Email.

[tweeter]

(05-25-2013, 02:03 PM)finlyalive Wrote: Unfortunately, chess is not a game I have any experience with. That makes sense, though. I compare it to the game on The Price is Right when there are big number blocks on the floor and the contestant has to step on the next number of the car. With each step that he takes, if it is the right step, more blocks are opened up, if not, he moves to a different block. Of course, I think he has to win the right to move. Regardless, there are many movements that he can take to find the path to the cost of the vehicle, but there are problems to solve along the way. You learn from your mistakes and take a different path. I don't know that I have ever seen the game played that all the numbers were straight forward. I don't think there is anything in life that ever is. The only strategy in my own life is to know that you can't make the same mistake over and over and expect a different result. The problem is finding a different way to solve the problem. I'm not there yet.

Oh my, I think the last time I watched The Price Is Right was around 1977. What you say makes sense, about learning from mistakes, and that one can't expect a different result from repeated mistakes of the same sort. However, the nature of error, and the patterns which bring like situations and people into a life, can make this learning something that includes, but does not begin or end with the cognitive.
I mean, a person can learn, but might not see the similarities (or, maybe for just an instant, long enough to see, but then treat the situation as something new, and/or be moved by something in another person (which is, indeed, different, as well as similar).

What if you are prepared to meet the challenge, and evaluate the possibilities more carefully, but another person interferes in about the worst possible ways out of unwarranted jealousy, to the point that you're unable to respond and the opportunity terminates?

There are other examples, like an old tape with new words. That's something I heard from someone I know recently. It was so subtle that he didn't see it; the alternate reason he gave (which fits as well) completely hid the other aspect that I'm sure is also operative, but not recognized.

The problem is to remain open to intuitive innovation, which probably won't involve a whole lot of thinking when you are in motion. But, not everyone functions in a highly intuitive way, which must eventually be balanced/tested with reason.

The problem is to accept that it's not just one problem, for, each bad pattern can have a separate mo, and require separate action. Sometimes just about the only thing you can do is avoid (not return to an unkind doc, or not go to docs at all).

I hope this is clear enough.
tweeter