Really nice post, Bob. Thanks. Best,
Jerry Daniels Use tRev's buy link during your free trial to get 20% off: http://reveditor.com/tag/shouldiswitch On Apr 29, 2010, at 12:17 PM, Bob Sneidar <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the source of whatever disagreements are being had in this thread > stem from a tendency for people to misperceive the nature of the world they > actually have to deal with day to day, and their ability to make any real > quantum change in it's nature. This is driven by the seemingly inescapable > sense that "men ought to be better than this" but simply aren't, coupled with > their own inability do do much about even themselves, never mind everyone > else. > > One of the reactions to this phenomenon that I see people exhibit frequently, > is to imagine a better world, and then try to live their lives as though the > world was more like the better one they imagine. My personal opinion is that > this is a fools game. Usually what actually transpires, is that being unable > to produce any real substantive change themselves, they often latch onto > certain causes, and then pursue them to extremes which would shame all but > the best of saints. In doing so, they cannot help to implicate and alienate a > great many people for "not doing enough" toward their particular cause. The > net result is a kind of moral finger pointing usually reserved for religious > folk who say but don't do. > > Now apparently many people feel that Steve Jobs ought to be behaving much > more in accordance with the benevolence and altruism that their perception of > "the world that ought to be" requires, and are disappointed that he doesn't. > I call to witness all the claims of his lack of consideration for "what > developers want" claiming that instead he is simply focused on the bottom > line. > > I suppose in the world that ought to be, heads of corporations would be free > to pursue such lofty goals at will, while the masses admired him for all he > aspired to do. But we live in the real world, not "the world that ought to > be", and in that real world, people pay Steve Jobs a lot of money. Those > people expect him to do one particular job. That job is to make Apple as > profitable, in the near term and in the long term, as he can possible make > it. Most of the time he can accomplish this by accommodating as many end > users and developers as possible, but this is not always the case. Sometimes > in the world that is, you have to take from Peter to pay Paul. Peter's > friends will undoubtedly feel angst at this, but then Paul's friends would > feel no less angst should the transaction not have occurred. > > So my point here is that trying to live your live in "the world that ought to > be" is fine up until the point that you begin to require of others to do the > same. If imaging such a world motivates you to be a better person in the real > one, excellent. We need more of you. Just know that my version of "the world > that ought to be" is likely to be on may points contrary to yours. We aren't > going to get along very well requiring each other to conform to each other's > dreams and visions. > > Instead, we ought to resign ourselves to figuring out how the real world > works, and then do our best to live in that world while not compromising our > own personal principles, or encroaching on anyone else's rights or freedoms. > I often tell starry eyed young people with hearts full of hope recently > deferred, "There is 'The World That Is' and there is 'The World That Ought To > Be.' You can only live in 'The World That Is.'" > > Bob > > > _______________________________________________ > use-revolution mailing list > [email protected] > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription > preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
