Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • The bit that I'm working on including in my life is "Some things are in our control and others not". In particular, he talks about the futility of trying to change things you can't control (how other people feel or think) and the benefits of confining your desires and actions to those things that you can change (what you do and how you react).

    Are you sure you haven't joined a twelve-step program [aahistory.com]?

    • Yeah, I'm recovering from being constantly offended and in conflict with people around me. For only $14.95 I'll sell YOU the secrets of my happiness!

      --Nat
      (it costs less than $14.95 to print a booklet on how to advertise $14.95 booklets, right?)

  • I've been striving to live by a similar philosophy for some time now: groups things into those I can affect, and those I can't. Work on those I can, and don't be distracted by those I can't. I don't really think of it in the same way the 12-steppers do (mainly because I've had some annoying encounters with 12-steppers in the past). For me, the challenge is in correctly partitioning the problem-space such that I don't pursue issues under the mistaken impression that I can alter them (like fretting over how l

    --

    --rjray

  • But *why* is it important to focus primarily on things you know you can change? Why is it bad to engage in things that are most likely futile? What are the costs, and at what point does the benefit outweigh those costs?

    Or to be more concrete: it seems to me that there are primarily two reasons for your "then just shut up" policy. One, because it is a waste of precious time; two, because it causes you, and the other parties, personal stress. Perhaps there are other factors, but the point is that those f
  • Epictetus was not Epicurean [aug.edu]; he was a Stoic [utm.edu].
    • Thanks. I can never keep up with the Philosophical Football teams :-) "Sparta United! This year they'll make the finals!"

      --Nat