said, "The day he finds that play is the day I give up the game because it's become too tough."

Sounds like nothing, but when the most successful player in the world tells your partner to stop criticizing you because she's full of it, in the way that he did, it's worth remembering.

zomg recommending Heidegger and Foucault as a starting place for getting into philosophical reading is absurd!

Nietzsche, **** yes, best writer of any philosopher. Only Jung, Schopenhauer and Dogen are comparably entertaining.

Oh, what the heck. Another bridge story along the same lines, namely that bridge champions are often really nice people.


I am playing in the Reisinger Board-a-Match Teams with a pickup partner on a a pickup team. (This means that I had just met my partner that day, finding him at what you might say is the singles bar for people without partners. It's very difficult to play well with a new partner — I think it takes a year or two of playing a couple times a week before you can really click consistently. But again, I digress.) The Reisinger is a big deal event, one of the half dozen most prestigious events in North America. (But, like almost every event, anyone can enter.)

Partner and I are not doing well, individually or as a pair, when we sit down at a table with quite a few kibitzers. To my right is Alan Sontag. (I'm embarrassed to say I don't remember who his partner was) Sontag is the reason of for the kibitzers: He is a world champion and one of the best-known American players in history. He is also, significantly, known to be one of the fastest players in the world.

On the second board of the round, Sontag declares 1NT. He plays at what to me is lightning speed. I find myself adopting his rhythm, which is and — I simply can't play good defense that fast. I screw up, pitching a key card that I should have realized i needed to keep. Sontag makes 2, –120 for us and a very likely loss of the board. (Don't ask, just accept that it was bad.) Btw, partner does not seem to notice my error.

We finish the round early and begin to talk. Partner asks Sontag how he thinks we had done, and Sontag finds some way not to answer. Partner presses the issue — it is clear that he has no idea that –120 will be awful, nor that it was my fault. Eventually, Sontag seems to realize tat partner isn't going to shut up until he gets an answer; he says, "Let's say it was not a bad round for us." That's it. Everyone at the table knows what it means, of course, but he doesn't dig.

Everyone except my partner, that is, who starts pressing for specifics. Alan redirects every question without being specific — he absolutely refused to criticize me, even though my mistake had been glaring (and in fact, it would have been easy to say it in a way that most people would have felt was appropriate.) He looks a bit uncomfortable, too — to me, anyway, it seemed clear that he wasn't being evasive for its own sake, he really didn't want to be discourteous.

Finally I had to end it; I interrupted with "Partner — We lost the round because your partner screwed up his discards." And that was the end of that. But I learned two things: First, Alan Sontag doesn't like to criticize people he hasn't met. And second, when a player plays faster than you, do not play to his speed; slow down. (The second one has a follow-up story I'll tell later.)

I know just about nothing about bridge, but I enjoyed both of those stories.

Nonetheless they fit his mindset.

Would you disagree?

wow, didn't know it was possible to enjoy reading Nietzsche
don't know what i like less, his writing or his philosophy

Nice well. Yeah bridge players are pretty cool. Online they have a weekly teaching table for juniors where they bring in world class players to play a couple of hands with juniors and teach a little. They do this completely for free. So I have played a tad with both the players in Atak's stories.

Just being willing to do this shows how cool the top bridge players are.

That's awesome!

Atak, you said earlier you have a good singing voice...

What are the chances we can get you to upload a video on youtube were you can sing karaoke for us?

I'm not sure that they do, but I was commenting on literary quality, not ideology.

You prolly right.
Most 1st year undergrad stuff - begins with the Ancients but outside of reading Plato's account of Socrates - I didnt think Aristotle et al would be his cup of tea.

I would get him to skip Enlightment - Descartes, Leibniz

Perhaps as a self-proclaimed communist Hegel might be the go for him.

i say he has to host a weekly karaoke show (with requests) every week he has not made progress on his paper