Inner Game

by Trigger. trigger at

    • Because you love someone so much that you want to know what the mix of your genes will look like;

    • Because you've already reached such clarity and confidence in your values that you can actually transmit them;

    • Because you've achieved all you had to achieve as an individual;

    • Because you understand the concept of pride and want to experience towards your offspring.

    Why not to have children?

    Any other reason.

  • Sex should be a celebration of life, pleasure, intimacy between people.

    It should not be...

    • Something you do because you think it's wrong

    • Something you don't do because you think it's wrong

    • Something you don't do because you enjoy it

    • Something you do even if you don't enjoy it.

    • Something you do to someone you hate.

    • Something you do to prove something to yourself.

    • Something you do to prove something to others.

    • Something you don't do to prove something.
  • Truth or influence: do you say something because it's true, or because of the intended effect? Do you pick sides based on who's right, or based on your interests? Do you pick a political party, a religion, based on where the truth lies, or based on fashion, on other people's opinions?

    Do you say stuff and hold views only in order to please or displease, rebel or conform, annoy or appease? Of course, it's a second-hander stance, with the usual issue: if everyone does this, where do points of views come from?

    And, who's determining the course of your life, your own values and choices, or the values and choices of people that are dumber than you?

  • Which one is the better reframe of the usual religious question, ignosticism or apatheism?

    The wikipedia article states that "Ignosticism is not to be confused with apatheism, a position of apathy toward the existence of God. An apatheist may see the statement "God exists" as insignificant; yet they may also see it as having semantic value, and perhaps being true."

    Does this mean ignosticism goes further than apatheism? Or could we say that the true apatheist doesn't even care whether the proposition has semantic value or not?

    When Laplace answered "[Sire,] je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette hypoth├Ęse.", was he being an ignostic or an apatheist?

    But there's definitely an ignostic angle here:

    Well, if I asked people whether they believed in life, they'd never understand what I meant. It's a bad question. It can mean so much that it really means nothing. So I ask them if they believe in God. And if they say they do -- then, I know they don't believe in life. Because, you see, God -- whatever anyone chooses to call God -- is one's highest conception above his own possibility thinks very little of himself and his life. It's a rare gift, you know, to feel reverence for your own life and to want the best, the greatest, the highest possible, here, now, for your very own. To imagine a heaven and then not to dream of it, but to demand it.

    – Ayn Rand, We the Living

  • What is value, and why does it matter? Value is subjective. A value is a value of something, for someone. And it matters because it's vastly misunderstood. You could say, "value's a bitch". Or you could marvel at the beauty of it, and the actual, non-sacrificial options and freedoms it offers you. Either way, the laws of economics are as solid as the rules of gravity or game.

    What is a job? A job is when someone gives you money in exchange for something that has value for him. Don't like money? Fine: don't expect someone to give it to you. Think your value as a human being isn't only your value as a worker? Of course not: value is subjective. You might have value for a lot of people for a lot of other reasons. But you don't expect them to pay you a salary, do you?

    This is one of the great confusions of today's education system. People will tell you to choose an education, a career, based on whatever has value for you. But that's a confusion of categories. Just because something has value for you, doesn't mean it has value for other people. And if something has no value for other people, why should those people give you money for it? Hmm. Obvious, but not trivial. If you expect people to give you money, you have to give them what they want in exchange for that money. That's it. You can call that moral or immoral, won't change a thing about it. If something has value only for you, it's a hobby, not a job. Wanna study something that's only a hobby? By all means. But please, don't confuse the two.

    And don't think your "hobbies" are somehow less egotistical just because you put "effort" or "talent" into them, or because some idiots take them seriously. Your producing sweat by being the fastest runner in the world doesn't create any more value for me than your producing sweat by sunbathing in Hawaii, or by having sex. And I won't pay you a penny for either. Some idiot is ready to pay you for one of these? Good for you. But don't think you have a holy right to expect it, or a holy right to expect a job after sacrificing your youth in studying "gender studies" or "art history".

    If you want people to give you money, you have to give them something in return. It's that simple. Think about that when you choose your field of studies. Think about it when you write your resume, when you apply for a job, when you do a job interview, or even when you go into business on your own.