Much:
- This
- Us
- Here
- Now
Not so much:
- That
- Them
- There
- Then
Thus.
You are here: dive into mark → Archives → June 2003 → Matters
I am no longer accepting public comments on this post, but you can use this form to contact me privately. (Your message will not be published.)
| Recent Stuff | For You, Special Price | Stay Here |
|---|---|---|
|
|
||
| Good Stuff | Buy The Cow | Go Away |
|
|
||
| Powered by Google | Drink The Milk | Don't Steal |
| posts / comments | © 2001-8 Mark Pilgrim |
That’s a pretty good breakdown.
Comment by Patricia — Tuesday, June 3, 2003 @ 4:59 pm
That is literature’s answer to pseudocode and data modeling.
Comment by Jesper — Tuesday, June 3, 2003 @ 5:19 pm
And there was much rejoicing
Comment by sparticus — Tuesday, June 3, 2003 @ 6:10 pm
The questions:
1. What
2. Who
3. Where
4. When
Missing:
Why
Comment by Stephen Downes — Tuesday, June 3, 2003 @ 6:52 pm
Perhaps most interesting about this breakdown is that, while true, it’s extremely selfish and exclusionary… What matters most to us are those fitting into our current idea of “us”, right here and right now. To often we disregard “them” as not being worth considering. To often we fail to see the value in “then”. Or we don’t pay enough attention to what’s going on over “there”.
What matters Most?
1. This AND That
2. Us AND Them
3. Here AND There
4. Now AND Then
Comment by James Snell — Tuesday, June 3, 2003 @ 6:57 pm
“Here and now boys!”
– anyone read Huxley’s Island??
Comment by Andy — Tuesday, June 3, 2003 @ 10:26 pm
“Why” is a story for another day.
Comment by Mark — Wednesday, June 4, 2003 @ 1:08 am
James: no, no, no, and no. Too much out there, not enough in here. Too much them, not enough us. And by “us”, I mean us, the ones in here, not you or y’all out there. Time to refocus, find a new balance. Cultivate our own garden.
I live in mortal fear that I will wake up one day and find that I have made any sense at all the night before.
No matter. “You have to remember to make it all over again every day, the angel said to me. Otherwise it goes all to hell.” (Brian Andreas)
Comment by Mark — Wednesday, June 4, 2003 @ 1:23 am
[clears throat] Is this just another way of saying, ‘be here now’?
Comment by Gummi — Wednesday, June 4, 2003 @ 5:42 am
no matter where you go, /there/ you are. there is no /here/ here.
Comment by steven — Wednesday, June 4, 2003 @ 9:44 am
” ‘Why’ is a story for another day. ”
Why? That’s one of the “six honest serving-men”:
“I keep six honest serving-men
(They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who.”
But wait till your wife presents you with a “person small”:
These little folk keep
“… ten million serving-men,
Who get no rest at all!”
http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_serving.htm
Comment by Michael — Wednesday, June 4, 2003 @ 11:39 am
There is nothing left to concern yourself with “them” over “there” when you’ve neglected “us” in the “here” and “now”.
Comment by Muraii — Wednesday, June 4, 2003 @ 12:34 pm
While wandering, only slightly lost, through downtown Reykjavik, we found set in the sidewalk a small brass circle that claimed to be the center of the city, annotated “Hither and thither and yon” in Icelandic and English. A bit of serendipity that struck us, giddy with reuniting after a week traveling apart, as a highlight of the trip.
This anecdote of little relevance is brought to you by the letters aicht and eth, and by the number two.
—L.
Comment by lnh — Wednesday, June 4, 2003 @ 1:03 pm
That poem by Kipling is outstanding! It’s so not fair to Mark to put a Kipling poem in a post where his entry/poem was like 10 words. I almost felt like he was imitating Mike Myers as Linda Richman…
“There’s your topic, discuss!”
And look… here we all are… discussing!
(Although I understand what you meant Mark. Cool analogies.)
Comment by Jai — Wednesday, June 4, 2003 @ 1:32 pm
Does this mean I shouldn’t dwell on the past?
Comment by Douglas — Wednesday, June 4, 2003 @ 2:31 pm
Excellent poem!
This so well surmises what Steven Pinker refers to as concentric concern. It is human nature to care most for those closest to us and less and less for those further and further from us.
James may be right in calling this “extremely selfish,” but that’s not a bad thing. Human nature is selfish. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t have made it this far. On the other hand, he’s way off labeling it “exclusionary.” Rather than exclusive, this is inclusive. It simply defines the limits of the inclusion. To deny those limits is a lie.
The human mind cannot honestly feel compassion for all things at all times. It’s simply beyond our faculties. The limited resources have to be used as efficiently as possible - spread where we interpret them to be most valuable.
Comment by Chuck — Wednesday, June 4, 2003 @ 4:08 pm
Regarding selfishness:
I prefer the term ‘enlightened self-interest’.
Comment by Michael Bernstein — Wednesday, June 4, 2003 @ 6:47 pm
Very often, enlightened self-interest takes a form that appears selfless to the unenlightened.
Comment by Jeremy Dunck — Thursday, June 5, 2003 @ 10:17 am
“Why?”
Because.
–Anonymous Hedonist
Comment by Adrian — Friday, June 6, 2003 @ 5:56 pm