I was a minor sporting prodigy - but even as a kid I knew I was only doing it because I was bored and there seemed to be nothing worth doing. A toy chest Slip? If we'd had one of them, we'd have flown it to the moon. The big wrench for me was passing the 11 plus - my mates never forgave me. I had a colleague so embittered by his treatment by child peers that he used to relish making systems more efficient in order to make people redundant - a kind of constant battle to do away with the very workers who had somehow rejected him as a child.
On 27 Feb, 11:16, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > Perhaps I was exemplary at 432, really can't say positively but only > that I don't remember having that behavior. I do have memories of my > first few years of life and if good memory would have it, clearly then > I would say everything that came before me sparked a sense of wonder, > the colors and shapes. This may have been due to the fact that I was > born an artist and in art I found fascination and I viewed toys as > art. I was a very passive child, one that avoided the ruckus of > childhood, my content being at peace away from the crowd. I had > always been recognized by the family as being apart from the whole. > Still today it remains that way as I stand apart in every way from the > extended familial group in which there is no other akin to me. When it > comes to traits, I hardly even know them. Common childhood behavior > is just that, common behavior, that does not apply to all. I was more > amazed at how the wheel would spin on the axle than how it might be > broken off. Truth is we didn't have much of anything and were lucky > to have whatever came along. I don't recall ever having a toy chest. > > On Feb 26, 5:11 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > :^D Perhaps you are thinking too late in age, Slip. You never popped a > > wheel off a car when you were 4? 3? 2? This is common childhood > > behaviour, so if it never occurred for you, perhaps you were > > exemplary. > > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I think that it may be a generalization on your part Chris in the "we" > > > reference, as many children, myself included, cherished anything that > > > resembled a toy. I never broke a toy in my life and would become very > > > adamant when my brother would waste away his, and sometimes mine. I > > > meticulously cared for every toy I was ever lucky to receive, which > > > weren't many. I had cousins that had everything and would destroy it > > > all in the rumpus room. Toys that I envied were recklessly smashed by > > > those insolent little brats. I still today buy for myself toys, > > > simple toys, toys that I could never afford to have. I love my > > > gyroscope, my top and my RC cars. > > > I do understand what you are saying in that we don't really realize as > > > children the value of what we have received and in "that" we learn the > > > makings of it, the mechanism upon which some of us have the ability to > > > discover our desire to be one with it, as a career, as a hobby. > > > I'm sorry you broke all your toys, Chris, you might be one of my > > > distant cousins. LOL > > > > On Feb 26, 4:09 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Hi Sagir > > >> I don't think this is negativity, as much as learning. When we are > > >> children, we don't really mean to break our toy cars...at least not > > >> the first time we pull the wheel off. It just happens. The second > > >> time, we DO mean to pull the wheel off, but only because we are > > >> establishing a causative norm. At that point, however, we have a > > >> broken car, and we go crying to our Mom and Dad to fix it...and that > > >> then becomes our goal (hopefully), to learn how to fix it ourself. > > > >> I see nothing negative in this process. It seems to me to be the > > >> natural order of growth and learning. > > > >> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 3:24 PM, saghir anwar > > > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > hi...sir with due apology ,i will not endorse ur point of view.u > > >> > started > > >> > from human nature that we break the toys in childhood and become > > >> > engineers > > >> > when grow old.its our distructive instinct.we we groom ,we become > > >> > rational > > >> > and utilize our energies to construct something in positive way.but we > > >> > have > > >> > also seen that poorly groomed persons oftenly commit follies and get > > >> > irrepareable loss sometime.so we can manage to recover ,if we used our > > >> > faculties in a positive way...sorry to be critical but negitivity can > > >> > not > > >> > bring positive results.thanx saghir > > > >> > --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > From: Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> > > >> > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: It's too late for planet Earth > > >> > To: [email protected] > > >> > Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 6:52 AM > > > >> > I have a similar thought process. I often liken the macro of the human > > >> > race to the micro. When we are young, we break our toys, simply > > >> > pulling them apart. Some of us, as we get into our teen years, begin > > >> > disassembling small engines, and electronics, curious as to how they > > >> > work, attempting to reassemble them. A few of us go on to become > > >> > technicians of such things. As a civilization, we have done much the > > >> > same, randomly tearing things down as cavemen, becoming more precise > > >> > in our disassembly as an industrial nation, and hopefully, as an > > >> > advanced civilization of the future, we will become technicians, > > >> > reassembling the planet in a way which provides symbiotic sustenance > > >> > for all. I really don't see any reason that greenhouse skyscrapers > > >> > located in each metropolitan area couldn't provide local food sources > > >> > for the populace. This planet could reasonably sustain twice the > > >> > population, if we were managed effectively, and didn't piss in our own > > >> > bathwater. > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:13 AM, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> > > >> > wrote: > > > >> >> 2009/2/26 archytas <[email protected]> > > > >> >>> Our current space vehicles > > >> >>> remind me someone of primitive spawning in plants - like a group of > > >> >>> algae forming a tower to boost one of their number from the surf to > > >> >>> the jet stream. > > > >> >> I think there's little point investing any money on manned space > > >> > flight. The > > >> >> cost is too high and we -- being a short-lived species -- are not > > >> > especially > > >> >> suited to travelling the enormous distances of our galaxy. > > > >> >> Lovelock reckons certain countries (the UK, parts of Canada, New > > >> >> Zealand, > > >> >> etc) will effectively become life rafts for the human population. > > >> >> These > > >> >> countries would be broken down into super-high density cities and > > >> >> areas of > > >> >> intensive GM-farming (forget the current fixation about free-range > > >> > chickens, > > >> >> my hippy friends). The borders of these countries, sadly, would need > > >> >> to be > > >> >> barricaded and policed to stop the unfortunates getting in. > > > >> >> Ian --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
