Meta
The previous message on this thread is far too long, involving several
distinct subjects. It would have been best to have already broken my
own last reply into parts, but better late than never. I will do so
now. I will also snip as much as possible form both parts. This is my
response to part one which is directed at the psychological and social
parts of the previous message. My response to the physiological parts
of that message will come separately.
/Meta

On 04/05/2009 09:22 PM, Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
>> On 03/06/2009 06:50 PM, Steve C. Floyd Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> As an observation related to my composing of this message, I note that I
>>> am now sitting down to develop my reply to this message after several
>>> days has passed during which I have not done so. Now that I have not
>>> read the content of this message in several days, I notice that many
>>> of the things I had typed do not accurately communicate what I had
>>> initially wanted them to. I think Paul recently brought this idea up
>>> to Olafur in a private message as a recommendation of how one might
>>> proofread one's own writings. The method Paul described was that when
>>> one takes a break from writing a message and comes back to it after
>>> some time, one will interpret the initial message much like a person
>>> who has never read it.
>>>
>>> This enables the author to be an effective editor of hir
>>> own work, and in my case with this message, I find this to be true
>>> However, it is also true that the amount of time required between
>>> writing periods may delay the message (as it has done for this message)
>>
>> Meta
>> Actually, since the above comment was *about* the message and composing
>> it, it should have been enclosed in Meta tags. Then my reply comment
>> below would have been placed within within those Meta tags. And this
>> Meta comment would have been in another set of Meta tags inside the
>> other. As it is, because this is a comment *about* that portion of the
>> message, I have placed it in Meta tags.
>
> I did not realize that a Meta tag should be used when commenting about
> the nature of composition of a message.

By using "should" above, I did not mean to imply that you ought to
have done so (which would have been unreasonable on my part since I
only just began to use the Meta tags here myself), but rather that it
would have been best (clearest for communication) if that comment had
been placed in Meta tags. Here once again is the ambiguity of meaning
problem which is so prevalent in natural languages, particularly with
words like "should".

> Since this comment is directly related to your Meta comment above, I
> have placed it here, within your Meta tag.

That was correct. Same for these comments. And if I made a comment
about the nature of your meta comment, then is would properly go
inside another set of meta tags inside the first set.

> I will keep this Meta tag in mind and try to use it the next
> time I have such a comment.

Excellent. Such usage will help you fully understand its meaning (and
test such understanding), which I think is quite important for fully
understanding reality and particularly the usage of symbol/languages -
representatives in general.

Note below that I realized that the "snip" comments were also Meta and
so have now enclosed them in Meta tags.

>> /Meta
>>
>>>> Re: Subjectivity of preferences, happiness, and evaluating habits
>>>>
>>>> On 02/20/2009 09:37 AM, Steve C. Floyd Jr. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The following is a comment from Kitty to me in a private email
>>>>> regarding the evaluation of a purchase made by someone else.
>>>>>
>>>>>> When I do think of another's expenditures that I would not make, I
>>>>>> often then give a few minutes to consider why that person has made
>>>>>> that purchase (or made that choice if it does not apply directly to
>>>>>> a purchased item) - what is s/he deriving from it? There are many
>>>>>> possibilities when one doesn't know the other person well and the
>>>>>> better hir characteristics are known, the more likely one or two of
>>>>>> the numerous possibilities selected are the actual case.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Good point Kitty. I have been trying recently to emphasize the
>>>>> subjectivity that is inherent in decisions, values, preferences, and
>>>>> choices of activities for enjoyment. I think for the past few years I
>>>>> have tried to discover "the one right way" of behaving, from an
>>>>> objective perspective. However, it is becoming increasingly evident to
>>>>> me that one's previous positive experiences are a large cause of what
>>>>> makes things enjoyable in the present.

Meta
Snipped my own previous comment not responded to.
/Meta

>>>>> At the same time, I understand
>>>>> that new, positive experiences related to "better" habits can be
>>>>> nurtured. This is a cause of some recent frustration for me: which
>>>>> subjective preferences are "bad" and which are "good"? That is, which
>>>>> preferences or behaviors should be replaced with different ones? When
>>>>> one determines that a behavior needs replacing, one must ask: "with
>>>>> what do I replace it ?"
>>>>>
>>>> There are several things here.
>>>> A subjective preference is not the same thing as an emotional response
>>>> to some experience (set of events). A subjective preference should be
>>>> the rational result of your analysis of the contribution to your
>>>> lifetime happiness of "whatever" it is that you are preferencing.
>>>>
>>> I am still having difficulty distinguishing between preferences and
>>> emotional responses. In the way I was thinking of them prior to your
>>> reply, I had confused the two ideas. I thought that subjective
>>> preferences were based on prior experiences which have a positive or
>>> negative aspect to them. In other words, I was thinking of subjective
>>> preferences as emotional responses that have yet to be analyzed and
>>> rationalized that come from past experiences associated with that
>>> behavior/action/situation.
>>>
>> Your statement is *almost* correct. Most certainly initial preferences
>> (all preferences are subjective!) come from past experiences. And the
>> learning experiences during one's development directly cause all one's
>> initial preferences. Besides some contribution from one's genetic
>> makeup, there is simply no other source for those preferences. However,
>> I think that it is important to clearly distinguish between an emotion
>> (a conscious result of wholly *subconscious* "evaluations") and a
>> preference (a conscious choice and action).
>
> I now understand the important distinction between emotional responses
> and preferences. The difference that stood out to me was the fact that
> emotional responses are *subconscious evaluations* and preferences are
> *conscious choices*. This now makes sense to me, and I agree.

It is good that you see this most important difference. However, too
many people still continue to equate the two and make their decisions
about far too many things based on subconscious emotion rather than
conscious preferencing. Now I am the first to agree that it is
impossible to make all choices by fully consciously evaluating all the
pros and cons before taking action. Life is simply far too complex and
the number of choices made everyday far too large to be able to
consciously dwell on each one. So the way that one must practically
operate is to go through this process (of conscious evaluation) a few
times initially with all important choices and then automate such
methods of choice into habits. The trick to make this work well,
however, is to also lay down as part of the habit, the environmental
circumstances under which the automated methods can be relied on to
produce a good result. And if these environmental circumstances do not
hold, to consciously intercede with a "Whoa, wait a minute here!".

>>>> Once that analysis and decision is done and the "whatever" is found
>>>> to contribute to increasing your lifetime happiness, you should
>>>> automatically begin to have positive emotions in proportion to such
>>>> contribution, whenever that "whatever" occurs.
>>>>
>>> The skill of evaluating my preferences and the effect of each on my
>>> lifetime happiness is something that I am trying to develop further. For
>>> example, there are certain types of musics, or specific songs, that will
>>> predictably change my mood to a certain positive state (i.e. relaxed
>>> or happy). Only recently have I began to make a connection between the
>>> changes in my level of happiness and the activities I participate in.
>>> Well, of course it would be difficult to *ignore* the effect of
>>> activities on one's mood, but it is relatively recently that I have made
>>> an effort to pay special attention to these connections so that I can
>>> better understand them and actively seek out those happiness-increasing
>>> activities.
>>>
>> Such "noticing" is, of course the necessary first step prior to making
>> connections and understanding, so it is good that you are increasing
>> your ability to introspectively notice your states of mind and their
>> possible meanings.
>>
>> [I have done a lot of this noticing in the past couple of years and
>> comparing them to emotional levels I experienced in the years prior to
>> about 2005. I think it took about 4.5 years with Paul to come to
>> understand myself much better than ever before so the most marked
>> upward change in my *overall* happiness state has been from about that
>> point. And I fairly often note to myself how different my general mood
>> is from what it was prior to the beginning of 2000. I don't remember
>> doing this kind of "inventory" consciously during the years of my
>> previous relationships, but I can easily look back and recall my mood,
>> which was most very one I would now loosely term a low-level anxiety.
**Kitty]
>
> Kitty, it is encouraging to hear that you recall a relatively recent
> improvement in your ability to notice your emotional state and
> possible causes for it. I admit that, when writing this message, I
> felt a bit as though I might be one of only a few people who
> experienced this.

[I sure hope not, but it is very possible that many people do not make
/take the time do this evaluating. It seems to me that very many
people do all sorts of things that eliminate the opportunity to
actually think about what they are and/or have done/thought. I think
of this very often when I see people engaging in cellphone discussions
or listening to music on headphones while walking/jogging, an occasion
that could be used for some introspection, choice evaluation, etc.
Many modern conveniences are used as avoidance mechanisms for
beneficial activities, which in the wider range, longer view will
likely be detrimental to the individual doing so. **Kitty]

Meta
Snipped previous comments not responded to.
/Meta

>>>> With respect to experiences to which you have positive emotions and
>>>> after analysis you now have a much lower subjective preference, what you
>>>> then need do is to modify your emotional response to that experience
>>>> so that it is proportional to that new subject preference. I have in
>>>> previous messages gone over how such emotional "modification" is
>>>> accomplished (similar to changing a habit).
>>>>
>>> Right. I agree with the above. I discuss this more below, but first I
>>> will define and give examples of my thoughts about my "neutral
>>> preferences". I define "neutral preference" as a disposition toward an
>>> action or adopting/preferring some aspect of reality that is "neutral"
>>> with regard to one's lifetime happiness.

I think that after the confusion of meaning it is worth commenting
here on your original attempted definition. The confusion arose
because you attempted to use the very same word "neutral" to define a
"neutral preference". Upon re-reading the above, I realize that I
would not have mistaken your meaning if you had *not* tried to define
that phrase. However, when you then went and used the phrase "neutral
with regard to one's lifetime happiness" (which implied to me neither
increasing nor decreasing in absolute terms rather than having little
effect on the amount of change) then I certainly got the wrong idea of
your intended meaning. Part of the reason for this is that a constant
increase in lifetime happiness is not guaranteed and should never be
taken for granted. It always requires effort on the part of the
individual.

[I think of it as an extension of the old phrase (which those less
that 50 may never have heard), "The world doesn't owe you a living." -
The world doesn't owe anyone happiness. (A more modern equivalent is
the libertarian loved phrase - originating in Heilein's important
novel "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" - TANSTAAFL - "There ain't no
such thing as a free lunch".) Unfortunately in the current US society,
government - and those who support the more recent Western ideas of
ruler/ruled - is viewed by the majority as the proper provider for
"the general Welfare". And what a Pandora's box that wording in the US
Constitution has created. **Kitty]

>>> Some examples of a neutral
>>> preference (for me) are: my preference for having facial hair, my
>>> preference for maintaining a shaved head, and my preference for certain
>>> video games as a form of mental stimulation.
>>>
>> In thinking of these as "neutral", you are guilty of the logical fallacy
>> of isolation of a choice or action from *all* of its surrounding harms
>> and benefits (similar to the broken window fallacy made famous by
>> Bastiat and elucidated superbly by Henry Hazlitt in his book "Economics
>> in One Lesson").

Again I stated the above because of my (at that time) misunderstanding
of your intended meaning of a "neutral preference". OTOH, once again
your examples actually strengthened that misunderstanding because I
did not see (and still do not see) that having facial hair is neutral
with with respect to the amount of lifetime happiness generated.
Either having facial hair (or not wearing a tie, etc) clearly gives
you more pleasure or it does not. And if it does clearly provide more
pleasure to you, then it should be worth some costs with respect to
its social effects. Whereas if it is truly neutral (has a trivial
effect on your lifetime happiness) then it is not worth any cost at
all and you would not even be discussing it here.

>> In fact, a rational preference choice or action can
>> never be actually neutral (in the sense of neither increasing nor
>> decreasing one's lifetime happiness) since there is always some choice that
>> one at least evaluates will cause one's lifetime happiness to not
>> decrease.
>
> If I'm understanding the above correctly, you saying that "a rational
> preference choice or action can never be neutral because there is
> always some other action or choice that would be more effective in
> increasing one's lifetime happiness". Is this correct?

Yes, except that if by "neutral" one means neither increasing nor
deceasing one's lifetime happiness (which is what I originally took
your meaning to be), then I would rephrase your statement above as "a
rational preference choice or action can never be neutral because
there is always some other action or choice that one would judge to be
likely to increase one's lifetime happiness" I put it in terms of "not
causing one's lifetime happiness to decrease" rather than "increasing
one's lifetime happiness" to account for the situation where one
rationally judges that continuing to live will only cause a decrease
in one's total lifetime happiness. (An example might be a person in
constant pain with no foreseeable hope of cessation of the pain). OTOH
now that I think of it, the very idea of any action being neutral (as
I originally understood your meaning) is actually impossible for such
a person, so I guess my completeness of the statement was not really
necessary in this instance.

Of course, now that I realize (from your later remarks) that your
meaning of "neutral" was simply that taking one decision or another of
a few possibilities would make minimal difference, if any, to your
lifetime happiness, I need to withdraw my statement altogether, since
you are quite right, many choices related to things of very small
importance are neutral in that sense.

> In other words,
> there is always an opportunity cost in choosing one action or behavior
> preference?

The definition of "opportunity cost" is the value to one of the next
best alternative to the choice and action that one takes. There is
some notion in the minds of some that such a value is "forgone" or
"given up" when one makes the choice/action of higher value. Of course
it should be clear that such a notion is totally irrational because
one did not ever *have* the alternative value and one cannot logically
give up or forgo something that one has never had in the first place.
Put another way, if one were to think of the next higher valued choice
as a "cost" or "loss" as a result of the choice actually made, then
why not the one next higher below that, and so on. Since it is most
often the case that the values of alternative choices are not highly
different (at least as seen at the time of choosing), it would then be
clear that the sum of all these "costs" or "losses" would quickly
overwhelm the value of the actual choice taken. Therefore, if one were
to be logically concerned about "opportunity cost", one should never
make any choice at all, because doing so would always lead to a net
loss of value.

Certainly there are real costs in making any decision, if nothing more
than the time taken to make the decision and take the action, but the
values of all the other things that might have been done with that
time are certainly not part of these real costs. For this reason, I
consider that entire notion of "opportunity cost" to be an irrational
idea and an obfuscating red herring foisted upon the innocent by
pseudo-intellectuals so that they can both confuse the innocent and
appear erudite to them.

So my statements above most certainly did not relate to any silly
notion of opportunity cost.

>> In thoughtfully considering my previous statement it is
>> imperative to remember that lifetime happiness is *not* the happiness up
>> to this point or even the happiness up to right after your next action.
>> Rather it is the estimated happiness that will be obtained for the
>> entire time of your life into the indefinite future (which, since you
>> cannot change the past, is actually the same as the accumulated total
>> happiness over the rest of your life).
>
> I think I understand this concept well. Although it *is* sometimes
> difficult for me to put the effects of decisions into such a
> far-reaching context. I *do* frequently try, though.

Rest assured that it gets easier as you do it more and more, until it
becomes pretty automatic. I now rarely find that I have any need for
so-called "will power" in order to prevent myself from taking the
short range more immediately gratifying choice. Part of the reason for
this is that I have learned to not require myself to always worry
about the most long range optimal choice for every single little
thing. For those things that make little difference (are essentially
neutral to use your terminology) I simply go with my current desires
and enjoy the results rather than attaching any blame or having any
pangs of conscience. Anyway some variety is beneficial and a little
bit of a bad thing can have a positive hormetic kind of effect, both
physiologically and psychologically.

[I too no longer have to exercise "will power" - or at least very
rarely - for the same reasons that Paul has given. **Kitty]

>>> All three of the above examples I periodically re-evaluate with regard
>>> to my lifetime happiness. My frustration is that each of these
>>> preferences of mine have positive and negative aspects to them,
>>>
>> I have news for you. *Every* choice and action has both positive and
>> negative aspects to it, even if the negative is only that the time taken
>> to evaluate and do it cannot be spent evaluating other choices and
>> taking other actions. I face that dilemma every day. I have so many
>> things that I want to do, but only have time to do some of them.
>
> Yes, I face this everyday and it is frustrating to me that I sometimes
> spend too much time *evaluating* my choices and too little time
> *doing* anything.

This will ameliorate as you develop more efficient methods and gain
confidence in your ability to evaluate. Realize that for now with your
limited experience, and the fact that so many evaluations are highly
personal and/or highly dependent on current environmental conditions
(and therefore that for these you cannot use the experiences of others
to aid your decision), you often have little choice but to go with the
reasonable best choice that you can, after trying your best to see any
major problems with it, and then learning by experiencing the results.
In the end, the experience of the "school of hard knocks" is the best
teacher and often the only effective one. I am convinced that for most
people who appear to have "made the right decisions" and "gained
success", luck played more of a role in the process than did wise
planning. That does not mean, of course, that such people have not
earned or do not deserve the value that they have gained. They have
earned such value precisely because the result of their choice was the
production of great value for other people, whether or not it was the
result of good planning on their part or entirely fortuitous. Still I
must admit that I personally feel a certain amount of annoyance at so
many very wealthy people who do not use their wealth in what I
consider to be a rational manner. Much of this annoyance is because I
know that a very large number of such people (perhaps the vast
majority these days) have only arrived at such a wealthy state because
of the irrational state of government interferences and regulations in
current society.

Meta
Snipped text not needing a response.
/Meta

>>> which causes me to be ambivalent regarding my preference for them. For
>>> example, I prefer the look of my face having facial hair, compared to
>>> not having facial hair. However, I know that many people do not like
>>> facial hair, and many employers insist on employees not having facial
>>> hair. So I ask myself if the negative preferencing I will experience
>>> outweighs my enjoyment of having facial hair.
>>>
>> This is the wrong approach. Negative preferencing by others says far
>> more about them than it does about you. It can be used by you as a great
>> tool for your own preferencing actions regarding the degree to which you
>> want to relate to others. Do you really want to work for someone or
>> associate much with someone who has that view of what your appearance
>> ought to be?
>
> This is a good point. No, I do not want to work for, or associate
> with, someone who has the view that they should control my appearance.
> However, in my experience, *many* employers have this requirement of
> conforming to what they call a "dress code", which includes both the
> clothes one wears and the facial hair one maintains.

Then look for employers who have such requirements only within
reasonable limits (cleanliness and tidiness appropriate to the nature
of the job). Realize that any such unreasonable requirements should be
viewed as a kind of fraud or deception perpetrated on their clients
and is not a mark of a truly honest, forthright company. Here is an
example of where you should always look *beyond* the immediate example
of irrationality to find the more general and more fundamental error,
illogic and even unethical characteristic of which that simple,
seemingly unimportant example is merely the immediate symptom. For
this reason (that such irrationalities are not isolated by are related
to more philosophically fundamental negative practices), you will
generally find those who have no such unreasonable requirements to be
more rational and compatible in other ways.

[Sometimes if one makes a counter well-presented argument in a
courteous manner, the other party will see the logic of their
positions. Not guaranteed of course, but worth a try. And if nothing
more it gives you practice in presenting the points. **Kitty]


Or, better still by far, develop areas of expertize wherein you can be
self-employed. Particularly since the late 1980's, when I operated a
successful full service computer business in support of several medium
sized business clients, I have realized that being employed or being
in many service areas (not all), essentially means that one is
promoting projects and activities that others think are important
rather than those that oneself thinks are most important. This
realization came from continuing to be bothered by the fact that the
business activities of two of my major clients were not ones that I
thought should exist at all, in the sense that a rational person would
have no interest in the products and services provided by those
businesses. It was not as bad as when, 10 years earlier, I was
instrumental in the computer control of a major Canada Post parcel
processing plant, since that was supporting a government monopoly
organization, but it was still not acceptable to me.

Since that realization, I have always sought to only work at those
projects that I personally thought were most important (and it should
go without saying that my estimation of importance is solely based
upon whether or not I think the success likelihood times the success
value of the project will increase my lifetime happiness more than any
other project of which I can currently conceive). It is also
necessary, of course, to find a way to enable any such project to also
be sufficiently income producing in the near term, that one can
continue to satisfy one's basic necessities. Either that or to be
fortunate enough or to have saved enough from previous work to be able
to live off the income from one's assets alone for some major time
until the project gets to a stage where sufficient number of others
appreciate its value to them.

> I see two
> opposing points on this subject. First, I have found it difficult to
> find employment while having facial hair.

If this is truly the case, then it is clear that you need to either
change location to where employers in your your area of knowledge are
more reasonable, or you need to change areas of knowledge. As with
"Atlas Shrugged", do not sanction such practices by continuing to
associate with those who practice them. Remove your expertize and
abilities from their control and thereby diminish their power.

> Since employment has been
> the best way by which to provide me with my needs, I have felt that
> I have little choice but to conform to their demands regarding my
> appearance.

Again you need to take the long view and avoid such employers, even if
it means satisfaction of fewer of your needs for a while. At your age
you can afford to do with less until you reorganize your life.

> OTOH, it is true that *not all* employers (and more
> narrowly, not even every employer looking for people with skills
> that I possess), require such alterations to my appearance. So, by
> conforming to the appearance requirements of some employers, I was
> actually supporting their effort to dictate my appearance (and the
> appearance of others). If I had more actively sought-out an employer
> that did not have such appearance requirements, I would be supporting
> *them* by providing *them* with my skills and services, rather than
> the employer who required a change to my appearance. However, it
> almost certainly would have been more difficult for me to find
> employment, had I not compromised on my appearance.

But the effort would be worthwhile, even if the choice of facial hair
itself is not that important to you, since you would be socially
preferencing and refusing to sanction such irrational behavior. In
this regard it would be important to publicly declare just why you
made the choice of employer that you did and the philosophical basis
for that choice (which is actually the deception - faking of reality,
rather than the mere ability to have facial hair).

>>> Both of these positive and negative aspects are small, since this
>>> preference is not critical to my life happiness.

Actually in view of several things now discussed above, I think your
statement above is wrong. In making such a statement you have not
fully evaluated the importance of some of these personal practices to
your lifetime happiness (they must be far from "neutral" or you would not even
have raised them here) and you have not realized the full
depth what such restrictions on the part of employers say about them.
I would maintain that it certainly *is* critical to your lifetime
happiness (in the long run, which at your age is most likely a very
long time) to not sanction such behavior and to not associate with
such people (and to explain why to the world).

Meta
Snipped more text to which a reply is not now appropriate.
/Meta

>>> But I do periodically re-evaluate this cost/benefit
>>> situation *and it is this re-evaluation* that is frustrating. It is
>>> frustrating because I think doing so is a nonsensical waste of my time.
>>> I don't know why I can't just confidently conclude: "this is my
>>> preference. There is no harm being done to me for having this
>>> preference, and I enjoy this preference," and proceed to enjoy it,
>>> without periodically re-evaluating it. I have also come to think that I
>>> place too much value on the opinions others hold regarding these neutral
>>> preferences. If I essentially concluded: "I don't care what others
>>> think", then I would not re-evaluate these seemingly neutral
>>> preferences. However, what other people think about me is an important
>>> aspect of life which affects my happiness. I will continue to think
>>> about this.
>>>
>> What you are missing is that the importance of what others think about
>> you should be directly proportional to your overall evaluation of the
>> benefit to your lifetime happiness of interactions with them.
>
> Your statement above makes sense to me, and I agree. However, I had
> never put others' opinions about me in such a long-term perspective. I
> think if I did this, I would, in general, not be so concerned with the
> opinions of others, since I would realize what little effect most
> peoples' opinions about me will have on my lifetime happiness.

I expect that you will now be altering this lack of long-term
perspective and will realize that the opinions of others only matter
to the extent that those opinions lead to the use of force against
you. The irrational people in the world (at least in North America)
are not yet such a large majority that you cannot find sufficient
numbers, with whom to associate, who understand well that your
personal choices are your own business, as long as they have no
reasonable negative effects on the productive work for which they are
paying you, and who fully appreciate and esteem the rational,
self-responsible approach that you take to reality.

Meta
Snipped more text not requiring a response.
/Meta

>>> Some of my frustration is that not all preferences are highly positive
>>> or highly negative. Some of them are relatively neutral with respect to
>>> my long-term happiness. However, I think I tend to re-evaluate these
>>> preferences that are neutral with regard to my happiness, and this
>>> re-evaluation is cumbersome. I think I do this because when a preference
>>> is neutral I find it difficult to conclude: "it is neutral, and
>>> therefore does not matter, so I no longer need to evaluate it". I think
>>> I need to learn to just *accept* these neutral preferences and
>>> confidently conclude that they *are* in-fact, neutral, and I can spend
>>> my time thinking about other things.
>>
>> It is clear now that by "neutral" you actually mean that taking an
>> action or not taking it will make little difference to your total
>> lifetime happiness.
>
> Correct. This is what I meant.

Meta
I leave the above in only to show that it is because of this that I
needed to change some of my statements above.
/Meta

>> Again what I think that you are missing is that
>> most of life's actions are actually of that form. The lives of most
>> people consist of a majority of actions each of which contribute a
>> small amount to their lifetime happiness (only minimally more than
>> some alternate action) and a very few actions that either increase or
>> decrease their lifetime happiness a great deal.
>
> I hadn't thought of this, previous to your pointing it out.

Even more, it is often impossible to tell beforehand whether a
choice/action will have little effect or will have a major effect. And
this is independent of the also important fact that the best planned
choices and actions may prove highly detrimental, if only because of
some chance or completely unforeseeable event which totally eliminates
any possibility of benefit. In the words of the Scottish poet Robbie
Burns: "The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men Gang aft a-gley,", which
translated into English says: "The best laid plans of mice and men go
oft astray" (a line in a famous poem: "TO A MOUSE - ON TURNING HER UP
IN HER NEST WITH THE PLOUGH"). Still, planning to the best of one's
ability using an amount of time appropriate to the reasonable
expectation of the likelihood of value gained or lost by the action,
is the best that can be done and is always better on average than no
planning at all.

Meta
Snipped more text either not requiring a response or not responded to by
Max/Steve.
/Meta

>> [And for me, I didn't learn how to have high confidence in myself (in
>> areas outside of a narrow range of work expertise) until after being
>> and "studying" with Paul for a few years. In fact, I think we were
>> both "studying" during the first 5 years in slightly different areas
>> areas of human interaction - and in actuality we continue to study
>> this aspect of reality all the time. **Kitty]
>
> I am very interested to know how you and Paul got into the habit of
> "studying" together. When I consider the activities for which I'd like
> to have a partner, *studying* is one of the activities that is
> foremost in my mind. I enjoy learning about, contemplating, and
> discussing reality, and one can only perform the latter if there is
> someone to discuss ideas *with* (much like we are doing in this
> forum). I think it's wonderful that Paul and Kitty each have a "study"
> partner. Most of the people I meet in my daily interactions don't
> think that "studying" is an enjoyable activity at all - which is
> depressing.

It is not only "depressing', not constantly attempting to better
understand reality (to study it) is contrary to life. Babies, toddlers
and young children are all enormously eager to learn everything about
the world in which they have recently come to exist. This is the
fundamentally natural human condition and method for maintenance and
promotion of life - to understand one's environment so that one can
control and mold it to optimally increase one's lifetime happiness. As
I argue in my essay about Social Meta-Needs, there really can be no
other possible purpose for any human, which is consistent with hir
nature in reality. How it can be that so many seemingly intelligent
people do not understand this, is beyond my comprehension. However, I
have given up being concerned about it, but instead look to associate
only with those for whom it is not so.

[This nature of very young children is one of the fascinations
experienced by parents/guardians who have chosen to be in that role. **Kitty]

Meta
Snipped more text not responded to.
/Meta

>> Still I can certainly understand that you need some one or others with
>> whom you can associate more directly and regularly. I certainly could
>> not be and would not be functioning as I am without having found Kitty
>> and having her physically with me most of the time.
>
> I had thought this to be the case: that the constant, physical
> presence of a certain person could make a large difference in my
> happiness. I'm glad to hear that you have experienced this, which
> helps to support my hypothesis. Note, I understand it is not simply
> the other person's physical presence that brings benefit, but also the
> fact that hir physical presence enables easier communication and a
> wider range of activities that can be done together, relative to the
> lack of hir physical presence.

Yes the immediate sharing of experiences and immediate ability to
comment and respond is what is mainly necessary. The physical nearness
is simply a necessary prerequisite for that immediacy, and when a
romantic relationship is also enough physical presence is "icing on the cake".

>> [I will concur on this point of enormous value of close human friendship.
**Kitty]
>
> I have been trying to discover why I get a bit depressed and feel
> relatively unmotivated for a period of a day or two about once per
> month. After having considered vitamin deficiencies (i.e. vitamin D
> supplementation), lack of exercise, and some other possible causes, I
> think that my lack of close friendship may be a large part of the cause.

Well you simply have to keep looking, never get "hard boiled"
(unreceptive and unopen to others) and never give up. As my mother used to say
to me when I was in my late teens and never had even had a
"girl friend": "your time will come". At age 22 I thought my time had
come when I married my first wife and two years later started a
family, only to have the whole thing fall apart 12 year later. Little
did I or my mother know when she told me that in the late 50's that it
would be more than 50 years before my time really did come (when I
found Kitty). Unfortunately my mother never lived to see it happen and
to meet Kitty.

In the meantime you must learn to do with many less complete relationships that
are each of benefit in an important but different
area of your life, and perhaps a few longer distance, less immediate
relationships that are more complete. Of course, you can also consider
relocating to where there exist one or more people with whom you do
have a more complete relationship. I have always been amazed (and
delighted, of course) that Kitty was so totally ready to leave a good
job, a husband, a lovely home, a climate and social environment she
had known for over 25 years, and even her native country, to join me
in my one bedroom apartment in downtown Toronto. Boy, did that tell me
how much she esteemed and loved me! (Note that I used both words
because so often today the word "love" is used without implying
concurrent great esteem - a usage totally irrational in my view.)

>> [My level of productive output is far greater since joining with Paul
>> than in the years prior. I think that it is essential for optimizing
>> one's lifetime happiness that a person have at least one relationship
>> with another human that has foundational values in common as well as
>> numerous other interests (lesser values); it may not include
>> romantic (sexual) emotions but these may be almost an "automatic"
>> consequence of the breadth and depth of the values that each finds in
>> the other. **Kitty]
>
> The above really is wonderful to read, as it illustrates what I have
> to look forward to, should I find the right person for me.

Meta
Snipped more text not responded to.
/Meta

>> What you need now is to
>> find one or more other groups of people with whom to have such tiny
>> perfect relationships.
>
> After reading the above, I think about the relationship I have with
> two women from my Organic Chemistry 2 class. I have studied with the
> two of them throughout this semester, and found it enjoyable at first.
> However, I found that most of the time I spent with them was
> unproductive with regard to studying the material. Instead, we would
> often talk about other topics, some I found to be a waste of my time
> (like the color one girl painted her toenails),

I am left to wonder about the type of girl that would even bring up a
topic of such minor importance and totally subjective value, particularly to a
man. Part of the trouble may be that you are likely
a little older (and certainly far more matured) than most of those in
your undergraduate class).

> while others were more
> interesting (such as the difficulty in discovering what type of skills
> one would enjoy to make a living).

This indecision about what young people want to do for a living seems
to be much more rampant in society than when I was in my teens. I
wonder if it is perhaps because there is so little of anything
practical and avocation related that is currently taught in the
schools.

Personally, I always knew that I wanted to work in the area of
mathematics, science and engineering. It was only later when I matured
much more that I realized the philosophy is really the basic of
everything and that the philosophical basic of mathematics and science
is of paramount important both to their usefulnes, but even to their
very meaning. Still later I realized that the human condition was so
inoptimal that social and psychological philosophy must necessarily be
my work. And since it is the hardest of all (at least to make progress
with change), it is also the most enjoyable to me - I have always
sought out the most difficult and most important task as also being
the most enjoyable to pursue as my major work.

>> For example we have such relationships with our
>> dance/music friends, but with most of them nothing beyond that. And with
>> Jack (who is the only poster to this group who is "local" to us) we do
>> not have a dance/music relationship but have several others of a deeper
>> nature. Tiny perfect relationships are what you have with store clerks
>> whom you get to know from frequenting certain stores and from others
>> with whom your daily activities brings you into contact. I do not go
>> so far as to call any of them "buddies" (I think associates would be a
>> better term or even simply friends) ,
>
> I thought you had previously discouraged the use of the word "friends"
> for those with which one has a limited relationship with. I agreed
> with this idea.

Yes, you are right about my previous discouragement. The reason for
that was a difference in the scope of the use of the term. I am very
cautious about who I call a friend (with nothing more stated), but if
I include another word, such as "dance friend", then I tend to use
"friend more loosely. But as I stated above, perhaps "associate" would
be a better term so that I could be more consistent and less ambiguous
in my usage. Since our main social activity right now is dancing,
while I and Kitty have very few friends (less than fingers of one
hand), we do have many, many (probably 20 or so) dance associates with
whom we converse in the limited way possible over the music (or even
just wave, hug - a few, or glad-hand) when we attend dance events.

[Paul gets more of these expressions of friendliness and admiration
from dancers than I do. Including hugs from young women. :>) **Kitty]


When we are in Ontario at the cottage, our social life is virtually
non-existent because there are no dance events anywhere near. But I
think neither of us really misses that lack of social life, since from
a real friendship pov the dance associate relationships are
inconsequential compared with the depth and breadth of our
relationship with each other.

>> I have had few buddies in my
>> lifetime and only one or two best buddies - none of the latter except
>> Kitty have ever remained in that status.
>
> I have always thought of the word "buddy" as the casual term for
> friend. It defines someone who is not a deep friend, but is also not
> simply an "acquaintance". Merriam-Webster seems to indicate both
> definitions (yours and mine):
>
> 1 a: companion , partner b: friend
> 2: fellow —used especially in informal address

Yup. It's another example of ambiguities in the English language - and
its getting worse every year - to the end result where every word will
mean the same as every other! Now won't *that* be a real tower of
Babel situation, particularly since everyone will still think that
they understand what the others are saying.
The phrase "buddy-buddy", in particular, as a description of closeness
definitely implies a strong and fairly complete friendship. To me a
"buddy" is someone upon whom you can really count when you need hir,
but then that is also true for a true friend. I also think that my
sense of its meaning was greatly influenced by some popular songs
using the term and perhaps some movies and fiction early in my youth,
which used the term. In addition, my boyhood dog was named "Buddy",
which naturally makes me think of a loyal and understanding companion.

>> [I would very much like to see more of our dance friends - a couple of
>> whom I know are members of MoreLife Yahoo but have never posted...-
>> deepen their understanding of the philosophical issues underlying
>> their frequently expressed dissatisfaction with current society. Most
>> are well aware that SelfSIP.org exists, but I do not think that very
>> many of them have even perused it, let alone studied it. So until they
>> do and begin having serious discussions with us (as does one
>> individual in person at most of the desert dance events) on the
>> principles that make up that website and MoreLife, we remain in a
>> tiny-perfect relationship.
>>
>> And as for retaining deep friendships over time, I think that those
>> that I and Paul have made in the past few years - yours being one of
>> the few - have happened almost certainly *because* of the philosophical
>> foundational basis that we have developed.
>
> Yes, I am very interested in the ideas, and I have found use for them
> (by being convinced of their accuracy) as I continuously modify my
> perception of reality. And the more I become convinced of the accuracy
> of these ideas with respect to reality, the more active I become in
> trying to influence others in considering such ideas. When trying to
> discuss ideas of importance to one's existence (i.e. happiness,
> value-for-value), I frequently get the impression that many people are
> a type of "zombie" - aimlessly roaming about their lives, applying no
> serious thought to their existence and living only to enjoy the next
> escapist activity ("escapist" is a great way to describe it - Kitty
> uses the word below).
>
>> Such a basis is something
>> that is missing currently in most relationships between people,
>
> Yes! I have also found this to be the case. It seems that nearly every
> person I interact with during my daily activities (and nearly everyone
> previously in my life) lacks a rational, philosophical basis for their
> existence. Rarely do I ever find a person who seems to have considered
> the meaning or purpose of their existence, let alone a person who
> thinks in the same ways as I do. It is difficult to have a close
> relationship with someone if they do not think about their life to the
> same degree, or in the same ways, as I do.
>
>> but
>> then for the very large numbers of people who never think beyond the
>> escapist activity for after work or the weekend, the longer term
>> friendships they maintain do not go very deep either. **Kitty]
>
> Agreed. And I think it quite possible that it is largely because the
> friendships they maintain have no philosophical basis, as you
> describe.
>
> I wonder if many organized religions (I'm thinking of Christianity)
> serve this purpose for many people - providing a philosophical basis
> around which people interpret their lives and give meaning to their
> relationships.
>
>>>> [There is another way to consider memories that elicit pleasant
>>>> thoughts about those previous times that include people for whom you
>>>> now have little in common as a result of your changed views on what is
>>>> important to you. As an example, I have personally found this to be
>>>> the case for numerous people, including ones to whom I am biologically
>>>> related. I still have very pleasant memories from many years ago, but
>>>> I have no desire to interact with these individuals now based on their
>>>> later - and even in some cases fairly recent - demonstrations of
>>>> values that are diametrically opposed to mine. One individual has even
>>>> clearly expressed a wish that I be harmed, but I still have many fond
>>>> memories of him that cover about 23 years. In contrast, I spend
>>>> virtually no time wishing that he, as well as the others, were
>>>> different since that is a waste of my time. **Kitty]
>>>>
>>> I think it is an excellent conclusion you have come to - that it is a
>>> waste of your time to wish that these people were different. There are a
>>> couple people in my life whom I occasionally think about, and I think it
>>> is a waste of my time to do so. Again, I have a difficult time holding a
>>> firm conclusion about these people, and sometimes contact them to see
>>> how they are doing or to influence them.
>>>
>> You might instead realize that if they really had changed/improved, then
>> they would contact you (as long as you have made yourself publicly
>> available), and *that* is why it is a waste of your time.
>
> This *is* a good point: if a person had really changed "for the
> better", they would be motivated to contact me again. OTOH ("on the
> other hand", for those unfamiliar with this acronym), I think there
> are some people who are interested in changing/improving, but need
> encouragement to do so. These are the types of people I am inclined to
> want to "check-up on".

I agree, and an occasional "check-up" would show that you care, which
should give them both more confidence in their own worth and more
appreciation for your worth and ideas, both of which should help them
change in the right direction. Unfortunately, very few of the people
that I have ever "written off" had shown any willingness to change or
any thought that I might possibly be correct, and them wrong.

> On the contrary, I know of some people who have
> convinced me that they are *unwilling* to change/improve, and these
> people I make no effort to contact.
>
>> This is my
>> approach to my sister and my daughter both of whom totally severed
>> relations with me about 8 years ago.
>>
>> [Ah, yes. Then there is the relationship with my son Andy (who goes by
>> the name Andrew, although it is actually Edward Andreas), and also
>> with his father and my former husband, Ed. Sometime in the future I
>> will have a Kitty Reflects entry that addresses this situation, which
>> is one where both those individuals have severed relations with me. **Kitty]
>
> I am interested in reading about this Kitty Reflects entry that you
> describe above. I often wonder if *I* will be the one to sever
> relations with most of my family, or *them*. I don't know if it is
> necessary for me to formally "sever" relations with my family.

Unless such people continue to bother you, then any such formal
"severing" is quite unnecessary. It would only be useful if you are
stating all the reasons in order to give them one last chance to
change (and that would be only useful if you really do think there
still is some chance for change). I have done this a few times,
particularly when I had had some previous good relationships with such
people (or so I thought), but it has never worked to effect any
change.

> Instead, I would simply not interact with them. I think this would be
> the best thing to do with most people, since there is always the
> possibility that they will change, at which point I would *want* to
> speak with them again.

I don't think that actually clearly telling them that you were
severing relations with them would preclude them coming back to you
again.

In most situations where a person has stopped interacting with me it
has been clear to me that they do not wish to hear from me again, so I do not
try to contact them. Partly this is because in most of these
same situations, even though the other party ceased/broke off the
relationship, I was nevertheless convinced that the major part of the
harm within the relationship was from them harming me, and they broke
off the relationship because they would not accept my contention. With
such people I do not try to restart things since I think that unless
they first see the light and apologize to me, any attempted contact on
my part would be effectively admitting that I had changed my mind and
now accepted their previous action as at least tolerable. This is the
essential situation with my daughter. With my sister, just "down the road" in
Tuscon, the situation is different. She has apparently broken off the
relationship with me in order to side with my daughter, to
whom she has always been very close as a kind of surrogate mother. I
have sent her a birthday card and one other contact over the last 7
years, and I even got an email from her husband (new, so we never knew
each other well) about the death of their pet dog, which I knew well, but there
has never been any response from anything that I have sent
to them. In my experience, each case of a break-off of an old
long-term relationship is highly unique and needs to be considered
separately.

> But, if I had stopped initiating interaction
> with a person because I decided that hir characteristics did not
> benefit me, then I would wait for *them* to initiate interaction with
> me, as it may be an indication that they've changed (similar to the
> discussion on this above).

Don't forget that most people have such busy lives and so many others
around them to interact with that they don't even think about long
gone people that they once knew. OTOH, if this takes place then it
clearly means that they did not see anything really special about you
to remember and to want back again. So the continuing disconnection is
probably in your own best interest anyway.

Although I still feel sadness for what might have been, that is the
way that I currently think of my daughter - I am convinced that she
never did really understand and appreciate my most important and
self-cherished qualities (and those which Kitty so quickly saw,
understood and esteemed). As for my older brother and younger sister,
each in their own way they too never appreciated me for what I really
am (but, of course, they might say the same in reverse). So I have
determined through experience that it is best to forget these
potentially good but broken past relationships and simply continue to
be open to new people coming along who *do* appreciate the qualities
that you most cherish about yourself.

Meta
Snipped more text not responded to and text about exercise
physiology,biochemistry and psychology, to which I will respond in part 2
/Meta

>>>>> It brings me happiness. However, does
>>>>> the long-term negative consequences associated with weight-lifting
>>>>> out-weigh the happiness I derive from it over my lifetime? The
>>>>> answer to this is difficult for me to decide upon.
>>>>>
>>>> As long as you are certain that the happiness you derive from any
>>>> activity is fully reasonable, then you should not totally eliminate
>>>> it unless it is very clearly of major harm. OTOH, I cannot see how
>>>> it would be possible to rationally continue to enjoy something that
>>>> is harmful.
>>>>
>>> Right, I agree. I think Nathaniel Branden explained this well in the
>>> books of his I have read so far. The idea I got from him was that
>>> continuing to enjoy (or participate) in something that is clearly
>>> harmful harms one's self-esteem - and for good reason. One some level of
>>> consciousness, one is aware that one's behavior is self-destructive, and
>>> is good reason to be disappointed in one's behavior, and essentially, in
>>> one's self.
>>>
>> Yes. In the end it is the self-contradiction that is destructive - which
>> is a point that I made above.
>>
>> [This addresses part of the reason why self-esteem must be
>> self-acquired/earned - it cannot be given to someone. Parents *can*
>> stifle it in younger children (and unfortunately many do) but older
>> children and adults must acquire it for themselves. Others can be
>> sought for their assistance in understanding how to do this, but the
>> individual *must* acquire hir own self-esteem. So statements by
>> teachers and schools about ensuring that a child have self-esteem are
>> muddled in lack of understanding of the concept itself. **Kitty]
>
> Yes, it is clear that one must develop one's self-esteem for
> themselves. To say that "teachers and schools must ensure" the
> development of self-esteem may not make sense. However, it could mean
> that teachers and schools should understand self-esteem and its
> development, and encourage children to think about themselves in a way
> that is conducive to the development of self-esteem. I think this
> would be appropriate, but I estimate many teachers and schools far
> fall short of this goal.

[Making sure that children and young people have the natural
opportunities for self-responsibility will provide them with the
opportunities for building and nurturing their own self-esteem. And
here is where governments have created the problem they then try to
"solve". This can be a whole 'nother thread. **Kitty]

Meta
Snipped more text not requiring a response.
/Meta

>>>> [In your case, Steve, from what I read, you are motivated to do a
>>>> thorough assessment. Based on your reported actions, I think you will
>>>> be successful in making the choice that will best optimize your
>>>> lifetime happiness. **Kitty]
>>>>
>>> Thanks for the encouragement Kitty *warm smiles*. I read your
>>> encouragement at an ironic time -- just after I was lamenting above
>>> how there are very few people in my life from whom I would enjoy
>>> encouragement. So the timing was excellent *big laughs*.
>>>
>> [I could say this about my "previous life" too. Outside of my
>> employment work and its aspects, there was only 1 person with whom I
>> could discuss most of the highly important areas of life including of
>> course philosophy - my former husband's regular comment was "What's to
>> discuss? It's obvious."
>
> I estimate that that kind of outlook about life made for shallow
> conversation.

[You bet! And was a major deteriorating factor in the relationship.
The initial reason for our introduction to each other by mutual
friends was that we both admired/read Ayn Rand, but it took a number
of years for me to realize that this "admiration" was not particularly
philosophically deep on Ed's part. **Kitty]

Meta
Snipped more text not requiring a response.
/Meta

>>>>> I have been trying to evaluate
>>>>> all of my preferences and behaviors in this manner and have begun to
>>>>> feel ambivalent about nearly everything I enjoy. Most habits have
>>>>> positive and negative aspects related to each of them.
>>>>>
>>>> Sometimes the negative effects can be reduced or eliminated entirely by
>>>> practicing moderation in the activity. However, there are many activities,
>>>> particularly mental ones, that have no negative aspects other than the
>>>> use of your limited amount of time. I think that you need to develop
>>>> many more enjoyable mental activities and only do physical ones to the
>>>> extent necessary to stay healthy - which is actually very little once
>>>> you are on a CR and fasting protein cycling diet.
>>>>
>>> I think your suggestion above is accurate and useful for me. I do find
>>> that I feel physically well nearly every day, and am ill very
>>> infrequently, which indicates that I am in good health. However, I do
>>> find that I get "bored" fairly often - when I'm not busy with
>>> schoolwork. I think this boredom is a function of the limited number
>>> of mental activities I engage in - just what you noted above.
>>>
>> Frankly, any such notion of "boredom" is something that I have *never*
>> experienced (except when in a restricted situation not of my own
>> choosing), so I do not have much understanding of what your problem is.
>> In fact, your statement causes me some irritation because I can think
>> of no better mental stimulation than reading and attempting to
>> understand the material on the SelfSIP website, which action and the
>> ensuing questions and discussions would, in addition, be the best
>> possible return of value that you, as a friend, could do for me.
>
> Good point. I have deeply considered your above comments about boredom
> in the past several days, and I have discovered some important ideas.
>
> First, after evaluating whether I was really experiencing "boredom", I
> realized that what I had called "boredom" above was actually my
> indecisiveness in choosing an activity (which I discussed in earlier
> comments in this message). That is, I had called "boredom", my state
> of "not knowing what to do with myself", even though I knew there were
> many things I *wanted* to do.

If, after a little consideration, you can't decide what activity to do
next, then it is a waste of time to continue trying to decide. Simply
use your *whim* and pick any one of the choices and *get at it*. It is
*not* always necessary to have carefully calculated all the pros and
cons to death before you take action and it is not always necessary to
have a full rational justification for every action that you take.
Life is simply too short and full for that. It is perfectly okay to
sometimes act just because you "felt like it". Particularly this is
correct if you constantly work to get your "feelings" to be consistent
with your consciously held principles and methods. Just getting
started and doing the activity is often more happiness conducive than
spending addition precious time in evaluating.

When you need a break from that one activity (usually it is best to
take breaks because the subconscious will proceed with the thinking
anyway), then *get at another one*, preferably one that uses a
different combination of your body and mind. It is like one of the
humorous dance songs says: "What fxxk are y'all standing around for?
Get in there and DANCE!!"

> Second, I realized that perhaps I have developed the habit of enjoying
> the feeling of being "entertained", without my effort. That is,
> throughout my life I, my acquaintances and family, have often
> participated in (or more appropriately, "surrendered to") activities
> such as watching movies, television, or playing video games.

Unfortunately this is true for the vast majority of people in current
society. It is why the government has so little problem with protests
to its actions. This keeping the masses happy was the function of
gladiator tournaments in ancient Rome, whence the notion that
providing "bread and circuses" is all that is necessary to keep a
dictatorial regime in power.

> The form
> of entertainment that I often engaged in is video games.

Video games are, at least, active rather than totally passive. I find
the logical, non-action games (such as patience and sudoku) to be
mentally stimulating and a pleasant diversion at times. Although I
must admit that playing them a lot is also a sign to me that there is
something else important that I really ought to get done, but find
somewhat unpleasant in its immediate execution work.

> This form of
> entertainment grew into a habit, an activity I would engage in at the
> end of the day, usually in the last hour or two of being awake, as I
> was becoming sleepy.

I have also been in the same state with respect to the game Patience
(particularly related to the reason described above), but I eventually
get out of it and I no longer beat myself up over it as I often used
to do about such things (which then made things worse). IOW, I have
learned to forgive myself for my indulgences and, lo and behold,
because of that I actually indulge far less often. I have been working
on the wiki stuff so diligently (and enjoying it so much) that I have
not played patience or sudoku in weeks now.

> While I think there are a number of positive effects I benefit from my
> previous playing of video games, in the past I have clearly spent too
> much time playing them. I have made a strong effort in changing this
> habit in the past several years, and especially in the past year. I
> recognize video games to be enjoyable to me, and they can be
> mentally-stimulating, relaxing, or motivating. But recently I have
> noticed that I too often play them for their entertainment value -
> their ability to stimulate my mind without my effort. I realized this
> and decided that it was not the way I wanted to live my life - being
> one of those "zombies" I mentioned above.

Mentally stimulating games are not all bad, but you might try finding
games where the stimulation comes from yourself directing the game
rather than the game directing and entertaining you.

> So I think part of my admission of being bored is related to my
> slipping back into this bad habit of having the desire to be
> entertained.

You seem to be missing the point that the purpose of all action is
happiness. Entertainment is merely one means to gaining pleasure,
which is a very important form of happiness. You need to learn that
there is nothing more pleasurable than the experience of your own mind
reading, thinking and understanding.

> Instead, I am beginning to find ways by which to feel
> rewarded and happy while being productive. The main way by which I
> feel rewarded by being productive is that, by being productive, I am
> working to improve my life - an effort that I am proud of and that
> brings me happiness.

Ah, but that is far too distant and theoretical a goal for you to be
able to sustain it. You must also enormously enjoy the immediate
activity and derive great pleasure from each step. Otherwise, as I
said you will not be able to sustain your efforts. I made that mistake
many years ago, but it is now why the vast majority of time is spent
doing things which I intrinsically enjoy as I go along (as well as the
completed product of course). I could not possibly do that wiki
development work if I were only thinking of the end result as being
beneficial. It is imperative to get great pleasure from all the
intermediate steps.
In fact, that is why I do little exercising per se (none at all this
year in Casa Grande), I dislike the process even though I realize that
the end result is beneficial to my health. I would be so much happier
to simply do only dancing or go for long interesting hikes (but I find
the very local desert environment here to have insufficient interest).

> Furthermore, after recognizing the above about myself, I have found it
> very apparent that the great majority of people I am acquainted with
> to have what I call an "entertainment addiction". This might be
> similar to what Kitty describes as frequent engagement in "escapist
> activities".

Yes, it is. Entertainment is an escape from having to think and focus
one's mind on important things in life/reality. It is what Ayn Rand
termed "blank out". Or in the words of the Alfred E. Neuman character
"What, me worry?"

> It is very disturbing to me how apparently little time
> nearly all of my acquaintances spend on studying, self-improvement,
> and productive work, and instead participate in some of the most
> meaningless, random, and even foolish activities.

I maintain the major reason for this (and the shame of it) is because
they were never taught and helped to experience the enormous pleasure
to be gained from the efficacious use of one's mind. One cannot change
the behavior of anyone by merely trying to persuade them that if they
do odious tasks A, B and C (or for some even if these are merely less
enjoyable tasks than D, E and F), then the result will be an
ecstatically wonderful end result G. Rather, they must also highly
enjoy (for most and at least somewhat for all) the intermediate tasks
that end in G.

> When I observe such
> behavior in others, it illustrates to me the huge disparity between my
> philosophies and those of my acquaintances. At first, this disparity
> is very depressing to me. However, I understand that not all people
> are like the majority of those I am currently acquainted with, and
> also, that I am not acquainted with very many people. So, I will
> continue searching for others with philosophies similar to my own,
> while appreciating my current relationships with those I respect.

This it the only thing to do. Finding others more like yourself is
your best road to happiness. But not total clones, else nothing new
and different will be forthcoming. While I and Kitty are very close,
we are nevertheless different enough to be able to provide stimulating
ideas to one another.

>> [Henry Hazlitt's book "Thinking as a Science" is particularly great in
>> the chapter where he discusses the idea of simply doing purposeful
>> thinking and the value that can provide. The fact that so few people
>> actually do it these days is not surprising since the common
>> distractions of reading material and computers abound. But this has
>> definitely been to the detriment of acquiring the ability to develop
>> and hone one's own thinking skills so that s/he can, in part, better
>> assess and, if determined warranted, can assimilate what s/he does
>> read and hear. In addition, by being able to *really* think, one can
>> originate ideas that others have missed by just not noticing existing
>> relationships. **Kitty]
>
> Sounds like a good book. I have tried to look for it on Audible.com
> and did not find it.

It is far too obscure and intellectual to find there. Besides I cannot
believe that you could get much from merely listening to someone else
reading it.You need to be able to study the written words and deeply
think about them in order to fully comprehend them and see their
fundamental truths.

> I will have to look for it at the UT and Toledo libraries.

I also doubt that either of them will have this book. But there is no
need, except to have a handier copy, since the full book is available
for downloading at: http://mises.org/books/thinking.pdf

Meta
Snipped more text not requiring a response.
/Meta

>>>> [Reprogramming one's emotions is not quickly done, but rather can take
>>>> many months. And even then there will likely be times years later that
>>>> a "reminder" pleasurable emotion will occur with an activity or person
>>>> that has been determined to be rationally negative. (Many former
>>>> smokers and heavy alcohol drinkers report this to be the case.) **Kitty]
>>>>
>>> I also occasionally experience this related to eating too-large of
>>> portions of treats.
>>>
>> [Me too ;>) **Kitty]
>
> *Laughs*. That's good to know I'm not the only one who makes a great
> effort and still struggles with this. Although, I hope your indulging
> in treats is not to the point it is detrimental to your long-term
> health (as I hope mine are also not).

No, the occasions are infrequent and small enough in quantity that I
am highly confident that no detriment from them will occur. :>) **Kitty]