#pragmatism

"There wasn't a nice thing that would work," said Moist.

Bruce Lee once said that one can only be defeated when they accept defeat as their reality.

There is far more psychological truth in that statement than most people realize because people tend to treat failure as though it is an objective condition rather than an interpretation assigned to an outcome.

Failure has always been descriptive. Never absolute.

You cannot fail unless you decide the possibility itself is no longer worth entertaining. Even then, what occurred was not failure in any objective sense. You simply stopped moving in that direction.

There is no such thing as a failed attempt because every attempt produces something.

Maybe a revelation.

Maybe a new conclusion.

Maybe an awareness you did not possess beforehand.

That still counts.

Every attempt produces some degree of neurological, psychological, or experiential expansion.

The version of you entering an experience is never identical to the version of you leaving it.

From a neuroscientific perspective, moments of contrast between expectation and outcome prompt the brain to adapt and reorganize itself. The brain strengthens through repetition, though friction often accelerates adaptation.

Something always changes.

So to call an attempt a failure while ignoring the expansion that just occurred is an incomplete interpretation of reality.

That change becomes part of identity whether you acknowledge it or not.

Most people suffer more from interpretation than circumstance itself.

What people often label as failure is usually an expectation collapsing against a particular perception of reality.

Circumstances shift. Outcomes rearrange themselves. Meaning gets assigned afterward.

That meaning is rarely objective.

Identity determines interpretation long before interpretation appears conscious.

If identity is built around inadequacy, almost every obstacle becomes evidence confirming it.

If identity is built around expansion, obstacles become information.

This is why failure is ultimately perception based.

It has no independent existence outside the meaning attached to experience.

There are only events and the conclusions drawn from them.

Then interpretation enters.

- big daddy and little sister mod - hsr clara and svarog mod - doom slayer and isabelle mod

how cool would that be !!

So, for the last few days, all I have been hearing is how "awful" Platner is. I don't know all that much about him as I don't live in Maine. But there are a few things people need to start thinking about, whether they like it or not.

First, people are not paragons of virtue. No one is ever going to line up exactly with what you believe the right candidate should be. If you look critically, you are going to find "problems" with every candidate who runs for office.

With that being said there are few other important points. The accusations are important, and may or may not be true. After all, if they are true then they are a pretty good indicator of the man's character. However, I hate how people demand purity especially when anyone makes an accusation of something. No proof has yet been provided in many cases and yet some move to demand that someone in power resign for the greater good. This political purity could easily lead opposition to assume that if an accusation is bad enough then the accused may just step aside whether they did it or not simply because of the outcry.

I am not saying Platner is innocent, just that no one is perfect, even a candidate whose ideas you may have aligned with.

The thing is, the accusations have started, and they are likely to get worse. Who benefits from this? Collins surely, but also the republican party, and everyone wishing the destruction of America. Platner isn't likely to step aside at this point, but the constant accusations are going to depress excitement from democratic voters. Whether they are true or not, the purists aren't going to vote for Platner.

Here's the problem with that. Collins will win. Republicans will likely retain control of the Senate. Trump will continue to get away with everything he is doing now. Like him or hate him, it is time democrats and independents become pragmatic. Which of these two people are worse for the country?

I am not a Maine voter so my opinion doesn't matter all that much, but this is something those who have the ability to vote there must consider. Which of these two people and their parties will do the least amount of damage to the country until the next election? Collins is a known commodity. We know exactly what she is likely to do in any given situation. She will say something along the lines of how bad something is, but most of the time she will go right along with that evil thing because her party demands it. Platner has problems as well, but his party isn't trying to turn the country into a Christian nationalist fascism.

Ao dormir,

a consciência se desprende,

mas, acorrentada ao corpo,

ela retorna.

Mesmo sozinho,

o corpo funciona,

a mente trabalha,

o coração bombeia sangue,

tudo como deve ser.

Ao morrer,

as correntes se quebram,

a consciência se desfaz,

o objetivo se cumpre,

e a vida não existe mais.

Tudo ao vazio volta,

e dele saí;

a vida nasce, vem e vai,

mas a morte, como um sono,

a todos atrai.

É o vazio que tudo forma e deforma,

dá início e fim a tudo.

Esse é o ciclo de sono, da eternidade.