What positive thinking means in practice

TUESDAY, 9 NOVEMBER 2021

I’m a big fan of positive thinking – believing you can do something if you put in the effort.

But sometimes it feels right to be a Devil’s Advocate, to simply say: It’s not going to work; you’re going to waste your time. Or: the probability is very slim that something will be a success.

Someone will then remind me – of all people – of the power of positive thinking.

The Devil’s Advocate reply: It is perfectly accurate to point out what you can accomplish with the right mindset. But are you aware that success with a particular business requires a massive amount of work? Are you aware that you will have to spend a thousand or more hours on it before you see any returns? Are you ready to focus on it like a steel-cutting laser beam? Are you willing to spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars on it?

This is what positive thinking means in practice: To believe that something is already a reality, so much so that you only have to reach out and seize it. And if you believe in it so much, you will spend any amount of time on it, with laser focus and no effort saved, and you will think nothing of spending a serious amount of money on it.

Positive thinking is a force to be reckoned with. But you must be able to prove and show that your thinking is more than just words.

If you can’t do that, then your business is doomed to failure.

And let’s be honest: On how many projects in your life are you really going to put in a thousand hours of hard work? On how many businesses are you going to spend at least months of your life, and hundreds or thousands of hard-earned dollars?

______________________

The poet in the free market, liberal democracy

SUNDAY 7 NOVEMBER 2021

In my late twenties and early thirties, I had a problem with the fact that the talented poet, or the lyricist, or the musician couldn’t pay rent, take care of himself, or afford to get married and start a family if he doesn’t produce work for which people are willing to pay – no matter how brilliant his work is.

The question is, who should pay the poet or lyricist or musician’s rent, take care of him, and enable him to get married and start a family if he can’t do it himself? The government? What will the government demand in return? Will the artist still have creative freedom? Will the poet still be able to criticise the government in his poetry? Will the songwriter still be able to defy the head of state with her lyrics?

I wrote a few poems in my twenties and thirties. I considered it valuable work. I knew it would never make money, but I was hoping it would be read.

So, what did I do as a poet and writer in a free market, liberal democracy? I registered a domain name, developed a website, and published some of my writing on it. Then I formatted my poetry in a Word document, and published it myself in two digital formats, and in so-called print-on-demand format. I also made it available for free on some major websites.

As I expected, I sell few copies, but what would I rather see – a government that forces people to read it?

______________________

Covid notes: September/October 2021

FRIDAY, 17 SEPTEMBER 2021

22:54

Main themes of Covid-19/SARS-COV-2 [with text added on Sunday, 20 June 2022]:

1. The deadliness of the virus [Specifically, how deadly is it for people under 18 with no other serious medical conditions? People between 18 and 30 with no other serious medical conditions? People between 30 and 49 with no other serious medical conditions? Between 50 and 65? Over 65?]

2. The source of the virus [Wet market in Wuhan? Lab in Wuhan? A cave somewhere in China possibly months before January 2020?]

3. Lockdowns [Where did the idea of the lockdown come from? Why did governments decide one after another to implement lockdowns? On what did they base their decisions – a very important question since they must have known it was going to have severe adverse consequences for the economy and for the normal functioning of society, including children’s education? Were restrictions and lockdowns seen as legitimate measures to deal with a pandemic in the years before Covid-19, seeing that there had been other pandemics? What other measures had governments already worked out that were shelved when China started their lockdowns?]

4. Masks, social distancing, and other measures to prevent spread [How effective are non-surgical masks in preventing the spread of airborne viruses? What physical and psychological effects does the prolonged wearing of masks day in, and day out have on people, especially children?]

5. Vaccines [How long does it usually take before vaccines are approved? Why does it take this long? Has there ever been cases of vaccines that were initially approved but then pulled from the market after side-effects kicked in that didn’t show up in tests? Does the current batch of vaccines have any side-affects? Are the vaccine manufacturers legally liable for serious adverse health effects caused by their vaccines?]

6. Vaccine mandates and vaccine “passports” [Is it morally justifiable to force people to get an injection if they can provide reasons why they are at higher risk of injury from the vaccine than from the virus itself? Is it morally justifiable to force people to get injections of vaccines that have not gone through the usual procedures to test their efficacy and long-term safety?]

7. “Long Covid” [How do people differentiate between the long-term effects of Covid and other causes, like changes in fitness routine, diet, and other lifestyle habits? How do people know whatever they’re feeling is not just because of negative expectation and confirmation bias?]

23:06

Idea proposed by some fairly intelligent people: If 1) there is a massive incentive to cheat in an election, 2) people know there is a high probability of them getting away with it, and 3) there is a variety of ways to cheat, it is almost 100% certain that there will be cheating.

In a similar vein the following questions can be asked: 1) Are there people with access to a variety of resources – from media and capital to political power, with possible international connections – who see themselves as natural leaders of society, regardless of public opinion or public support for them? 2) If such people exist with access to a variety of resources, would it be outrageous to think that they have certain ideas and suggestions for how the population and society in general should be managed? (It is possible that they believe their ambitions would serve the interests of humanity, and in such a way justify it to themselves.) 3) If there are such people with numerous resources and even political power at their disposal, with a particular set of ideas for society, how likely is it that they would pass up the excellent opportunity a global emergency such as a pandemic would present to implement their chosen policies and put certain mechanisms in place?

FRIDAY, 8 OCTOBER 2021

My position on the Covid-19 vaccine on Friday, 8 October 2021 at nine minutes past ten in die evening: I now have even more questions about the vaccines than last week, and I’m even more sceptical that this is the big solution. On the other hand, I am reluctant to go to South Africa to visit my family (immediate family, ten people who all had Covid with the exception of one niece and all thankfully survived) without being vaccinated first. Why? I still accept that the vaccines will increase the chance that you will experience milder symptoms if the virus does bite you.

TUESDAY, 12 OCTOBER 2021

A crystallised belief: Getting vaccinated against Covid-19 is a personal choice. To discriminate against someone who makes a personal choice about not getting a vaccine about which there is still uncertainty, that offers limited protection, and that can lead to serious adverse effects, is unreasonable, and unfair. Insisting on knowing someone’s vaccination status before they can enjoy civil rights is a disregard for the person’s civil rights; it is also immoral and should be illegal in any country or community organised according to reasonable laws and principles.

______________________

Random thoughts in September and October 2021

SUNDAY, 12 SEPTEMBER 2021

I consider it more than a small triumph that I was able to work out – for myself at least – what life is about, what it means to be human, what I need to do with my life, what the meaning of life is, and what the basis should be of my ethics.

I had to work all these things out because, as REM famously expressed it in their big hit of the early nineties, I had lost my religion.

Religion played a most significant role in my life until my early twenties. It explained what the purpose of my existence was, where I came from and what would happen when you died, how you had to lead your life, and why you had to do certain things and not do other things. It provided me with a worldview. It explained how everything – the cosmos and planets, and humans and animal and nature – fit together. I even strongly considered pursuing a career where religion would have played an important role.

All of this came crashing down on me like a house of cards. I had to start all over. And I did it in writing, one set of paragraphs after another, until I figured out enough to say, “I understand again. I can now do more than just function.”

THURSDAY, 16 SEPTEMBER 2021

Reasonable objectives of an adult life:

1. Survive, physically and mentally.

2. Try not to do harm. If you do harm in the process of survival, try to keep it to a minimum.

3. Try to do good – protect other people, animals and nature from harm, aid in the maintenance of life, aid in the improvement of the lives of other people or animals.

4. Try to live an authentic life that corresponds to the realisation that you are not a machine controlled by unseen forces.

TUESDAY, 28 SEPTEMBER 2021

I don’t like this idea of conditional happiness: “I’m happy because …”

I like delusional happiness, crazy happiness: I’m happy despite …

Can the same be said about feeling good about yourself – a necessary ingredient of positive self-esteem? You feel good about yourself despite X, Y or Z.

THURSDAY, 30 SEPTEMBER 2021

If the measure of success is that you can create things from wood and steel, then my father was a success.

If the criterion is to be able to fix cars, even turning a wreck that used to stand on bricks into a road-worthy vehicle with which the family goes on vacation, then my father was a success.

But if the criterion is to work for someone else and say, “Yes, Boss … no, Boss” and keep your mouth shut the rest of the time, well, then it’s just one of those things.

SUNDAY, 10 OCTOBER 2021

“I’m sad.”

If you choose to be.

(And yet, it feels appropriate in certain circumstances.)
[Thursday, 11 November 2021]

______________________

Is it possible for a fundamentally bad idea to receive broad support?

TUESDAY, 5 OCTOBER 2021

I saw this satirical headline on Twitter: “Parents who think that their children don’t belong to the State are dangerous, explained.”

Of course, most people won’t accept this idea (right?) and the headline itself is from a non-existing website with satirical headlines. Yet, if an article like this were to appear on mainstream media like CNN or BBC, I bet at least 20% of readers would support the idea.

Imagine being the editor of the online media that publishes such an article. The person truly believes in the concept that children belong to the state. They are committed to pushing this idea.

Now imagine this editor is not alone. Hundreds of other editors, journalists, reporters, and presenters at high-profile media outlets agree with them.

Imagine thousands of academics also support the idea. So do TV and movie stars, and other celebrities – once it has been convincingly framed as “progressive”.

Parents who believe they have a right to educate and raise their children as they see fit, and that their rights supersede any claim the state has over their offspring, are presented in hundreds of TV shows, talk shows, academic journals and newspaper and magazine articles as “traditional”, “unbearably conservative”, “radical” and even “fundamentalist”. Because the idea that children belong to the state is being presented as cool and progressive, teenagers increasingly show their support to the idea, and in timeless fashion influence their younger siblings to do the same.

And yet, is the idea good? (Remember: the state claiming your kids is just a useful example.)

Is it possible for a fundamentally bad idea to receive broad support amongst those with the most powerful voices and with access to millions of minds through social media and educational spaces? And how many millions of readers and viewers would support such an idea simply because of its favourable framing?

______________________

Media and other voices creating a narrative

______________________