TedBilich.com - Exploring Life's Best Practices - Latest Comments

Re: The Practical Dividends of Kindness

tedbilich — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:23:16 -0000

You exemplify this practice, Melanie. It doesn't surprise me that it would resonate with you.

Re: The Practical Dividends of Kindness

Melanie Spring — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 21:10:35 -0000

It's so true. Just that little tiny thing and it's all better. For them... for you. Love this.

Re: Thick Face, Black Heart, Stupid Book

tedbilich — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 09:09:10 -0000

I did not read it as observation and study. I read it as endorsement of the practice, though not of the ends to which some people put it. In any event, my criticism was not with that, as such, as with its incoherence. Perhaps it is just too deep for me. . . but I think not.

Re: (A disclaimer)

tedbilich — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 09:07:26 -0000

Lynne, you were not the only one. I am shifting to a different WordPress theme in large part to enhance readability.

Re: (A disclaimer)

Lynne Levesque — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:09:59 -0000

Ted... am I the only one who has commented on your blog's readability? Perhaps it's my aging eyes but the black background is very challenging!

Cheers, Lynne

Re: Thick Face, Black Heart, Stupid Book

The Digital Glebe — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 11:06:43 -0000

It is important to remember that Li Zongwu’s original work is purely an
observation and study of “thick face, black heart,” and was never
intended to be an endorsement of the amoral practices when mastered
(which most non-practitioners would consider to be immoral) that the
book describes. The irony is that it is now used -and reinterpreted- as a
manual for succeeding in business and society, which only goes to show
how prescient these observations were, both then and now, and how little
has actually changed.

Re: The Practical Dividends of Kindness

Merrick Hoben — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 19:53:02 -0000

Ted, this might interest you. best, Merrick

http://www.buddhafest.org/venu...

Re: More Reasons Barbara Ehrenreich Is Wrong About The Benefits of Optimism

tedbilich — Thu, 26 May 2011 14:35:17 -0000

No need to apologize, and no need to keep it in. I would respond that the reason most did what they did in events leading up to the financial meltdown was a combination of either (i) what I personally do will not make a difference and "cause" a meltdown (no one believes he is the straw that breaks the camel's back), so I will take mine now; or (ii) the government cannot permit a meltdown, so it will serve as a safety net of last resort; or (iii) [another version of #2] I work for institutions that have enormous political clout, so we will fix things in the end. As it turned out, ## 2 and 3 were accurate.

This has been a really fruitful exchange for me. I hope you will stick around and venture forth to comment again. If you ever follow Twitter, I can be found there a lot -- at @TBilich. Best, Ted

Re: More Reasons Barbara Ehrenreich Is Wrong About The Benefits of Optimism

ergon — Thu, 26 May 2011 13:09:49 -0000

Sorry for this, my last, reply (I just couldn't keep it in), and thank you for your patience.
"Furthermore, I believe an equally apt explanation for the financial meltdown was not undue optimism, but instead cynical pessimism and a grab for short term, selfish benefit at the expense of those who did not know better and were misled."
Cynical pessimism doesn't entail lack of scruples, only, perhaps, disenchantment with people and the world (precisely because they fail to live up to a "higher" moral standard). People without scruples, not cynical pessimists, and optimistic (unless they knew better, in which case they were corrupt) regulators (who trusted in these people or the system or whatever) is a more apt explanation in my view. Besides, they had to be pretty optimistic to believe they could get away with it: why else would they jeopardize, or allow others to jeopardize, their own businesses and incomes?

Re: More Reasons Barbara Ehrenreich Is Wrong About The Benefits of Optimism

tedbilich — Mon, 23 May 2011 13:35:37 -0000

I don't think there is any basis for saying either that "nasty" explanations are more apt to be "right" than "nice" ones. Nor do I think it is fruitful to characterize what the average person experiences each day as a series of "big a small catastrophes." To the contrary, at least in the developed world, we tend to have things remarkably good by many measures, the best in history, in fact. Furthermore, I believe an equally apt explanation for the financial meltdown was not undue optimism, but instead cynical pessimism and a grab for short term, selfish benefit at the expense of those who did not know better and were misled.

I'm not saying that any of the assertions in the prior paragraph are "truths"; rather, I'm unwilling to concede the assertions in your response, just as you are no doubt unlikely to concede mine.

What Seligman and others advocate is not rose-colored glasses, but rather a refusal to assume the worst. He is worth reading, if only because you would likely find that what he advocates, and what I tend to agree with, is not nearly as myopic as you seem to believe.

At bottom, though, I deeply appreciate your willingness to continue to respond. And make no mistake. I read Schopenhauer with greater respect, admiration, and agreement than I do any fairy tale.

Re: More Reasons Barbara Ehrenreich Is Wrong About The Benefits of Optimism

ergon — Mon, 23 May 2011 13:15:27 -0000

"There are certainly species of optimism that dwell on the future to
the detriment of the present, but that's not inherent in the concept
of optimism."If Sisyphus were an optimist, he would believe that there is a good
chance that things will come out relatively right, and so, though he
is struggling in the present, he believes that his efforts are
leading somewhere and that's what keeps him going("idolatry of
tomorrow"), a pessimist sees his situation for what it is (acceptance
of the present) and can go on on purpose as an act of defiance or
freedom, or he can choose to quit.Maybe I'm confusing the issues here. Maybe philosophical pessimism
and optimism are not essentially related to everyday practical
optimism and pessimism. I guess you can be philosophically
pessimistic and still be optimistic about certain day to day things.
What philosophical pessimism seems to share with the everyday
practical variety is an attitude to negative information about
ourselves and the world: a willingness to take it seriously. This is
something which optimism clearly strongly discourages, and I find
that very troubling. This is the main reason, I believe, why we are
destroying our environment."As for "coping" with the world, there is empirical support for the
notion that an optimistic explanatory style leads to greater personal
satisfaction and greater professional accomplishment[...]however more
"accurate" pessimism may be in some sense, it may be preferable to
sacrifice accuracy for effectiveness."I am sure the people who brought on the financial crisis (and many
world leaders past and present) were very "accomplished"
professionally and enjoyed great personal satisfactions and still do
because of their "positive explanatory styles". When I talk about
coping with the world I don't mean (or at least not mainly mean)
"doing well" but about dealing mentally, emotionally, and morally
with all the big and small catastrophes that happen at a personal and
worldwide level every day. Sacrificing accuracy for effectiveness
means, at the very least, an unwillingness to face certain facts just
because they might discourage you from undertaking something. In the
case mentioned above, I think we can all agree that that was not a
good idea. I agree that many times people are unduly discouraged by
negative thoughts, but that's a weakness of character and explaining
things to yourself the "nice" way is not the way to go about it. I
don't advocate taking the "nasty" explanations over the "nice" ones.
I just claim that, usually, the nasty explanations tend to be right
and that one should always aim for accuracy and strength of
character: if you have doubts, listening to them doesn't mean that
you must invariably follow their advice, even if that advice is often
right. The correct use of nice explanations is as a foil to nasty
explanations: Read not to contradict and confute; nor to believe and
take for granted; nor to find talk and discourse; but to weigh and
consider (Bacon). In the end one must act, but it's better to do so
with both eyes open, and I believe optimism has a very dangerous
tendency to wear eyepatches.

Re: More Reasons Barbara Ehrenreich Is Wrong About The Benefits of Optimism

tedbilich — Thu, 19 May 2011 10:06:52 -0000

I see what might be the nub of difference here between the two of us. I do believe that "philosophy," for the thinking person, is definitionally personal. There are certainly species of optimism that dwell on the future to the detriment of the present, but that's not inherent in the concept of optimism. As for "coping" with the world, there is empirical support for the notion that an optimistic explanatory style leads to greater personal satisfaction and greater professional accomplishment. That sounds like relatively better coping to me. Thus, however more "accurate" pessimism may be in some sense, it may be preferable to sacrifice accuracy for effectiveness. We do this all the time with various forms of technology, trading off (for instance) durability and precision, right?

Re: More Reasons Barbara Ehrenreich Is Wrong About The Benefits of Optimism

ergon — Thu, 19 May 2011 08:47:01 -0000

Maybe there's a lot of truth to the idea that everyone's philosophy is a reflection of their individual circumstances. Nevertheless, I feel that pessimism is closer to "reality" and that optimism has, at the very least some of the time, certain, for me, unacceptable traits such as a tendency to avoid unpleasant facts and possibilities. More fundamentally, perhaps there is some truth to the notion that optimism is a sort of "idolatry of tomorrow"(Cioran). As for the practical value of pessimism: as implied above, it allows some people to cope with this world (for others optimism does the trick I suppose); secondly: "the baneful consequences of a doctrine may prove, at best, that the doctrine is baneful, but not that it is false."(Unamuno)

Re: More Reasons Barbara Ehrenreich Is Wrong About The Benefits of Optimism

tedbilich — Wed, 18 May 2011 19:09:51 -0000

Thanks for commenting. This is an interesting perspective. Optimism does not have to be blind, though some optimists inevitably are (as are many pessimists). Do you find pessimism to be of practical value?

Re: More Reasons Barbara Ehrenreich Is Wrong About The Benefits of Optimism

ergon — Wed, 18 May 2011 15:55:46 -0000

"Pessimism sacrificed virgins to appease the gods and prevent a flood. Optimism decided to build dams, levies, and irrigation systems to control floods. Pessimism sat for long periods in the near-dark beside the roaring fire, seeking protection. Optimism harnessed that fire in the first place, then experimented to make torches, candles, and eventually the light bulb."

I think sacrificing virgins to appease the gods and prevent a flood is more the product of blind, unabashed and desperate optimism than of pessimism. In any case, pessimists don't necessarily have to sit cowering by the fire as you suggest (witness Don Quixote's example: if you think he was an optimist read the book Pessimism by Joshua Foa Dienstag), they merely have the insight that no matter what you do, time keeps degrading everything. You mention fire and light bulbs. A pessimist might get down to inventing these or building dams in the same spirit that Don Quixote tilted at windmills, but he wouldn't be surprised, as an optimist would, to learn about global warming or the extinction of fauna because of the dam.

Re: The Great Collaborations

Richard V — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:44:16 -0000

In terms of U.S. history, I would go with George Washington and Alexander Hamilton over Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe.

Washington's leadership, charisma, and heroic stature combined with Hamilton's zealous pursuit of creating a stable and powerful Federal government were the foundational beginnings of our country's assent into a world power.

During the Revolutionary War, Hamilton served as Washington's aide-de-camp and wrote many of General Washington's orders.

After the war, Hamilton and Washington worked to ensure the country did not remain in a "revolutionary state" but transformed it into a stable and economically growing country. Hamilton was a firebrand with many enemies (mostly from his own doing) who would not have been nearly as influential had he and Washington not worked so well together.

Their battles against the Republicans of Jefferson, Madison, et al. make today's politics seem no more volatile than a bunch of four-year olds having a pillow fight.

Just my humble opinion.

Re: The Practical Dividends of Kindness

Yvette Vignando — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 07:40:14 -0000

Yes, "acts of kindness" - the phrase has somehow become a cliche - perhaps because of films or the media. But it absolutely rings true. There is deep satisfaction and meaning in giving your real self to someone else. I have an agnostic approach to life but I do feel personal meaning in finding opportunities for kindness and also generosity. As these acts often rebound I sometimes find myself questioning my motivation - did I do this kind thing for gratitude or for some in-kind repayment? We're complex beings and I don't have the answer. But I think there is something about selfless acts that makes us very human - it could even be a kind of survival skill, because it builds relationships. And to me, relationships and empathy, along with health, are the building blocks of a happy life.

Re: The Great Collaborations

tedbilich — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:04:08 -0000

Type your reply...

Re: The Great Collaborations

Patrick Ross — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 12:10:22 -0000

How about Watson & Crick (the double helix), Cerf & Kahn (fathers of the Internet), Barnum & Bailey (okay, that's a silly one).

I will throw this out there -- you will find far more collaborative successes in science and technology than you will in the arts, because there are more creative rewards for solo work in the latter, and because ego is more invested in art (don't forget, Lennon and McCartney finally couldn't work together anymore).

Oh, and the Jefferson/Madison one is interesting, but I think it succeeded because Madison was very happy to be #2 to Jefferson's #1. In that sense I'd compare it to Bono and the Edge, two creative geniuses, but Edge is happy to let Bono be the lead dog.

Re: My Big News

Jwhite — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 12:03:19 -0000

Ted, what a great opportunity. I am very happy for you. Please be sure I have your new address because I want to keep you on the "book list".

Jim

Re: My Big News

tedbilich — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 06:37:26 -0000

Helena, I'm really looking forward to the opportunity to take stock and relax. When was the last time I had more than two weeks of uncommitted time? Other than a month when my son was born (involving commitment of a different sort), and a few weeks after taking the bar exam, the last I had such a stretch of time was the summer of eighth grade. Otherwise I've had school or a job or both.

Re: My Big News

tedbilich — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 06:29:44 -0000

Raksha, thank you for the kind words and congratulations. And thank you, too, for reading the blog and taking the time to comment. I look forward to hearing from you here and on Facebook. Ted

Re: My Big News

hkalin — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 05:07:14 -0000

Congratulations, Ted, and best wishes! Taking some time off is a great idea; enjoy! :)

Re: My Big News

Raksha Bhandari Krishna — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 19:28:29 -0000

Congratulations on following your passion, Ted! Have been reading your blog for a while now and your love for teaching clearly comes through.

Re: My Big News

Raksha Bhandari Krishna — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 19:27:35 -0000

Congratulations on following your passion Ted! Have been reading your blog for a while now and your love for teaching clearly comes through.