Entry 1661 — Fuzzilier Re: Pracsipience, Etc.
The first thought here in a continuation of my thinking about day-to-day-thinking I was annoyed into by another lawyer’s making a bundle out of the increasingly complete abandonment by our country of any belief in self-responsibility: a kid got killed by a negligent driver; for lawyers, though, the responsibility in such a case is only that of the individual who directly caused a death if he is the one with the most money who can be sued. Hence, in this case, the party sued (successfully, for over a million) was the church owning the parking lot (because some bushes got in the driver’s view and there’s no reason that should have made him slow down and be extra cautious: those owning any kind of property most make sure it is 100% safe).
That made me think about the pracsipience of the lawyers involved. Is it greater than other people’s? I decided it wasn’t. They are probably in the 60% of the people I believe are quite intelligent in day-to-day living. But they have a special talent for swindling. Similarly I believe that doctors are no more pracsipient than the rest of us, but they have a talent for their vocation (which I admire, as I do not admire the vocation of some, but definitely not all, lawyers).
On second thought, I’m not sure doctors have any special talent so much as they have concentrated some of their pracsipience into becoming doctors. As everyone concentrates a certain portion of his pracsipience. Perhaps a talent is such a concentration of pracsi-pience? (Am I unfuzzying rather than the reverse as I certainly was in my mind when I began this entry?)
On third thought, it seems to me that concentrations of pracsipience are different from a talent. The lawyer suing the church had a talent for swindling whereas my doctor has a concentration of pracsipience in the field of medicine. Of course, many doctors also have talents related to doctoring, as well. The normal academic is all concentrated pracsipiences, or must pretend to be if he is going to make a living in academia.
I forgot about my 10% of those whose pracsipience is a level above the 60%’s: perhaps it’s superior because of those with it are better at concentrating their otherwise normal pracsipience than others. In any case, those who succeed at what most people consider the higher professions like law and medicine are no doubt mostly in the 10% of people of superior pracsipience.
To be reasonably effective in the day-to-day, one needs to have the ability to concentrate one’s pracsipience in some vocation, so it’s part of pracsipience–at all levels.
I’m pretty sure I haven’t said all I want to on this topic but right now I’ve zeroed out. I’m afraid I’ll be saying more on it tomorrow. Sorry.
.