All before lunch.

黄色电影A片在线观看a级片免费a级片日本a级片欧美a级片下载欧美a级片迅雷a级片免费下载美国a级片韩国a级片日本a级片迅雷下载日本a级片下载日本a级片视频日本a级片在线</a<a href="http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-w5u6cdc7cqLugWwbt.vM4A?p=18">免费日本a级片日本a级片图片日本a级片在线观看欧美a级片在线观看国外a级片在线观看观看a级片免费欧美a级片欧美a级片迅雷下载欧美a级片视频欧美a级片bt下载欧美a级片在线欧美a级片电影免费观看欧美a片三级片日本三级片免费三级片韩国三级片欧美三级片黄色电影免费黄色电影韩国黄色电影欧美黄色电影大陆三级片港台三级片18电影AV女优变态电影日本av女优电影黄色图片鹿城娱乐图片性交图片鹿城娱乐熟女乱伦娱乐圈乳沟大战免费黄色电影网站幼女性交台湾18电影网性爱A片下载日本黄色小电影成人剧场18岁成人电影免费做爱电影bb成人小电影性爱视频做爱电影下载韩国黄色网站下载明星走光图色魔论坛迷奸电影淫荡少妇明星合成贴图走光摩洛客强暴电影二奶进入词典风骚少妇视频做爱同性恋成人三级电影少妇自拍性高潮性爱电影免费伦理片韩国伦理片激情免费电影性感美女性交视频日本AV女优写真中国性爱城欲女写真兴奋的动作激情女郎性教育电影美女诱惑护士装少妇频露裙下春光欧美一级片一级片免费一级片在线一级片一级片电影特级片<a href="http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-uhpp45U7brUbi6H2Zy0jaQ?p=24">特级片电影<a href="http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-uhpp45U7brUbi6H2Zy0jaQ?p=25">免费特级片下载观看<a href="http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-uhpp45U7brUbi6H2Zy0jaQ?p=26">欧美免费特级片

gmc trucks here www.gmctruck.fora.pl
gmc from america www.gmctruck.fora.pl
real gmc www.gmctruck.fora.pl


and www.emeraldring.fora.pl rings

emerald rings and gold rings www.emeraldring.fora.pl

You are kidding about the Dalai Lama. Of course he cleans up behind himself - he doesn't enjoy golden chopsticks - he is just an ordinary monk that appears extraordinary in a world based on hate and ignorance.

I challenge you to begin a religious career for all to view and participate in - that you can remember for 14 + lifetimes, and protect the reminants of a race almost erased from the face of a planet by their neighbors. If you really care how those men and women live - ask them.

Do both. Jack of all trades, master of one.

The doctor doesn't have to do the work on his SUV but better understand it well enough that he can make intelligent decisions about the appropriateness and quality of the work being done by others. I see far too many specialists who are hopelessly helpless in anything other than their speciality. They approach insecthood.

Please see my earlier release. Between "surgical MD" and "SUV" is the pronoun "his." Is this a genderist, racialist, or merely a philogical locution?

Over the past several years I've been involved in a number of familial medical narratives. I do not invent this data. I merely observe and report. Which means I am measuring by anecdotal, phenomenoligical perception -- the so-xalled "I"-test of significance.

With that enormous qualification I shall state: There is presently in the United States a predominance of males in medical surgical areas. [Not particularly true in other medical specialties.]

My convictions [rather than any knowledge of relevant research] tell me this is a social phenomenon.

Are there others who know of evidence that points in another direction?

Do I agree? Yes, without hesitation.

However, without genetic permutation, human economy has evolved to the point at which many individual entities survive and thrive when they specialize.

No need for a surgical MD to know how to tune his SUV. No need for a CEO to design and fertilize a family estate, let alone be a kitchen artist.

Would these folks be better human beings if they did all Heinlein sasys they should? That's another question. As it stands, they are perfect human insects.

Heinlein is a hero to many people who endorse self-reliance and individualism. That's what the quotation is about. The ability to "stand on one's own." Specialization goes hand-in-hand with socialization. After all, if we are specialized, then other people, with other specializations, are required. If I say that I agree with Heinlein, I'm saying that I agree that the individual SHOULD (morally) have the skills needed to live in isolation. This is part of a broader agenda where it is given that people SHOULD be solitary animals and not pack animals, since societies (packs) always generate authoritarian hierarchies, which are inherently evil. I don't agree with that idea, but I can sympathize with the thinking that created it. http://www.nerdmovement.org

This quote was at the top of the page as I arrived.

'Human territory is defined least of all by physical frontiers.' - John Fowles

Heinlein's quotation is irrelevant. To specialize in being human should above all else permit these other elementary tasks to be easily accomplished. To deny yourself the presence of mind required to perform as such is a deception of the mind and no more.

In an abstract, metaphysical sense, as long as we have bodies and minds, we will need to exercise both. Heinlein may have meant something more extreme, but in a subtle sense, I think he (or Long, as you will) was right: we cannot thrive if we limit ourselves by specializing in one thing to the exclusion of others.

In other words, get a hobby.

For those that desire knowedge and understanding it is important to know about many things, the whole picture, rather than one special subject. Some of the biggest problems in science would not exist if specialisation were not so encouraged, even required.

Edited by author 09-05-2004 12:51 AM
Robert H was annoyingly satisfied with himself. Did he have any kids? He wrote so gleefully about incest and redheads.

He means to accept the travails of life, not to shun them, to learn from the mundane and apply that to the complex. Only then can you fully utilize and appreciate the complexity of life.

I do not agree with Heinlein in this quote, because man as a species has evolved from the paleolithic way of being 'Jack of all trades' into a specialized species. If we were to do as Heinlein suggests, we couldnt survive as people, or at least thats my opinion.

Heinlein demonstrates that he, at least, was able to "pitch manure".

Edited by author 09-02-2004 08:43 PM
Well, I like the quote, and have used it several times in correspondance, but it has obvious limitations in some cultures. This means it is culturaly contextural (eeek, too semantic)and of 'philosophical' relevance to most of us. I do agree with it's premise on this level. Please note this was not Heinlein speaking for himself literally - it was part of the Lazarus Long Diaries (his alter ego, perhaps?)... while it reflects Heinlein's philosophy, I doubt he could do all these things any more than 98% of the rest of the world. Still, it is a 'driver' meme. I like it a lot.

Yes, I agree.
On the condition that the person doing all of these things really loves doing them.

Well, the thing about specialization is that for it to work, you require a community of other specialized individuals that are diversified in the overall scope of specialization. What I mean is that you can't have everyone specializing in law and expect a society to work. You also need enforcers and legislators...etc. And jzger... I believe that you missed the point.

I do believe that a human being should be a species unto itself. Displaying a good grasp (though not a deep grasp realized through specialization) on the scope of things that the species as a whole can accomplish.

But let's face it. We are ALL specialized. We just differ in degree. OVERspecialization is a different matter all together.

jzger you are an idiot. the meaning of that just totally went over your head. conk head!

"Able to" does not mean "desire to" and to be honest, butchering a hog is not something I desire to undertake, and certainly not something I would take great pride in.
Pitch manure? Can I? You bet. Will I? Not bloody likely. I will just have to swallow my pride and refuse to shovel crap. And as for dying gallantly? Yeah, right. I am squealing like a six year old girl the whole way. Writhing and mewling. Puking with terror. I guess I am an insect.

This discussion reminds me of a book by A.E. VanVogt, a science fiction writer who came BEFORE Heinlein. I believe it was called "Voyage of the Space Beagle", and was essentially a "Star Trek" adventure. The main character, however, was not the captain of the ship, but a character named Grosvenor, who was the ship's only "nexialist". Everyone else on the ship was either a member of the ship's military crew or part of the (highly compartmentalized, highly specialized) scientific staff -- a fact which entered into several of the stories that made up the novel. Grosvenor, however, was a nexialist, a scientific "jack of all trades", whose specialty wasn't knowing everything about any ONE field of study, but knowing ENOUGH about just about every field of study to be able to correlate factors that weren't obvious to anyone else.

As for the quote -- it's pure Heinlein, and for that reason mostly crap; even Heinlein admitted that "ninety percent of everything is crap". Sadly, during his declining years, when he wasn't the beneficiary of good editor, it was all too true.

The inherent implication that a human being should be efficient enough to not be an unnecessary nuisance to others while not falling into disarray himself or herself is fair and reasonable.
However, the conclusion of the given quote implies to me that Heinlein is pro-generalisation, anti-specialisation; while it is possible to be pro-generalisation, pro-specialisation.
Either that, or specialisation is downplayed in the statement as a mere tertiary matter of trivial proportions.
Either way, overlooking the strength and importance of excelling in a certain field seems to be a mark of over-rationalization, wherein everything that is not entirely 'rational' and in accordance with immediate basic needs is immediately absurd and not worth doing.
Or perhaps I've taken the quote entirely out of context.

Alright, I just looked Mr. Heinlein up.
"Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house."
Robert A. Heinlein

I'm afraid I cannot assess a pleasant contextual possibility of this man's words. Perhaps I should read a book or two by him before coming back to this.

Funny - I have this quote hanging up at my desk!

I agree compleately, humans have infinate potential. anyone can run as fast as the fastest person or just plain do anything as good as anyone else could.

Beautiful.

Most definitely agree. This would be a better world if politicians, film stars, popes and dalai lamas would roll up their sleeves, pick up a brush & scrub their own toilets.

Most definitely agree. This would be a better world if politicians, film stars popes and dalai lamas would roll up their sleeves, pick up a brush & scrub their own toilets.

If I take this quote literally, then no, I don't agree. I rarely find myself in situations where the ability to plan an invasion or butcher a hog comes in handy. If I take it figuratively, meaning that a human being should be able to adapt in whatever way is necessary to solve a problem or master a situation, then yes, I do agree – within reason.

Because what Heinlein fails to mention is whether a person should be able to do these things WELL. I think that's an important distinction. Specialization allows for people to choose jobs which fit their individual aptitudes and excel in them. I may be able to plan an invasion, but because I've spent so much time learning how to do a million other things I haven't had time to really concentrate and refine my military strategy skills and, subsequently, my army would sustain heavy losses. And do you really want a jack-of-all-trades to perform surgery on you? I'll take a specialist in that case, thanks very much. She may not be such great company when you're stranded on a desert island, but that situation doesn't seem to present itself as often.

Yes.

I believe the quote is accurate for myself, my husband, some immediate family members, and a few friends , but overall life would suck if everyone was capable and efficient. It feels good to help people. It feels good to teach someone. I personally enjoy the idiots in our society. No idiots, no Darwinisms.

Yes, too many unable men suck our society dry, just like a bunch of leeches.

I still got some things to do to complete the list though, but I'm on my way http://www.sammy.be

Yes, afterall if we had not ben versatile enough to adapt to different situations,... we might not have lasted this long. so far from being pushed back into cave man like existence, its actually our ability to do all these things that has led us to where we are right now.

the danger lies in over specialisation, which appears to be happening at the moment. you may be very good at what you do, perhpas the best, but the next guy that knows how to plant and grow fruit on a desert island will survive better than the doctor that implants the most beautiful breasts inthe world.

the jack of all trades acumulates what he knows and thinks in a parallel fashion, seqarching for a solution in the unlikliest of places. some thing a specialist might not be able to do as quickly

Not at all. A person should learn these things, but if everybody did, we would go back to being cavemen. Specializarion was found by evolution to work better than everyone being a Jack-of-all-trades.

No. Some of us will do some of these things well, but few of is will be able to do all these things. It's what makes us unique.

If you vote yes, check out "The Art of Shen Ku: The Ultimate Traveler's Guide: The First Intergalactic Artform of the En Tire Universe" by a guy named Zeke. He's written and illustrated a book on everything you really need to know in order to function well on the planet, or some other one if the opportunity strikes.

It boasts of containing, among other things, * Tying knots and enhancing sex * Numerology and self hypnosis * Herbal therapy and forecasting weather * Curing nosebleeds and removing stains * Kung fu and magic tricks * Isometric and breathing exercises of monks * Self defense and catching fish (amazon.com description)

Gina

Edited by author 11-05-2003 12:29 PM
I've always strived for this ideal, but then again, I've always been a Heinlein fan. One of my autobiographical statements is that I'm a jack-of-all-trades struggling to become a Renaissance Man. Is it shameful to promote my blog here? Oh, well, it's called Asparagus Pee, Gooblek & Other Neat Stuff, and it's over here.

Is there anything we can (or should) do to make us become more versatile? For example, should we all take a class, at least one a year, in some practical subject that we know little about?

Sure. I've met people who can't even change a tire, much less do anything else. Maslow, a developmental psychologist, talked about a life goal he called becoming self-actualized. To him, that meant learning to use all of your talents to their highest potential.

In a Darwinian world, being well-rounded lends itself to adaptability. Adapt and survive or don't and die. Your choice.

The question ist not wether you actually do it, but wether you are able to.
And I can say, yeah, I agree with him.

The quote from Heinlein, is from one of his characters, in Time Enough for Love; . I am not certain in "real life" how many of those things Heinlein himself achieved. But named Lazarus Longthis was a quote from a fictional character. Should we have to meet all these qualifications, in real life simply because the quote is from a SciFi novel?

No, I don't approve of violence, so the fighting and taking orders and the planning invasions are all out.

Heinlein is awesome. I loved his novel Job and Number of the Beast. Anyone read these?

Yes, I agree with this quotation because I believe it is very valuable and fulfilling to have a broad outlook and experience. However, I've never butchered a hog!

Do you agree with this Heinlein quotation:

   "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."