Realism and hope
I am in most things a realist, and I suppose I'm a little intolerant of those who aren't. It's almost a dirty word, realism, because people associate it with cynicism and a lack of passion.It manifests itself in all sorts of ways. I am an agnostic because I am a realist. I would say I'm an atheist, but the element of "anti-ism" in that doesn't appeal to me. I do not despise your god, as a Dawkins or Hitchens does, I just know he doesn't exist. I know this because he does not impinge in any way on our world. No seeing, no believing; this is the core of realism, after all.
I am a political realist. I do not dream that the lions will lie down with the lambs. I dream that the lambs will find ways to prevent the lions from feasting on them. I'm also realist enough to know that that's an uphill struggle. Realism prevents me from having much enthusiasm for communism. It would be great that the proletariat should rule the world if the proletariat weren't such fucking idiots. They are reactionaries in the main; not necessarily by natural inclination, but they are easily swayed into ideologies that do not serve them, but work to empower others.
When I dream, my dreams are realistic. I never dreamed of playing centre-forward for Leeds. I am not good enough at football and never will be. I dream of winning the Booker Prize. Whether that's realistic is something you could argue, but it's within the realms of possibility in a way flying to the moon isn't.
I am realistic about myself. I am not an ideal man, and I'm not likely to become one. I think people tear themselves apart because they do not accept that; either that or they make the ideal a mirror of themselves. Were you a saint, this would probably be fine. But few of us are, and improving ourselves is generally a good thing, to our own and others' benefit.
I understand the lure of idealism: it seems to the idealist that they are reaching for a very high target. I say they are reaching for the moon. The realist knows they need a rocket for that. The idealist thinks, well, if I just stretch a little more.
So my ambition is not to make a mint as a commodities trader, or a killing in the foreign exchange game. I don't have the resources for either, and I know it. Could I make good picks? Yes, I think I could. I'll tell you right now that the US dollar will continue to fall but it may rally when the Chinese get behind it again.
No, my ambition is to make a modest living at poker. Not even to win the World Series, or to play the Big Game. Just to make $50 an hour.
Realism accepts limits and imperfections. Because I am a realist, I can love you even though you have faults. I do not find the lack of perfection overwhelming because I do not expect you or anyone else to be perfect.
It can be a struggle to deal with idealists. Mrs Zen is one, in some regards. For instance, she believes that there can be an ideal relationship, that everyone has someone, a partner who will love them and care for them in the way they want.
She says "I just want a normal marriage" and I'm like, yeah? Like your
sister C's (divorced) or like your friend M's (her husband goes to
prossies because she withholds to punish him) or your friend D's
(desperately unhappy with a useless husband) or your mum's (her
husband would not "allow" her to have a job, leaving her with an
unsatisfying life as a mother, which she did very very badly) or my
mum's (nearly divorced and has ended up sublimating herself to a cunt)
or WHOSE FUCKING NORMAL MARRIAGE ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT?
What she means to say is that she wants her ideal. In my view, it's an outcome of her immaturity, that her growth stopped at 14. Because when I was 14, I believed the same, but I grew out of it.
She's not alone in the view that there is someone for her. I know other people feel the same (including the person who I wrote the passage above to in an email, and I hope she'll forgive me for lifting it to use here). S did, for instance. I think her unhappiness in this life stems almost entirely from her idealism: life for people like her is a constant disappointment because it cannot match her ideals; for people like me it's a disappointment because we don't hope for it to stop being shitty.
If I look at myself from Mrs Zen's, or S's, or anyone's who is thinking of me in that way, I see someone who has a lot to offer. For Mrs Z, I'm probably the best deal she could hope for. I truly believe that. I have my faults -- I freely confess that I have a bucketful -- but I am good for her, or could be. But I don't match her ideal, in some respects in very specific ways. But I won't ever! And nor will anyone else! That's the thing, right there. A realist knows that the world, and the people in it, are what they are. They won't change for wishing it. They might change because they are pushed, but only within the limits that they operate within.
Realism is, more than anything, about understanding the bounds of the world.
I am not claiming it is a good way to be. I was a dreamer as a kid, and I preferred it, I suppose. But it is how I am. It does lead me to things I regret, of course. With S, I had options that a dreamer, an idealist, would unhesitatingly have taken. But I couldn't. I had to see how they would fit into my life as it is, within the bounds of what is. S read that as reluctance, but that's not how I felt about it.
It drags you down, sometimes. I want to go home to England, but I don't picture it or even really hope for it, because it is so difficult to see how I could do it. If you are thinking, you could just go and it would all work out, you are clearly an idealist! The bounds of life, remember. I fixate on what is possible and know that I can't reach beyond that.
It is not synonymous with pessimism: although I don't indulge in vain hopes, I do have hopes. I imagine how to expand the possible. I have plans (which often fail). I do not imagine the future will be bleak necessarily, because it is an abnegation of realism to believe that it must be bad, just the same as it is to believe that it must be good. The future is not constrained by anything but the bounds of possibility. I might see them rather clearly, or think I do, but I do not only see their bottom end. So I do hope to reconcile with Mrs Zen, return to England and be happy. I hope my book will be published, my poker career will become fruitful, my sister's child will be beautiful, my friendship with S will be resurrected, Leeds will rise again and one day win the league, England will regain the Ashes, the Iraqis will reach a political settlement once America leaves it alone, Al Gore will be elected president and be permitted to do the job this time and will go some way to healing America, and so on. None of the things I hope for is extreme. They probably don't excite anyone to read them. But I do not live without hope, except for in the ultimate sense.
I do though accept that it is equally realistic that I leave Mrs Zen, I never return to England, I am never happy, I never have a published book, I become sick of poker, my sister has a miscarriage, S remains hostile to me, Leeds get relegated again and finally go out of business, the Aussies keep us in our place, Iraq descends even further into hell, the Yanks are dumb enough to elect Giuliani and enter a dark age of authoritarianism, and so on. But I am not a pessimist, and do not consider those outcomes inevitable, or even likely. Hope and realism are not always great bedfellows -- Camus would suggest they are incompatible, but he discussed hope in a rather narrower sense than I am doing -- but they are not strangers.
posted by Dr Zen @ 10:25 am
28 Comments:
this was an EXCELLENT thought-provoking essay.
it would be a PERFECT bickerfest submission -- though i'd imagine you'd write it a bit differently if you were posting it in the bickerfest -- the Mrs. Zen stuff or whatever might be excluded or perhaps revised in someway, or not.
anyway, i'd absolutely LOVE to discuss many of the ideas that you have presented, but i refuse to do so here because it will eat away at my time that i need to focus on the bickerfest project.
i personally have a lot to say about many of the things you wrote, and i'll bet that you would have just as many interesting things to say in reply to my reply.
so please consider posting this essay into the bickerfest.
you have no credible reason not to. no matter what your bullshit objection is, i can ridicule it for what it is.
so again, do consider posting it over in the bickerfest (it would take you all of two minutes to do so) because your essay would be the basis for a very interesting and benefitial discussion for anyone who read it -- even if you decided not to respond to any of my many responses.
as i noted before, if you'd prefer to post anonymously or whatever, i'll give you your own bickerfest mailbox (any name you'd like) for creating a separate gmail account.
i'll even offer to spend my own time setting it all up for you so you don't have to spend yours doing it (if you're too busy to set it up yourself) -- and i'll send you the gmail password so that all you need to do is log in (and change the password if you like), copy and paste your essay, post it to the bickerfest, and log out.
so now, if nothing else, let's hear your total BS reason as to why you wouldn't want to do that.
if you have some valid objection i can probably help you resolve it.
OTOH, if you're just a petty selfish prick, oh well.
there's nothing i can do about that except poke fun at you.
which is fun in itself, but hardly as worthwhile as doing so in the bickerfest.
paula has posted a very interesting and humorous piece about political correctness.
check it out.
respond to it, even.
i know i will be, as soon as i can.
You are welcome to post it yourself, edited as you like. As for me, I don't do newsgroups.
Gawd.
it's. not. a. newsgroup.
FFS.
but thanks for letting me repost it.
i'll link it back here to give you credit for it unless you object.
so, what the hell is your mental block about "newsgroups" anyway?
or is it just bickerfest itself?
have you lost your joy for debate? no.
so what gives?
Lack of competition.
The future is not constrained by anything but the bounds of possibility.
Exactly. But you seem to determine ahead of time what those bounds are, when you really can't know, and you chain yourself with them. In some respects, not all. I know there are other issues at work.
Forex, you say I want to go home to England, but I don't picture it or even really hope for it, because it is so difficult to see how I could do it.
And this is where the idealist has one over on you, simply because the idealist doesn't necessarily not have some realist practicalities about them. It's too difficult, you say. The idealist says screw the difficulty, while the realist part says what could I do now that might get me going in that direction? It may take a long time. It may never happen. But it certainly won't if you stop before you start.
How is it that your poker goal isn't a bit of idealism showing through?
A
lack of competition.
huh?
anyway...
so you'll write for bickerfest after you receive your first payment, right?
so, are you saying that other writing venues compete for your "audience"?
or do other venues compete for your time?
if you mean your time, well, that's certainly true.
too bad it took us both a gazillion posts to learn that fucking lesson, huh?
zero, I've lost all interest in what you have to say about this. Sorry, man. By all means, repost my stuff, whatever you like. It's for public consumption. But I'm not going to post in your (news)group. I had to cut some things out of my life, and that's one thing I cut. I'm happy with my choice.
arleen, you are making an assumption that is unwarranted. If I don't know what the bounds of possibility are, I do not feel limited. But when I feel I do, I feel I do.
The idealist might say "screw the difficulty" in going to England, but that's a road to disaster for me, as the realist well knows. I *must* consider the difficulty. I have three children who count on my doing so.
Anyway, I didn't say I wasn't trying to do it. I am, of course. If I succeed in my poker goal, that will be a big step.
"How is it that your poker goal isn't a bit of idealism showing through?"
I think you need to reread the post, Arleen, because that's a plain stupid question.
Anyway, I didn't say I wasn't trying to do it. I am, of course.
Good.
If I succeed in my poker goal, that will be a big step.
"How is it that your poker goal isn't a bit of idealism showing through?"
I think you need to reread the post, Arleen, because that's a plain stupid question.
For someone who isn't plagued with some of your issues, what you're attempting to do with poker is the height of idealism.
Yeah, so, in light of what's possible for you, perhaps it is a stupid question. Realistically, poker is possible for you where other things aren't.
A
Arleen, it might be the height of idealism for someone who isn't aware of what's involved; I accept that.
zero, I've lost all interest in what you have to say about this.
ooo, harsh.
Arleen, it might be the height of idealism for someone who isn't aware of what's involved; I accept that.
if you're aware of what's involved, why aren't you already winning?
Good question.
I am winning, as it happens. Just not at a high enough level. To win at the higher level, I need more ability and more experience.
I'm aware of what is involved in that I know the level of ability and experience I will need (and that I don't have it). I am not winning because I don't yet have it.
The question is whether I ever will. I don't know the answer to that, but it's definitely within the bounds of possibility. I don't know whether you know poker, zero, but we're talking about fourtabling $100 games at 10% ROI or the equivalent. Can I do that? Maybe, maybe not.
boots sez:
"No, my ambition is to make a modest living at poker. Not even to win the World Series, or to play the Big Game. Just to make $50 an hour."
To achieve that repeatably, reliably... I think it's a stretch. Perhaps not.
"The future is not constrained by anything but the bounds of possibility. "
There are ways you could have said that with which I would have agreed completely. But there is something between the possible and the actual which separates the two and it is not probability. You know that the snowy-bearded God of heaven and vengance does not exist, thus apparently you conceive of nothing higher than Man except perhaps random chance.
It puzzles me how you can expect to grind out $50/hour playing poker when you seem to think it is a matter of maths and mindreading. Apparently good money-management can possible the river away.
boots:
It puzzles me how you can expect to grind out $50/hour playing poker...
is that fucking hilarious, or what?
zen:
I am winning, as it happens. Just not at a high enough level.
yikes.
To win at the higher level, I need more ability and more experience.
it's almost as though you view your poker learning as a college degree thinger with a higher paying job awaiting your diploma.
zen:
I'm aware of what is involved in that I know the level of ability and experience I will need (and that I don't have it). I am not winning because I don't yet have it.
The question is whether I ever will. I don't know the answer to that, but it's definitely within the bounds of possibility.
translation: idealism
zen:
I don't know whether you know poker, zero,
i know what i know.
but we're talking about fourtabling $100 games at 10% ROI or the equivalent.
and what does that entail?
why is it something that you can't already do?
Can I do that? Maybe, maybe not.
what are the variables?
and how do those variables not fall under the umbrella of idealism?
just because someone else claims to be winning at certain levels because of X, Y, and/or Z, how do you know it's true?
and even if it is true, what makes you think that you can master X, Y, and Z to the extent that the person who claims that those are the reasons he or she is supposedly winning?
you're placing faith in something.
what?
yourself?
if so, why do you do so with poker (which is a total abstraction of probabilities) but not with something based on your actual skills?
again, as i've said before, i'm certainly not trying to discourage your pursuit of poker mastery, you clearly love the game.
i'm just asking questions.
and no, these are not the questions and ideas that i had thought of when i originally read your essay, these are tangents from your responses to Arleen.
originally, i was more interested in commenting on your views of realism vs idealism (which i suppose is somewhat related to the poker stuff).
anyway, i got sucked into this conversation regardless.
and i hate the inefficient way that these blogger comments handle "threading" and "quoting" so i hope i can resist further participation because it's a waste of my time right now. not that you care, naturally. i'm just saying.
you're a very interesting person to exchange ideas with, as wrong-headed as you sometimes are, so it's difficult to resist digging in at least a bit.
which is exactly why i'd love you to post to bickerfest -- even before i send you your first payment. your participation would engage others which would free me up to concentrate on other aspects of the project that need ironing out right now, so your posting would help build interest while i work on other stuff.
anyway... that's my problem, not yours. (except perhaps to the extent that its delaying your first bickerfest payments)
"It puzzles me how you can expect to grind out $50/hour playing poker when you seem to think it is a matter of maths and mindreading."
You obviously haven't played many sngs, dude. It is not a stretch to win $50 an hour, boots, but not everyone can do it. I do not mean that each hour I would win $50. I mean I would average it over a given period.
"it's almost as though you view your poker learning as a college degree thinger with a higher paying job awaiting your diploma."
In a sense it is. If my winrate was accurate right now, zero, I would win $6 an hour playing the games I play. I'd probably be capable of making $10 an hour if I played tens, but for my own reasons, I don't yet. I don't know whether I can improve sufficiently to win $50 an hour, but the fact I win now sets the bounds of possibility.
"but we're talking about fourtabling $100 games at 10% ROI or the equivalent.
and what does that entail?"
Being a very good SNG player.
"why is it something that you can't already do?"
Three reasons, basically. One, I make too many mistakes. Two, I do not understand ICM sufficiently to compete with players who do. Three, I do not have a big enough bankroll to avoid ruin if I run bad.
There are other reasons but those have to be surmounted before I tackle them.
Why poker?
I enjoy it. And there's a clear and real challenge, with an outcome that would be brilliant for me. It doesn't detract from my life to try, and I'll know a year from today whether I am there or not. It's all in all a decent path for me, so I'm trying it.
There's plenty more to it, but I'll leave that for another bickering.
And I have told you, you are welcome to use my posts as you see fit. I don't have any problem with that, given that I wish you well.
yes, well i do appreciate your permission to use your posts, and i will be posting this one asap, because it's full of interesting ideas to contemplate and debate.
but your actual active participation would be MUCH more valuable and WAYYYY more efficient - considering only the limits of time itself, let alone the clusterfuck of me copy and pasting your posts and/or comments fro one window to another -- i've got enough hassles already with aol glitching out every hour or so with memory overloads.
but whatever.
if for some odd reason you cannot see fit to post your own comments just a few doors down the hall, as they're occuring to you -- flowing from your mind to your fingertips to your keyboard, well, so be it.
yikes and whoa, and all that.
when you're eventually being paid $100+ an hour for doing so, you'll look back on this peculiar reluctance of yours and laugh.
but i won't be laughing about it then -- because i'm already laughing about it now.
zen:
I do not understand ICM sufficiently to compete with players who do
then why not play with players who don't understand ICM?
surely the vast majority of players are playing at levels of understanding far below yours.
As boots will tell you, poker = understanding + luck.
Players who don't understand ICM play at levels too low for me to make the money I want at.
boots sez:
"Players who don't understand ICM play at levels too low for me to make the money I want..."
It sounds as if you are equating an understanding of ICM with ability and thus the confidence to play at higher levels. I'm not sure what "ICM" is but I think it might be a mistake to equate any specific school of thought with capability.
Playing at higher levels (regardless of game) means the player believes himself able to succeed at those levels. It is possible to get the right answers for the wrong reasons; some who consistently get the right answers for the "wrong" reasons receive the label "savant".
Whatever dude, you seem satisfied with your progress, with what the maths and the attempted mindreading can achieve. Just don't be too surprised when eventually you try to read some player's mind and find there's nobody in there and from appearances he has not the slightest clue but he's consistently kicking your ass anyway; he may simply understand "luck" and be working on that basis alone, it can work that way.
boots, you are so fucking funny, man.
Religion evolved because its idealism gives men the extra push they often need to survive. If humans had not needed an extra unrealistic push beyond hope now and then (or quite often) in order to survive as a species, than every single human community would not be religious.
To jettison idealism entirely is a rational idea, but its not realistic. A little bit, certainly. But there is a point where every one of us must either dream or die.
No one has any idea why religion evolved, Don, and any suggestions are purely speculative. "Primitive" religions, if we can call them that, are not at all idealist. They attempt to explain phenomena in the world. That's clearly a realist endeavour. That they invoke the supernatural is not an outcome of idealism but one of simply not knowing what the bounds of the real are.
I am not suggesting jettisoning idealism though, even though I completely disagree with your analysis of its benefits. Dude, idealists have fucking wrecked the place. Dreamers who have seen clearly what the bounds of possibility are have been the guys who've made it great. Galileo was a realist; Genghis Khan an idealist.
I believe you might be better off on another planet...please do us a favor and leave this one.
you are truly a bore and I'm sure your spouse would be happy to see you go.
buh bye old chap
Thanks for your kind and anonymous thoughts.
Post a Comment
<< Home