Re: ::scr Re: doesn't have the morlocks

[Alaric Snell <alaric@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Monday 08 April 2002 16:13, you wrote:
> > I'd say that people were "born wired in a certain way", yes,
> > but that's not
> > as simple as it sounds. It's not prejudice or self
> > limitation. I appear to
> > have been born with a natural grasp for certain types of
> > system which makes
> > me good with computers and mathematics and physics and stuff,
> > but I end up
> > trying to map everything into that kind of system which can
> > be a handicap.
>
> But I don't "believe" in natural ability. It's simply
> you were exposed to enviromental factors that allowed that development.

Ah! Nurture as opposed to nature?

I have some confidence in nature playing a role: I grew up with my mother and 
only met my father a few times a year, but have since found that I am very 
similar to the entire male line of my family.

When I first really got to meet them, it was like... coming home.

> > So it's not as simple as saying that I'd make a bad artist; I
> > wouldn't be
> > good at being an artist like most artists are, but I could
> > probably bring my
> > own worldview to art in a potentially useful way.
>
> Looking at that sentence again, it seems to be a bit contradictory.

Hmmm... how?

> > Saying that this is a form of prejudice, or self limiting, is
> > a bit hasty.
> >
> > > dan
> >
> > ABS
>
> you've just said that you wouldn't be a good artist!

"I wouldn't be good at being an artist like most artists are"

Meaning: If I did my best at being good at art, I would be good at art in a 
different way to people who are *primarily* artists.

ABS

-- 
                               Alaric B. Snell
 http://www.alaric-snell.com/  http://RFC.net/  http://www.warhead.org.uk/
   Any sufficiently advanced technology can be emulated in software