Tuesday, August 05, 2003

Lucky Goodness: Sort of along the lines of Eno's post, "luck," in this capacity, implies "good"; as in "I'd rather [have oodles of good luck], than [simply be] good." If all the luck you had was bad, then obviously, you'd rather "be good" - leaving aside any masochists who always skew the charts. But, your important B-School professor couldn't possibly have been that lazy to give you such an easy out as that, could he (I mean, his T.A. couldn't have been that lazy, could she?).

Eno's point is that if you're consistently lucky, it's not luck. I'd argue that's not entirely true (score one for the Nitpicker). If, you consistently "lucked" into success (your supervisor dies, only you are there to replace him; you find $100 lying on the ground just as you are about to bounce your rent; your bet on the Phillies winning the World Series is a sudden lock as every starting pitcher not on the Phillies comes down with beriberi), without having any influence over it, then it is purely that: "luck". Ignore, for the moment, whether your "good" luck necessitates someone else having "bad" luck - Buddhists need only apply to this argument. In any event, most, as Eno alludes to, don't want to admit to merely being lucky, because it implies you're lazy (not at all like your professor, er, T.A.). It also takes out the possibility that you can choose your destiny (shout-out to the Calvinists) - in which case, you'd better pray for "good" luck. To re-cap, being good is more rewarding, being lucky is more exciting.

No comments: