|
|
Post by lolly on May 9, 2016 3:22:54 GMT -5
I'm pointing out that 'responsibility' is a meaningful concept when used in the relevant context, and demonstrating that you also use it in that manner. I know that. What I don't know is what in blazes Tenka is talking about. I suspect there a 'truth competition' involved and people are striving for that trophy. Maybe ambiguity reflects the absence of what the trophy claims to represent? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 9, 2016 23:01:55 GMT -5
Your explanation of the situation is a sophisticated and sane human adult perspective on it, and isn't it interesting how that moves away from the idea of holding someone in particular specifically responsible?  Well, it is interesting, and I particularly find it interesting that I don't know solutions. I merely understand the dynamic operation of things and am myself a cog in the wheels, so to speak. Probably a more socially aware cog than most, but a cog none-the-less - or a lubricant at best. In the ethics of human rights, social justice, social rights and that area, we don't see isolated individuals as responsible agents in the sense that makes them culpable. We see individuals in their social context, as part of a bigger whole, and we have to consider the socio-cultural-political circumstance as well at their lived history. Responsibility doesn't make sense in that context, but there are other ethically framed things like duty of care, client self-determination (which implies empowerment) and confidentiality (implies protection), and we have a responsibility to all of those things. People who try to assert truth about responsibility simply don't understand context, and this is the mechanism we use for that, "perhaps I'll explain it to you sometime". Hahaha. Well that was my point to you several days ago that responsibility is contextual and that the word has different meanings in at least two different existential contexts. In the case of duty of care and confidentiality you're holding someone personally responsible and quite obviously underlying that notion is the assumption that the subject is in control of the decision making process necessary to uphold those standards. A belief in free-will is just assumed. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 9, 2016 23:05:00 GMT -5
It's just a comment on how if people would subjectively investigate the source of their thoughts they'd find that they're not really at the mercy of something other than themselves as to what arises. It's also just as useful to notice that none of these thoughts are really their own. A peep who is sure of her ownership of her own thoughts and perceives that some of them aren't her responsibility is quite obviously personally identified, and it's an illusion. Well, i n that context responsibility isn't particularly meaningful, but it still makes sense to say I wish people would take responsibility for what they think. It doesn't relate to what's 'true'. It only relates to how it's meant and how it's understood. Sure it is, as it's the basis of self-honesty. You can often clearly see when someone is fooling themselves from the outside looking in, just ask rastapimp dude mon'.  The implications to peeps seeking answers to existential questions should be like way way obvious.  |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on May 10, 2016 4:31:48 GMT -5
Well, i n that context responsibility isn't particularly meaningful, but it still makes sense to say I wish people would take responsibility for what they think. It doesn't relate to what's 'true'. It only relates to how it's meant and how it's understood. Sure it is, as it's the basis of self-honesty. You can often clearly see when someone is fooling themselves from the outside looking in, just ask rastapimp dude mon'. 8D The implications to peeps seeking answers to existential questions should be like way way obvious. Well, you just say it's the basis of self honesty... I don't know who rastapimp is. I really don't know what seeking answers to existential implies - I can't remember ever asking anyone about that before. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on May 10, 2016 4:59:51 GMT -5
Well, it is interesting, and I particularly find it interesting that I don't know solutions. I merely understand the dynamic operation of things and am myself a cog in the wheels, so to speak. Probably a more socially aware cog than most, but a cog none-the-less - or a lubricant at best. In the ethics of human rights, social justice, social rights and that area, we don't see isolated individuals as responsible agents in the sense that makes them culpable. We see individuals in their social context, as part of a bigger whole, and we have to consider the socio-cultural-political circumstance as well at their lived history. Responsibility doesn't make sense in that context, but there are other ethically framed things like duty of care, client self-determination (which implies empowerment) and confidentiality (implies protection), and we have a responsibility to all of those things. People who try to assert truth about responsibility simply don't understand context, and this is the mechanism we use for that, "perhaps I'll explain it to you sometime". Hahaha. Well that was my point to you several days ago that responsibility is contextual and that the word has different meanings in at least two different existential contexts. In the case of duty of care and confidentiality you're holding someone personally responsible and quite obviously underlying that notion is the assumption that the subject is in control of the decision making process necessary to uphold those standards. A belief in free-will is just assumed. You sign up for the job understanding the responsibilities of duty of care and so on, which is all legally liable and insurance and the rest if it. I really don't make a 'free-will' debate out of it at all. I only say if people can't keep up the responsibility then they do something about it, because there's ramifications. Apart from the risk of harm, it's bad for the profession, disrupts trust, leads to people not seeking help = less opportunity to benefit - not to mention the worker becoming overwhelmed and stressed out. People burn out and become jaded and can't go on with it, but we don't say 'get your act together' or anything. We talk about it and have supervisory and support mechanisms to draw on, peer networks that can lighten the load and so on. Sometimes a life change changes what you can do as well. For example one woman I know worked in child protection for years (which is tough) and she was was fine, but when she had her own baby she simply couldn't do it anymore. We really don't frame our ethics on free will, or individualism. It's all about the person in their set of circumstances, personal, social, environmental, cultural, historical - everything. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2016 8:02:27 GMT -5
I'm still interested in how he calls the involuntary nervous system, the instinctive system. Instincts relay information for survival, and are constantly in touch with their immediate environment. Though they may be deemed to be dormant, if the constant environments are only ever habitual comfort zones. I like the instinctive label, too. In order to regulate something, like the organs of a body, there would have to be some semblance of instinctiveness taking place. An example of how this could take place would be dehydration. The involuntary nervous system (INS) realizes there is not enough water being taken in, so it instinctively alerts the body. An enhanced sense of thirstiness may bubble up. If that is ignored, a sense of tiredness may begin to be felt. If that isn’t acknowledged the tiredness may suddenly be accompanied by nausea. If that fails after a period of time the lack of energy and nausea could trigger a lack of appetite, perhaps shortness of breath, and even chest pains with any kind of exertion. All instinctive amplifications by the INS. Help!!! See a doctor! Before the adrenals shut down! This happens to middle aged and elderly people all the time. We have to be aware of the body.Stay hydrated. Any increase in the amount of water drunk, must be sustained daily. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2016 8:34:20 GMT -5
Any increase in the amount of water drunk, must be sustained daily. Good point. Winter is my Waterloo. I drink a lot of coffee in winter. Perhaps one day the education systems wherever we happen to live will incorporate knowledge such as this. From an early age. Judging by the statistics of the life expectancy of those being born now, I'm sure everyone will be just fine. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2016 10:53:12 GMT -5
Judging by the statistics of the life expectancy of those being born now, I'm sure everyone will be just fine. 140 is pretty impressive. But it is what it is right now. A potentiality. And, as I said. I'm an optimist. As an optimist, I sense a new science will be a huge factor in the equation. Dare we call it- The Science of Being? But first things first. Global warming, altered food chains, etc. have to be addressed. Some sciences haven't benefitted us all at all. I see the potentiality in what you've said as well. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on May 10, 2016 20:37:47 GMT -5
Again, you're trying to relegate SR to phenomena which, in essence, is just change/movement. Furthermore, you (identified as a separate self) are interested mostly in just finding fault in "others". In order to try to make that happen, you are using your plethora of mind-bound concepts. When those don't work, you start creating more. We are talking about breaking out of prison, while you insist on either maintaining or spicing it up a bit. SR definitely is phenomena, what else could it be? At one point in Ramana's life, or in his experience, SR was not the case. And then it was. That's phenomena. I suggest to you that you haven't actually broken out of prison, you have created an experience in which it seems like you have. It seems to work for you okay, so that's fine. In actuality, there is no breaking out of prison, and neither does there have to be, because the prison that you perceive is just....Life. The infinite ways you that you think and go on and on about somenothing you have no idea of what you're talking about is most definitely the phenomena being pointed out. There's your prison, and all you have to do is, well,,,, nothing. Alas, you'll go on and on about something you actually know nothing about. Kinda cute. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on May 10, 2016 20:39:15 GMT -5
Only contextual movements in mind and thought make it so.  "this is the stuff that dreams are made of" Precisamente! |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on May 10, 2016 20:43:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on May 10, 2016 20:46:02 GMT -5
Wrong direction, good sir. You are simply making things up now. Any "path" when there (only) apparently is one is to unravel its relative truth. Once undone, the idea of a path no longer retains substance, regardless of mind's lingering insistence on reconstituting one. It's one of them "ya' kinda' had to be there" thingies. Ya mean, Andrew can't just trust me 'er sumthin? Aaah man, I thought we was gettin' somewhere an all.  |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on May 10, 2016 20:51:25 GMT -5
Messy stuff. Got any cat litter? I mean, just in case... No, but I've got some pretty awesome grease cutters under the kitchen sink. If you get any on ya, just help yerself. I hope it's the good stuff. I heard that to prove true SR, you can't have any streaks or residue or nothin leftover. Plus, you're so blissed out (or perhaps high on fumes) that you're beyond reproach. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 10, 2016 22:23:22 GMT -5
Sure it is, as it's the basis of self-honesty. You can often clearly see when someone is fooling themselves from the outside looking in, just ask rastapimp dude mon'. The implications to peeps seeking answers to existential questions should be like way way obvious. Well, you just say it's the basis of self honesty... I don't know who rastapimp is. I really don't know what seeking answers to existential implies - I can't remember ever asking anyone about that before. Well yeah I say that 'cause it seems obvious to me that self-deception is, subjectively speaking, the height of personal irresponsibility. rastapimp bee 'dis dude mon'  he rent out de' rastaphants ye know. .. and as far as this goes maybe you've never asked butt, like ..  .. you do read the forum, like, right??  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 10, 2016 22:25:40 GMT -5
Well that was my point to you several days ago that responsibility is contextual and that the word has different meanings in at least two different existential contexts. In the case of duty of care and confidentiality you're holding someone personally responsible and quite obviously underlying that notion is the assumption that the subject is in control of the decision making process necessary to uphold those standards. A belief in free-will is just assumed. You sign up for the job understanding the responsibilities of duty of care and so on, which is all legally liable and insurance and the rest if it. I really don't make a 'free-will' debate out of it at all. I only say if people can't keep up the responsibility then they do something about it, because there's ramifications. Apart from the risk of harm, it's bad for the profession, disrupts trust, leads to people not seeking help = less opportunity to benefit - not to mention the worker becoming overwhelmed and stressed out. People burn out and become jaded and can't go on with it, but we don't say 'get your act together' or anything. We talk about it and have supervisory and support mechanisms to draw on, peer networks that can lighten the load and so on. Sometimes a life change changes what you can do as well. For example one woman I know worked in child protection for years (which is tough) and she was was fine, but when she had her own baby she simply couldn't do it anymore. We really don't frame our ethics on free will, or individualism. It's all about the person in their set of circumstances, personal, social, environmental, cultural, historical - everything. Well no there's no debate 'cause it's just assumed. Don't worry, it's not like I'm singling you out on this point you know. |
|
The implications to peeps seeking answers to existential questions should be like way way obvious. 
"this is the stuff that dreams are made of"
