More false opposites

sat27jun2009—26w178d48%— 13h34m00s—0utc

2 more suggestive false opposites, in the spirit of the unknown opposites of indifference:

{font-size:150; font-family:Georgia}Avoiding failure is not the same as pursuing success%


Early in my career I wanted to be professional, that was my complete aspiration in my early life because professionals seemed to know everything – not to mention they got paid for it. Later I discovered after working for a while that professionalism itself was a limitation. After all, what professionalism means in most cases is diminishing risks. So if you want to get your car fixed you go to a mechanic who knows how to deal with transmission problems in the same way each time. I suppose if you needed brain surgery you wouldn’t want the doctor to fool around and invent a new way of connecting your nerve endings. Please do it in the way that has worked in the past. Unfortunately in our field, in the so-called creative — I hate that word because it is misused so often. I also hate the fact that it is used as a noun. Can you imagine calling someone a creative? Anyhow, when you are doing something in a recurring way to diminish risk or doing it in the same way as you have done it before, it is clear why professionalism is not enough. After all, what is required in our field, more than anything else, is the continuous transgression. Professionalism does not allow for that because transgression has to encompass the possibility of failure and if you are professional your instinct is not to fail, it is to repeat success. So professionalism as a lifetime aspiration is a limited goal.

I need more quotes for this one, I vaguely remember some great ones but can’t find them… any suggestions?

{font-size:150; font-family:Georgia}Curing sadness is not creating happiness%

..one of the key points in the science of happiness is that happiness and unhappiness are not endpoints of a single continuum. The Freudian model is really one continuum that, as you get less miserable, you get happier. And that isn’t true. When you get less miserable, you get less miserable. And that happiness is a whole other end of the equation.

..it’s never been my prime mission to give comfort, unless somebody’s in drastic need. I’d rather give pleasure, or shake things up.
Susan Sontag, in an interview with Out magazine
Each day more enjoyment, more social connection, and, indeed, more contemplation are produced on the Web than had been imagined even 10 years ago. But how do we measure those things?
…the problems of psychology seemed to be parallel to the problems of technology, entertainment and design in the following way. We all know that [they] have been, and can be, used for destructive purposes. We also know that [they] can be used to relieve misery. And by the way, the distinction between relieving misery and building happiness is extremely important. I thought, when I first became a therapist 30 years ago, that if I was good enough to make someone not depressed, not anxious, not angry, that I’d make them happy. And I never found that. I found the best you could ever do was to get to zero. But they were empty. And it turns out the skills of happiness, the skills of the pleasant life, the skills of engagement, the skills of meaning, are different from the skills of relieving misery. And so the parallel thing holds with technology, entertainment and design, I believe.. …I think with technology, entertainment and design, we can actually increase the amount of tonnage of human happiness on the planet. And if [with them] we can in the next decade or two increase the pleasant life, the good life and the meaningful life, it will be good enough.. what we’re all doing together will be become good enough.

(For more on the extreme, future possibilities of creating happiness, see, of course, The Hedonistic Imperative))

Follow me on Twitter!  |  Back to ELZR.com