Just Do It Please, Or Else

Don't wanna do it
Can't make me do it
Ain't gonna do it
Motivation gone
Must not lose focus
Lost the will to achieve
Will not backslide
Gave it my best effort
Could not justify reentry
Do it, Damn it
Do it, PLEASE
Do it...or else
Or else what?
Or else it won't get done?
We need a change
The difference is now
Do it

Some People Just Don't Get It

What is the point of working hard? Is it so that you can enjoy a standard of living above and beyond that which other people are comfortable with? Consider for a moment that work is the driver and enjoyment is a reward. Have you ever heard it said "Hard work is its own reward" and then wondered, "What the heck does that mean?"

To thread the eye of the needle on its first attempt brings additional satisfaction to the tailor. It means they can put more concentration into difficult parts of sewing because the easier parts did not waste their resources.

Everyone has heard some form of the Peter Principle (PP), that folks are promoted to their highest level of incompetency. This would imply after some settlement period that the exact wrong person for the job will  hold a position for which they clearly cannot master (else they would have ascended the ranks into a subsequently higher achievement). The PP is in direct opposition to that "Hard work..." statement because the proper motivation for satisfaction is assumed to be change.

Given this line of reasoning it makes more sense to unthread needles than it does to risk fixing the wrong button onto a shirt.

Basic Math Myths

1. Math is a process of understanding absolutes in which all share equally.
2. Math functions do not change during definition of parameters explaining said functions.
3. Math creates situations whereby numbers become irrevocable and fun.
4. Math requires total concentration be given which is then returned to the supplier in other but equally valuable forms.
5. Math problems are fictitious and exist independently of the definition.
6. Math geeks grow up and become well-dispositioned through favorable circumstances.
7. Math skills are invaluable.
8. Math contains all the elements that hope, life, and liberty would ever impress on the individual.
9. Math logic governing relationships (mutual-exclusivity) is more important than Nurturing-logic (which says the struggle for peaceful co-existence requires that we accept less than ideal situations).
10. And the #10 Math hoax: the decimal system in effect is independent of the average number of fingers and toes each individual carries and does not hinge upon coverage. In other words, if someone with seven fingers total were to gain power, justification fabricated for mass removal of digits would be in the public's best interest.

Why Is It So Hard To Be Understood?

• Refusals in the Quest for Perfection feel most like intentional stupidity.
• Feigned knowledge is not smart.
• When espoused systems of support fail we search for meaning, losing identity, purpose, and motivation.
• As though "all is lost" was the only alternative to achieving excellence in every previous activity (i.e. "give it your all, do your best"), we suck at accepting options for success through second chances.
• What can be done in overload situations?
• It is most important to hang onto irreplaceable stuff.
• The value of life cannot be legislated.

TOO MANY USES FOR SCIENCE

How do Logic Puzzles and ABC's Tie it all together? We use science as a tool to substantiate our beliefs. For example, an artist may have full control of the color wheel but until the prism comes along to indisputably substantiate what "the eye of the beholder" sees as beauty, it is just another work of art. The legal profession touts the moniker "innocent until proven guilty" but in reality the phrase should be "guilty if able to be corroborated with science" because the system has been refined so that no one who operates outside of it will receive a just end.

So let's continue with the math and philosophy lessons, shall we?

We assumed
A+B=C
and
B-D=F
therefore
A+F must equal A+(B-D) or A+B-D
However we know (by definition) this is equivalent to C-D
So to restate the relationship,
A+F=C-D
Now take a philosophical perspective:

A causes B but C exists independently!

Do you understand what this means? For one situation it was shown that A and C were on opposite sides of the equivalency fence. But they are not related. This means that for other situations it is just as likely that A and C could exist on the same side of the equivalency fence, with or without the presence of other variables.

How then are we to proceed? Agree to a process:
1. Define the variables.
A=
B=
C=
D=
E=
F=
2. Identify known interactions.
A causes B
A and C are independent
3. Draw conclusions
Consider an imaginary example:
Is there a God?
Can all things be understood?
Will the purpose of existence be heightened or reduced by our behavior?
Does injustice hurt?
Does God hear our prayers for justice if we can't prove that God exists and what would be the possible ramifications of denying compassion?

Time for Caregiving

Time for Caregiving

This post brings the constellations and the satellites and associated relationships into synchronized orbit.