|
Post by laughter on Jul 5, 2020 14:38:48 GMT -5
Interesting perspectives expressed here. My take on the dialog so far is that health is definitely a holistic issue that involves both body and mind, and the particular balance and approach that will work for optimal health will vary widely by individual. Life experience, temperament and character, and the specifics of the situation are all factors: some people might benefit to a great degree either from something like talk therapy or taking some sort of drug. That said, there are others for whom these might not only not work, but will harm, and the interests of the institutions that prescribe these therapies are unaligned with any sort of holistic view to the point of obvious toxicity. Exercise and diet are no-brainer's, and play a part in all phases of disease, but, most pointedly, in the prevention of it. I think we'd have a much healthier populace if children were conditioned to think of their health as their own responsibility and taught that reliance on the health care industry should be a last resort, but it seems that we're in a phase where the opposite is true. My primary interest in the vid wasn't so much about health, but rather, the notion of self-mastery. There is of course a potential link between the two topics.
|
|
|
Post by japhy on Jul 5, 2020 16:13:14 GMT -5
Thanks for everything in the thread.
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jul 6, 2020 2:26:06 GMT -5
If you dont want discussions to descend into slagging match (a waste of everybody's time) then an acceptance that there may be different points of view is essential. Dealing with those differences in a respectful way will help the process of discussion. Its not about agreeing (although agreement may well occur), but rather about mutual understanding of what may well be different points of view. I just argued your statement, not your position which I don't know. To me, that argues that "as usual when there is division, there is room for both", and history shows that appeasement and consensus often created monsters and tragedies. In the best case kicked the can down the road, put fires out, while diluting individual responsibility. You come from your conditioning as social worker that had to deal with specific situations and goals, within a specific framework ... We have quite different examples of situations in our minds. Progress in sciences, arts, in human and natural life was never achieved through consensus. Invariably when there is disagreement there are characters on both sides. It is not appeasement to respect a different point of view whilst disagreeing with it.
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jul 6, 2020 2:34:41 GMT -5
I just argued your statement, not your position which I don't know. To me, that argues that "as usual when there is division, there is room for both", and history shows that appeasement and consensus often created monsters and tragedies. In the best case kicked the can down the road, put fires out, while diluting individual responsibility. You come from your conditioning as social worker that had to deal with specific situations and goals, within a specific framework ... We have quite different examples of situations in our minds. Progress in sciences, arts, in human and natural life was never achieved through consensus. Invariably when there is disagreement there are characters on both sides. It is not appeasement to respect a different point of view whilst disagreeing with it. Disrespect usually ends in a slagging match, and simply means that there is very little attempt to reach mutual unerstanding of different points of view.
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jul 6, 2020 2:35:54 GMT -5
Invariably when there is disagreement there are characters on both sides. It is not appeasement to respect a different point of view whilst disagreeing with it. Disrespect usually ends in a slagging match, and simply means that there is very little attempt to reach mutual unerstanding of different points of view. A waste of time.
|
|