If it’s between instinct and logic and I cannot make the two agree and must choose, I usually follow instinct. Logic is powerful but fragile — one wrong premise and you go off on this irrefutable-but-wrong chain of action. Instinct is based on something the unconscious mind knows, and chances are it’s pretty firmly placed.

Frank and I seem to operate from the same basis. When it comes to tension between logic and instinct, I choose the latter. When instinct does not prevail then I wait knowing that everything changes and hoping that the next change may present a better opportunity for moving forward. However, there are times when I feel immobilized and I’m aware that I need to take just one small step to get moving again.

In small groups populated by mature people, who are dedicated to problem solving and to agreeing to disagree without becoming disagreeable, I feel comfortable. However, it’s my experience that when groups grow larger, dominant personalities “take the lead”, lines are drawn in the sand and, soon there will be a tendency for folks to begin manifesting the behavior Richard points to. Consequently, I avoid large group situations.

So many of the problems we face in the world today require global cooperation and it’s discouraging that we don’t really see much harmonization.

There is little sense of coming together to solve issues lately. Right now we (and by we I mean “they” – whoever they are) are on the cusp of [in-decisioning us into a real pickle]. Perhaps that is what is needed though.

The thing about choosing and “doing something” though — years ago (in another century) when I was in college, I had an old professor who said something that stuck with me.

“I always get worried when people say `we have to DO something,’” he said, “because that means they propose to do something even though they don’t know WHAT to do.”

I think there’s something to be said for creative inaction. When I don’t know what to do, I generally wait until the situation clarifies or changes. Of course, it can get worse through inaction; I recognize that. A friend of ours — you know who, Rich — used to say that decision by default was the worst way to decide. Yet, is it so much worse than what might be called decision at random?

Just a rhetorical question at this point. I really don’t know. I will throw one more thing into the pot. If it’s between instinct and logic and I cannot make the two agree and must choose, I usually follow instinct. Logic is powerful but fragile — one wrong premise and you go off on this irrefutable-but-wrong chain of action. Instinct is based on something the unconscious mind knows, and chances are it’s pretty firmly placed. Unless it isn’t, in which case you’ve got problems and welcome to the world!