Why does pool attract so many broken, crazy, Degenerate, mental type people.

chefjeff said:
For the record, I wrote my paper on Satisfaction before I ever read Rand.

Jeff Livingston
Click to expand...

Good for you. Might I suggest a further study into the topic. Without boring everyone with minutiae and a tedious examination of the history of western philosophy. I'll simply suggest you look into the theories of happiness (or satisfaction if you prefer) promoted by earlier philosophers such as Blaise Paschal or even Augustine of Hippo. They promoted a view of personal happiness and satisfaction as chief motivational factors without degenerating into pure selfishness. Of course they based it on a transcendent higher good (ie deity) that you may not be willing to accept. Either way its a far cry from Rand's foolishness which really reduces to shear Nihilism if followed to its logical conclusion. I'll give you the last word, I'm tired of this sh!t anyway. It was laborious at Princeton and its even more so now.
 
Slim Limpy said:
I just want to point out that both Ekojasiloop and Chefjeff appear to be living, at least academically, in the dark ages concerning their understanding of modern science and philosophy's investigations into the theories of altruism. Modern theories of altruism, at least from a genetic standpoint, in general don't focus on the individual, but rather on maintaining the group, it's culture, and it's identity. I don't know where this Ayn Rand (and her followers who formalized her philosophical ideas) came from, but she is almost universally rejected by academic philosophical research into altruism, and with good reason. She's fine for Paul Ryan and politicians who need to justify a political agenda, but she has no standing in modern research regarding human nature.

Anyway, here's a teaser:

There's a pack of dogs which encounter another larger, clearly more dominant pack of dogs in the wild. Dogs are instinctively pack animals. The fight begins. Half the smaller pack has now been taken out by the larger pack and the odds of the smaller pack winning out appears to be getting slimmer and slimmer. One of the animals in the smaller pack breaks loose from the fray and has a chance to escape with its life. It returns to the fight only to be killed with the rest of his pack.

There's a troop of humans which encounter another troop of humans from an opposing army. One of the opposing armies is clearly dominant in terms of both manpower and firepower. A grenade is tossed into the confines of one troops positions (doesn't matter which troop, either the dominant or sub-dominant). A soldier sees this and automatically, without real thought or the slightest bit of hesitation, smothers the grenade, maybe losing, or maybe not losing, his or her life in the process.

What in the heck would motivate either the dog or human to engage in such behavior?


Here is a link to the Radiolab show on NPR which attempts to answer just this question from a modern scientific perspective (and no reading required, just listening!):

http://www.radiolab.org/story/103951-the-good-show/

From this page you can link to all kinds of other shows (summaries given below) which also attempt to tackle these issues.

Now, obviously, I haven't personally listened to all the shows listed, but I love Science Friday and To the Best of Our Knowledge shows also. Generally, the most learned people in their fields are guests on these shows.


Normally, these are hour long shows (Podcasts, in this case):



The Good Show

In this episode:

A question that haunted Charles Darwin: if natural selection boils down to survival of the fittest, how do you explain why one creature might stick its neck out for another?
The standard view of evolution is that living things are shaped by cold-hearted competition. And there is no doubt that today's plants and animals carry the genetic legacy of ancestors who fought fiercely to survive and reproduce. But in this hour, we wonder whether there might also be a logic behind sharing, niceness, kindness ... or even, self-sacrifice. Is altruism an aberration, or just an elaborate guise for sneaky self-interest? Do we really live in a selfish, dog-eat-dog world? Or has evolution carved out a hidden code that rewards genuine cooperation?

GUESTS:
Robert Axelrod, Richard Dawkins, Oren Harman, Walter F. Rutkowski, Steve Strogatz,Stanley Weintraub, Carl Zimmer and Andrew Zolli

An Equation for Good

In this show:

Why does selflessness exist?


I Need a Hero

In this show:

Is there such a thing as a purely selfless deed--one with no hidden motives whatsoever? Walter F. Rutkowski from the Carnegie Hero Fund spends his days measuring good deeds by some very stringent criteria--such as risking your life "to an extraordinary degree while saving or attempting to save ...

One Good Deed Deserves Another

In this show:

In the early 60s, Robert Axelrod was a math major messing around with refrigerator-sized computers. Then a dramatic global crisis made him wonder about the space between a rock and a hard place, and whether being good may be a good strategy.


Edit: It just occured to me that I didn't relate this topic to pool in general. Well, Chefjeff or Ekojasiloop, since I am such a giving, self-sacrificing person, as well as the fine upstanding bastard that I appear to be, I always play down to my opponents skill levels, so both of you do in fact stand a chance against me in a pool race to 9.
Click to expand...

Of course Ayn Rand isn't accepted since her point of view is that of the person and not of the group, like research does as you pointed out. The move Fountainhead does a good job of making this point.

So really then, modern research is useless when it comes to altruism on the individual level. In other words, since this discussion is about the person and not a group, this research is useless.

Now, if this discussion was about the group, the whole, then yes the research would be of value.

Why does someone throw themselves on a grenade?

Well.......because they were stupid?

Because they didn't know any better?

Because it was Gods will?

Because that was how the person was to die? Fate......he had no choice then?

See, yall want the think that such a act has some noble meaning when it fact it just may not.

What if those saved by this act were not worth saving.....ie giving your life to save Hilter.......?

If there is no I, there is no self.

Heres the answer to Darwins question..........giving your life to another has nothing to do with survival of the fittest.

Think about it........
 
Last edited:
Neil said:
What you and a few others are doing is breaking us down to basic animal instincts. By doing so, you omit what makes us different than animals. And, one of those things is love. Love is what enables one to do for others with no self satisfaction.
Click to expand...

I never dissed love.

It fits just fine in conscious living.

Where are you guys getting this crap??


Jeff Livingston
 
Slim Limpy said:
I just want to point out that both Ekojasiloop and Chefjeff appear to be living, at least academically, in the dark ages concerning their understanding of modern science and philosophy's investigations into the theories of altruism. (snip).
Click to expand...

You're telling us that for a reason.


Jeff Livingston
 
jay helfert said:
I highly recommend "Random Acts of Kindness" available at bookstores and online. You'll learn more from that then from some of the elaborate but misconceived spewings on this thread. I do like Slim Limpy's post above.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone want to learn?


Jeff Livingston
 
ExilePreacher said:
Good for you. Might I suggest a further study into the topic. Without boring everyone with minutiae and a tedious examination of the history of western philosophy. I'll simply suggest you look into the theories of happiness (or satisfaction if you prefer) promoted by earlier philosophers such as Blaise Paschal or even Augustine of Hippo. They promoted a view of personal happiness and satisfaction as chief motivational factors without degenerating into pure selfishness. Of course they based it on a transcendent higher good (ie deity) that you may not be willing to accept. Either way its a far cry from Rand's foolishness which really reduces to shear Nihilism if followed to its logical conclusion. I'll give you the last word, I'm tired of this sh!t anyway. It was laborious at Princeton and its even more so now.
Click to expand...

What is "pure selfishness?"

Thanks in advance,

Jeff Livingston
 
I've asked this for years and have never had an answer:

Name just ONE thing any conscious being has ever done that did not attempt to satisfy the self who did it.


Jeff Livingston
 
Kim Bye said:
I`m not sure that is true. The timlessness of chess seems to draw alot of people in.
Here in Norway Magnus Karlsen has a huge following, not sure of his world ranking status, but it`s top 10. His matches are shown on tv...
Of course I never meant to say that pool is only played by grumpy old men, but it`s quite alot of them and they are usually very loud and vocal about their game, other players game, equipment etc. My impression is that those types tend to drive others away.
The threshold for enetering a pool hall should be non existent and new players or people interested should be greeted in a friendly manner, and not seen as a new cash cow to be taken advantage of.
Click to expand...

Magnus is the best player in the world.
Yes, there are lots of curmudgeons in the pool room in the daytime, but they aren't the ones that run off new people.
 
chefjeff said:
I've asked this for years and have never had an answer:

Name just ONE thing any conscious being has ever done that did not attempt to satisfy the self who did it.


Jeff Livingston
Click to expand...

Pulling my mother in laws weeds.

I get no satisfaction from doing it, but do it cause it needs to be done......it's a zen thing.

See, with no I.......there is no self to satisfy.
 
This is probably the most philosophical thread ever on azbilliards


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums
 
chefjeff said:
I never dissed love.

It fits just fine in conscious living.

Where are you guys getting this crap??


Jeff Livingston
Click to expand...

Aah, but you did diss love, Jeff. You did when you stated that no one does anything for anyone without doing it first for their own satisfaction. True love does not seek it's own. That means that others needs are more important than their own. It is what enables one to do for others with no thought whatsoever of what they will get out of it, or how much it will cost them.
 
chefjeff said:
Why would anyone want to learn?


Jeff Livingston
Click to expand...

That speaks volumes. That may be the most ignorant post I've ever seen on AZ! Maybe you shouldn't have gone to school when you were a kid and seen how that worked out for you. If no one wanted to learn we'd still be living in caves.
 
Last edited:
Neil said:
Aah, but you did diss love, Jeff. You did when you stated that no one does anything for anyone without doing it first for their own satisfaction. True love does not seek it's own. That means that others needs are more important than their own. It is what enables one to do for others with no thought whatsoever of what they will get out of it, or how much it will cost them.
Click to expand...

You sound like the masta in the tv show Kung Fu!
All you left out was grasshoppa.
 
Neil said:
Aah, but you did diss love, Jeff. You did when you stated that no one does anything for anyone without doing it first for their own satisfaction. True love does not seek it's own. That means that others needs are more important than their own. It is what enables one to do for others with no thought whatsoever of what they will get out of it, or how much it will cost them.
Click to expand...

He never mentioned first.....that came from you.

And this statement makes no sense.

Trues love does not seek its own.......own what?

There are times others needs are more important than yours or mine....and love has nothing to do with it.

It's just what is needed at the time.

Like when I was in first in the Navy assigned to Compartment Cleaning at the barracks. Ever seen the bathroom in a Navy Barrarcks after a payday Friday night?

Shit everywhere, piss everywhere, tp everywhere.....for me to clean up.

But the need for a clean bathroom was more important the my need to just walk away......so I cleaned the bathroom.......and love had nothing to do with it........fear of punishment if I didn't sure helped.

I got nothing out of it and for sure others could care less.
 
Neil said:
Aah, but you did diss love, Jeff. You did when you stated that no one does anything for anyone without doing it first for their own satisfaction. True love does not seek it's own. That means that others needs are more important than their own. It is what enables one to do for others with no thought whatsoever of what they will get out of it, or how much it will cost them.
Click to expand...

Yep, some decide to help others and some do not....for various reasons.


Jeff Livingston
 
duckie said:
Pulling my mother in laws weeds.

I get no satisfaction from doing it, but do it cause it needs to be done......it's a zen thing.

See, with no I.......there is no self to satisfy.
Click to expand...

Yep, with not I, no self to satisfy.

But the I exist when one becomes conscious and there is no going back. Becoming conscious is a quantum leap that cannot be undone with drugs, prayers, songs, sex, music, or whatever. Each of us is stuck with our self.

Some will satisfy themselves with acts that help others and feel happy and loving by doing so.




Jeff Livingston
 
Neil said:
Aah, but you did diss love, Jeff. You did when you stated that no one does anything for anyone without doing it first for their own satisfaction. True love does not seek it's own. That means that others needs are more important than their own. It is what enables one to do for others with no thought whatsoever of what they will get out of it, or how much it will cost them.
Click to expand...

I love you and well as myself.

There is no reason both loves cannot exist together. In fact, I'd say they both must exist together for either to exist. How does one love others if he can't love himself?


Jeff Livingston
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top