|
|
Post by lolly on May 6, 2016 22:14:05 GMT -5
The political bit is to show how the ethical conceptions you work within are not the same area as what I work within. My areas is one that works at the level which acknowledges that people need at least a basic standard of life in order to have civil and political rights. A person in poverty, for example, doesn't in effect, have civil or political rights. Australia is similarly built on immigration meeting market demands for labour... and has the same 'imaginary nationalism' that doesn't resemble the reality on the ground. You'll probably find there is a lot less violent crime in all Western capitalist states, and not all of these have increasing incarceration rates. Increased incarceration can not 'realistically' be seen as significant determinant in crime reduction, but that would be the spin. It's a ridiculous situation where success in correction reforms is bad for the industrial complex - and amazing that policy is made in view of this fundamental conflict of interest where the very aim specified in the insitution's constitution the is bad for its own profits. The secret aim, obviously, is more prisoners for greater profits, and that's what is achieved. Face it, success would mean lower crime and lower incarceration rates, which is achieved by some European countries, I believe. Where the abuses are the outcomes of policy, that's a problem with the state, and our immigration policy is a deterrent policy that involves confinement, which is a principle of crime and punishment, but without civil rights, and for people who committed no crime, and otherwise illegal things like 'incarcerating' children with adults emerge as well. The cost, mostly paid to a private firm (who was implicated in the Panama Papers) is over a billion a year. The citizens of the nation are press zombies: docile obedient drones who's view of the world is formed by slogans reiterated on the idiot box. They seem happy enough to pay a bil or more a year for their false sense of security. In fact, we have a very high immigration er capita rate, and the detainees are a comparatively negligable number - but the way its spun makes it this minute group a scapegoat representative for national anxiety over immigration. There is a very obvious correlation between law, confinement and madness. Not in the emphatic rhetoric, but in real terms. High rates of mental illness in prisons are the undeniable outcome. You even pointed out the position of the 'reasonable man'. Reasonable by what standard? What defines an 'unreasonable' man? Then, when push comes to shove, what is the institution that is legitimised in court to assess and declare who is a reasonable man, and who is Not? It's you that insists that it's framed in free will, because that's the morally driven ethical frame required in law. The ethical frame I work within is founded in benefit and harm. We understand that the range of determinants of any given situation or behaviour range from individual, relational, community, societal, structural, political and historical circumstances. In this framework, we can not identify a particular person who is culpable, responsible, blamable, punishable or what have you. I basically understand that people exist within a social context, and therefore, I do not have a morally driven construct, but a construct predicated on the realities of benefits and harm within contextual circumstances. Compare these two statements and ask if you're being completely honest with the 2nd one, and by way of specific example, are you familiar with story of the Flint MI water supply? I've got plenty of opinion, counterpoint and insight to offer based on some of the specific social ills you mention and particularly about this idea of comparing the different societies, but that would (mostly) be a distraction from our original point of dialog, and I find it tedious to think in terms of politics in my participation here. :D I recognize that movement of thought and emotion happening here that would echo quinn's sentiment with regard to your work for what it is: a product of my conditioning. That doesn't mean that I discount it, it only means that I see it for what it is as it's happening. :) Ok , we have a guy, Dutton, immigration minister, who has certain power, but he's a guy who does his job. The policy which confines children was written up by someone else long ago, and the narrative of sending everyone who arrives by boat to remote islands has bipartisan support. Smaller groups like the Greens oppose it, but don't have the clout to do anything. The Aussie public at large are glad and typically support it as well. Faced with that, we don't have a particular individual who 'does it'. We have a social dynamic that makes it inevitable at this point in time. What a person like me is up against, if I were involved in that area, isn't a matter of convincing Dutton, because his hands are tied, and he's just a part of what's in play. I'd be up against the social dynamic which brings about and sustains the situation. The fact that no one has a solution for the problem, because there isn't one, makes it difficult. At least politicians have to actually have something to sell - and have to actually do something. The advocates do not have something to sell, and just bleed from their hearts all over the place trying to appear compassionate or something, The churches are spouting Jesus stories as usual, and the counter policy slogan is 'Welcome" - a wonderful sentiment - but completely unworkable... everything is unworkable, and that is the anxiety... I'll Google the Flint Water Supply. I'm looking at ethics. Laffy insists it's all about will and volition and responsibility, and I agree that is the necessarily the case in law. I'm pointing out how ethics is founded in the reality of benefit and harm, and how the determinants of that are interwoven throughout social dynamics. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on May 6, 2016 22:19:05 GMT -5
It's really a story, like responsibility isn't an 'actual thing', but it has real meaning in context. I mean to say a sitter is not responsible for the kids is ridiculous, because there is a duty to care which can't be neglected. people seem to think there is a 'real answer', like there is 'no responsibility', but recognise, this is only because of the larger contextual paradigm where a 'no-self' with 'no volition' means responsibility can't be possible. It's just a word that fits a story. In one context it's ridiculous to say there isn't and in another context it's ridiculous to say there is. There is no 'real answer'. Yes, it's a context thingy, though the larger context always trumps the smaller one in terms of what's actually true. Gag. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 6, 2016 22:27:46 GMT -5
Didn't we just go through this? Didn't you accuse me of not understanding, so I explained your idea to you, and you accepted it? I then asked that you no longer accuse me of not understanding so that we wouldn't have to go through this over and over. Are you having memory problems, or is it that it seems so obvious to you that if I don't agree, it must be because I don't understand? I also don't know how you can deny making logical conclusions. It's not logical. Do those conclusions look like realizations to you, or what? OK let's leave this , let's discuss about something else! And another thing, if you'll stop accusing me of avoiding discussion when you think you've caught me on something, I won't accuse you of that either. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2016 22:27:55 GMT -5
Emptiness and awareness are the same thing. Do you notice the difference in what these words mean to you as opposed to tzu' and how you're interpreting them differently from him? What I will also take issue with is the idea that a so called pointer is meant to be engaged with non intellectually. These two points are related. I keep reading this. ND teachers seem to say it a lot. "No, don't look at my finger, look at what I am pointing at. Listen to the pointer, but don't try to understand it or engage with it mentally." How can the mind avoid intellectually processing information it hears?  What's your point? How about quoting my whole post. Then you'll have an answer. This is contextual fraud. The whole point is about surrender which you haven't included in my quote. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 6, 2016 22:29:38 GMT -5
I've been noticing that when an argument gets intense, you start leaving words out that completely change the meaning of what you mean to say. At first I thought it was just a coincidence, but it's not. Funny! I meant to say it doesn't mean that I am not correct . I know you did. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 6, 2016 22:36:45 GMT -5
No, not some 'other' logic. One more time. Logic is inadequate to the task of understanding the unbounded. Have you ever explored how logic works? No, thats not logic, People has been conditioned to act in a certain way is direct seeing It's a conclusion from your experience. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2016 0:39:46 GMT -5
No, thats not logic, People has been conditioned to act in a certain way is direct seeing It's a conclusion from your experience. OK let's skip this argument because I know you are wrong and you think I am wrong both of us surely not going to change view |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on May 7, 2016 1:38:59 GMT -5
Well a babysitter can be held responsible for the children they look after, butt they are not responsible for when one of the kids decides to pi$$ in the plant pot instead of the toilet . I am not juggling words at all, this sense of being held responsibility when they are not responsible is in your back yard . It has no place in mine . You keep bringing this into the conversation when there is no relevance .. I haven't been speaking of this at all . One is accountable / responsible for what they do . That's it . That's all I have been saying . All I've been saying is one is not responsible. Then you brought being held accountable into the discussion. Then you morphed into 'held responsible'. Then you denied ever bringing it up and dumped it in my back yard. Yes I originally brought 'being held responsible' into the mix .. so what? I haven't denied it, I spoke to you about being held responsible in a few posts and gave clear examples of what I mean't by it . One is held responsible for one's self .. I have explained this 'being held' aspect to you .. I am not sure why it has caused you digestion problems . Can't you see that being held responsible for your own actions is just saying that one is responsible for one's actions? When a peep understands that no-one else is to blame for how they feel for example then one holds themselves responsible for how they feel . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2016 8:10:35 GMT -5
Cool.  I spent the day at a clients garden, making a start on a bed that was riddled with Damson saplings, bramble and some other weeds. We talked of reshaping the holly trees and what plants to introduce to make it a red bed. I've already completed an orange and purple border, and we discussed doing the other border in blue and pink plants. Thanx for asking The area I'm now seeding used to be under a canopy of 75-80 year old pine trees. They were dying, so we had them removed. A lot of the same things you've described are rising up amidst the new grasses as a result of the watering. So, I'll be on my hands and knees digging stuff out soon, and then seeding again. We're going to plant some Mountain Laurels, Forsythia, and Spireas along the new edge of the woods, and haul in some colored mulch to define a path through a pergola, which will be built later, that leads to the back yard. There is a newly constructed garden where the path will end in the backyard. We're still deciding if it will be flowers or tomatoes. Sounds good. Yeah it's not just the watering that is activating all that weed growth, the new light levels and disturbance of the soil, all contribute towards the germination of any seed that has ever landed in that area. So long as you don't let this season's weed go to seed, and you dig out perenials with tap root systems, completely. The area will pretty much be weed free in a couple of years. Can't go wrong with those flowering shrubs. And make sure you protect your knees. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 7, 2016 9:28:41 GMT -5
Notice the consensus trance conditioning inherent in the naming division of the two systems which could just as easily have been denoted "conscious" and "unconscious". If you had to think about every single breath you take or plan out each contraction of your esophagus to swallow a meatball you'd be far to distracted to ever watch a movie. The shortcut to the existential question is: what is the source of the decision to go bowling? or, more generally, what is the source of thoughts and emotions? You can dissect as many bodies and conspire with as many scientists and refine your theories for as long as you want but eventually every answer you get will come with a dozen new questions. The answer to this question simply isn't, nor will it ever be available to intellect. If anyone is genuinely interested in it, there are all sorts of different suggestions relevant to keeping the mind open, energetic, and uncontracted on the distractions of intellect. It's ironic that the functions we don't want to pay attention to are called involuntary. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 7, 2016 9:39:01 GMT -5
Oneness is most definitely not a belief. The belief is separation, so we could say the context of the separate, volitional persons is 'fabricated' through the illusion of separation, which is why the larger context Donald Trumps it. Oneness definitely is a belief. It was learned at some point in your life, you weren't born with the idea of Oneness. No, at some point I realized it was the truth. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 7, 2016 9:45:52 GMT -5
Well there was hope that you'd be able to explore and therefore explain what these two different nervous systems were doing. So far you've been able to say that the involuntary one is regulating, whatever that means. And this voluntary one you've talked about is your will, though neither of them can tell you of the taste of orange juice and neither of them can drive a truck. So unless you've anything more to say, then yes, I probably have very little interest past this point. bakk... Regulating means most of the functions of the body do not depend upon conceptual thinking, if you feed it and give it air, the body works itself, this is done by what soundwave is calling the involuntary system. You get this at birth, it can be called the instinctive system. The voluntary system consists of stuff you have learned, so yes, it's what drives a truck, once it has learned to drive a truck. The voluntary system picks up the glass of juice, drinks it. The involuntary system is what tastes it, I think soundwave's point in this was, the taste is not easily described, it's not the 'job' of the involuntary system to describe what orange juice tastes like. Take five minutes to look at the links, learn something about your body...why wouldn't you be interested in how your body works? I'm guessing she knew all that at the beginning of the discussion, so don't work too hard at teaching her. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 7, 2016 9:58:51 GMT -5
SR doesn't "set up" a destination, it describes one. Journeys end dude. So does life. It's true that SR doesn't end life. Alternatively, the end that is death can be the end of the existential search, but the destination described by SR is simply relevant to the fact that it doesn't have to be that way. Even if 'life' ends, the unfolding of existence does not. The river of life/existence never ceases to flow. Destinations are measurements, whether the destination is SR or the ceasing to function of the body, and these measurements are arbitrary and subjective i.e measured by us, as humans. In reality, there is just a journey, just a river flowing. Seeking is a natural expression and embodiment of this flow. There's no suffering in seeking, but there might be suffering in trying to bring an end to seeking, as any seeker of enlightenment will tell you. Suffering may or may not be the impetus for your assassinated version of seeking. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 7, 2016 10:32:40 GMT -5
Oneness definitely is a belief. It was learned at some point in your life, you weren't born with the idea of Oneness. No, at some point I realized it was the truth. yes, the same way that a born again Christians realizes that God is the Truth. I'm not saying your wrong about Oneness, but it's not 'the truth', it's just what you know/believe to be true. Same as me to be clear. So it's only a broader context than 'responsibility' IF it is true. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 7, 2016 10:35:31 GMT -5
Even if 'life' ends, the unfolding of existence does not. The river of life/existence never ceases to flow. Destinations are measurements, whether the destination is SR or the ceasing to function of the body, and these measurements are arbitrary and subjective i.e measured by us, as humans. In reality, there is just a journey, just a river flowing. Seeking is a natural expression and embodiment of this flow. There's no suffering in seeking, but there might be suffering in trying to bring an end to seeking, as any seeker of enlightenment will tell you. Suffering may or may not be the impetus for your assassinated version of seeking. I'm not following you there, but I see you have underlined that bit, so I'll expand. Seeking isn't suffering, but what a seeker of enlightenment is often told, is that seeking IS suffering. So then a seeker seeks to stop seeking and they suffer because they are in an argument with the nature of the organism. Seeking happens and is non-problematic, but attachment to the outcome OF seeking is likely to cause suffering. |
|
