>Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 21:22:49 -0500
>From: Tim Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: lightwork-l Half-full / Half-empty
>
>I was sitting in my cube at work yesterday and I heard two of my
>co-workers talking about the philosophical question of looking at a
>glass half filled with liquid as being either half-full or half-empty.
>How they normally feel about things and which camp they fit into. As
>they were talking, I started thinking about how I never liked those
>options. This philosophical question never sat well with me. Then it
>hit me. There IS another option. You can look at the glass as being
>FULL. Now, I can't remember, I might have heard something like that on
>this list, but it seemed new to me. The more I think about it, the more
>I like that way of looking at things. (Lord knows, I've run into people
>that look at a half-full glass and see a empty glass.) After all, is
>the half-full glass the illusion or is the full glass the illusion?
I think a lot has to do with the concept of who defines emptiness
and fullness. The posseser of the glass. But the posseser of
the glass looks at the amount of water from his own perspective,
and the glass was made by someone else's. I think the glass
represents what society tells us is ideal (full) and how much
of that we posses. Sometimes we don't want all that, and half
a glass is what we want, and is right, so therefore, the glass
is full at %50 capacity.
And then there are those whose cup runneth over.
I am not so sure the original analogy represents pessimism
and optimism so much as insecurity and security. The one with
the half-full glass has enough, the other fears he doesn't.
Pessimism is believing the waitress won't come back, not the
assesment of what is available.
\ / \ /
\\ v // Maria
>{o}< [EMAIL PROTECTED]
//(O)\\
/ | " | \
/ \
