This site is a source for insightful artworks and educational materials discussing sexuality and love in the arts.  Communities should have exceptional access to diverse sexual and moral viewpoints.  This website has information on theatrical, musical, philosophical, poetic, political, and religious artworks from hundreds of artists over thousands of years.  If you are not yet mature enough to evaluate historical, literary, and artistic information on these important topics, then please be so kind as to consider returning when you are.

To search on any topic, you can use the search cell in the right column to search by keyword, artist, style, era, title, etc.  The tabs across the top of each page connect to word indicies and picture thumbnail indicies to enable searching by either word or image.

This is a non-revenue-generating site with no advertising support.  The posts promote artists, their ideas, and their work.  Wherever artists have online websites, those sites are included to encourage visitors to support those artists.  Thank you to the artists and visitors for continuing these vital dialogues.

No individual person can give artists the support they deserve.  But if we each regularly do something small to support the arts, I hope as a group we can make the world more colorful, memorable, and pleasant.

In the end, kindness matters.

Irena Sendler chose to risk her life for years, facing threats of death, torture, and being sent to concentration camps herself.  She chose to work with others to save 2,500 children, children that most of her countrymen adamantly believed were morally bankrupt, genetically inferior, and inherently evil.  Irena chose to think independently, to think differently, to oppose the majority position, and to act on her beliefs.

If there’s a Heaven, she’s there.

Whether or not there is a Heaven, she made this Earth more Heavenly.

http://www1.yadvashem.org/righteous_new/sendlerova.html

Irena Sendler on Wikipedia

- - - -

Most Recent Artworks   All the Artists’ Artworks Index   my43things

“Watching the film, I understood more clearly how we do have the power to change our own lives, how fate doesn’t deal all of the cards.”  - Roger Ebert.

Schindler’s List:

If you have not seen “Schlinder’s List,” one of the best movies ever, I encourage you to see it.  It is a story about a German profiteer and his actions and choices during World War II.

After the war, Oskar Schindler was unsuccessful in most of his business ventures.  Wikipedia currently notes:

“By the end of the war, Schindler had spent his entire fortune on bribes and black-market purchases of supplies for his workers. Virtually destitute, he moved briefly to Regensburg, Germany and, later, Munich, but did not prosper in postwar Germany. In fact, he was reduced to receiving assistance from Jewish organizations. Eventually, Schindler emigrated to Argentina in 1948, where he went bankrupt. Returning to Germany in 1958, he had a series of unsuccessful business ventures. Schindler settled down in a little apartment at Am Hauptbahnhof Nr. 4 in Frankfurt am Main, West Germany and tried again – with help from a Jewish organization – to establish a cement factory. This, too, went bankrupt in 1961. His business partner cancelled their partnership.”

Below are excerpts from Roger Ebert’s review of “Schindler’s List”:

“Oskar Schindler would have been an easier man to understand if he’d been a conventional hero, fighting for his beliefs.  The fact that he was flawed-a drinker, a gambler, a womanizer, driven by greed and a lust for high living-makes his life an enigma.  Here is a man who saw his chance at the beginning of World War II, and moved to Nazi-occupied Poland to open a factory and employ Jews at starvation wages . . .

The Holocaust was a vast, evil engine set whirling by racism and madness . . .

Schindler’s genius is in bribing, scheming, conning.  He knows nothing about running a factory, and finds Itzhak Stern (Ben Kingsley), a Jewish accountant, to handle that side of things . . .

We also see the Holocaust in a vivid and terrible way.  Spielberg gives us a Nazi prison camp commandant named Goeth (Ralph Fiennes), who is a study in the stupidity of evil . . .

(Schindler) bribes, he wheedles, he bluffs, he escapes discovery by the skin of his teeth.  In the movie’s most audacious sequence, when a trainload of his employees is mistakenly routed to Auschwitz, he walks into the death camp himself and brazenly talks the authorities out of their victims, snatching them from death and putting them back on the train to his factory.

What is most amazing about this film is how completely Spielberg serves his story.  The movie is brilliantly acted, written, directed, and seen.  Individual scenes are masterpieces of art direction, cinematography, special effects, crowd control.  Yet Spielberg, the stylist whose films have often gloried in shots we are intended to notice and remember, disappears into his work.  Neeson, Kingsley, and the other actors are devoid of acting flourishes.  There is a single-mindedness to the enterprise that is awesome.

At the end of the film, there is a sequence of overwhelming emotional impact, involving the actual people who were saved by Schindler.  We learn that “Schindler’s Jews” and their descendants today number some 6,000, and that the Jewish population of Poland is 4,000.  The obvious lesson would seem to be that Schindler did more than a whole nation to spare its Jews.  That would be too simple.  The film’s message is that one man did something, while in the face of the Holocaust, others were paralyzed.  Perhaps it took a Schindler, enigmatic and reckless, without a plan, heedless of risk, a con man, to do what he did.  No rational man with a sensible plan would have gotten as far.

The French author Flaubert once wrote that he disliked Uncle Tom’s Cabin because the author was constantly preaching against slavery.  “Does one have to make observations about slavery?” he asked.  “Depict it;  that’s enough.”  And then he added, “An author in his book must be like God in the universe, present everywhere and visible nowhere.”  That would describe Spielberg, the author of this film.  He depicts the evil of the Holocaust, and he tells an incredible story of how it was robbed of some of its intended victims.  He does so without the tricks of his trade, the directorial and dramatic contrivances that would inspire the usual melodramatic payoffs.  Spielberg is not visible in this film.  but his restraint and passion are present in every shot.”

~ end of excerpt ~

Wikipedia notes:

No one really knows what Schindler’s motives were.  However, he was quoted as saying “I knew the people who worked for me . . . When you know people, you have to behave toward them like human beings.”

- - - -

Side notes:  I don’t understand all the reasons why this blog continues to grow in readers.  It’s not more every day or every week, but the moving average continues to stay strong and grow from time to time.  Yesterday, the blog received 11,253 visits, the most ever for one day.

With whatever gifts you have

No matter how small

Do whatever good you can

Some artworks primarily make you mindful of the artist

Some artworks primarily make you mindful of the arts of being humane

- - - -

Oskar Schindler on Wikipedia

© All rights reserved by the respective artists.

- - - -

Most Recent Artworks   All the Artists’ Artworks Index   my43things

Love is not what you declare in front of your god and everyone

It’s not what you say

It’s what you do

Love exists in the chemistry of imperfect circumstances

It’s not what you say you want

It’s what you bring into creation

Love is diminished to the degree what you do is less than what you said you would do

It’s ultimately not as interested in what you said as

It’s proved by what you practically bring to fruition

Love is not tenured

It’s performance based

It’s always subject to possible termination

The arts of love take the scraps and garbage discarded by others and make out of them re-energizing activities and processes

Love’s not the product of finding ideal circumstances

It fashions itself from whatever circumstances already exist

Love is not “an abundance” as much as it’s an ability to create a pleasant or profitable outcome from any resources available

It’s not an autonomous force

It is inherently connective, interdependent, and relational

If you want to tell others about the depths of your love

They will likely be courteous and listen

But they will evaluate your love far more by what they see you continue to achieve

Love is not genetic

It’s not a gifted skill that some are born with and others are not

It’s not similar or uniform

Love comes in millions of variations

It’s an equal opportunity

Its skills are learnable by anyone willing to study many of its disciplines

Love is not found within the boundaries of this poem

It’s not described mostly herein

But it can be partially revealed by what, if anything, these ideas inspire others to do

- - - -

Most Recent Artworks   All the Artists’ Artworks Index   my43things

“Irony is the bringing together of contradictory truths to make out of the contradiction a new truth with a laugh or a smile . . . and I confess that a truth must come with one or the other, or I count it as false and a denial of the very nature of humanity itself.”
  - spoken by the characer of Jane Austen, from the film “Becoming Jane,” a very good film.

If you’ve admired the acting ability of Robert Downey Jr. for many years, since his roles in movies like “Less Than Zero,”

“Chaplin,” or “Two Girls and a Guy,” then you may know some of his remarkable acting gifts.

He plays the part of Tony Stark in the new Iron Man movie sublimely.  He is on fire.  Every risk his character takes is amplified by the authenticity of Downey’s channeled experiences.  The movie is a delight, and I highly recommend it.  I give it 5 out of 5 stars.

I also want to recommend the current GQ cover article on Robert Downey Jr.  It is exceptionally well written and incredibly insightful and revealing.  If you have ever admired or followed Robert Downey Jr., I highly recommend the GQ article.

Love,

OneMoreOption

- - - -

© All rights reserved by the respective artists.

Robert Downey Jr. on Wikipedia

Robert Downey Jr. on IMDB

- - - -

Most Recent Artworks  All the Artists’ Artworks Index  my43things

If you’re not a regular reader of this blog, you might likely assume this blog is primarily interested in questions like:

What is erotic?

This blog explores those kinds of questions, but more prominently, this blog is interested in the arts of creativity.  This blog is more interested in questions like:

What inspires humans to create artworks and to create other humans?  

Sexuality is often about creativity.  It is not always about procreation, but it is often about creating common interests and rewarding relationships.

Last night, “60 Minutes” featured a story about the doctor Paul Farmer, who runs medical programs in Haiti, and helped to found “Partner’s In Health”, a group of physicians who provide medical care for poor people around the world.

“Partner’s in Health” would not have come into creation without Paul Farmer and others.  But even more importantly, Paul and others have designed their health providing systems to run independent of the people who created the systems. 

He has created systems that have become self-recreating.  The people involved in the systems have profitable motivation and compensation to continue creating and caring for themselves and others.

To expand on the cliche of:  “If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day.  If you teach him to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.” 

What Paul Farmer is doing might be better expressed this way:  “Teach a village to efficiently and sustainably fish, and they will not only feed themselves, they will feed others, they will feed their descendants, and they will profit from their fishing in many other ways.”

It is admirable for an artist to create what only that artist can create.  I don’t wish to suggest any ounce of value should be taken away from that kind of creative valuation.

Some of the great social artists of history have probably pursued these types of broader intents:

How do we create “artworks” and systems that will not only show our artistic ability, but will also improve the opportunity and equity for others to reveal their artistic abilities?

Consider creating things that might become self-sustaining and self-profiting for others, in addition to being profitable for yourself.  Attempt to create artworks and systems that create profitable motivation for others to continue to participate in.

When any one person dies, it is a tragedy.  A characteristic that makes us admirable as humans and as artists is helping to create and improve ideas and systems that might improve things for many others long after we are gone. 

Sometimes there is no consolation that can alleviate the grief of losing one single person or artist.  At the same time, there can be great joy on an individual basis and on cultural levels to see the fruits of an artist’s artwork or body of work continuing to do good things long after the artist is gone.

Paul Farmer has spent much of his life’s time, risk, intellect and work to show everyone that what “couldn’t be done” could be done to improve the real health, quality of life, and mental well-being of so many poor people around the world.

Paul Farmer is not some cowboy working autonomously to change a small village.  He’s not interested in only teaching people one at a time how to fish.  He’s using every technology and system he can coordinate so as many people can learn as possible.

Every single day, he re-chooses to take on a Sisyphean task, a never-ending and arguably impossible pursuit.  He uses the best technology and systems he can find.  He uses social alliances and political skills to effect real, positive changes.  

It is sometimes better to fail at achieving the greater good than it is to succeed at only taking good care of yourself.  It is essential to also take good care of yourself, but if you can, do so in coordination with and in pursuit of some greater good.

Partners In Health Official Website

- - - -

Most Recent Artworks   All the Artists’ Artworks Index   my43things

The illustrations in this post are from Frank Quitely, Grant Morrison, & Jamie Grant’s Eisner Award Winning current running series “All-Star Superman” Issue 10.  I give this issue a 5 out of 5 star rating and the series a 5 out of 5 star rating to date.  If you think all Superman comics are created equal, I would suggest you might be wrong.  This Superman series is extraordinarily good.

The lyrics in this post are from Lucy Wainwright Roche’s version of the Crash Test Dummies song “Superman,” written by Brad Roberts.  Lucy Wainwright Roche’s version is from her new CD titled “8 More.”  It is the second CD in a two-part album, the first CD is titled “8 Songs.”  I have not had the pleasure to hear the whole first CD (although l loved and posted the lyrics to her song “Long Before” from that album).  Being me, I started by listening to “8 More.”

I’m sharing this new graphic arts story with Brad Roberts’ lyrics because they both see some of the remarkably good ideas behind Superman’s intellect and character.

“Superman” lyrics by Lucy Wainwright Roche:

Tarzan
Wasn’t a ladies man
He’d just come along
And scoop them up
Under his arm
Like that
Quick as a cat
In the jungle

Clark Kent
Now there was a real gent
He would not be caught
Sittin’ around in no jungle scape
Dumb as an ape
Doin’ nothing

Superman never made any money
For saving the world
From Solomon Grundy

Sometimes I despair
The world will never see another man
Like him

Hey Bob
Supe had a straight job
Even though he could smash through any bank
In the United States
He had the strength
But he would not

Folks said
His family were all dead
The planet crumbled
But Superman
He forced himself to carry on
Forget Krypton
And keep going

Superman never made any money
For saving the world
From Solomon Grundy

Sometimes I despair
The world will never see another man
Like him

Tarzan
Was King of the jungle
And Lord over all of the apes
But he
Could hardly string together
Four words:
“I Tarzan, you Jane”

Sometimes
When Supe was stoppin’ crimes
I bet that he was tempted to just quit
And turn his back on man
Join Tarzan
In the forest

But he
Stayed in the city
Kept on changing clothes
In dirty old phone booths
‘Til his work was through
Nothing to do but go on home

Superman never made any money
For saving the world
From Solomon Grundy

Sometimes I despair
The world will never see another man
Like him

© All rights reserved by the respective artists.

The book with the images above is still in stores.  I’ve read many very good Superman stories.  This series focuses effectively on his strength of intellect and strength of character as much or more than his physical strength.  Anyone who cares about comic books or Superman should glance through the book - I highly recommend purchasing this issue. 

- - - -

Lucy Wainwright Roche’s music can be purchased through her website at:

http://www.myspace.com/lwrlwr

The album is great.  I look forward to listening to it more closely soon.  Someday, if I ever visit Chicago (I’ve never been there), I think I’d enjoy listening to the song on this album titled “Chicago” - while driving with the sun-roof open through the “City of the Big Shoulders.”

Oh, and Superman.

He might have become the person he became

Because he had a hungry heart

Maybe everybody’s got a hungry heart

- - - -

On side notes:  To anyone who reads this blog and who noticed there has not been any new posts for awhile, I apologize, I’m just one person.  I try to be all things to all people, and I’m not able.  I fail at that pursuit miserably and often.  You’d think I’d learn more each time I get battered, but I keep getting back up, wide eyed, like a dog who doesn’t know what else to do but to try to do more and try more earnestly.  Stupid dog I am.

I am healthy and doing well.  I recently got set aside by someone I cared about.  I wasn’t what they wanted.  Like most break ups, you don’t always know what, if anything, you could have done better.  In this case, my problems were probably mostly that I was too much like me - and that was not what was desired.  I didn’t know how to change to become better for everyone. 

I’m gainfully employed, something I am truly grateful for - in this too-often daunting economic cycle.  I feel incredibly lucky on that front.  I am busier these days, so to set anyone’s expectations, I would guess this blog will be updated less often for the forseeable future.  I don’t want to waste anyone’s time.  Not that anyone comes here for the dialogue.  Two days ago, this blog received it’s highest number of daily visitors ever . . . something to do with Miley Cyrus posing bareback for Annie Leibovitz in Vanity Fair.  Like Lindsay Lohan, the last Disney-produced queen of teen did for Annie Leibovitz in Vanity Fair a few years ago.  It is a strange universe we live in.

Love to all of you.  Until the hopeful next time.  ~ OneMoreOption

- - - -

Most Recent Artworks   All the Artists’ Artworks Index   my43things 

What does it mean to consider the value of a work of art?

How is value measured?

Popular conceptions might focus on an artwork’s beauty.  Sometimes art is considered valuable because of its historical significance.  Others value art more based on its rarity.

Art can be valued by its level of detail and the amount of work that went into creating it.  Some art receives the majority of its value solely on the perceived value of the artist. 

Trying to add to this discussion, I’ll share some of the main considerations I use to search for and value artworks.

One of the primary questions I ask in evaluating artworks is this:

Does the artwork have clearly positive effects for many people?

I’m not so concerned about an artwork’s rarity, level of detail, number of work hours to create, artist, historical background or other common “value” measures - except to the degree that any of those measures support the understanding that the artwork clearly has many positive effects for many different kinds of people.

If this blog was not named “Sexuality in the Arts,” an alternative title that often comes to mind is:  “Feminism in the Arts.”  That’s not to say a majority of people who identify themselves as “feminists” would approve of this blog’s content, editorial views, or presentation choices.  But from my extensive reading and understanding of feminism, this blog has similar priorities. 

Gloria Steinem, in her book “Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions,” wrote:  “it’s usually pretty easy to tell a censor from a feminist.  The former is trying to get books out of the library, while the latter is trying to get more books in.”

One of the relationship theories commonly challenged in feminist discussion is the idea that a person’s highest and best use is to be focused on being in service to only one other person, one purpose, or one philosophy.  The majority of cultures tend to idealize the pursuit of becoming focused on pleasing one other person, to the exclusion or de-prioritization of everyone else.  Marriage theory suggests that everyone is better off to partner up into groups of two and to focus primarily on your spouse.  Marriage is sort of a trickle down theory, suggesting that if we create a strong dominant relationship, it is better for everyone in subordinate relationship to us, because the benefits from the dominant relationship will create more trickle down benefits for everyone in secondary (or inferior) relationships to us.

Art has a tendency to disagree.

Art tends to be disagreeable often.

Art, for all its sweetness and beauty, can be really quite annoying.

Art is often not very intent on pleasing only one person, one audience, one sect, or one philosophical persuasion.

Art tends to be permiscuous, looking to please as many people as possible in as many ways as it can.

Art is not generally devalued by its willingness and desire to please more people or to please rivals.

I like art because it is honest.  I tend to value art more when it does more good things for more people. 

I’m not saying art that is created with the intent to only please one person is not valuable.  It can be very valuable.  But I tend to value those artworks more to the degree they have the ability to please even more than the one person they were created for.

I encourage friends, familiars, and artists to be pleasing to more people than they are usually encouraged to please.  I place more focus and value on creating artworks with the designed intent to please more people.

What has been the effect of this valuation priority?

The people who have stayed with me have tended to be people with similar intents.

And it’s been beautiful and lovely to watch the artworks and personal relationships those people have created for more people.

For whatever reasons you find artworks to have ”value,” I encourage you to continue to see those values.  My work is to encourage more people to find more healthy ways to see the values in more of the arts, more types of relationships, and more people.

The most valuable art I’ve ever observed is the daily movements of my love.  I’ve never observed a person so sensitively adapt to meet the important desires of more people.

Most people would fault her for not being sufficiently happy and satisfied with the love of just one person.  Most people would probably label her as wanting too much in pursuing the affections and returning affections to more than just one person. 

But if only they could see her in relation to everyone she is close with.  She makes everyone around her feel better.  She makes them smarter.  She makes them more socially aware.  She listens and understands what they often feel no one else can understand about them.

It is consistent that someone, who finds great value in artworks that please more people, would be in intimate relationship with a person who regulalry works to please more people.

My love is not only valuable because of her beauty, rarity, level of detail, hard work, personal history, or specific value to only me.  She is also valuable because of her abilities and consistent work to please more people than only me.  Her depths of love for others is not a weakness or a character flaw.  Her work to love others is a source of her value, her values, and her strengths.

- - - -

Most Recent Artworks   All the Artists’ Artworks Index   my43things

Who should write?

Who should create?

Do you think I should write?

If in the off chance you do, let me tell you some of my story.

In high school, I was probably nearly invisible to my English teachers.  Unremarkable.  I was barely able to read with comprehension.

As you can tell from my writing, I don’t have a large vocabulary.  I did poorly on the non-math side of the college entrance exams.

In college, I majored in English and literature, in large part because it was an area I was weakest in.  I could grasp math, science, social sciences, and history with comparative ease.  I was born with a gifted ability to memorize.  If a course was primarily about memorizing a set of facts, I usually did well.

But reading and writing is far more complex than simply memorizing a set of facts and applying a known equation.  Reading and writing present more complex challenges for me.

I argued with my English professors probably far more than the average student or English major.  When I return to visit them, I get the impression they are rolling their eyes as they see me coming.  I was always a handful of trouble, often making humorous comments in a classroom that set the room roaring with laughter the professor had not requested.

I wasn’t forgettable as a student, but I also wasn’t considered to be particularly insightful or eloquent as a reader or a writer.  Fair and deserved criticism.

If you asked my college English teachers, none of whom know I write this blog, which of the students from my era would go on to be read the most widely, I would probably not even be on the multiple choice list of potential candidates.  (There probably is another student whose writing is read more than mine, I’m just saying my name would not be on that list.)

I never received any writing accolades or awards. 

In law school, I was initially a below average student (for the first time in my life).  The most tenured professor at the school privately communicated to me in his office that he didn’t think law school was my cup of tea (not that I disagreed with him) and that maybe I should consider doing something else. 

When I shared a piece of fiction writing with another law professor who had published a fiction novel, he suggested I should stick with studying law. 

I have no pedigree for writing.

No one in all of my schooling strongly encouraged me to consider writing further.

Whatever you consider to be good prerequisites for a writer, I may not have most of those things.

So, I return to the question of:  Who should write?

I don’t know for certain.

But I write because I think I have uncommon and worthwhile things for others to consider.  I don’t write what everybody knows or what everybody agrees on.  I write about important controversies that deserve more debate and consideration.

Who should write?

You, if you have something worth others’ consideration.

Writing is not about having a degree or “higher education,” although those experiences likely will improve your reasoning, ability to determine veracity, communication skills, and writing. 

To write, you should have enough knowledge to know if you have uncommon information to share.

Don’t worry about writing “prose,” “poetry,” or “essays.”  Focus first and foremost on finding the best ideas worth sharing.  Make the form subordinate to the functions (unless of course your intent is to reverse those priorities).  Choose the mediums that will meet the ideas’ intents.

Writing is not usually masturbation. 

Writing isn’t usually just spinning happy ideas internally in your head.  Writing is about putting together ideas you’re willing to share with others, you’re willing to have criticized, and you’re willing to change as feedback warrants . . . again and again.

Who should arrange and publish their ideas for others to respond to?

Anyone with a troubled mind

Who should write?

Everyone

- - - -

On a related side note:  The American Experience episode on Walt Whitman that aired last night was very good.  Walt Whitman sure could write.

A website set up to supplement that broadcast is available here. 

Fortunate for everyone, the program can be seen online now here.

- - - -

Most Recent Artworks   All the Artists’ Artworks Index   my43things

I wrote a post yesterday referring to the movie “A Beautiful Mind.”  The film is loosely based on John Forbes Nash’s life and his Nobel Prize Winning work on Game Theory and what is known as Nash Equilibrium.

Before discussing related topics more specifically, I’d like to prelude by saying:

“To the degree a social relationship does not practically and clearly create comparatively equal and good benefits for the parties involved, the relationship will likely struggle.”  - me, I said that.

Even if my above assertion is true, neither of the following would necessarily be true:

a)  A struggling social relationship struggles because of an imbalance in the perceived or actual benefits to either party, or

b)  All relationships, that don’t have roughly equal benefits for both parties, struggle.

Both of those statements are not true.

-

Moving on to today’s post topics:

“Game Theory” as described in Wikipedia on April 14, 2008:

Game theory is a branch of applied mathematics that is used in the social sciences (most notably economics), biology, political science, computer science and philosophy.  Game theory attempts to mathematically capture behavior in strategic situations, in which an individual’s success in making choices depends on the choices of others.  While initially developed to analyze competitions in which one individual does better at another’s expense (zero sum games), it has been expanded to treat a wide class of interactions, which are classified according to several criteria.

-

“Nash Equilibrium” as described in Wikipedia on April 14, 2008:

In game theory, the Nash equilibrium (named after John Forbes Nash, who proposed it) is a solution concept of a game involving two or more players, in which no player has anything to gain by changing only his or her own strategy unilaterally.  If each player has chosen a strategy and no player can benefit by changing his or her strategy while the other players keep theirs unchanged, then the current set of strategy choices and the corresponding payoffs constitute a Nash equilibrium.

Stated simply, Amy and Bill are in Nash equilibrium if Amy is making the best decision she can, taking into account Bill’s decision, and Bill is making the best decision he can, taking into account Amy’s decision.  Likewise, many players are in Nash equilibrium if each one is making the best decision that they can, taking into account the decisions of the others.  However, Nash equilibrium does not necessarily mean the best cumulative payoff for all the players involved;  in many cases all the players might improve their payoffs if they could somehow agree on strategies different from the Nash equilibrium (eg. competing businessmen forming a cartel in order to increase their profits).

-

“Zero-sum” as described in Wikipedia on April 14, 2008:

In game theory and economic theory, zero-sum describes a situation in which a participant’s gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the other participant(s).  It is so named because when the total gains of the participants are added up, and the total losses are subtracted, they will sum to zero.  Go is an example of a zero-sum game:  it is impossible for both players to win.  Zero-sum can be thought of more generally as constant sum where the benefits and losses to all players sum to the same value of money and pride and dignity.  Cutting a cake is zero- or constant-sum because taking a larger piece reduces the amount of cake available for others.  In contrast, non-zero-sum describes a situation in which the interacting parties’ aggregate gains and losses is either less than or more than zero.

Situations where participants can all gain or suffer together, such as a country with an excess of bananas trading with another country for their excess of apples, where both benefit from the transaction, are referred to as non-zero-sum.  Other non-zero-sum games are games in which the sum of gains and losses by the players are always more or less than what they began with.  For example, a game of poker, disregarding the house’s rake, played in a casino is a zero-sum game unless the pleasure of gambling or the cost of operating a casino is taken into account, making it a non-zero-sum game.

~ end of Wikipedia excerpts ~

Life is not a zero-sum game.

But sometimes people choose to confine their relationships and decision making considerations to self-imposed zero-sum structures.

And sometimes unnecessary and horrific problems arise when people perceive problems only through zero-sum considerations. 

I chose at differing points in my life to no longer live as if life was a zero-sum game.  And even though my unilateral changes of behavior would not likely lead the others involved to create more benefits for me and would not likely change their decisions, I still unilaterally chose to perceive and participate in the social games of life differently. 

I am not an exception to Nash Equilibrium expectations.  Rather, Nash Equilibrium does not generally apply because Nash Equilibrium applies primarily to zero-sum games.

I didn’t want to live in a world where social relationships were perceived as zero-sum games.  I had benefited too much from too many people working together for common good, outside of zero-sum structures and zero-sum mindsets.

Zero-sum thinking tends to ignore the ancillary benefits to other people involved.  While zero-sum thinkers tend to want to only focus on the benefits and detriments to the players they define as allowed to play the game, non-zero-sum thinkers tend to focus on the benefits and detriments for everyone involved, such as players past, present, and future - and even the spectators.

Zero-sum games are too often immature and simpleton.  They tend not to work as often toward cooperation, innovation, sharing, shared profits, and expansion.

Nash Equilibrium tends to break down when either irrational or unfair behaviors occur or when parties stop being intent on zero-sum outcomes.  Nash Equilibrium strategies and predictabilities lose reliability when the expected number of players in a game varies outside of the players’ expectations.  Nash Equilibrium tends to break down as each party to a game realizes there is not perfect information and communication available to each party.

I am sorry if this post creates more questions than answers.  But sometimes better answers are found by understanding there are so many questions that still remain without finite or certain answers. 

I think art sometimes makes the argument that the total chemistry of the combined parts does not always equal the sum of the parts.  The “total” is not always finite.  It is not always more.  And it is not always less.

I think art tends to consider the needs of more people, more than just the creator, more than the creator’s immediate social circle, more than the current majority opinions of the primary audience, and more than just what is considered important today.  

Art cares about tomorrow.   

Art cares about more.

Even when art focuses on the simple, the quiet, and the neglected, it is caring about more than most other people show concern for.

Life is not a zero-sum game.

Sexuality is not a zero-sum game.

Art is not a zero-sum game.

- - - -

Most Recent Artworks   All the Artists’ Artworks Index   my43things 

Roger Ebert once commented about his list of “Great Movies” that each of the films on his list was a film he would like to see at least one more time before he died.

As Roger Ebert has experienced so many medical issues lately, I suspect he continues to cherish the movies and related commentaries he’s spent a lifetime collecting and creating.

I collect those kinds of things across many diverse mediums.  I collect the ideas, quotes, images, films, songs, and more that I don’t want to forget.  I don’t want to lose their clarity, complexities, layers, mysteries, and individuality.  I don’t want to lose their effects on us.

I collect, record, interpret, & share the “extraordinaries” of the lifeforces I observe.

“Suburbanlife” is an older woman who writes a excellent blog at:

http://suburbanlife.wordpress.com/

Here are samples of her visual artworks:

http://suburbanlife.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/pitt-river-looking-west/

http://suburbanlife.wordpress.com/2008/02/24/anyu-at-77/

Suburbanlife has recently been blogging about her continuing loss of eyesight and the related trials dealing with eye procedures and doctors who communicate poorly.

If you are eye surgeon, or if you are a medical researcher, and you have expert opinions or resources that might aid Suburbanlife as she tries to make decisions at these crucial times in her life, I encourage you to contact Suburbanlife and offer your opinions or resources.

Suburbanlife has been one of the longest supporters of this blog, speaking while most people choose to silently observe.  That she takes time to visit this blog during this time in her life, as I suspect she makes time to visit and encourage many other bloggers, is a high honor for any blogger, writer, collector, or person.

If you might be able to help her or encourage her, please do.

http://suburbanlife.wordpress.com/

Thank you.

- - - -

Most Recent Artworks   All the Artists’ Artworks Index   my43things

Sadly, sometimes it may only take one good-intentioned, but misguided idea or concept to persuade someone with a beautiful mind to silence himself (or herself). 

Too often the ideas that silence someone come from close associates and family with the best of intentions.

If you’ve ever watched a beautiful mind silence itself, you may understand some of the incredible potentials that can be lost.

Not all silences are brought on by cognitive breakdowns or external negative forces.  Some silences are brought on, or amplified, by genetic predispositions.  Not all silences can be therapeutically “remedied.”

I mention this theory to encourage everyone to reconsider whatever priorities they think are so important that they believe they should persuade other people not to debate or discuss them.  Whatever you do that tends to silence others, you should give greater scrutiny to those priorities and behaviors.

One way to possibly unlock and encourage a beautiful mind to start communicating and creating again is to slowly and carefully reconnect the person to several diverse external sources of stimulus, quality sources of information, and compassionate people.

This process may take longer than your lifetime, and it may not “succeed.” 

Not everyone wants or is able to “undo” their silences. 

Other times, helping someone regain their voice is not a linear process and involves periods when progress is halted or appears to “go backward.”  Enlist as many friends, family, experts, and counselors as can be received to compromise and work together to coordinate support.  Read as many books as you can on the related issues to gather competing and informed expert opinions. 

Most silences are built up over long periods of time.  Addressing those formative patterns can take as long or longer than their formative period of time.

The ideas expressed in this post are only my personal theories and should be questioned thoroughly.

I share my speculations in hopes of encouraging more voices to speak and to encourage more uncommonly beautiful minds to create.

“A Beautiful Mind” on IMDB

“A Beautiful Mind” on Wikipedia

- - - -

Most Recent Artworks   All the Artists’ Artworks Index   my43things