yes, bombing people to death is an appropriate response.
It's not "US" politics. Most major countries out there today have soldiers out killing people that haven't hurt them (or are on a short hiatus from such activities, at best). While I was targeting my own government, the fact is we have much more important things to do than to kill each other.
Oppression is going to be much worse than anything afghanistan exhibits on women.. brutal as it may be... worldwide if something isn't done soon. Big countries with nukes are not going to go down quietly when energy supplies are too scarce to meet everyone's needs.
exactly how is this "clever fix" going to happen if we are not actively working with the knowledge we have and trying to improve it again?
Are you assuming that we get no technological benefit here on earth trying to solve these things at the "limit of human capability"?
You could just as easily flip your arguement around and say that one of the ways we get to develope things like better solar panels is through the efforts of the space program. That sounds like synergy, not wasted effort, to me.
I have a MUCH BETTER idea. How about a ten year moratorium on WAR AGAINST PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T BOMBED US, with all that effort going solely to solve energy/environmental problems? That would have astronomically greater payback without also hacking at the very technological progress you are hoping to achieve.
so companies that violate the consitution in collusion with an administration already proven, shall we say, less than concerned with due process goes out of business.
Yes, I'm sure no one will ever work a phone again. no doubt.
There are companies that did not comply, first of all. Secondly, sending a very, very clear message that the correct answer to a government request for private information on your customers is "Where is your warrant?", not "What data format would you like?", is worth nearly any price.
Then companies who don't have to pay those massive settlements can prosper and the ones who do can struggle and/or fail. That sounds a whole lot like win-win to me.
Look, you don't want to marry an ineffectual idiot of a person. Given. A basic level of reason is needed.
The simple fact that someone might follow astrology may make them no scientifically rigorous, but face it... we're ALL illogical about things. Not all things, either way, and not all people are the same level of rationality. but we are all irrational.
The question is entirely what form does a person's irrationality take; how extreme is it; how does it conflict with your own irrational aspects.
On the scale, "believe in astrology but makes fairly sound decisions" might, for instance, rank a fair bit higher than "Studies quantum physics but has no ability to consider anyone's feelings but her own". Both are irrational. One is functionally broken and one is merely "quirky".
consider irrationality is a basic requirement for us to function as autonomous, sentient beings. Then decide how quickly you really want to discard people who fail to meet some arbitrary standard... before really getting to know them. Some standards are easier than others (do you eat people? no? good) and only you can set your own. But I would encourage you not to set them too high.
yes, the problem is with weak-minded people, not with people who believe X or Y, but who Interpret Belief X in such a way as to justify whatever they happen to be doing so they never have to be wrong, never have to change, never have to do anything unpleasant. That belief can be in the rigid application of the scientific method to all of life's problems with no regard for any other tool, Christianity, astrology, etc.
I have no doubt that any competitive endeavor causes violent tendencies to rise temporarily. That's been proven several times at this point, hasn't it? What makes that original research I wonder?
What the real question is, does it have any latest effect on developement, specifically on attitudes toward violence. Judging by the sheer number of people who play and the fact that domestic violence, murder, and the like are not exactly shooting through the roof, I'd have to say, no. But I"m not researching it. Are you?
Hardly. Late, late at night, you can play "non obscene" but "indecent" material. MAD TV, for example.
woo hoo. I feel so free I could just take flight...
How about being able to have a grown up talk to me like a grown up on the evening news, and if I don't want a child to hear that, I watch a different channel?
Or even better, I could just get over the whole idea that "words" are a problem, and let my child grow up in reality instead of a sanitized never neverland, with me as their guide and interpeter? I know, it's radical.
If ethical life is your goal, then "gaming" is irrelevant. This isn't a court of law; you're only cheating yourself "gaming" this.
The real problem is in thinking you are taking the high ground, when you're not, that is, which is most "self delusional". With the "golden rule", there is no impetus to understand any viewpoint but yours. So when you treat others as you would be treated, and they act "badly" in return.. that's a pretty maddening state of affairs! That promotes some serious miscommunication; I would go so far as to say that it creates "righteous" anger, when you're doing your best to be fair and being met with this inexplicable response! Why, when you treated them as you would want to be treated!?
When you think you're trying to be fair and met with inappropriate response, one gives up most easily.. you hit that bar of "you're just not worth it" much faster.
To take a personal example, my wife likes a lot of nurturing. I feel like behavior she sees as "nurturing" is condescending as hell and I hate it. If I treat her the way I genuinely prefer to be treated (like a strong, capable person in my eyes), she feels like I'm being a jerk. If she treats me in her preferred mode, I just get super annoyed, if not angry at the insinuation that I can't handle it on my own. And we love each other!!
What is required for effective behaviour as well as more ethical behaviour is at least an attempt to understand the person you are interacting with. The first and most important thing this does is remove the "righteous" anger when your behaviour is not met with the proper politeness you might expect; instead being more likely to get angry, you're already in a mode of thinking that is seeking understanding and is more mindful of possible miscommunication, so you're more apt to try again.
That alone is enough in most cases. If not, the practice you get over time helps further. And if you look at me and my writing and doubt that.. well, I'm not perfect at it either, but you should have seen me before I got some practice in;) Seriously, it only helps if you're mindful and none of us are of either the golden rule or this all the time.
Where it really falls apart is that is says nothing about the boundary between safeguarding yourself and seeking understanding.. you can't always treat others as they would prefer. Perhaps the most accurate would be "Treat others as they wish to be treated as much as possible; failing that, treat others as you would wish to be treated". the golden rule should, IMHO, be no more than a fallback position.
go figure;) I love the economist too, and consider myself a "social capitalist" though the term is largely self-defined.. I'll have to check out those books though for further reading. Thanks!
implicit in the statement is the idea that you are at least making a good faith effort to understand the other and their needs/motivations/desires.
Saying "do unto others as you'd have done unto you" absolves you of any attempt to understand others or what they want. You act like everyone is like you. That's better than nothing, sure, and if you're trying to make a memorable sound bite that illiterate people and other people who are unlikely to really consider their impact on the world then perhaps it's good enough. but it's a long shot short of putting a little effort into understanding and connecting to other human beings.. respecting them, even.. and attempting to find a course of action that satisfies all parties. THAT is the moral high ground; THAT is the action that best serves YOU, in the long term.
The golden rule is kindergarten of ethics, not the be all end all of it.
did you ever come across any philosophers/schools of thought that exemplify the kinds of stances you are developing? Or that stand up to a pragmatic free market view like the one you are advocating?
A counterpoint to the Randites, for example.
I'm down, if so, and looking for some good reading.
If you still see life as a "struggle against temptation and self-developement", your grammatical error is more telling than you expected. By framing your life as a "struggle against temptation", you deprive yourself of everything that makes you human, you set yourself up for eternal failure, and by wasting your energy fighting "sins" you could instead be focusing on your self-development so that you grow to realize you really, really do prefer to do things that help you, rather than hurt you. You are not "tempted" to run counter to your own needs at all.
That requires becoming a healthy human being, stripped of neurosis and able to perceive your needs clearly (and I am in no way saying I am there yet on a consistent basis, but I'm certainly not "struggling" anymore either). You can't do that while 'struggling against temptation" though, because the problem is not outside, it's not any of the things you may be 'tempted' to do, and it's not the devil, it's just a lack of understanding, a lack of consciousness, and a lack of perspective. Using your religion as a shield from the things you fear will not help your self-developement. Facing your fears fully, and examining them, challenging yourself continually, understanding your fears so they eventually lose power over you; that might help.
But, perhaps with greater life experience, you will someday realize this, and find a place of true joy that cannot be threatened by anything. Maybe not, maybe you'll be happy as you are; that's your choice. But save your simplistic moralistic preaching for the choir... you not only don't have a monopoly on understanding, you don't really have any at all.
Significant contributions to our culture has also been brought about by entire cultures that sanctioned old men having sex with little boys, murderers, people chopping off their own body parts as gifts, and people who thought that women were property, blacks were animals, and that the nazis were right.
Just because you do some stuff for the world doesn't mean everything about you is blameless, and it doesn't make belief in "a creator" any less silly.... it certainly doesn't allow you to lay the wreath of human achievement at christianity's feet, not even in part, not by insinuation and not by association either. Not unless you also want to credit pedophilia, homicide, oppression, racism, and insanity with also furthering humanity's cause. Maybe you can, but it certainly doesn't make much of an arguement for the continuation of those beliefs or behaviours.
I owe nothing to overly religious people. Philosophers, yes. Some of them were religious too! but the religious part of themselves has absolutely nothing to do with the things I thank them for. Even if THEY thought it did.
While I respect your right to believe whatever you like, I have no respect FOR your belief. I may respect you for other reasons, even in your willingness to live your convictions if you do. I may respect some aspects of the philosophy taught by your god (no religion is ALL wrong in its teaching). But "worshipping" a fairy tale doesn't win you any points in my book. I'll defend your freedom of speech, and I'll still wish you crazy nuts would meet in caves and leave the rest of us alone. I respect your human rights while dreaming of the day you all wake up and realize you're acting like little children.
Sadly, I know that will not happen in my lifetime. Hope springs eternal though...
ultimately, yes... but that's a much different story than "let's turn them into a shining beacon of democracy", which is the bill of goods sold to the american people.
Further, you then have to discuss your own culpability in creating the intolerant, I would humbly suggest. which would seem the first, most obvious step... not to support such regimes in the first place. Your syrian example might be easy for the US, for example, but Iraq (with a leader we supported for so many years) is a much murkier question and would seem to have some lessons to teach us.. if only we'd learn them, whether to "tolerate the intolerant" would be a question less asked. Still a question in many cases, but you can reduce the scope at least simply by addressing ones' own behaviour (if one happens to be a big country..).
you claim I'm in an ivory tower, and the best you come up with is at least some shia-dominated gang has currently avoided a TOTAL bloodbath... just a MAJOR bloodbath instead... as offerring some kind of "doing it right" in iraq?
the exact same lessons apply in both cases. It's just a question of what stage of the game both countries are at. Iraq still has massive US presence propping things up. Afghanistan hasn't for awhile. Iraq will follow their example, soon, if not much much worse.
many are holding that "de-baathification" as an example of a major policy blunder, in fact, and it's one of the things contributing to massive push towards civil war in Iraq at this point. Yet that's how it's "done right'?
I would put forth if the goal is democracy, then to circumvent the very will of the people you are attempting to democratize (which is demonstrated by their own push FOR democracy, or lack thereof) is at BEST ridiculously arrogant.
nor is our own, in many cases. Or has suspended habeas corpus escaped you recently?
Ours has more than two hundred years of tradition. Theirs was tacitly approved by an outside government. Should the same level of moral outrage be leveled at both? I just don't share it. What personal investment or identification do most afghans have with this shiny new constitutions they have...
In other words, the "pirate" in this case got a concrete gain, while the copyright holder lost out only in principle, that someone got something for 'nothing'. Not, of course, that the copyright holder would in any case have gotten ANYTHING, so it's a principle only thing.. and, furthermore, the loss doesn't cost them anything at all. Meanwhile, society has been enriched by another enterprising young mind finding fertile ground for his technical curiousity.
So society has gained, but of course, that's a bad thing, because dagnabbit, you don't get something fer nothing, you stinking hippies. Yes, it's all very clear.
Not having absolute control over a market would drive you nuts, being in their position, wouldn't it. that's rough. Maybe you should hang out with some hippies some time.. they have some stuff that might get you to relax a bit and realize it's not ALL about cash flow. A lot is, sure, but not EVERYTHING.
If you change the name from "process document" to "checklist", and suddenly that sounds like a totally normal, proactive thing to do. Write down all the steps you need to do, and check them off as you do them, so you don't forget something obvious or even not-obvious.
An incomplete checklist is more of a danger than a help.
I think you'll find that's not true. Joy, peace, and tranquility comes in recognizing the pain inherent in life and not fearing it, nor death, nor destruction and change.
That said, it's a lot easier to be peaceful when you are not in trying circumstances.
Question is, once you're peaceful and joyful and such... what do you do?. You still do something. The end all of existence is not to sit quietly under a tree appreciating the universe. it is to live. I think enlightenment is just a state of mind where what you want to do is finally, really in line with what is best for you (and further, that is generally what is best for you and the others around you).
But I'm speculating. as noted, I am not enlightened, and it's pretty likely I'm grossly misunderstanding a lot of things;)
Slashdot Mirror
yes, bombing people to death is an appropriate response.
It's not "US" politics. Most major countries out there today have soldiers out killing people that haven't hurt them (or are on a short hiatus from such activities, at best). While I was targeting my own government, the fact is we have much more important things to do than to kill each other.
Oppression is going to be much worse than anything afghanistan exhibits on women.. brutal as it may be... worldwide if something isn't done soon. Big countries with nukes are not going to go down quietly when energy supplies are too scarce to meet everyone's needs.
exactly how is this "clever fix" going to happen if we are not actively working with the knowledge we have and trying to improve it again?
Are you assuming that we get no technological benefit here on earth trying to solve these things at the "limit of human capability"?
You could just as easily flip your arguement around and say that one of the ways we get to develope things like better solar panels is through the efforts of the space program. That sounds like synergy, not wasted effort, to me.
I have a MUCH BETTER idea. How about a ten year moratorium on WAR AGAINST PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T BOMBED US, with all that effort going solely to solve energy/environmental problems? That would have astronomically greater payback without also hacking at the very technological progress you are hoping to achieve.
so companies that violate the consitution in collusion with an administration already proven, shall we say, less than concerned with due process goes out of business.
Yes, I'm sure no one will ever work a phone again. no doubt.
There are companies that did not comply, first of all. Secondly, sending a very, very clear message that the correct answer to a government request for private information on your customers is "Where is your warrant?", not "What data format would you like?", is worth nearly any price.
Then companies who don't have to pay those massive settlements can prosper and the ones who do can struggle and/or fail. That sounds a whole lot like win-win to me.
Look, you don't want to marry an ineffectual idiot of a person. Given. A basic level of reason is needed.
The simple fact that someone might follow astrology may make them no scientifically rigorous, but face it... we're ALL illogical about things. Not all things, either way, and not all people are the same level of rationality. but we are all irrational.
The question is entirely what form does a person's irrationality take; how extreme is it; how does it conflict with your own irrational aspects.
On the scale, "believe in astrology but makes fairly sound decisions" might, for instance, rank a fair bit higher than "Studies quantum physics but has no ability to consider anyone's feelings but her own". Both are irrational. One is functionally broken and one is merely "quirky".
consider irrationality is a basic requirement for us to function as autonomous, sentient beings. Then decide how quickly you really want to discard people who fail to meet some arbitrary standard... before really getting to know them. Some standards are easier than others (do you eat people? no? good) and only you can set your own. But I would encourage you not to set them too high.
yes, the problem is with weak-minded people, not with people who believe X or Y, but who Interpret Belief X in such a way as to justify whatever they happen to be doing so they never have to be wrong, never have to change, never have to do anything unpleasant. That belief can be in the rigid application of the scientific method to all of life's problems with no regard for any other tool, Christianity, astrology, etc.
I have no doubt that any competitive endeavor causes violent tendencies to rise temporarily. That's been proven several times at this point, hasn't it? What makes that original research I wonder?
What the real question is, does it have any latest effect on developement, specifically on attitudes toward violence. Judging by the sheer number of people who play and the fact that domestic violence, murder, and the like are not exactly shooting through the roof, I'd have to say, no. But I"m not researching it. Are you?
India and Pakistan are not friends; that's hardly all Pakistan's fault.
Bangladesh was 35 years ago, I believe. Do you want to line that up with everything we've done in the last 35 years?
that is a fantastic summation; thank you for sharing it.
Has Pakistan wrongfully invaded another country recently when I wasn't looking?
If not... are you saying that theocratic regimes may censor, but ultimately do less harm than we do?
I guess I'm confused.
Hardly. Late, late at night, you can play "non obscene" but "indecent" material. MAD TV, for example.
woo hoo. I feel so free I could just take flight...
How about being able to have a grown up talk to me like a grown up on the evening news, and if I don't want a child to hear that, I watch a different channel?
Or even better, I could just get over the whole idea that "words" are a problem, and let my child grow up in reality instead of a sanitized never neverland, with me as their guide and interpeter? I know, it's radical.
If ethical life is your goal, then "gaming" is irrelevant. This isn't a court of law; you're only cheating yourself "gaming" this.
;) Seriously, it only helps if you're mindful and none of us are of either the golden rule or this all the time.
The real problem is in thinking you are taking the high ground, when you're not, that is, which is most "self delusional". With the "golden rule", there is no impetus to understand any viewpoint but yours. So when you treat others as you would be treated, and they act "badly" in return.. that's a pretty maddening state of affairs! That promotes some serious miscommunication; I would go so far as to say that it creates "righteous" anger, when you're doing your best to be fair and being met with this inexplicable response! Why, when you treated them as you would want to be treated!?
When you think you're trying to be fair and met with inappropriate response, one gives up most easily.. you hit that bar of "you're just not worth it" much faster.
To take a personal example, my wife likes a lot of nurturing. I feel like behavior she sees as "nurturing" is condescending as hell and I hate it. If I treat her the way I genuinely prefer to be treated (like a strong, capable person in my eyes), she feels like I'm being a jerk. If she treats me in her preferred mode, I just get super annoyed, if not angry at the insinuation that I can't handle it on my own. And we love each other!!
What is required for effective behaviour as well as more ethical behaviour is at least an attempt to understand the person you are interacting with. The first and most important thing this does is remove the "righteous" anger when your behaviour is not met with the proper politeness you might expect; instead being more likely to get angry, you're already in a mode of thinking that is seeking understanding and is more mindful of possible miscommunication, so you're more apt to try again.
That alone is enough in most cases. If not, the practice you get over time helps further. And if you look at me and my writing and doubt that.. well, I'm not perfect at it either, but you should have seen me before I got some practice in
Where it really falls apart is that is says nothing about the boundary between safeguarding yourself and seeking understanding.. you can't always treat others as they would prefer. Perhaps the most accurate would be "Treat others as they wish to be treated as much as possible; failing that, treat others as you would wish to be treated". the golden rule should, IMHO, be no more than a fallback position.
work in progress though, who knows?
go figure ;) I love the economist too, and consider myself a "social capitalist" though the term is largely self-defined.. I'll have to check out those books though for further reading. Thanks!
implicit in the statement is the idea that you are at least making a good faith effort to understand the other and their needs/motivations/desires.
Saying "do unto others as you'd have done unto you" absolves you of any attempt to understand others or what they want. You act like everyone is like you. That's better than nothing, sure, and if you're trying to make a memorable sound bite that illiterate people and other people who are unlikely to really consider their impact on the world then perhaps it's good enough. but it's a long shot short of putting a little effort into understanding and connecting to other human beings.. respecting them, even.. and attempting to find a course of action that satisfies all parties. THAT is the moral high ground; THAT is the action that best serves YOU, in the long term.
The golden rule is kindergarten of ethics, not the be all end all of it.
did you ever come across any philosophers/schools of thought that exemplify the kinds of stances you are developing? Or that stand up to a pragmatic free market view like the one you are advocating?
A counterpoint to the Randites, for example.
I'm down, if so, and looking for some good reading.
If you still see life as a "struggle against temptation and self-developement", your grammatical error is more telling than you expected. By framing your life as a "struggle against temptation", you deprive yourself of everything that makes you human, you set yourself up for eternal failure, and by wasting your energy fighting "sins" you could instead be focusing on your self-development so that you grow to realize you really, really do prefer to do things that help you, rather than hurt you. You are not "tempted" to run counter to your own needs at all.
That requires becoming a healthy human being, stripped of neurosis and able to perceive your needs clearly (and I am in no way saying I am there yet on a consistent basis, but I'm certainly not "struggling" anymore either). You can't do that while 'struggling against temptation" though, because the problem is not outside, it's not any of the things you may be 'tempted' to do, and it's not the devil, it's just a lack of understanding, a lack of consciousness, and a lack of perspective. Using your religion as a shield from the things you fear will not help your self-developement. Facing your fears fully, and examining them, challenging yourself continually, understanding your fears so they eventually lose power over you; that might help.
But, perhaps with greater life experience, you will someday realize this, and find a place of true joy that cannot be threatened by anything. Maybe not, maybe you'll be happy as you are; that's your choice. But save your simplistic moralistic preaching for the choir... you not only don't have a monopoly on understanding, you don't really have any at all.
Significant contributions to our culture has also been brought about by entire cultures that sanctioned old men having sex with little boys, murderers, people chopping off their own body parts as gifts, and people who thought that women were property, blacks were animals, and that the nazis were right.
Just because you do some stuff for the world doesn't mean everything about you is blameless, and it doesn't make belief in "a creator" any less silly.... it certainly doesn't allow you to lay the wreath of human achievement at christianity's feet, not even in part, not by insinuation and not by association either. Not unless you also want to credit pedophilia, homicide, oppression, racism, and insanity with also furthering humanity's cause. Maybe you can, but it certainly doesn't make much of an arguement for the continuation of those beliefs or behaviours.
I owe nothing to overly religious people. Philosophers, yes. Some of them were religious too! but the religious part of themselves has absolutely nothing to do with the things I thank them for. Even if THEY thought it did.
While I respect your right to believe whatever you like, I have no respect FOR your belief. I may respect you for other reasons, even in your willingness to live your convictions if you do. I may respect some aspects of the philosophy taught by your god (no religion is ALL wrong in its teaching). But "worshipping" a fairy tale doesn't win you any points in my book. I'll defend your freedom of speech, and I'll still wish you crazy nuts would meet in caves and leave the rest of us alone. I respect your human rights while dreaming of the day you all wake up and realize you're acting like little children.
Sadly, I know that will not happen in my lifetime. Hope springs eternal though...
awesome, so if we can just turn co2 into natural gas, we can pump it underground for long periods of time!
Or.. wait.. um...
ultimately, yes... but that's a much different story than "let's turn them into a shining beacon of democracy", which is the bill of goods sold to the american people.
Further, you then have to discuss your own culpability in creating the intolerant, I would humbly suggest. which would seem the first, most obvious step... not to support such regimes in the first place. Your syrian example might be easy for the US, for example, but Iraq (with a leader we supported for so many years) is a much murkier question and would seem to have some lessons to teach us.. if only we'd learn them, whether to "tolerate the intolerant" would be a question less asked. Still a question in many cases, but you can reduce the scope at least simply by addressing ones' own behaviour (if one happens to be a big country..).
you claim I'm in an ivory tower, and the best you come up with is at least some shia-dominated gang has currently avoided a TOTAL bloodbath... just a MAJOR bloodbath instead... as offerring some kind of "doing it right" in iraq?
the exact same lessons apply in both cases. It's just a question of what stage of the game both countries are at. Iraq still has massive US presence propping things up. Afghanistan hasn't for awhile. Iraq will follow their example, soon, if not much much worse.
many are holding that "de-baathification" as an example of a major policy blunder, in fact, and it's one of the things contributing to massive push towards civil war in Iraq at this point. Yet that's how it's "done right'?
I would put forth if the goal is democracy, then to circumvent the very will of the people you are attempting to democratize (which is demonstrated by their own push FOR democracy, or lack thereof) is at BEST ridiculously arrogant.
nor is our own, in many cases. Or has suspended habeas corpus escaped you recently?
Ours has more than two hundred years of tradition. Theirs was tacitly approved by an outside government. Should the same level of moral outrage be leveled at both? I just don't share it. What personal investment or identification do most afghans have with this shiny new constitutions they have...
who says they didn't choose wisely?
you?
Me?
Who are we to say who the afghans should have running their country?
Who is to say that their elected representatives are not acting in accordance with their peoples' wishes?
This is the whole problem with our "nation building" bullshit. We only think it's cool, when the people elect people we agree are good leaders.
News flash everyone... THE MIDDLE EAST IS ISLAMIC, AND IF LEFT TO DEMOCRACY, ARE LIKELY TO VOTE IN ISLAMIC REPRESENTATION.
Personally, I don't like it either. But I don't pretend it's a bad choice simply because I don't share their values.
In other words, the "pirate" in this case got a concrete gain, while the copyright holder lost out only in principle, that someone got something for 'nothing'. Not, of course, that the copyright holder would in any case have gotten ANYTHING, so it's a principle only thing.. and, furthermore, the loss doesn't cost them anything at all. Meanwhile, society has been enriched by another enterprising young mind finding fertile ground for his technical curiousity.
So society has gained, but of course, that's a bad thing, because dagnabbit, you don't get something fer nothing, you stinking hippies. Yes, it's all very clear.
Not having absolute control over a market would drive you nuts, being in their position, wouldn't it. that's rough. Maybe you should hang out with some hippies some time.. they have some stuff that might get you to relax a bit and realize it's not ALL about cash flow. A lot is, sure, but not EVERYTHING.
If you change the name from "process document" to "checklist", and suddenly that sounds like a totally normal, proactive thing to do. Write down all the steps you need to do, and check them off as you do them, so you don't forget something obvious or even not-obvious.
An incomplete checklist is more of a danger than a help.
If you truly believed in the message of your words, how could you type them in words on the internet, and expect anything worthwhile to come of them?
I think you'll find that's not true. Joy, peace, and tranquility comes in recognizing the pain inherent in life and not fearing it, nor death, nor destruction and change.
;)
That said, it's a lot easier to be peaceful when you are not in trying circumstances.
Question is, once you're peaceful and joyful and such... what do you do?. You still do something. The end all of existence is not to sit quietly under a tree appreciating the universe. it is to live. I think enlightenment is just a state of mind where what you want to do is finally, really in line with what is best for you (and further, that is generally what is best for you and the others around you).
But I'm speculating. as noted, I am not enlightened, and it's pretty likely I'm grossly misunderstanding a lot of things