I think I read someplace that confidence was the expectation of something positive happening. That may be true, but why isn’t the expectation of something negative happening, also confidence?

I’ve also heard other people say that when we wake up in the morning, we have a choice to be either positive or negative. I don’t think so. Making such a choice can remove a person from the realities of life. What is misunderstood in this reality is that realists, who neither “choose” to be positive or negative, are somehow sad, depressed or ignorant people, lacking in good judgement, a clear mind and the ability to accomplish great achievements. One’s perspective isn’t right or wrong. It’s just a perspective.

Marcus Aurelius once wrote: “Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is perspective, not the truth.” Perhaps, but I don’t think so, at least in its entirety. What I do think is that everything is based on one’s perspective and, as such, we should spend more time learning about what drives, not only our own, but other people’s perspectives.

If confidence is the expectation that something positive is going to happen, I can clearly observe that my perspective on whether something happens, good or bad, can differ tremendously with others. For example.

Yesterday I read V. Paul Reynolds weekly article in which he writes that the future of wildlife management in Maine “is in good hands.” To make this claim depends on a person’s perspective. What then drives the perspective?

Helen Keller once said, “Optimism is the faith that leads to achievement. Nothing can be done without hope and confidence.” Optimism must drive perspective. If Keller is correct, that “optimism is the faith,” then optimism is not a tangible thing we can grasp but something we choose to cling to in order to influence our perspective. What, then, drives optimism? Perhaps it’s perspective. Or, maybe we have just created a vicious circle that accomplishes nothing but the establishment of feeling good outside the realm of reality. Such talk reminds me of a Human Interaction class conducted by National Training Laboratories – a product of the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations.

We stereotype an ostrich as a creature that sticks its head in the sand – the analogy to man being that what you can’t see won’t hurt you and if you can’t see it, you won’t have to deal with it. Optimism can be a form of “ostrichism” if there’s no reality or practical experience to go along with it. So we are back around to perspective again.

Insanity is said to be doing the same exercise repeatedly, never changing approach but always having “hope and confidence” that the outcome will be different or the one desired. Sanity, therefore tells us that once you’ve observed the same failures (those failures based upon one’s perspective) there leaves little “optimism” (it is the faith) that something positive will happen and a great deal of “confidence” that it won’t. From that perspective, therefore, is the person who operates this way negative? Are they lacking confidence? Are they not optimistic, starving for hope and confidence, void of ostrichism?

I guess the answer to that can only come from your perspective.

Perhaps I have helped you to see how silly much of all this is…oh, darn…at least from the perspective of a realist whose every day is spent searching real truths and not man’s truths.

As a realist, with a perspective that I admit is much different than most, it is difficult to stick my head in the clouds somewhere and hope for good (my perspective) outcomes based on somebody’s perspective that’s different from mine, but foremost a perspective of wishful and whimsical thinking, whose foundation is circulus in probando – circle in proving, or circular thinking/logic.

Where does this all lead?

The other day I thought that, as a treat for some readers, I would make a list of all the good things (my perspective) the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) have accomplished in the field of hunting and trapping this year. Please bear in mind that from my perspective I’m looking for accomplishments that go above and beyond the daily routine of what any fish and wildlife department should be doing. Normal, accepted mediocrity is, in itself, another form of “ostrichism,” is it not?

I sat down with paper and pen and began to write. Well, I didn’t really begin to write. I began to think. I even asked for some help. The help I got mostly confirmed about the only good thing (my perspective) I could come up with.

Last year, environmentalists and animal rights perverts laid another voting referendum on the Maine people in an attempt to put an end to bear hunting and trapping. The great thing (my perspective) that MDIFW did was, in recognition that success at the polls to pass such a referendum would strip the department of necessary tools to responsibly manage and care for black bears, members of the department, with the blessings of the Commissioner and Governor, got involved in the process of defeating the proposal.

Even when the environmentalists and animal rights perverts got their undies in a bunch over that participation, the courts said no harm no foul. It was a highlight for me (my perspective) to see the MIDFW take ownership of the job they are entrusted to do and do it without any outward fear of lawsuits and retaliations. This action was above the normal mediocrity and the path of least resistance.

We should see more of it.

So that’s it. I know there are many readers out there who choose to be the eternal optimist (suffering from a touch of “ostrichitis”) and believe (their perspective) that MDIFW does many, many things of great achievement. I disagree. I think they do an adequate job in many things, terrible job in others, and carry out great achievement seldom.

This is intended to be a positive act (my perspective) and so I’ll end it with that.