Saturday, January 30, 2010
The pythagorean scale has perfect fifths while the octave is off and the third is further off than standard 12tet.
http://www.pianofundamentals.com/book/en/2.2.3
Experimental. Sometimes emphasizing the perfect fifths. Other times not in any key at all.
I like the keyless stuff. But the transitions and overall flow isn't so great.
To summarize that link:
Meantone Temperament has perfect thirds (the freq ratio between c and e being 5/4 for example.)
12 tone Pythagorean Temperament has perfect fifths (c and g being 3/2)
12 tone Equal Temperament fudges both thirds and fifths and instead has a perfectly smooth step up for each note. It only has a perfect octave.
12 tone Well Temperaments are a variety of alternate compromises between meantone and pythagorean, the primary goal being to have both good thirds and good fifths. Supposedly the best WTs are by Werckmeister and Young. And supposedly Moonlight Sonata sounds better in WT for example. I had already been thinking about doing the midi for moonlight and listening to it with various temperaments. WTs additionally keep it meaningful to have all the different keys as each has it's own 'color'. Which is the same idea as what just intonation would do. Although just intonation may be too extreme.
I do think that I sort of like having the octave off a bit. If I had to choose, I'd choose fifths or thirds over the octave. I guess somewhat like this link I earlier had read was saying:
http://www.nonoctave.com/tunes/
Friday, January 29, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/16/us/a-newer-lonelier-crowd-emerges-in-internet-study.html?pagewanted=1
Email is like a slot machine:
-
Memory:
I multitask and I don't remember very well. The reason why people don't remember as well when they get older is that they're multitasking much more so. The multitasking they're doing is constantly remembering the farther past, thus not focusing on the present so much. It's necessary to do this to some extent. If you didn't, if the past is never remembered, what point was there in living it?
In short, ''the more hours people use the Internet, the less time they spend with real human beings,'' said Norman Nie, a political scientist at Stanford University who was the principal investigator for the study.
Mr. Nie asserted that the Internet was creating a broad new wave of social isolation in the United States, raising the specter of an atomized world without human contact or emotion....
In the past Mr. Nie has been the author of studies on the decline of American involvement in political and community organizations. He said that while much of the public Internet debate had been focused on the invasion of privacy, little study had been done of the potential psychological and emotional impact of what he said would be more people ''home, alone and anonymous.''
Mr. Nie, a co-author of the study with Prof. Lutz Erbring of the Free University of Berlin, contended that there was no evidence that virtual communities would provide a substitute for traditional human relationships....
In August 1998 researchers at Carnegie Mellon University reported that people who spent even a few hours a week connected to the Internet experienced higher levels of depression and loneliness.
In contrast to the Carnegie Mellon study, which focused on psychological and emotional issues, the Stanford survey is an effort to provide a broad demographic picture of Internet use and its potential impact on society.
''No one is asking the obvious questions about what kind of world we are going to live in when the Internet becomes ubiquitous,'' Mr. Nie said.
''No one asked these questions with the advent of the automobile, which led to unplanned suburbanization, or with the rise of television, which led to the decline of our political parties.''
''We hope we can give society a chance to talk through some of these issues before the changes take place,'' he said....
''There are going to be millions of people with very minimal human interaction,'' he said. ''We're really in for some things that are potentially great freedoms but frightening in terms of long-term social interaction.''
...The internet could be the ultimate isolating technology that further reduces our participation in communities even more than did automobiles and television before it."
Email is like a slot machine:
...works on a principle of variable reinforcement schedule, which Tom Stafford, a lecturer in the Department of Psychology at the University of Sheffield, explained has been established as the way to train the strongest habits. "This means that rather than reward an action every time it is performed, you reward it sometimes, but not in a predictable way. So with email, , usually when I check it there is nothing interesting, but every so often there's something wonderful-an invite out, or maybe some juicy gossip-and I get a reward."
..."When we log in to our email server," writes Richard DeGrandpre in Digitopia, "the expectation of finding new mail negates any possible excitement or surprise; if there's no new mail, we're disappointed," So we check it more and more. As the condition progresses, sufferers feel increasingly isolated from society, become argumentative, and fall into depression... Early sufferers, Block says, tended to be highly educated, socially awkward men, but now more and more they are middle-aged women who are either at home alone or wokring."
-
Memory:
A group of twentysomethings were asked to sort a deck of cards-once in silence, a second time while listening to randomly selected sounds in search of specific tones. "The subjects' brains coped with the additional task by shifting responsibility from the hippocampus-which stores and recalls information-to the striatum," Kirn explained, "which takes care of rote, repetitive activities. Thanks to this switch, the subjects managed to sort the cards just as well with the musical distraction-but they had a much harder time remembering what, exactly, they'd been sorting once the experiment was over."
I multitask and I don't remember very well. The reason why people don't remember as well when they get older is that they're multitasking much more so. The multitasking they're doing is constantly remembering the farther past, thus not focusing on the present so much. It's necessary to do this to some extent. If you didn't, if the past is never remembered, what point was there in living it?
Read something that one should 'never criticize anyone in email. Use face to face meetings or phone calls instead.'
Unfortunately it's true. It's not very idealistic to face that it's true. But it usually is true. It's true enough that one will eventually wear out if they don't follow this rule. If I follow this rule though I definitely cannot have any meaningful interaction with anyone that I never do face to face interactions/phone calls with. To attempt to still interact with a person then leaves things in a fake place that I really don't care to be.
I haven't, by the way, followed this rule. But I think I'll go ahead and do so in the future.
Also I hereby refuse to interact online with anyone who won't actually speak to me.
And, I hereby rename all computers: 'sensory deprivation machines.'
Unfortunately it's true. It's not very idealistic to face that it's true. But it usually is true. It's true enough that one will eventually wear out if they don't follow this rule. If I follow this rule though I definitely cannot have any meaningful interaction with anyone that I never do face to face interactions/phone calls with. To attempt to still interact with a person then leaves things in a fake place that I really don't care to be.
I haven't, by the way, followed this rule. But I think I'll go ahead and do so in the future.
Also I hereby refuse to interact online with anyone who won't actually speak to me.
And, I hereby rename all computers: 'sensory deprivation machines.'
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
I 'hate' mankind but like all individuals...
I recognize that this is an incredible dystopia. At the same time surely I see that individuals can be awful too... But the thing is that it's a moral precept to assume good things about individuals (unless the evidence is already very good to the contrary). A huge reason this world is such a dystopia is exactly because people don't make good assumptions. They start out suspicious and so ready to demonize. It's a matter of ethics that one must always assume the best of people. Assume that they're probably trying to be good, trying to get along with others, etc.
Although this definitely can mean getting burned more often than one otherwise would, it is mostly a very good thing. It means actually that I work with roughly 50 or so people and I get along with each one. There's no one at all that I truly dislike, that I truly think badly of. And this attitude it seems has resulted in everyone I work with seeming to like me also.
But I do 'hate' mankind. As a whole this world is awful. We're stuck into such awful social norms.
-
Pity. My 'friend' S hates the idea of being pitied. She's been fired twice in the last few months and is now mostly sitting at home with nothing to do. She also recently got a DUI... Also is seeing a counseler. And she observes to me that when you're unemployed, suddenly no one wants to hang out with you. Which is true and another example of the awfulness of the social norms of western society. But then when I say me and my wife would always be happy to hang out with her, she says, "no, I don't want pity! I was just observing this tendency..."
And I can't push the point because I'm worried that it's become awkward that I'm married. In truth, dammit, she is so attractive to me that I'm not quite thinking 'correctly'. And I don't know. So we hardly see each other. Perhaps because it's 'inappropriate' because I'm married and she's single. I don't know. So maybe it's not really a matter of wanting to not be pitied...
But this idea to hate being pitied. What's the difference between compassion and pity? In what kind of society are so many people worried they might get pitied?
I recognize that this is an incredible dystopia. At the same time surely I see that individuals can be awful too... But the thing is that it's a moral precept to assume good things about individuals (unless the evidence is already very good to the contrary). A huge reason this world is such a dystopia is exactly because people don't make good assumptions. They start out suspicious and so ready to demonize. It's a matter of ethics that one must always assume the best of people. Assume that they're probably trying to be good, trying to get along with others, etc.
Although this definitely can mean getting burned more often than one otherwise would, it is mostly a very good thing. It means actually that I work with roughly 50 or so people and I get along with each one. There's no one at all that I truly dislike, that I truly think badly of. And this attitude it seems has resulted in everyone I work with seeming to like me also.
But I do 'hate' mankind. As a whole this world is awful. We're stuck into such awful social norms.
-
Pity. My 'friend' S hates the idea of being pitied. She's been fired twice in the last few months and is now mostly sitting at home with nothing to do. She also recently got a DUI... Also is seeing a counseler. And she observes to me that when you're unemployed, suddenly no one wants to hang out with you. Which is true and another example of the awfulness of the social norms of western society. But then when I say me and my wife would always be happy to hang out with her, she says, "no, I don't want pity! I was just observing this tendency..."
And I can't push the point because I'm worried that it's become awkward that I'm married. In truth, dammit, she is so attractive to me that I'm not quite thinking 'correctly'. And I don't know. So we hardly see each other. Perhaps because it's 'inappropriate' because I'm married and she's single. I don't know. So maybe it's not really a matter of wanting to not be pitied...
But this idea to hate being pitied. What's the difference between compassion and pity? In what kind of society are so many people worried they might get pitied?
Monday, January 25, 2010
"According to a survey in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, we misunderstand the tone of emails 50% of the time--and for good reason: there is no face on the other end to stop us in midsentence, to indicate that what we are in the process of saying is rude, not comprehended, or cruel.... Psychologists call it disinhibition, and its pervasive effect--as can be witnessed every day in nasty comments appended to newspaper articles online, in the aggrieved tone and intent of some blog postings, in email inboxes scorched by flame wars--has turned many parts of the internet into a nasty place."
"According to Marco Iacoboni, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at UCLA, this has bolstered the notion that "our mental processes are shaped by our bodies and by the types of perceptual and motor experiences that are the product of our movement through and interaction with the surrounding world." Consider then, the ramifications of an era of communication in which we are disembodied as never before...."
"A 2006 Cisco research paper concluded that failing to respond to a (email) sender can lead to a swift breakdown in trust. Lose an email forever, and you are sitting on an unexploded land mine."
"Email is addictive, it has been shown, in the same way that slot machines are addictive. You press the send/receive button just as a gambler pulls down a slot machine lever, because you know that you will receive a reward some of the time."
"Thirty years ago, in The Society of the Spectacle, the French philosopher Guy Debord predicted we would be spending more time apart. 'The reigning economic system is founded on isolation,' he wrote. 'At the same time it is a circular process designed to produce isolation. Isolation underpins technology, and technology isolates in its turn; all goods proposed by the spectacular system, from cars to televisions, also serve as weapons for that system, as it strives to reinforce the isolation of "lonely crowd.'" To this list of machines we can now also add the internet and email.
Ironically, tools meant to connect us are enabling us to spend even more time apart."
" By depriving ourselves of facial expressions and the tangible frisson of physical contact, we are facing a terrible loss of meaning in individual life. The difference between a smiley face and an actual smile is too large to calculate. Nothing-especially-'lol'-can quite convey the sound of a friend's laughter."
The Tyranny of Email-John Freeman
--
Better sounding 19tet than I did with my awful 'Homegrown Piano.' Maybe I'll have to purchase something from h pi. Not a lot else out there really...
Of tet versus just intonation, for 12 tone each key will have different sound in just intonation, not just if it's major or minor. Except for a few trifles each key is exactly the same in 12tet. That's a positive for 12JI.
Then there's this fellow:
http://music.case.edu/duffin/Norton/Letter.html
Unfortunately the damm song files aren't working. I guess I could figure it out on my own further...
But I must say for very large scales there is something nice about a relatively even step up. In Partch's pure tone 43 I don't like the jumps.
Another issue 43 notes means only two octaves for an 88 key keyboard. Needs to be a bit less. I think 31 will still be too much. May have to stay at 19. But will experiment further up into the 20's. Or should I be limited by the keyboard I happen to own anyway? I hate to be a dabbler (into too many things) but I see myself trying to build a microtonal instrument eventually.
But for now I want a conventional virtual orchestra, yet microtonal. Something that can just be played on a keyboard.
It sort of matters to put down this half thought out stuff. Otherwise I forget. I forget whole projects not to mention possible directions. Granted this is somewhat ignorant musing.
-
Read Perfume by Suskind. Good but will leave no trace at all on me.
The Handmaid's Tale by Atwood. Excellent. Like 1984 but darker. I guess a little too dark. 1984 has the hope of a love affair smacked in the middle. Handmaid just has a small one near the end. But it brings up the question again of how women are treated especially in the ME. Though many of the women claim they want to be treated that way and will scream religious intolerance if anyone says there's something wrong with the inequality there, still it ought to ultimately be handled like slavery was. It should not be tolerated. No matter the panglossianism.
Kushiel's Dart, the first 100 pages were pure fluff and I gave it up.
These three mentioned by Robin Hobb, possibly to just hopefully get me to go away for a while. In response to the concept of 'preachy' books. She ignored my mentioning 1984, CS Lewis and Ayn Rand and instead responded with these three. As books that bothered her. Awfully fluffy reply it was. But then it's an awful medium to interact by so who cares? How she can stand being so open and out there and yet exposed to endless anonymous hidden people is completely beyond me.
I recall Chomsky promptly used to answer emails. What did I feel when finding this out? Sad that he wasn't sufficiently famous. That his email address was right on the internet and he could so quickly respond to people. And then I felt him to be such an angel. The guy must get incredible hate mail. And yet there he sits dutifully opening up new anonymous email messages. What an incredible saint.
In other news Lamarckian evolution might be right after all.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1951968,00.html
"According to Marco Iacoboni, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at UCLA, this has bolstered the notion that "our mental processes are shaped by our bodies and by the types of perceptual and motor experiences that are the product of our movement through and interaction with the surrounding world." Consider then, the ramifications of an era of communication in which we are disembodied as never before...."
"A 2006 Cisco research paper concluded that failing to respond to a (email) sender can lead to a swift breakdown in trust. Lose an email forever, and you are sitting on an unexploded land mine."
"Email is addictive, it has been shown, in the same way that slot machines are addictive. You press the send/receive button just as a gambler pulls down a slot machine lever, because you know that you will receive a reward some of the time."
"Thirty years ago, in The Society of the Spectacle, the French philosopher Guy Debord predicted we would be spending more time apart. 'The reigning economic system is founded on isolation,' he wrote. 'At the same time it is a circular process designed to produce isolation. Isolation underpins technology, and technology isolates in its turn; all goods proposed by the spectacular system, from cars to televisions, also serve as weapons for that system, as it strives to reinforce the isolation of "lonely crowd.'" To this list of machines we can now also add the internet and email.
Ironically, tools meant to connect us are enabling us to spend even more time apart."
" By depriving ourselves of facial expressions and the tangible frisson of physical contact, we are facing a terrible loss of meaning in individual life. The difference between a smiley face and an actual smile is too large to calculate. Nothing-especially-'lol'-can quite convey the sound of a friend's laughter."
The Tyranny of Email-John Freeman
--
Better sounding 19tet than I did with my awful 'Homegrown Piano.' Maybe I'll have to purchase something from h pi. Not a lot else out there really...
Of tet versus just intonation, for 12 tone each key will have different sound in just intonation, not just if it's major or minor. Except for a few trifles each key is exactly the same in 12tet. That's a positive for 12JI.
Then there's this fellow:
http://music.case.edu/duffin/Norton/Letter.html
Unfortunately the damm song files aren't working. I guess I could figure it out on my own further...
But I must say for very large scales there is something nice about a relatively even step up. In Partch's pure tone 43 I don't like the jumps.
Another issue 43 notes means only two octaves for an 88 key keyboard. Needs to be a bit less. I think 31 will still be too much. May have to stay at 19. But will experiment further up into the 20's. Or should I be limited by the keyboard I happen to own anyway? I hate to be a dabbler (into too many things) but I see myself trying to build a microtonal instrument eventually.
But for now I want a conventional virtual orchestra, yet microtonal. Something that can just be played on a keyboard.
It sort of matters to put down this half thought out stuff. Otherwise I forget. I forget whole projects not to mention possible directions. Granted this is somewhat ignorant musing.
-
Read Perfume by Suskind. Good but will leave no trace at all on me.
The Handmaid's Tale by Atwood. Excellent. Like 1984 but darker. I guess a little too dark. 1984 has the hope of a love affair smacked in the middle. Handmaid just has a small one near the end. But it brings up the question again of how women are treated especially in the ME. Though many of the women claim they want to be treated that way and will scream religious intolerance if anyone says there's something wrong with the inequality there, still it ought to ultimately be handled like slavery was. It should not be tolerated. No matter the panglossianism.
Kushiel's Dart, the first 100 pages were pure fluff and I gave it up.
These three mentioned by Robin Hobb, possibly to just hopefully get me to go away for a while. In response to the concept of 'preachy' books. She ignored my mentioning 1984, CS Lewis and Ayn Rand and instead responded with these three. As books that bothered her. Awfully fluffy reply it was. But then it's an awful medium to interact by so who cares? How she can stand being so open and out there and yet exposed to endless anonymous hidden people is completely beyond me.
I recall Chomsky promptly used to answer emails. What did I feel when finding this out? Sad that he wasn't sufficiently famous. That his email address was right on the internet and he could so quickly respond to people. And then I felt him to be such an angel. The guy must get incredible hate mail. And yet there he sits dutifully opening up new anonymous email messages. What an incredible saint.
In other news Lamarckian evolution might be right after all.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1951968,00.html
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Originally I was delighted by the internet because it was a chance for people to be honest. Normally in face to face interactions so much is held back. But on the internet, while perhaps speaking anonymously, there was a chance to finally get to The Truth. Not to mention bringing minorities or 'iconoclasts' together from across the globe.
Unfortunately it turns out that 'The Truth' mostly consists of hate and for additional reasons not too many 'iconoclasts' have been brought together. And furthermore I've finally come to feel like interacting with people online is like having paint chips for dinner. That it's not nourishing. It's not healthy. It's the desperate act of someone who feels like they're just not getting enough face to face interactions... And I feel like every interaction that occurs online is not 'real'. That I can interact online with people for decades and still they don't 'know' me. I still wouldn't 'know' them. And that thus, ultimately all online interaction, beyond exchanging technical information, is utterly meaningless. A waste of time.
That furthermore in the act of trying to formulate a reply to someone, through revising, etc, determining what one wants to say and never actually saying it outloud, one can start forgetting what one even actually said. And with thinking of it all ultimately as paint chips for dinner one cares less to even try to remember so that eventually one has no idea what they've previously said. So everything is quickly forgotten. And knowing you're just going to quickly forget a thing truly makes it meaningless. So it becomes meaningless twice over.
At the same time, taking more time to think out what you want to say, (while to an extent clearly a good thing) ends up going way too far. One gets into an antagonistic exchange and instead of it usually passing relatively quick in a face to face interaction, one spends days, weeks, slowly formulating replies in their head and imagining the negative responses. One wastes days stuck in ugliness that's all just in their own head. Which is awful and after a few years one has had about as much as they can stand of it.
But going back to not really being 'known' in online interactions, wait a second, there are people I've interacted with face to face off and on for decades who haven't got a clue who I am. So perhaps each type of interaction has it's flaws and good points and online interaction is useful and not necessarily any worse than face to face?
No. There is important information that one can only get from a face to face interaction. It's just that most people are too stupid to get it. Bluntly put, a stupid person can't interact with a smart person and really understand or 'know them' very well.
And of the internet, it hasn't brought 'iconoclasts' together so very much. Why?
Because the ones who are really interesting, who in face to face interactions have to censor themselves, who then come to the internet to supplement their crappy face to face interactions won't then ever have a face to face interaction with whoever they're being more honest with. Because it would be scary to be 'real' with someone they haven't been properly censoring themselves with.
To be honest face to face is dangerous. Very dangerous. And so this honesty they've exchanged anonymously with someone who lives far, far away and has nothing to do with their 'real' life, they can't make it become 'real'. It has to stay unreal. It has to stay meaningless. Because they can't be honest face to face. And they have been honest with this person. Thus there can never be any face to face.
The above two paragraphs are somewhat overstated but I think do play a role on top of the normal fear everyone has. And perhaps people who are just more introverted to begin with go to the internet more in the first place, thus one is more likely to be interacting online with a shy person.
And so not so many people really have been 'brought together' from around the globe.
Occasionally sitting down and thinking out your thoughts while alone and putting them in writing is a really good thing. I'm glad I have this blog... (At least until the fascist takeover utilizes the compiled lists...) Also having a technology by which people from around the world can become aware of each other is a good thing. But very quickly it does go from a good thing to just paint chips for dinner.
Most technology can be put to good or bad uses. Television for example doesn't have to be such a bad thing. But it is. It's one of the worst things to happen to humankind. So then also, the internet doesn't have to be a bad thing. But it mostly is.
Unfortunately it turns out that 'The Truth' mostly consists of hate and for additional reasons not too many 'iconoclasts' have been brought together. And furthermore I've finally come to feel like interacting with people online is like having paint chips for dinner. That it's not nourishing. It's not healthy. It's the desperate act of someone who feels like they're just not getting enough face to face interactions... And I feel like every interaction that occurs online is not 'real'. That I can interact online with people for decades and still they don't 'know' me. I still wouldn't 'know' them. And that thus, ultimately all online interaction, beyond exchanging technical information, is utterly meaningless. A waste of time.
That furthermore in the act of trying to formulate a reply to someone, through revising, etc, determining what one wants to say and never actually saying it outloud, one can start forgetting what one even actually said. And with thinking of it all ultimately as paint chips for dinner one cares less to even try to remember so that eventually one has no idea what they've previously said. So everything is quickly forgotten. And knowing you're just going to quickly forget a thing truly makes it meaningless. So it becomes meaningless twice over.
At the same time, taking more time to think out what you want to say, (while to an extent clearly a good thing) ends up going way too far. One gets into an antagonistic exchange and instead of it usually passing relatively quick in a face to face interaction, one spends days, weeks, slowly formulating replies in their head and imagining the negative responses. One wastes days stuck in ugliness that's all just in their own head. Which is awful and after a few years one has had about as much as they can stand of it.
But going back to not really being 'known' in online interactions, wait a second, there are people I've interacted with face to face off and on for decades who haven't got a clue who I am. So perhaps each type of interaction has it's flaws and good points and online interaction is useful and not necessarily any worse than face to face?
No. There is important information that one can only get from a face to face interaction. It's just that most people are too stupid to get it. Bluntly put, a stupid person can't interact with a smart person and really understand or 'know them' very well.
And of the internet, it hasn't brought 'iconoclasts' together so very much. Why?
Because the ones who are really interesting, who in face to face interactions have to censor themselves, who then come to the internet to supplement their crappy face to face interactions won't then ever have a face to face interaction with whoever they're being more honest with. Because it would be scary to be 'real' with someone they haven't been properly censoring themselves with.
To be honest face to face is dangerous. Very dangerous. And so this honesty they've exchanged anonymously with someone who lives far, far away and has nothing to do with their 'real' life, they can't make it become 'real'. It has to stay unreal. It has to stay meaningless. Because they can't be honest face to face. And they have been honest with this person. Thus there can never be any face to face.
The above two paragraphs are somewhat overstated but I think do play a role on top of the normal fear everyone has. And perhaps people who are just more introverted to begin with go to the internet more in the first place, thus one is more likely to be interacting online with a shy person.
And so not so many people really have been 'brought together' from around the globe.
Occasionally sitting down and thinking out your thoughts while alone and putting them in writing is a really good thing. I'm glad I have this blog... (At least until the fascist takeover utilizes the compiled lists...) Also having a technology by which people from around the world can become aware of each other is a good thing. But very quickly it does go from a good thing to just paint chips for dinner.
Most technology can be put to good or bad uses. Television for example doesn't have to be such a bad thing. But it is. It's one of the worst things to happen to humankind. So then also, the internet doesn't have to be a bad thing. But it mostly is.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Morality and Myopia
...to the extent we can distract ourselves with little trifles, materialistic possesions and so on. To the extent one can be happy by constantly distracting themselves in such ways, that person can see more reason to be more totally selfish.
To the extent one loses their myopia and sees the bigger picture and sees how relatively meaningless yet another restaurant, another car, another outfit, etc, etc is, one has to turn elsewhere for meaning. And often here, is where people decide to be relatively altruistic instead. For whatever reason, many reasons perhaps.
To lose one's myopia often leads to being less selfish.
Just don't completely lose your myopia. As eventually all meaning is lost.
To the extent one loses their myopia and sees the bigger picture and sees how relatively meaningless yet another restaurant, another car, another outfit, etc, etc is, one has to turn elsewhere for meaning. And often here, is where people decide to be relatively altruistic instead. For whatever reason, many reasons perhaps.
To lose one's myopia often leads to being less selfish.
Just don't completely lose your myopia. As eventually all meaning is lost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
