Damian Niolet

RSS

Posts tagged with "Philosophy"

Thought Provoking Stuff

Life is painful.  We learn from a very early age, before we are ever aware of ourselves, to avoid pain and seek comfort.  Thus, it could be said that life is a spectrum of sensations, an axis on which we attempt to find a comfortable spot between fearfulness and fearlessness of those sensations.  We come to a point in our lives when we begin to perceive, specifically ourselves, most especially by perceiving that we are not everything else around us.  We affirm the separation between ourselves and all else through perception, thus creating another axis on which we try to find a comfortable place between selfishness and selflessness.  Our actions, therefore, reside in regions made up of a mixture of fearfulness or fearlessness and/or selfishness or selflessness.  More often than not, avoiding pain and/or suffering and remaining separate from all else, thus surviving, remains the utmost concern.

Morality is the final result of classifying into areas of right/good or wrong/evil what one or many should or should not do in order to avoid pain and/or suffering for themselves alone and remain separate from all else, thus to survive.  Does this then entail the occupancy in neither area - an absolute zero point - by anyone who is undaunted by the incurrence of, but does not actively pursue, pain and/or suffering, even at risk of death and is comfortable identifying themselves as a collective?  Certainly.  Does this also then entail the transcendence past moral standards - beyond good and evil - by anyone who actively pursues pain and/or suffering, even at the risk of death, and makes no claims of selfhood by denying any distinctiveness apart from everything else in order to ensure all others avoid pain and/or suffering and further solidify their identities as exclusive to themselves, thus to survive?  Definitively, yes!

In conclusion, morality is the choosing on an individual level, and because we all make a choice in the same manner, a societal level, whether to live a life constantly acting on fearfulness and/or selfishness or fearlessness and/or selflessness.  If you choose to act on fearfulness AND selfishness, you are acting immorally.  If you choose to act on fearlessness AND selflessness, you are acting morally.  However, because the axes create four quadrants in which to live out our actions, there do exist those shades of grey.  All of this indicates that morality is simultaneously objective and subjective - we are all confined within the boundaries of the axes, but we all chose to dwell in the realm most conducive to our survival - making morality perfectly definable.

So the question is not, “What is morality?”  The question or questions then become, “What does survival really involve?  How do we know when we have achieved it?”  More important, “Why must we survive in the first place?”

Eat your heart out Nietzsche.

A Critical Review of Michael Gerber's E-Myth Mastery

After reading the first eight pages of Michael Gerber’s “E-Myth Mastery,” I was uncertain whether I would be able to fulfill the reading requirement set by the professors of my very first grad school class in an Entrepreneurship Program at Western Carolina University. So I decided to combine the reading requirement with the writing assignment. I knew that doing such was the only way I was ever going to read Gerber’s book with any sort of critical thinking involved. Turns out there was a great deal worth of material to think critically about, and not in a good way. Read on to learn more.

Picking the choice bits from the various religions and philosophies of the world is like having a bowl of alphabet soup with one letter from every language on earth. You don’t really have an alphabet, but it is still edible and edifying.

- Damian Niolet

You can pick your nose, you can pick your friends, you can pick your God, but you can’t pick God’s nose.

- Damian Niolet

NEW THEORIES ON HUMAN NEEDS AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR
In an effort to understand why we all do what we do, I began studying human needs and behavior.  I personally found the two leading theories on the matter to be inadequate by themselves.  So, I combined them.
This is an image of Niolet’s Human Response Matrix, which is a new theory on human behavior, and which is intertwined with new theories on basic human needs as spun out of the combining of Abraham Maslow’s and Manfred Max-Neef’s respective and divergent theories.  My previous post is an image of that theory.
These two new theories on basic human needs and human behavior were articulated in a slide presentation called “What Drives You?”  Currently, version 2.0 of that presentation, containing narration of the material, is in the works.  For now, you would have to either go to a video slideshow here or a pdf here in order to view version 1.0 of that presentation.  It is highly recommended that you do so if you wish to understand all that these new theories entails.
I would love to hear what you think of the theories, so don’t hesitate to let me know.

NEW THEORIES ON HUMAN NEEDS AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR

In an effort to understand why we all do what we do, I began studying human needs and behavior.  I personally found the two leading theories on the matter to be inadequate by themselves.  So, I combined them.

This is an image of Niolet’s Human Response Matrix, which is a new theory on human behavior, and which is intertwined with new theories on basic human needs as spun out of the combining of Abraham Maslow’s and Manfred Max-Neef’s respective and divergent theories.  My previous post is an image of that theory.

These two new theories on basic human needs and human behavior were articulated in a slide presentation called “What Drives You?”  Currently, version 2.0 of that presentation, containing narration of the material, is in the works.  For now, you would have to either go to a video slideshow here or a pdf here in order to view version 1.0 of that presentation.  It is highly recommended that you do so if you wish to understand all that these new theories entails.

I would love to hear what you think of the theories, so don’t hesitate to let me know.

NEW THEORIES ON HUMAN NEEDS AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR
In an effort to understand why we all do what we do, I began studying human needs and behavior.  I personally found the two leading theories on the matter to be inadequate by themselves.  So, I combined them.
This is an image of Niolet’s Human Needs Paradigm, which is a new theory on basic human needs as spun out of the combining of Abraham Maslow’s and Manfred Max-Neef’s respective and divergent theories.  There is a companion theory, which relates to human response behavior, Niolet’s Human Response Matrix, and which is intertwined with this one.  My next post will contain an image of that theory.
These two new theories on basic human needs and human behavior were articulated in a slide presentation called “What Drives You?”  Currently, version 2.0 of that presentation, containing narration of the material, is in the works.  For now, you would have to either go to a video slideshow here or a pdf here in order to view version 1.0 of that presentation.  It is highly recommended that you do so if you wish to understand all that these new theories entails.
I would love to hear what you think of the theories, so don’t hesitate to let me know.

NEW THEORIES ON HUMAN NEEDS AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR

In an effort to understand why we all do what we do, I began studying human needs and behavior.  I personally found the two leading theories on the matter to be inadequate by themselves.  So, I combined them.

This is an image of Niolet’s Human Needs Paradigm, which is a new theory on basic human needs as spun out of the combining of Abraham Maslow’s and Manfred Max-Neef’s respective and divergent theories.  There is a companion theory, which relates to human response behavior, Niolet’s Human Response Matrix, and which is intertwined with this one.  My next post will contain an image of that theory.

These two new theories on basic human needs and human behavior were articulated in a slide presentation called “What Drives You?”  Currently, version 2.0 of that presentation, containing narration of the material, is in the works.  For now, you would have to either go to a video slideshow here or a pdf here in order to view version 1.0 of that presentation.  It is highly recommended that you do so if you wish to understand all that these new theories entails.

I would love to hear what you think of the theories, so don’t hesitate to let me know.

Fiction writing is about creating worlds of coalesced truth in an entropic universe of uncertainty.

- Damian Niolet

The more we believe that conflict and war are unavoidable, the less we may do to try and prevent them. That would not be an ‘ideal’ world, and one I ‘really’ would not want to live in.

- Damian Niolet, from an essay concerning Realists’ vs. Idealists’ views on conflict

Statistically, the probability of any one of us being here is so small that the mere fact of our existence should keep us all in a state of contented dazzlement.

-

Lewis Thomas (via joshuakaufman)

Frankly, the fact that this is so popular a quote is keeping me dazzled.  If this quote were Kool-Aid: Creationists would eat the cup too and regurgitate it on others.  Atheists would pour it in the toilet and laugh maniacally as it spirals into nothingness.  Agnostics would say, “I’m tired of Kool-Aid.  What else you got?”  And Buddhists would say, “Duuuuuuuh.”

Damian Niolet

School Progress and Gripes

I actually did get to some school work done.  Tried to figure out some potential candidates for the entrepreneur interviews we have to conduct.  So far I would like to interview Jeff Smith, Scott McCloud, Kurt Busiek, Andy Schmidt, and @As_Heart (the co-founder of Quipster, whom I only know by his twitter name).  I need to send out requests and I need to find two more candidates.  Part of me just wants to get the assignment turned in and another wants me to really strategize and see if I can’t pick the brains of big wigs.  I’ll play it by ear.

The other thing I did was read more of the E-Myth Mastery by Michael Gerber.  I’m thinking about combining the readings with the e-Zine article we have to write.  I’m skeptical that I would read the book critically if I didn’t.  I just really don’t like it.  There are two big reasons why:  1) He writes in fragments.

Short little spurts like this.

And makes each one its own paragraph.

That tells me he’s a buzzword writer.

Lots a cutesy little epiphanies.

That add up to nothing.

2) He is being disingenuous in order to sell more books.  There are two “sub-irks” for me on this one.

First, his whole premise, the E-Myth (Entrepreneur Myth), is that anyone can be a “world class entrepreneur.”  It’s a nice thought, but entirely false.  Number one, because there are just some people who are born less capable.  I don’t think I need to clarify who.  Number two, economically speaking, only so many of the would-be entrepreneurs would get the dollar vote to keep them going.  That’s just basic Capitalism at work.  Number three, it would be like those planets where everyone is a superhero … and then there wouldn’t actually be entrepreneurs.  When I explained this one to my friend, he told me it reminded him of Ratatouille, when he says, “Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere.”  I think that’s the angle Gerber should have taken, not the other way around, which would be “Anyone can be a great artist, but a great artist can’t come from anywhere.”

The second irk has to do with his stance on religion/philosophy in the book - he has none, and yet, throughout the entire first chapter he’s jumping from one religion to another philosophy at will, jumbling it all together and calling it “magic.”  There is no form or reason, he’s just taking the choice parts from each and calling it truth.  But he would never go so far as to say he’s doing this, or that the final outcome is a form of religion/philosophy because then it would turn off all those stoic, sterile, suits who just want to know how to be more successful at business.  Towards the end of the first chapter he finally settles on Zen Buddhism, which actually made the stuff he was saying ring a bit more true for me, but I still can’t help but be disgusted.  I think some of it has to do with our professors telling us we couldn’t talk about religion or politics in the discussion forums, only to have to read as Gerber talks about magic for 10 chapters.

I think I will write the article on this stuff.  I think I got enough here.  Just have to take the angst out and it should be decent. ;)