navwin » Discussion » Philosophy 101 » Can you really change a person?
Philosophy 101
Post A Reply Post New Topic Can you really change a person? Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California

0 posted 2007-06-30 06:14 PM



I do not believe that you can change a person. But one does can develop another one's underdeveloped area. That is to say that one's job is to water the seeds to make it grow.

© Copyright 2007 Drauntz - All Rights Reserved
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

1 posted 2007-06-30 07:29 PM


Q. How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb?

A. Just one, but it has to really want to change.



A joke, but it's my answer too.

But I'll follow up with a few questions of my own--what's wrong with the person as that person is? Why is "change" necessary? Is it merely a preference to wish someone be this way or that way? And aren't we all changing anyway? Is it a presumption of superiority to judge another and attempt to change them? Is there a "standard" and if so, what is it?

What's up, Mz. D?

Maybe you could expand on this if I'm not getting your intent. I'm a bit confused.

Maybe you could change that.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
2 posted 2007-06-30 08:00 PM


My dear lady SB, I am not changing the Bulb. I say that one dusts it.

Who said that there was dust?

what if one comes to ask why one is not bright?! one has to do the dusting, right?

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
3 posted 2007-06-30 08:05 PM


I try to say that people have always say that you can not change a person... in a friendship or in a marriage.

If one can't not be changed but can one be developed?.. to the better fit for each other?

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

4 posted 2007-06-30 08:51 PM


Wow. You dust lightbulbs?

(wince)

Don't come in my room. (Spare yourself.)

But I was wondering if you were speaking of "change" in the context of relationships, or perhaps, like, "rehabilitation".

As for relationships, people change. I think it's inevitable. The real question is whether these changes suit each other. I've ranted enough about my own bad relationship for this to amuse some members here who know me. For example, my husband pulled in the driveway just before sun-up this morning, lights out, as not to wake me, the insomniac. Ten years ago he would have had to duck flying objects as he walked in the door. Today I don't even ask where he has been. He hasn't changed in that regard, but I have. I've become apathetic on some things. (Other things still enrage me, though. ) But the opposite of love is not hate--it is apathy. I'm not saying I don't have love for the father of my children. I'm saying that my focus regarding change has switched from him to myself.

Drug rehab? It can work. But I wouldn't bet on it. Not unless that person is prepared for a minimum 90-day stay at a facility with a very good staff of professionals prepared to take an active personal interest in that person. And even after ninety days, I don't think the person should return to the same environment from whence they came. I've observed a higher success rate for court ordered rehab, wherein the addict is forced to take drug tests, seek employment, or otherwise face a jail term. (That's actually the only drug rehab I have personally seen turn out successfully.)

Then there is criminal rehabilitation.

There are a lot of nuances to that one, and I just don't know. (smile...that's still working for me.) I don't know if a sexual offender who equates molestation of children as "giving them candy" can ever be successfully introduced back into society. (I just don't have the education or understanding to answer that question.)

On the other hand, I do believe that other types of criminals can be fully rehabilitated.

But then, what I think won't dust my lightbulbs, or yours.

Maybe the idealist in me has become as dusty as my room, but I do still love the idea of redemption, so I'll leave you with an interesting tale of somebody else--a man whose religious faith dictated to him that no one was beyond redemption.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1920731,00.html

And yeah, sorry, I'm always asking you to read something, huh?

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

5 posted 2007-06-30 08:52 PM


and tsk..if you start editing your questions, I'm gonna have to start saving the originals.

Even the questions change!

*laughing*

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
6 posted 2007-06-30 10:18 PM


I'm preparing food for the 4 legged table. I'll talk to you  later. Thank you for the article.  
Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
7 posted 2007-07-01 01:29 AM


I read the article. Thank you again. Obviously, Frank Longford had a very stupid mind. He was making an experiment on God and of course he failed.

So, my dear lady SB, you want to say that some people  can not be changed? I think so too.


Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
8 posted 2007-07-03 03:04 PM


My dear lady SB, I shall write more of my thought. Forgive me to use bad words in last post. I have  a very short tempered brain.

Frank Longford " believed that no one was beyond redemption - not even Myra Hindley"
which was the base of his action if there were no other purpose of either political or self-gradious. The base is wrong, on common sense and biblical. She was a murderer!! what does the Ten Commendmend say about murder. He was out of his mind do behave like that.

My moden is taking vacation now.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

9 posted 2007-07-03 06:14 PM


Smile...

bad words?

I didn't see any.

But I brought up Frank Longford, most deliberately, because as a devout Catholic, his religion recognized (then, I don't know about now) degrees of sin.

Myra Hindley's horrific crimes qualified as a "mortal" sin.

And yet, many (if not most) Christian religions do not differentiate between sins--in fact, even thinking of sin is the same as sinning to some!

I'm kind of short on attention span and time as well Mz. D, but hopefully I'll be back with more--scriptural references as well as more on the life of Frank Longford.

(pssssst...there's a movie too--"Longford" but there is a notable bias presented there, which conveniently overlooks much about the man and his life.)

OH. And if I can inspire some assistance, I believe this question came up before in this forum--in reference to Jeffrey Dahmer, if my meager memory serves me at all.

Double OH. As in "Uh Oh"--if this thread starts going where I suspect it might, you might wanna consider starting a new thread--the other issues might muddy up the place.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
10 posted 2007-07-03 08:58 PM


my dear SB, I will say the same thing even if I had the chance face to face with him.

Why Myra said that he was the pain in the neck?  She knew that she was guilty.

Everybody has a chance but soemone intentionally give the chance up for other pleasures. this is a fact.

have a very wonderful 4th of July, dear SB
and drive safely. love hugs and kisses!!!

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

11 posted 2007-07-03 09:46 PM


I don't drive, but thank you for your well-wishes.

I have a phobia, Mz. D. Regarding driving. It's like my fear of falling. Note I didn't say fear of heights--I'm not afraid of being high (and do I hear laughter? shush) I am afraid of falling. I'm afraid of accidents--and I don't think someone who is terrified of what might leap out in front of them would make a responsible driver. So I just...don't.

Anyhoo... Enough of my habits, implied or otherwise.

I don't know that if there is a religious system of belief that you adhere to Ms. D.

But the premise of "hate the sin, but love the sinner" is known well enough, I think, to lend some understanding to Longford's stance on Myra. I do have some questions for you though--

How many times should one forgive?

And who benefits most from forgiveness? The transgressor or those that have suffered the results of the transgressions?

Was Jeffrey Dahmer (for one example) beyond redemption when he was murdered in prison? (He'd reportedly had been "saved" before his death, via acceptance of Jesus Christ as his Savior.)

And in this concept of Christ as savior, martyred for our sins, is the need for confession and the very plea for forgiveness already reconciled by the cross?

Please know I'm not asking you questions as any attack or even personally--these are questions I ask of myself...

I'm still searching for Longford's answer regarding regret for his actions and support of Myra Hindely. I'd hoped to find a factual account, since I don't trust movie embellishment, but his answer in the film version voiced one of no regret--but gratitude to her, for in knowing her, he had the opportunity to test, in a most profound and ultimate way, a concept of his religion and faith to a degree that he might not otherwise have realized.

---

So my final question must remain--in the assumption of an ominscient, omnipotent God--perhaps atrocities committed by others exist as an experiment by said God, as opportunity for other, lesser souls such as myself to grow in understanding, via the peace of forgiving?

*shrugging*

I can't say that I know.

But it would sure make sense of the Old Testament--and through that lense of understanding, it would certainly make the new testament--actually new.




Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
12 posted 2007-07-05 04:51 PM


My dear lady Sb,

"hate the sin, but love the sinner"  

……does not mean that sinner can get away from punishment. Longford  tried to get her out of jail…which is not based on his faith.

“How many times should one forgive?”

……..More than 7X70 times. But one can not get away from the punishment for his crime.

”And who benefits most from forgiveness? The transgressor or those that have suffered the results of the transgressions?”

……….You want the answer that the suffered will benefit from the forgiveness.  You see, dear SB,  God shall forgive us all if only for His own happiness, then why hell?

”Was Jeffrey Dahmer (for one example) beyond redemption when he was murdered in prison? (He'd reportedly had been "saved" before his death, via acceptance of Jesus Christ as his Savior.)”

……Upon God to judge.
God gives every body a chance because consciences is a build-in human character.

Cross ..is always there on the back of the followers.

”but gratitude to her, for in knowing her, he had the opportunity to test, in a most profound and ultimate way, a concept of his religion and faith to a degree that he might not otherwise have realized.”

………At his age? Not  late. One shall always think what he is believing.
Two month ago, I happened to  lectured a pastor of 79 and on his birthday ( I do not know that) because he was bad tempered blame someone stealing sheep….what a nonsense to attach to his preaching.

”So my final question must remain--in the assumption of an omniscient, omnipotent God--perhaps atrocities committed by others exist as an experiment by said God, as opportunity for other, lesser souls such as myself to grow in understanding, via the peace of forgiving?”

...My dear SB, allow me to say it straight forward, any of this kind of talking… atrocities ( which did not exist in the creation when God saw that it was good) were considered  as a test of God are all human being's cold blooded, stone hearted and self-righteous, idolized  religious  talking.

[This message has been edited by Drauntz (07-05-2007 07:06 PM).]

Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296
Purgatorial Incarceration
13 posted 2007-07-05 07:36 PM


You can change a person.

Should you?

Who are you (general you, not you specifically) to judge how another person should be?

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

14 posted 2007-07-05 07:48 PM


Nodding at C, here.

That was the gist of what I tried to say in the first place--as always, you get to the point more readily and with more clarity than I.

Drauntz--it wasn't my intent to annoy you. As I said, these are questions I ask of myself. I don't have an opinion of Longford either way, btw. I have admiration though for those willing to test their faith with such determination.

M'self? Shrug. I'm trying to be more cautious regarding things I do not understand. It's been my experience that once I say I do not understand something, I am placed in a situation that requires me to stretch my thinking a bit. So...smile?

For those who know me as curious, just know that has been tempered a bit.

There really are some things I never want to know, and never wish to understand.

(Glad to see your modem didn't fry, Mz. D.)




Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
15 posted 2007-07-05 08:00 PM


My dear SB, you will never annoy me. I shall thank you for your sharing your thought.

Sir Christopher,
I do not believe that a person can be changed at all...if there is no seed, one can not grow out a flower from none, right?

icebox
Member Elite
since 2003-05-03
Posts 4383
in the shadows
16 posted 2007-07-05 08:29 PM



Discounting the affect of binding magick, one can not change other; one may choose only to change self.  


Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
17 posted 2007-07-05 08:45 PM


icebox, yours is a very interesting point.
may I ask, then,

Why one wants to change oneself? and based on what one would change?

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

18 posted 2007-07-05 08:49 PM


I know your question wasn't addressed to me, but I think I can answer why, as I stated above, I switched my focus of change from my husband to myself.

Simple Unhappiness and acceptance of personal responsibility.

As I told my husband, he is just as worthy of of love and acceptance the way he is, as I am.

I'm thinking "no fault" divorce.

Surely we are both perfect for someone, just maybe not for each other--y'see?

icebox
Member Elite
since 2003-05-03
Posts 4383
in the shadows
19 posted 2007-07-05 09:52 PM




This is dancing perilously close to the meaning of life.  Self does not choose change without need; life imposes need just as it provides the random factor of chance.  Without change, self (or soul if you prefer) can not evolve.  Obliquely, by choosing life, self chooses in each life to be in circumstances that promote and even demand change.  A single life is a tapestry woven from threads of choice; all of self is a larger tapestry, arrayed in four dimensions.  Some threads are plain, simple and make up the background.  Some threads are bold, stark, vibrant, earned through much pain, and perhaps connect one part of tapestry to another part.

"Why one wants to change oneself? " Often in a life setting, self does not want to change; there can be comfort in stagnation, but in a longer view change (evolution) is inevitable.  Often, the closer self gets to the point of change the greater is the resistence to that change.  It is the terror of passing through the fire.  

In a sense, life is a simple process of making choices and of acting upon those choices.  The individual choices are not always simple and often involve much anxiety and pain, but we exist to learn and to grow.  The motivation in life for self is that when finally we are done, we are free.



Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296
Purgatorial Incarceration
20 posted 2007-07-05 11:01 PM


That's where I think many get it all wrong - self is not a clearly defined, unchanging item. I was thinking about saying block of stone, but, just like a person's "self," a block of stone is not unchanging.

To clearly define self would require being able to look inside and learn what that self is - it's the researcher's paradox; nothing can be studied without being changed.

To change someone, simply allow them to be. Their physicality will change, their mind will change, their habits will change. It's evolution on a daily scale. Environment, interaction, etc., all affect people and cause them to change.

But none of this is what I got out of the initial question. What I read was can you make someone change in a definitive manner from what they are into something you want them to be.

I believe one of the biggest examples of this would be changing someone in a relationship to be better suited (nodding to k's marital comments here) to "better suit" their partner; you like this, this and this about the person, but don't care so much for this.

That's the part I am asking "should you" about.

If taken from a broader sense, I would turn my answer around and say you can't help changing a person by simply being around them.

Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296
Purgatorial Incarceration
21 posted 2007-07-05 11:02 PM


Oh, and Drauntz? Your analogy of a seed is flawed. We use a fraction of our brain's ability. To suggest that the "seed" is absent in any given person is to suggest that they don't have that other 90+% of their brain.

The seed is there, it's the desire and motiviation that usually isn't.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
22 posted 2007-07-06 12:38 PM


Sir Christopher

"The seed is there, it's the desire and motivation that usually isn't"
.....I agree with you partially.

If there are seeds,  some of them may stay dormant and some of them may  grow.  Desire and motivation do make them to grow.

What do you think about the difference of personalities.  People are different. Is it because that they are genetically different or because their desires or motivations are different?

I use genetic here is to say that people are seeded(gifted) in different ways.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
23 posted 2007-07-06 01:03 AM


Sir Icebox,
"Often, the closer self gets to the point of change the greater is the resistance to that change.  It is the terror of passing through the fire." This is very true. But do you believe that one indeed changed oneself after passing through the fire?  if you have some life examples. I doubt it.  

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

24 posted 2007-07-06 01:48 AM


*smile*


serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

25 posted 2007-07-06 03:09 AM


Christopher?

quote:
That's where I think many get it all wrong - self is not a clearly defined, unchanging item. I was thinking about saying block of stone, but, just like a person's "self," a block of stone is not unchanging.


and Louis Kahn said:

quote:
"Even a brick wants to be something."


*hugs*

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

26 posted 2007-11-03 03:33 AM


Dear Drauntz,
        The question puts you in an uncomfortable position.  Do you want to change somebody you admire?  Love?  Usually only somebody you feel superior to, yes?  In what position does that place you, and are you comfortable there?
Jung says that entering into this sort of relationship is  dangerous; that if you  are really attempting to change somebody, then both of you are at risk.  I think he's right.
What are your thoughts?  Yours, Bob K.

      

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

27 posted 2007-11-03 03:34 AM


Dear Drauntz,
        The question puts you in an uncomfortable position.  Do you want to change somebody you admire?  Love?  Usually only somebody you feel superior to, yes?  In what position does that place you, and are you comfortable there?
Jung says that entering into this sort of relationship is  dangerous; that if you  are really attempting to change somebody, then both of you are at risk.  I think he's right.
What are your thoughts?  Yours, Bob K.

      

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
28 posted 2007-11-03 06:02 AM


I agree with you Bob. By the way who is Jung?

Drauntz sometimes does talk nonsense. I don't think that any human has the ability to change another one. But one can influence another, can't he?  

Tomtoo


moondogz
Member
since 2007-05-01
Posts 397
Great White North
29 posted 2007-11-03 04:14 PM


this reminds me of the "story" about the Buddist Monk, he entered a pizza parlour, ordered a pizza and handed the clerk a one hundred dollar bill....the clerk put the money in the till and turned away. The Monk inquired about his change, the clerk replied, "change must come from within."
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
30 posted 2007-11-03 06:08 PM


Chris:
quote:
Who are you (general you, not you specifically) to judge how another person should be?


Are you saying that those who want to change others shouldn't be that way?  


Stephen

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

31 posted 2007-11-03 07:38 PM


grin

Stephan? I asked the same thing of my therapist.


Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
32 posted 2007-11-04 01:09 AM


Impossible is both not to change and not to be changed.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

33 posted 2007-11-04 02:49 AM


Dear TomMark,
              "Jung" is Carl Gustav Jung, the Swiss  psychoanalyst, who died in '63.  You might like his autobiography,  MEMORIES, DREAMS and REFLECTIONS.  To read some of his other work requires a belief in advance that it's worth the effort; and the autobiography sometimes supplies that.  Some of us get hooked on his thinking process.  June Singer has a good book about him called THE BOUNDARIES of THE SOUL.  She writes very well indeed.  If you follow up, let me know; I'd be interested in what you think.     Yours,     Bob K.    

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
34 posted 2007-11-04 03:25 AM


Dear Bob, if you have read his work then do please tell me what a great influence by his words on you. I do not like  psychoanalyst, to be honest. I view them as that I pay them to find fault with me.

I love to read biography. But I have to tell you that there are two books that I have no idea and I think that I'll never understand. one of them is "Seat of the Soul" Anything related to soul scares me. (the other book is Universe in a nutshell".

Tell me something about his thinking process, briefly...I have never heard him before.

Thank you for your kind words.

Tomtoo

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
35 posted 2007-11-04 05:02 AM


Dear Bob,

I went to Amazon and read some of the reviews of his autobiogaphy.

One wrote

"Jung's dream about his patient (p. 133): In his dream, Jung looks up at his female patient who is "sitting on a kind of balustrade," "on the highest tower" of a castle "at the top of a steep hill;" he bends his head back too far to see her properly and wakes up with a crick in the back of his neck.

Jung's interpretation based on the compensation hypothesis was this: "If in the dream I had to look up at the patient in this fashion, in reality I had probably been looking down on her." So, he assumed that the dream was telling him not to look down on her. This interpretation was based on the assumption that the dream scene represented what Jung had to do in real life, which means the solution of his problem, or the compensation of the lopsidedness in his conscious attitude."

Do you believe his theory? I don't.

There was a very good discussion not long ago in this site about Ayn Rand.  you may want to start talking about Jung.

Tomtoo

rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
36 posted 2007-11-04 07:30 AM


People assume identities all the time.

Some like to change for others to fit in or to be whatever it is they think they need to be for people. But if the other person presents a pressure for them to change, they back off or get turned off. I think it has to be on their terms.

I've had several girlfriends take on new self images that seem to mirror whoever their love interest is at the time.

If he's a cowboy: she's all the sudden totally interested in horses & begins to dress the part of a cowgirl.

Whatever he's into, she adopts it as a part of her life & identity, even if she never had an interest before.

If that's what they want, fine. I won't judge them for it, but I say: "Be yourself." but maybe they don't know who that is? And if they are happy with the nuances of this new identity/self image, cool.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
37 posted 2007-11-04 11:13 AM


Karen:
quote:
Stephan? I asked the same thing of my therapist.


The only difference is that you're wanting your therapist to help change you, evidence being that you've paid him (or her) with lifeblood.     


And if there's anything I can add to this discussion, its along those lines.  I don't think there's anything wrong with desiring others to change for the better, or even making appeals.  But the best way to see others change, is to be more concerned with changing oneself.  It's the plank in the eye.  It's not an "either/or", but a question of order.  For me it amounts to wrestling with God about my own condition of heart.  If I quit doing that, I have nothing to say or offer to others.

When it comes to change in general, such as hobbies and interests, I don't see that there's much to say.  We shouldn't want others to change those things which make this world such a wonderful and diverse place to live.  Regina made a good point about the importance of remaining true to yourself, and avoiding constant flux.  But on the flip side, aren't people who are most secure in themselves, usually open to new things ... firm like pottery, but open like a bowl?


Stephen        

moondogz
Member
since 2007-05-01
Posts 397
Great White North
38 posted 2007-11-04 12:25 PM


Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

ISBN 0-670-86994-5

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
39 posted 2007-11-04 01:19 PM


I think we may and do change ourselves ("ourselves" meaning "our family, friends, neighbours, etc" too) to some extent, but changing ourselves is not changing something that is good or evil.  To use an offhand analogy, it is like one's hair.  We may comb or cut our hair better or worse,  but the hair itself is neither good nor evil.


[This message has been edited by Essorant (11-04-2007 02:06 PM).]

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

40 posted 2007-11-04 05:10 PM


"Firm like pottery, open like a bowl"



I shall restrain myself.

(lawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwsy I love ya Stephan!)




Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
41 posted 2007-11-04 05:26 PM


R you making fun of my similes?  

Stephen

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

42 posted 2007-11-04 06:15 PM


No.

I am making fun of my own old age.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

43 posted 2007-11-04 06:17 PM


I was making fun of my own state of disrepair, my sweet brother.



If I was hewn on a potter's wheel, I am one of those creations that only a mother could love.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

44 posted 2007-11-04 06:18 PM


ooops. One wasn't there--then it was.

ah well...a double-handled jar, then!

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
45 posted 2007-11-04 09:29 PM


"firm like pottery, but open like a bowl?"

wonderful words, Stephen!

But how  do people get such character? how do I get the firmness and how do I open like a bowl?

I can be very stubborn..you will not call it firmness. I could be very soft-eared (so easy to follow other's ideas) you will not call it open, right?

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
46 posted 2007-11-05 02:32 PM


Karen,

I can relate actually, at the ripe old age of 36.  You are hilarious.

I guess philosophy and physicality are only a step away from each other.  I should of anticipated that my little proverb would be taken in another creative and colorful way.        


TomMark:
quote:
how  do people get such character? how do I get the firmness and how do I open like a bowl?

I can be very stubborn..you will not call it firmness. I could be very soft-eared (so easy to follow other's ideas) you will not call it open, right?


Well, you've already identified the problem pretty well, so that's a good start.  We often confuse being open-minded with vacillating (I think of Bunyan's Character Pliable).  And we conflate being resolute with being stubborn.


My own solution (not that I've arrived) is to desire and seek Wisdom from God to know the difference.  "Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom; Though it cost all you have, get understanding" (Proverbs 4:7).  The beginning of that is ponder the sayings of the wise.  I've recently begun an in depth study of the book of Proverbs, that is quite good.  I do think such words, meditated upon, can help to shape (and yes change) a human character for the better, by the grace of God.  I always add that phrase, because I think that the "fear of the Lord" is the beginning or foundation of wisdom.  Though the "wisdom" of the book of proverbs is not just another form of pietism, but the marriage of piety to the practical skills of living life here and now.


If you're interested I'll post the link to the book I'm using in my study.  It is very good ... practical as well as scholarly.  And you can get it used for fairly cheap.


http://amazon.com/gp/reader/0664245862?ie=UTF8&keywords=Lady%20Wisdom&ie=UTF8&v=s earch-inside


Change can be good.


Stephen

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
47 posted 2007-11-05 06:52 PM


Thank you very  much, Stephen.

You are right that I shall get that one.

Have you ever get reference of Bible from on-line sites?

Tomtoo

Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296
Purgatorial Incarceration
48 posted 2007-11-05 07:52 PM


quote:
Are you saying that those who want to change others shouldn't be that way?  


Stephen
Missed this one!

Nope - never said "shouldn't" ... was just asking.

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
49 posted 2007-11-06 10:12 AM


Dear Bob K,

I had a chat with my younger brother who read inch thick psychology book daily. He said that the whole Freud system had failed to truly identify human problems, neither solve any.

I hope that you are not offended because this a  pure philosophical talking.

How does Jung interest you?


Tomtoo

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
50 posted 2007-11-06 11:20 AM


Psychology: the art of overcomplicating human nature.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
51 posted 2007-11-06 01:14 PM


Right. Isn't that a bit like overcomplicating quantum physics, Essorant?



TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
52 posted 2007-11-06 09:20 PM


Before neuroscientists tell us how exactly brain works, psycology has a big play ground to play how and why about human behavior.

my younger brother, so proudly, told me that he has started a new branch of psycology, seriously.  It is intersting to have a brother like him. He just got an award for community service.

His theory is based on that  God designed a very balanced, dynamic, neuro-hormone system(known facts). People suffer when that is out of balance. So any human behavior is to keep or go back to that original balance..."God saw everything that he made , and indeed, it was very GOOD".

I do have many questions for him. But I think that it sounds reasonable.  He is developing it daily now. How interesting!



Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
53 posted 2007-11-06 09:47 PM


The approach to human nature and understanding things in general today often seems to demand that everything must be complex, including our approach.  I just don't agree with that.  

The secret is that things are much simpler than they are often made out to be.



Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
54 posted 2007-11-06 10:42 PM


I don't think that's a secret, Essorant, so much as a hope and a wish. To paraphrase Einstein, things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.

Any time you start thinking human beings are simple, I suggest you get one of your own. Sad to say, they don't seem to come with a manual.  

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
55 posted 2007-11-06 10:50 PM


How  about the String Theory? Everything is made of String including energy.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
56 posted 2007-11-07 01:31 PM


Ron, I think Essorant has a point.  Many things in life are complex, but that doesn't mean our approach has to be.  Here in South Georgia, there were many-a-crop-duster who didn't understand the intricacies of aerodynamics or physics, but knew how to keep a plane from crashing better than many who did.

On the other hand, if anyone is saying that things can't go frightfully wrong, or that the human psyche is simple like an equation, then they are erring as well.


You're both right.


Stephen      

oceanvu2
Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066
Santa Monica, California, USA
57 posted 2007-11-09 11:36 PM


Nothing ever changes, as in plus ca change, plus le meme chose.  On the other hand, the possibility of transformation always exists and generally occurs.

Best, Jim

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

58 posted 2007-11-10 09:32 PM


Dear TomMark,
                I've been offline a few days. Sorry for being late in replying.  As I said, Jung is complicated.  Strict Freudians hate him in part because of his open attitude toward religion and his rejection of many of the basic assumptions of psychoanalysis.  I can't summarize him for you; he's too complex, but one of the things that makes him useful to poets is his respectful attitude toward images.  He doesn't go for the more common decoding of images you'll remember from english classes as a kid.  Paraphrase doesn't work here.  
     If you want to understand him, try Boundaries of The Soul, by June Singer, who gives a respectful and readable overview.  A book review won't work.  Your brother won't help.  Understanding brain physiology—sorry.  And whatever the reality of God, anybody who tells you that science has agreed upon a theory that depends on His existence for it to work, doesn't understand science.  The notion violates the principle of conservation of causes, true or not.  I advise you simply to give up trying to understand Jung.  Without enough interest on your part actually to read him or a decent sized piece about him,
it probably can't be done.  I know I'd muff any simple and short explanation.  I can see how misleading I've apparently been so far, while trying to be helpful.  I've got you listening to soothsayers an d people who know nothing about him for information.  Let me know how it goes, TomMark.

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
59 posted 2007-11-11 08:06 AM


Dear Bob K,

This world is not a happy world and people want to know why. Psychoanalysis is one of the scientisfic field of studying it. However I have always considered Psychology including Psychoanalysis as pseudo-science, no matter how many books are there in the bookstore and how many "master"s are there to tell what is the problems about human being and why the problems.

I will read Jung's Biography.

and True science, have to and must to be done on the base that there is somehting to the truth. Then what is truth? Science is in the field of discovering the truth.  The aim of the psychoanalysis is the same, I believe. Only it is on the road of imagination of human mind....not quite solid, if I shall not say that it is on the wrong road at all.

Now, tell me, Master Jung to you is like a religious figure or a Grand Master of social science? what part of his theory intertests you? You must shared similar understanding  of Human Beings with him. so tell me something.

Dear Bob, I hope that my frankly talking will not offend you.  

Best

Tomtoo

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

60 posted 2007-11-17 06:09 PM


Dear TomMark,
                Sorry to say, your reply seems a bit garbled or I'm simply having some trouble tracking; I get awkward that way sometimes.  I'll try to give you a decent response from limited understanding.  I don't believe either Freud or Jung thought of depth psychology as a science.  Both certainly hoped it might someday become one.  Freud hoped it might become the basis of a scientific neurology at some point in the future, and tried to write a book about psychoanalysis from that point of view between 1895 and 1900, if I have my dates straight; but he scapped the project as way premature.  Jung thought his Analytical Psychology might someday prove the basis for biochemical understanding of mental illness, but he felt that the Analyst should go with whatever seemed most useful.  Freud thought Psychoanalysis was, as much as anything a method of research into mental problems.  He though it would be useful for only two diagnostic groups: folks with what they used to call Hysteria and what they used to call Obsessional Neurosis.  Outside of those two diagnostic groups, Freud thought Psychoanalysis inappropriate; it was to be a method of identifying and exploring the problems of these two neurotic problems, both for the analyst and patient.  The truth should make you free.  Early Analysis valued insight.  Myself—I don't know.

     Science is probably more concerned with the somewhat  more slippery nature of facts than the more philosophical question of truth, and trying to establish those facts as best it can.  People often use the words fact and truth interchangably.  Is this always useful?  Philosophy and Theology are more about Truth.  About facts, disagreements can frequently be settled by checking the data and the method of collection.  About Truth, Truth is not subject to anything but Faith in the long run, because Truth (Capital T) is too abstract to measure.  And Faith very easily becomes the servant of Force.

     You did mention Truth, didn't you?

     As for the aim of Psychoanalysis—TomMark, you're the man who wants Truth.  Freud was more of a realist.  I recall two answers he gave as to the goals of Psychanalysis.  The first is probably the most straightforward, and the most quoted, "to love and to work."  If you can come out of analysis able to love somebody, especially in a grown up way, and if you're able to work, then that's enough.  Some people get more.
Some people don't get that much.  The other goal Freud
offered has some of the same flavor, "To replace neurotic
suffering with ordinary unhappiness."  I like that one.  It suggests learning some reality about yourself and doing things you need to do.  It also feels like a dictionary definition of the word "shrink," doesn't it?

          The story goes that two successful patients met after having been in analysis, one with a Freudian and the other with a Jungian.  They both looked a bit rueful.
The Freudian patient shook his head and said, I've lost all my demons!  The Jungian patient shook his head too and said, I've still got all my demons, but now I've got a headful of angels, too.

     The goal of Jungian Analysis is Individuation,  gathering all the scattered pieces of the Self together and learning to see them as part of a functional and harmonious whole.  Usually the patients in Jungian Analysis are older, in the second half of their lives, when they have something of a life to look back upon.

     Once again,TomMark and anyone else out there who's following this, hearing me talk around the edges of this stuff is useless to you.  Reading the Autobiography of C.G. Jung is a terrible pain in the ass unless you have the fascination for it.  It is one of the most readable Jung books, though; and the June Singer book, Boundaries of The Soul is good too.  I confess I enjoyed them when I read them, but don't go by me.

     As for your frankness, sometimes folks use the word as an excuse for being abusive or brutal, but you seem perfectly straightforward and well-meaning, and your tone is, I suspect, nicer than mine.  I enjoyed your letter and hope to hear from you and anyone else interested.
                                    My best, BobK

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
61 posted 2007-11-18 10:13 AM


I'll write some of my thought later but where is Stephen ?
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
62 posted 2007-11-18 11:39 PM


Bob K:
quote:
About Truth, Truth is not subject to anything but Faith in the long run, because Truth (Capital T) is too abstract to measure.  And Faith very easily becomes the servant of Force.



But anyone who has looked into the philosophy of science, should know that science itself does not escape the task of accepting first principles ... a kind of faith.  Even the belief that our measurements are meaningful and reflective of reality involves a kind of faith.  Religious faith is little different (in principle) though it is different in scope.  


And really, anything may become the servant of force, not the least science.  Did A-bombs come from religion or science?  

TomMark,

I have little to say about Jungian or Freudian psychoanalysis ... though both of these thinkers are quite interesting, and very influential.  I'm just reading and learning.


Stephen  

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

63 posted 2007-11-19 02:56 AM


Dear Stephanos,

         I believe you're right about science being a potential  servant of force.  Am I reading you correctly, here?  I think you've offered me a useful corrective.  Let's try another look.  

     Doesn't it seem more accurate to say that Force seems the almost perfect servant of Faith?

     It seems that, whether the Faith is religious or political, the Faithful are frequently ready to use Force to carry the day.  Even those who place their faith in Science seem to become remarkably inflexible in their thinking when their assumptions are questioned.

     I still think that Truth (Capital T) is too abstract to measure; and that folks confuse Truth, the abstraction, and Fact, which is subject to measurement and verification.

     I have in fact looked into the philosophy of science, though probably not to the depth you have.  I have no idea what you mean by "first principles."  Are you talking about Aristotle and identity—A is A—as in logic?  Are you talking about theology?  And if so, whose?  Theology and ontology aren't the same thing, exactly, are they?

     Also, if we're reading the same sort of Philosophy of Science, I think the gist is that as studies get further from straight philosophy, they get more concrete and more available to actual measurement.  Aristotle, as a Natural Philosopher, wrote descriptions of animals and plants.
Pliny the Elder, also a Natural Philosopher of sorts, did the same thing in the first century AD, and died when Vesuvius buried Pompeii in 79.  Nowadays we call them biologists.  We do experiments in biochemistry and quantify the results.  Yes, our belief in the results certainly
does involve a kind of faith.  Many people choose not to
have their illnesses treated, to have blood transfusions.
It doesn't always kill them, either, but statistically I would guess it wouldn't want to be a bet you want to take all that often.  Certainly not without lots of information that a man actually believing in the kind of argument you're advancing would want to acknowlege needing.

     Physics also separated from philosophy, even earlier and more crisply that biology.  Chemistry as well.

     The further you get from philosophy, the more actual measurements can supply actual meaningful data.  The further back the split happened, the less influence faith actually has.  You've got to have some pretty enormous upheaval on the philosophal level to effect the day to day workings of the basic sciences.  It's not impossible, Stephanos, but what would it have to be in practical terms to disturb the general belief in the consentual reality of, say, newtonian physics for our daily lives?
                           Sincerely, BobK


    


TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
64 posted 2007-11-19 05:34 PM


Dear Bob K,
(Just down from 16 hours flying)

Allow  me to say this, there are three kind of topics here
1. The Jung's psychoanalysis
What is the base base on which he did his approach on human mental issues? Did he find a clue? Was there any practical method for  people who suffere from  Hysteria and Obsessional Neurosis?

2. Jung himself...YOu said that it was very hard to understand him.

3. the books  you metioned.
I have to get the book first.


Talking about Faith. Faith is merely a personal loyalty to what you believe. It is not related to truth. Thuth stands independently from one's attitute.

I will write more later.

Best wish to you

Tomtoo

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
65 posted 2007-11-19 07:11 PM


TomMark:
quote:
Faith is merely a personal loyalty to what you believe. It is not related to truth. Truth stands independently from one's attitute.


I agree that Truth stands independently from one's attitude (I think you are referring to faith here).  But it doesn't follow that faith is independent of truth, unless your definition of faith is synonymous with belief in general, whether true or not.  Theologically, "faith" is not merely loyalty, though it contains that element.  Faith is a kind of settled certainty about things which are are unquantifiable, yet true.  If one has a certainty about something which is untrue, it should not be called "faith".

My statements about science, was simply to remind that we accept certain truths a priori, before we can even approach the practice of science.  The fact that it turns out to be practical is secondary.


Stephen      

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
66 posted 2007-11-19 10:26 PM


Remember the words true and truth are related to the words trow and tree.  You may think of them as being related to trow because they involve belief / faith, but related to tree because they involve standing firm on roots as well.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

67 posted 2007-11-20 03:21 AM


Dear TomMark & Stephanos,

                            Two fascinating conversations at once!  Lovely.

     It's interesting both of you seem to have this focus on truth.  If there is such a thing, and there may well be, it's functionally useless and archetypal in nature, as in Plato.
It serves to drive men mad with self-righteousness.  If most folks would settle for TomMark's "personal loyalty to what one believes", things would probably work better.

     I don't know many, if any, people with that kind of faith in themselves and their personal beliefs.  Others may be more widely acquainted.

     Truth gives me a headache.  Everybody's got a different idea about what it is and wants to shout at you about why you shouldn't do your own thinking and listen to them.  

     Stephanos, if somebody has a certainty about something which is untrue, how would they know?  Which things are you going to tell people are untrue.  Have you ever tried to talk somebody out of a delusion?  Stephanos, if you can't talk somebody out of a delusion when they're crazy, how are you going to do it when they're sane and they think their logic is as good or better than yours.  And may be.  

     Whose delusion is more in line with reality, after all?  I know I've been out-thought as often as not.  There's always a brighter and more insightful mind someplace on the block.  Who's going to get away with telling me my delusions—if they are delusions after all—don't amount to Faith.  What we believe, we believe because we believe it's true.  Nobody sets out to purposely believe a lie.

     Although, I hasten to add, it might make a very interesting set-up for a poem, depending on whether the lie might be interesting enough, and whether the contortions could be portrayed in an interesting enough fashion.  Let's not forget that whatever else we're doing here, it's the poetry that probably brings us together.

     Just that last idea was enough for me to feel happy about this whole exchange—getting a flash for a piece of poetry, I mean.  Thanks, guys.
                          With appreciation, BobK
    

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
68 posted 2007-11-20 08:38 AM


BobK:
quote:
It's interesting both of you seem to have this focus on truth.  If there is such a thing, and there may well be, it's functionally useless and archetypal in nature, as in Plato.


Absolutely not.  Truth (whether religious or otherwise) is very practical as well as being true.

quote:
It serves to drive men mad with self-righteousness.


But to be "self-righteous" is to depart from the truth.  No one is righteous apart from the free grace of God.  Truth has also served to make men more humble, loving, and virtuous.

quote:
If most folks would settle for TomMark's "personal loyalty to what one believes", things would probably work better.


I am pretty sure this describes the current state of affairs, even if one believes in nothing, or the world of one's own creation.

quote:
Truth gives me a headache.  Everybody's got a different idea about what it is and wants to shout at you about why you shouldn't do your own thinking and listen to them.


I can sympathize.  But I would like to remind you that though I believe in an absolute kind of truth, I try not to shout.  More local truths get shouted just as much as anything else.  And when I speak of truth, I'm usually trying to stimulate thinking, not stifle it.

Secondly, its not as if saying "there is no Truth", isn't itself a form of claiming a larger kind of truth.  Not only have you offered a macro truth (albeit in negative form), but have made several prescriptive statements about how people should live (ie loyal).  I'm not telling you that you're wrong ... I'm just pointing out the inconsistency between what you're doing, and your philosophy.    

quote:
Stephanos, if somebody has a certainty about something which is untrue, how would they know?


This depends upon which particular "truth".  There are a myriad of ways people come to true knowledge (religious or otherwise).  Of course this is no guarantee they always will.

quote:
Have you ever tried to talk somebody out of a delusion?


Yes.

quote:
if you can't talk somebody out of a delusion when they're crazy, how are you going to do it when they're sane and they think their logic is as good or better than yours.  And may be.


You're arguing from the more difficult to the less.  If someone may reason, they are at least closer to the truth than someone who is insane.  Though I admit that the human mind is very good at violating reason, all the while being sure of reasonableness.

Again, there is no guarantee of changing someone from error to truth.  But in this thread, we are firstly more concerned with whether or not Truth exists.  

quote:
Nobody sets out to purposely believe a lie.


I don't believe in the fundamental innocence of humanity.  The fallenness of man included his intellect.  I'm not denying that there is such a thing as an innocent kind of ignorance.  But there is also such a thing as a willful ignorance.  If this is true, it should at least challenge your egalitarianism of ideas.  


Stephen

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

69 posted 2007-11-20 02:14 PM


Dear Stephanos,
         Please don't take me out of context and distort what I'm saying to fit your notion of what you apparently would like me to be saying.  It's impolite.

     I acknowledged, even in the quote you highlighted, there may be such a thing as Truth:  "and there may well be..."  Don't set up a straw man here.  As for the practicality of Truth, one cannot sharpen a pencil with it, open a can of dog food, or clean a kitchen floor.  It is on an utterly different level of abstraction.  It is a concept.  A concept may supply motivation to drive a nail, but by itself it won't do the job.  Conflating two levels of abstraction sounds wise enough, but it leads to unneeded paradoxes.

     To be self-righteous removes a person from the commerce of reason.  If there is Truth (capital T), self-righteousness may or may not force a departure from that commerce.  I don't know any way to evaluate that that is open to general agreement.  It's tough to get a bunch of tabby cats to do a precision synchronous tap dance; and I regard the likelihood of reaching consensus on Truth as being far beyond that.  The two of us mean well, and look at us.

     As for God, God is most frequently what folks are self- righteous about.  And while you are right about the concept of truth serving to make men more humble, loving and virtuous, you ignore the shadow side of the concept.  People who believe in God, I've been told, tend to get very particular about the fine points and issues of purity of belief.  In the name of Truth as well, many become very particular about how true a given thing may be.

     As for belief in nothing, as long as a person speaks a language, there are beliefs that come along as part of the package, simply in the metaphors and idioms of the language itself.  For example, we talk about people as "deep" or "shallow", as if we need to assign metaphorical values to each.  We make a distinction between anxiety and eagerness when physiologically there is only arousal, a single physical state.

     Belief in a world of one's own creation is the rule.  Everybody does this.  This is the system upon which psychotherapy operates; psychotherapy allows a person to alter the world they have unconsciously constructed for themselves.  This includes how they deal with the rest of the world, and, to some extend, how the rest of the world deals with them.

     Belief in an absolute Truth, insofar as I'm concerned is wonderful and useful.  Many absolute Truths have been literal life-savers for people, and have proved sustaining and affirming sources of spiritual nourishment.  Those who can subscribe to such things should do so.  

     I have not said, repeating myself for emphasis, there is no Truth.  I have said I don't know what that Truth might be.  I have said that it is on a different level of abstraction than the practical world, and I have said it's upsetting when you take me out of context and use pieces of my prose to pursue a discussion I'm not having with you.  I don't think you understand either what I'm doing or my philosophy and that you are having a discussion with straw men who believe things I don't.

     I asked about somebody being certain about something that wasn't true, and how they would know that.  I was not talking about religious faith or truth.  As far as I'm concerned all the religions are true, including their various contradictions, and we simply don't have the wherewithal to put them all together.  I have no wish to put a man of Faith on the spot by putting the contradictions of religion on parade.    

     But surely you can think of non-religious examples—say, somebody who believes that global warming is a hoax or that AIDs isn't caused by HIV or, if you happen to believe in either of those, pick your own example and forgive me for treading on your sensibilities.  I think there is probably an Archetype of Truth out there, as in Plato,
much as is the Archetype for The Good or Evil or even Chairness.  

     An Archetype functions, or so Jung tells us, (yes, back to Jung) like the matrix of a crystal.  The individual atoms of salt are all different, but they will always come together to fit the same pattern or matrix.  The crystals all look the same, but the contents, the atoms of salt, know where to go and how to bond.  That's how I think of Truth (Capital T).  If there's a single Truth, it's the matrix around which the various contents form.  Taoism, Catholicism, Islam, Hinduism, scientism, whatever you want to plug in there.

     Not that you asked me.

     As for argument from more difficult to the less; 1) my thought when initially writing the paragraph was to write it the way you suggest I write it; 2) I thought maybe to go for a funny; 3) after thinking about it as a funny, it struck me that I might be closer to an uncomfortable truth than I thought bearable; 4) so I let it stand in the reversed position, perhaps wrongly,  though I like it.

     During the Enclosures in the 1830s, on the Scots Island of Skye, a local character named Gilleasbuig Aotram saw a poor madman being dragged away to the local madhouse in chains.  All around, of course, the local crofters were being tossed off the land they've been farming forever and a day to be replaced by sheep and a few shepherds so the landlords could make more dough.  Aotram's reported to have said to the madman, "had you the right madness, bread would be secure."  Clearly the landowners had the right madness.  The story's from The Right Madness on Skye, by the way, a book of poems by the late great Richard Hugo.

     The point being about the nature of madness.  There's more social support for the landowners of this world, and the other sane logical folks with Truth on their side.  Whose bread is more than secure.  I feel trite in pointing this out.

     High and low, innocence and guilt in this context are articles of belief, as is the fallenness of man.  To consider man's intellect to be other than fallen is probably hubris, although I doubt there all that much need to claim any exaulted initial status.  The knowledge of good and evil is exceeding painful, but the fruit of that tree is of a type I have no desire to give up.

     As for willful ignorance, I'm unsure; there may be such as thing.  It may also be the oppressor's label for passive rage and resistance.  It tends to go with words like bad
and underachiever a lot.  I've noticed it often applies to people who simply don't want to go along with the program and be one of the gang and a team player a lot.

     As for my egalitarianism of ideas, what's that?  Is it bad?  It sounds bad.  Should I be severely punished right now?     Sounds like maybe I should be.   Hmmmm.  Bad again, and in public, too.
                        Affectionately, BobK

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
70 posted 2007-11-20 07:15 PM


BobK:
quote:
I acknowledged, even in the quote you highlighted, there may be such a thing as Truth:  "and there may well be..."  Don't set up a straw man here.


I didn't mean to take you out of context.  But you did however imply that truth is unknowable ... a position which is (for all practical purposes) little different than the belief that there is no truth.    

quote:
As for the practicality of Truth, one cannot sharpen a pencil with it, open a can of dog food, or clean a kitchen floor.  It is on an utterly different level of abstraction.  It is a concept.  A concept may supply motivation to drive a nail, but by itself it won't do the job.  Conflating two levels of abstraction sounds wise enough, but it leads to unneeded paradoxes.


I recognize that sterile truth (as a mere concept) needs application.  But truth as a concept only is not Truth in a full sense.  The Christian conception of truth involves authority, a recognition of divine law, and a response to that authority.  When I speak of truth, I am not speaking of platonic abstraction, but revealed truth.  

quote:
To be self-righteous removes a person from the commerce of reason.  If there is Truth (capital T), self-righteousness may or may not force a departure from that commerce.  I don't know any way to evaluate that that is open to general agreement.


It does force a departure from the commerce (as you call it) of truth and reason.  Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for exhibiting self righteousness.  And if I fall into it, I am as subject to the correction of Truth as much as anyone.  

And whether or not you know a way to evaluate it that is open to general agreement ... you yourself know it exists, and could cite examples.  You, in fact, are the first one who mentioned it.  If you censure anything with a moral tone, you are no longer operating in the area of reason alone, but in a type of faith.  Though morality is reasonable,  reason alone cannot sustain morality.  


quote:
t's tough to get a bunch of tabby cats to do a precision synchronous tap dance; and I regard the likelihood of reaching consensus on Truth as being far beyond that.


Who ever said that Truth was popular?  Should one's goal be to follow the crowd, or the discovery of truth even if followed only by few?  

quote:
As for God, God is most frequently what folks are self- righteous about.  And while you are right about the concept of truth serving to make men more humble, loving and virtuous, you ignore the shadow side of the concept.


I have never ignored the shadow side of the concept.  God (the highest thing) can be forsaken for idols, and thus become the lowest thing ... a divine imposter who leads men to violence and hatred.  It's funny that the most valuable things of life, can hurt us the most if they are not handled well.  The better a thing is, the worse it may become when spoiled.  The greatest endeavors of life usually involve more risk than just coasting by complacently.  The risk of pursuit, though real, does not devalue the goal.  

quote:
Belief in an absolute Truth, insofar as I'm concerned is wonderful and useful.  Many absolute Truths have been literal life-savers for people, and have proved sustaining and affirming sources of spiritual nourishment.  Those who can subscribe to such things should do so.


So is the nature of "truth" only pragmatic?  Or is truth necessary to determine the right kind of goals?  It seems that whenever one mentions pragmatism, a presupposition of truth (or a pretense thereof) is already there as a hidden preface.  

I'm not denying however the pragmatism or benefit of truth.  

quote:
As far as I'm concerned all the religions are true, including their various contradictions, and we simply don't have the wherewithal to put them all together.  I have no wish to put a man of Faith on the spot by putting the contradictions of religion on parade.


I would differ from you, by saying that much of all religions in common, is true.  There are however, fundamental differences at their centers, diametrically opposed, which demand that certain claims be true, and others be false.  An atheistic Buddhist philosophy, and a Christian Philosophy cannot be admixed.  There is a real, objective, fork in the road.
  

And I'm wondering, if you say that about religion, what is the line that prevents you from saying that about everything?  And yet, the fact that you don't imagine everything to be true and equal, is evident by our discourse.    

quote:
But surely you can think of non-religious examples—say, somebody who believes that global warming is a hoax or that AIDs isn't caused by HIV or, if you happen to believe in either of those, pick your own example and forgive me for treading on your sensibilities.


The thing about either of those examples, is that there IS a right answer.  Whether or not I as an individual have access to the scientific data, or the erudite explanations that would convince me of the truth, is another matter.  I need not forgive you of treading on my sensibilities if you know something I don't, or if you want to correct my misinformation.  If I believe the HIV virus doesn't cause AIDS, then I am wrong.  (The verdict is still out on global warming for me- in that I haven't studied it enough).  But even in the case of  Global Warming, there may be some out there (of the industrial capitalists types?) who don't want it to be true, because it would require some changes.  Again, there is willful ignorance with some, as well as innocent ignorance.    


quote:
If there's a single Truth, it's the matrix around which the various contents form.  Taoism, Catholicism, Islam, Hinduism, scientism, whatever you want to plug in there.


I agree with that to a point.  However it is the center of many of these religions which are different (not the existential desire for 'goodness', but the solid and particular thing that is offered as an answer).  Ravi Zacharias once said that while most people consider religions essentially the same, and only superficially different ... that they are really superficially the same, and essentially different.  In my study of comparative religion, I have found that this is true.  And that much at least, is little different than the "non-religious" examples you just offered.

quote:
The knowledge of good and evil is exceeding painful, but the fruit of that tree is of a type I have no desire to give up.


Seems like a confession of Biblical proportions.  

quote:
As for willful ignorance, I'm unsure; there may be such as thing.  It may also be the oppressor's label for passive rage and resistance.  It tends to go with words like bad and underachiever a lot.


And there's a perversion even of this truth.       If there is oppression, and the resistance is (really) heroic for good, then it is not willful ignorance.  But not every situation can be described with such melodrama.  Though I don't deny that such scenarios, and such misnomers (slanders?) exist.  

quote:
As for my egalitarianism of ideas, what's that?  Is it bad?  It sounds bad.  Should I be severely punished right now?     Sounds like maybe I should be.   Hmmmm.  Bad again, and in public, too.


Its just that truth invites mercy, as an alternative to punishment.  And I'm glad to invoke the former, seeing I've been given so much of it myself.  But I just want to point out that the moment you protest punishment, you've lost your egalitarianism of ideas.      




And finally,

I'm glad you ended your reply with "affectionately".  I was beginning to wonder ...  If you are taking me as abrasive, then by all means we should cease this discussion for the sake of peace.  If you think I've taken you out of context, then gently explain where I have.  Things get corrected as they go.  But don't get your feathers ruffled.  Philosophical forums (with amateurs like myself) are not for the weak.  It's not personal.  (Or maybe I want it to be more personal, by saying it's not)      


Peace,

Stephen

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
71 posted 2007-11-21 01:44 AM


Stephen
========"But it doesn't follow that faith is independent of truth"

and dear Bob K,

======"If there's a single Truth, it's the matrix around which the various contents form.  Taoism, Catholicism, Islam, Hinduism, scientism, whatever you want to plug in there."

Yes, both of you are right. Connection! Contact does not nessarily make a connection. Electricty makes engine turn but does not make a rock turn.

Stephen, The faith I mentioned meant general faith including
"I truly see God in Grand Canyon."
"I felt my prayer was so powerful in the prayer's dome" and
" I felt so close to God in Jerusalem"

One may put faith on God and one may put faith on anything. So, faith is not related to truth. (or it is indeed related to self-defined truth)

Dear Bob k,

if "Truth gives me a headache." then where does your  logic lead? Did Jung believe that his explanation of dream was truth? (is it real truth?)

I'll write more.

best

Tomtoo


TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
72 posted 2007-11-21 02:44 AM


Dear Bob K,

"I still think that Truth (Capital T) is too abstract to measure; and that folks confuse Truth, the abstraction, and Fact, which is subject to measurement and verification."

See, you tell me how you feel about truth. This feeling is telling the TRUTH( how you feel is how you feel, which is truth) that "your definition of truth is bothering you."  Truth is not abstract. It is very concret. But talking about the measurement of truth, do you mean if there is "more truth" or "less truth"? or shall I say that all the masurement in this world is trying to measuring truth and psychoanalysis is also trying to measure truth.

my thought

best

TomToo

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

73 posted 2007-11-21 03:27 AM


Read The Fisher King.

(If your reading list is long, and you're a thoughtful sort, shrug--see the movie.)

Then ask yourself this question again.

I oughtta be sleeping, anyhow.

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
74 posted 2007-11-22 07:51 AM


Dear SB, are you talking to me? I don't have a reading list. I have a chore list.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
75 posted 2007-11-23 03:52 PM


Are we speaking of change in general, or change for the better?  If it is the first, then why would we want anyone to change?  It seems that some of us are talking about a generality, and others are talking about something involving a telos or standard (whether known perfectly or not).  

As for people changing for the better, I have seen it with my own eyes, and others are always part of it ... sometimes enemies, friends, family, and always God.


Stephen  

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
76 posted 2007-11-23 04:46 PM


Dear Stephen, you are always right. Human beings can not change human beings, but God, the love from God can.

TomToo

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

77 posted 2007-11-23 04:47 PM


Ah Stephan. I just love you. Really, I do.

You are such a good person and an idealist too. As far as I know, you practice what you preach, and I find that is rare.

So hugs.

My example of The Fisher King? I was thinking more specifically of the movie. The film ended well, with a happy ending, but I remember thinking that it wasn't very realistic.

What I'm trying to say is that good intent, even the best of intent can do harm. There are people out there who need their foibles--and I do believe most of us rely on some delusion to get through the day.

I have learned that playing armchair psychiatrist can bring on a heap of trouble.

Some delusions are protection.

Naturally, if someone's delusion is harmful to others, they are going to need some help.

That's when you let the professionals do their job.

Now. Let's say someone just has an annoying habit....like um, a grown man who throws his clothes all over his bedroom floor. That could be annoying to live with, but what we perceive as sloth and laziness might very well be "comfortable nesting" to the guy.

I say it's his room--his clothes--just close the door if it bothers ya.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
78 posted 2007-11-23 05:21 PM


Karen:
quote:
You are such a good person and an idealist too. As far as I know, you practice what you preach, and I find that is rare.


But I am also a realist, in that I recognize that no one is righteous or perfect.  As far as you know (our relationship is 98% virtual) is not very far.     But for now, without such a dissappointing reality, we probably wouldn't know how precious the doctrine of grace really is.

quote:
Now. Let's say someone just has an annoying habit....like um, a grown man who throws his clothes all over his bedroom floor. That could be annoying to live with, but what we perceive as sloth and laziness might very well be "comfortable nesting" to the guy.


Yeah, that's it.  Can I use that phrase with my wife next time she points at the floor of our bedroom?  "Nesting" sounds so much more natural, psychologically rooted and necessary than "lazy".  She just needs enlightenment.  

No, I see your point.  And actually the accomodating and tolerance approach is very useful (up to a point) on the part of someone else.  It is actually an indicator of patience and mercy.  But it becomes just an excuse and resignation if it is self tolerace.  If a man accepts his sloppiness as "nesting", he's probably accepted a cop-out for something he should be vigilant and apologetic about.  This is especially true when people still share rooms.    

Be harder on oneself than others, I say.  Though its more our nature to reverse that approach.    


Stephen

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

79 posted 2007-11-25 01:44 AM


Dear Folks,
         I few days off over the holiday was useful for me;  I hope everybody had a good Thanksgiving.  I meant the "affectionately", Stephen, although the conversation does get a bit frustrating from time to time.  I must laugh at my own reactions, but I've very happy to see that we seem to have been working our way back to the lotion  (I was going to say "the notion") of change.  There's something lovely, however, about the lotion of change, don't you think?
     I like TomMark—and here I take him out of context on purpose—when he says,"One may put faith on God and one may put faith on anything."  I am reminded of Samuel Johnson's comment about the wonderful 18th century religious poet, Christopher Smart, who was at the time going through a period of madness.  He believed that the only hope he had, and probably the only hope of mankind in general, lay in perpetual prayer.  He was apt to fall to his knees in the middle of the street (horses; think of horses!) and apply himself to long ferverent periods of loud prayer.  Such folk were called "enthusiasts" at the time.  And Johnson said that he would as soon pray with Kit Smart as any man.  
     I am not an enthusiast, like Smart, but I like what Johnson said.  I've known people whose lives have been turned around by religion, and I respect and encourage that.  I know athiests who have gained from their position, and I'm not about to quarrel with them either.
     The importance of faith was driven home to me about twenty-five years ago when I was having a talk with a schizophrenic guy about a time when his symptoms had been more florid.  He said that he couldn't bear to watch the titles on a movie, because he couldn't muster up the faith that the first letter  in a word—say, Director—actually had any relationship with the next letter.  For lack of that sort of faith, the man's entire personal universe fell apart.
I came to believe/think that faith had an absolute connection with our most intimate relationships with the world and with our selves.  It may be possible here that I'm wrong, TomMark; but the personal impact of the experience was very powerful.
     Also Truth still gives me a headache.  If you wonder why, look at the conversation in this forum since I made the statement originally.  As for where my logic leads, the statement is not part of a syllogism, it's a statement of physiological experience.  
     Why in heaven's name would you bother to ask me about  Jung's dream interpretation?  How would you know how seriously to take my reply?  I already come across too much as a stuffed shirt, otherwise you wouldn't be asking me the question.  If you really want to know what Jung's thinking is about dreams, you'll probably have to continue to make faulty assumptions or consult his work yourself.  The faulty assumptions are much easier and far less unsettling.  I reccommend them.  He's a thorny, unsettling and more than occasionally obtuse man.
     I stand by my statement about Truth (Capital T) being too abstract to measure; and that folks confuse Truth, the abstraction, and Fact, which is subject to measurement and verification.
     You proceed to offer an example in the next paragraph.  First, you assume I've told you how I feel.  No.  There is no such verb used.  I used the verb to think, and on purpose.  I have not defined Truth, by the way, and I'm not certain I could.  I have suggested one aspect of Truth.  Truth is an abstraction.  It is not a concrete noun.  Perhaps I could go further, but I don't feel confident in doing so.
     If Truth were concrete, as you suggest, you might make a wall out of it, or drill teeth with it; but you can't without playing games with the meaning of "concrete."  You would have to move the boundaries of the discussion and pretend you hadn't done so.
     Also, if you look at my actual statement, I do not, repeat, do not, say that you can measure Truth.  I say that people often make the mistake of confusing Truth and Facts.  Facts are subject to measurement and verification.
If they don't hold up, they are not facts.  Truth is not subject to measurement and verification because it remains speculative.  People measure Truth with different yardsticks.  When people argue about Truth, my observation is that everybody thinks they've won and everybody else has lost.  

     Dear Stephanos,  Are we talking about change in general or change for the better?
     Since The Question is Can you really change a person? you have done a piece of illogical magic in suggesting we look at "change for the better."  This is Begging the Question, isn't it? as though everybody has already accepted that it's possible for one person to change another (I think yes, by the way, given the proper circumstances)but everybody may not agree with me; and, beyond that, that there is a "better" that we can settle on.
    Furthermore,  I'm guessing your notion of "better" would be Hindu and that the word "God" and the concept of "grace" wouldn't figure in the discussion at all.  Call me wacky, I don't know.  Just a hunch.  And Yes, once more,
Affectionately, BobK

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

80 posted 2007-11-25 01:54 AM


Dear Folks,
        Has anyone thought about the notion of contractual change as a way of approaching the change relationship?
The change being worked on would have to have a legal object, meaning that you aren't allowed to contract for an illegal change.  Stephanos would probably have some interesting stuff to say about morality here.  There are other stipulations involved.  Any thoughts?
BobK

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
81 posted 2007-11-25 10:16 AM


Dear Bob K,
Thank you for your kind holiday greetings.

And Do please not take me wrong when I asked you about Jung's dream-interpretation. I asked sincerely. I have a friend who believes breath Therapy. He does believe that the master's pictures, fax and telephone calls and words possess power. And If I ask why he believes it, I sure will hear the word "experience" and how good his philosophy is.   I respect his thought. He is a quite top material scientist in MIT. ( I can not understand, to tell you the truth)

====="It may be possible here that I'm wrong, TomMark; but the personal impact of the experience was very powerful."

You are absolutely right and This is a fact.
But allow me to make an extreme example: if plants were not rooted, what personal experience would bring to them ?

Truth is both internal and external. If we ignore the internal truth, sure we will follow around where our experiences lead...Do we human beings have highly biased selection on remembering our different experience? (can be good, bad and weired)

===="If Truth were concrete, as you suggest, you might make a wall out of it, or drill teeth with it;"
Do we drill wall or lick wall?  
    
Best

Tom
    

[This message has been edited by TomMark (11-25-2007 12:41 PM).]

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
82 posted 2007-11-25 10:25 AM


And Dear Bob K,

what do you mean by "contractual change"?
If I took it right,it means to change under pressure. Then I shall not call it a change. I'll call it a torture. really. 0r I am totally wrong here?

again  with best wish

Tom

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
83 posted 2007-11-25 02:59 PM


BobK:
quote:
I've known people whose lives have been turned around by religion, and I respect and encourage that.  I know athiests who have gained from their position, and I'm not about to quarrel with them either.


Those who take religion only as a means to a personal end, have missed the heart and soul of it.  That's not to say that religious truth is not beneficial.  But that benefit remains secondary to truth.  There have always been times when pragmatism and piety have clashed ... when the former demands some kind of compromise of the latter.  Such discrepancy exists to illustrate that religious devotion is truly devotional first, and beneficial second.  That same kind of discrepancy also speaks of the atheist or impious person.  You say a person may "gain from their atheism", but this is due to the liberality of God who rains on the just and unjust alike.  It can be said that we are given a real choice, since the rejection of God does not always bring about immediate and obviously compelling ill.  It's kind of poetic really.  And a test all the way around.


This kind of question was addressed by the venerable book of Job.  Is piety only a disguise for self advancement?  Satan put the question in an extreme form "Does Job serve God for nothing?".  His insinuation was that Job's religion and professed love for God was kind of mercenary (not in the sense of money, but of personal gain).  And the thrust of the whole plot, and its conclusion, is to challenge that very assertion.

quote:
I stand by my statement about Truth (Capital T) being too abstract to measure; and that folks confuse Truth, the abstraction, and Fact, which is subject to measurement and verification.


Yes truth and measurement of it are often tenuous.  I just wanted to make sure that by saying so, you weren't implying truth to be unreal, unknowable, or totally subjective.  Love is also unmeasurable, as it were.  And yet everyone knows it is real.  And everyone knows the certainty of its verification, or lack thereof.  There are many other such examples.


quote:
If Truth were concrete, as you suggest, you might make a wall out of it, or drill teeth with it; but you can't without playing games with the meaning of "concrete."


It is a fact that there is no wall in my front yard.  It is the truth that I can not build one with water baloons, but must choose a sturdier material.  Truth is often an interpretation of "facts" which, though less concrete, is no less true.  You can't really build a wall or drill a tooth without it.

quote:
When people argue about Truth, my observation is that everybody thinks they've won and everybody else has lost.


The only problem with their thinking is that its not true.     Often everyone learns something, and has expressed at least a part of the truth.  "Haughty or not" seems to speak more to psychology than to the nature of metaphysics.

quote:
Dear Stephanos,  Are we talking about change in general or change for the better?  Since The Question is 'Can you really change a person?' you have done a piece of illogical magic in suggesting we look at "change for the better."


Not at all.  It is presupposed and inherent in the statement itself.  Its also scattered throughout your own replies.  You just told me of "gain" and of lives being "turned around".  If you do not mean by that 'change for the better' then what do you mean?

quote:
Furthermore,  I'm guessing your notion of "better" would be Hindu and that the word "God" and the concept of "grace" wouldn't figure in the discussion at all.  Call me wacky, I don't know.  Just a hunch.


My notion of better ... Hindu??  I might just be tempted to call you wacky, if I didn't think you meant to say something else.    

Hindu metaphysics are subversive to the whole idea of "better".  Any such distinction would be interpreted as an unenlightened evil (as contradictory as that is).  Christian Theology confirms that there is such a state, whether known perfectly or not.

Or did I misunderstand you?


Stephen.        

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
84 posted 2007-11-25 03:44 PM


quote:
but I've very happy to see that we seem to have been working our way back to the lotion  (I was going to say "the notion") of change.  There's something lovely, however, about the lotion of change, don't you think?


lol.  Do you believe in Freudian slips?  If I did, I would be tempted to say that you're telling me that change has to be more than skin deep.  

Stephen

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

85 posted 2007-11-25 09:05 PM


I'm just coming back to address the question:

"Can you really change a person?"

*shrug*

Sure.

But what makes you think they will change into something acceptable to you?

How many more hoops will they have to hop through, until you decide that they are "what you need them to be"?

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
86 posted 2007-11-25 09:58 PM


One may ask himself that question: why does one try to change himself?  What's the point?  How far?  I think it is more important to ask what the problem or weakness is.  Sometimes you can help yourself in a certain situation more than others may, but sometimes others may help you even more.  It depends on what the situation or problem is and how much of a problem it actually is.  


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

87 posted 2007-11-26 04:00 AM


Dear TomMark,
         Change by contract should be about as far from forced change as you can get.  Both parties, helper and helpee should agree that the change is useful and possible.  The helpee should be the one asking for the change, not some third party.  The change must be of a legal nature; that is, any contracts for theft, murder, fraud or things that are against the law are excluded.  The parties must be un-coerced in entering into the contract; no, if you don't do this, you'll be fired, your wife will leave you, and your puppy will be shot pressures are to be applied.  And both parties must be capable of entering into a contract; that is, one of them can't be unconscious or too confused to make a binding decision.
     Elements outside the contract, if they come up during the course of the contract, need to be negotiated with the same factors in mind if they are to be dealt with at all.  Compensation, if there is to be compensation, needs to be negotiated, as well as other terms at the beginning of the contract.  Violations of the contract on the part of one or the other party are to be discussed.
     That's it in a nutshell.  The power arrangements are laid out very clearly at the beginning.  The business of the relationship is laid out as well.  What's to b e done and how should—I think—be part of the negotiations, so everything is clear and up front.  I'm adapting this, by the way, from Claude Steiner, should you wish to look at him in more depth. I don't want to steal credit.  He's a Transactional Analyst, not to be remotely confused with Freudian analysis.  They'd have hernias on both sides, I think.


     I found your other stuff interesting. Yours also, Stephanos.  I think you were justified in giving me the sharp rap for my foolish use of Hindu theology.  I'm not as up on it as I should be, and I'm not as clear as I'd like to be about how Ghandi fits into the mainstream with his non-violent activism, his march to the sea to dispute the British salt tax, and the land-reform movement— Satyagraha I think they called it, though my spelling is off, I'm sure.  You know, when he was shot, in the instant he was dying, his last word was the Hindi name of God "Ram."   The truth is, he was not a very nice man to his wife or daughter, even if he seemed a saint to everybody else.  At least that's what I hear.
     As predicted, it proved impossible for either of you to resist trying to redefine the word "concrete."  QED, folks.
And the "better" I was talking about that got Stephanos into such a snit was his attempt to equate "better" with some sort of theological condition.  If it hasn't come yet, I am reasonably certain it will.
     Once again, God, even a Christian God, is a wonderful thing.  Christianity in its permutations is generally fine by me; often, in fact, better by me than one variety is to another.  I think Islam is mostly a pretty nice religion with some large problems with its extremities right now.  I happen to think the Buddhists are good too, with four noble truths that are a little lower on the abstraction scale than the ones we've been talking about, and easier to check out without dying.  I think agnostics are the cat's pyjamas and I've had some scientist friends who were athiests who were a bit dogmatic and hard to take, but generally swell people. Was it you, Stephanos, who called athiesm "sterile?"  Not cool, Stephanos, not cool, coming from a Christian.  These are the people who made athiesm a burning offense.  The Auto-de-fe from the folks who'd like to convince you of their compassion, and just accidently manage to think today that a little harmless linguistic smearing is fine.  "Sterile, Huh?"
     Stephanos, if I understand you correctly, you're telling me that you understand the rules of the universe, those of us who don't agree with you don't understand them, and that you are a simple, humble man.  I have no problem with this last part at least.  This is fine with me.  I do believe you are a simple humble man of great sincerity and that you have a core of deeply meaningful spiritual experience that sustains you.  I think of Kierkegaard's Knight of Faith.

     But I don't know if anybody other than you, yourself, and your personal relationship with God that can help you define how you need deal with the faith of others.  You seem comfortable instructing and correcting.  Joining, understanding, learning, synthesizing and growing are surely there someplace; you couldn't have come this far without them.  At this point, though, I suspect it's you and God around this issue of interfaith dialogue.  I don't see that I'm any help at all.

     Nothing I say seems to register.  You seem to be interested in correcting my errors without even understanding my point of view.  The thought that I may not consider my thinking erroneous doesn't seem to cross your mind.  The possibility it may not be erroneous is outside your universe.   I've tried to be clear that your religion is fine with me. Apparently the reverse is not true, though you don't know what my religion is.  Puzzled but  Affectionately, BobK

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

88 posted 2007-11-26 04:34 AM


(hugging Bob)




Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
89 posted 2007-11-26 09:43 AM


BobK:
quote:
Was it you, Stephanos, who called athiesm "sterile?"  Not cool, Stephanos, not cool, coming from a Christian.  These are the people who made athiesm a burning offense.  The Auto-de-fe from the folks who'd like to convince you of their compassion, and just accidently manage to think today that a little harmless linguistic smearing is fine.  "Sterile, Huh?"


Bob, if you're going to accuse me of insult, could you at least quote me?  Sterile?  And in what context did I say that in?

Killing someone for atheism?  Have I ever hinted at such a thing?  Then why, I'm curious, do you bring up such a thing?  My discussions of atheism as well as theism are ideological, as this is a philosophy forum (a place for cross examining and discussing philosophical notions and claims).  I hate religious sins, and violence just as much as you do.  And if you want to accuse me of verbal smearing, at least quote me, so I may give a defense.  You may have taken it quite differently than intended.  

quote:
Stephanos, if I understand you correctly, you're telling me that you understand the rules of the universe, those of us who don't agree with you don't understand them, and that you are a simple, humble man.


Anyone who knows something revelatory runs the risk of being thought arrogant.  It's the nature of the knowledge and claims made.  No, I don't take personal pride in knowing what God has shown me.  If you are offended at such, I would ask you whether it is possible  that a philosophy of metaphysical agnosticism has led to such offense.  Many times, it is not even one's manner, but the very suggestion that it is possible to know truth, which is the stumbling stone.


And having asked that question ... I cannot apologize for the statements or claims.  But if it is my manner, I do apologize for anything that made you feel slighted or insulted.  


quote:
You seem to be interested in correcting my errors without even understanding my point of view.[/quote}

  
Have my descriptions of your point of view been inaccurate?  If so tell me how.  Chiding me is fine.  But I still need to know how I've misinterpreted you, if I have done so.

[quote]The thought that I may not consider my thinking erroneous doesn't seem to cross your mind.


Actually I usually assume that anyone who posts in a philosophy forum perhaps does not begin by doubting what they say.  So, yes, that did cross my mind.  I never was out to say you are wrong on all points.  You've said and expressed many fine things.  But I do like to challenge.

quote:
I've tried to be clear that your religion is fine with me. Apparently the reverse is not true


I've only been descriptive in saying that your acceptance of religion seems (according to what you've said so far) to be based upon how it may contribute to one's personal benefit.  And I've also conceded that that is a very important aspect.  But I've also pointed out that religion (by its very nature) holds other aspects which transcend this, namely the centrality of truth, authority, and devotion.  

Of course, saying that you accept religion based upon benefit, may be to misunderstand you completely.  But I've only based that perception on what you've said.  The wide variance of beliefs you gave in your examples suggested strongly that the beliefs themselves were almost superfluous or unessential ... almost as mere means to an end.  And a very individualistic end, if I'm understanding you correctly with what you say about the whole concept of "better".    

You are welcome to clarify / correct / expound.

Or, if you find yourself frustrated by this conversation, we could certainly pause a while.  


also affectionately,

Stephen.    

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-26-2007 10:27 AM).]

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
90 posted 2007-11-26 12:09 PM


Oh, dear Bob K

" Change by contract should be about as far from forced change as you can get.  Both parties, helper and helpee should agree that the change is useful and possible.  The helpee should be the one asking for the change, not some third party.  The change must be of a legal nature; that is, any contracts for theft, murder, fraud or things that are against the law are excluded.  The parties must be un-coerced in entering into the contract; no, if you don't do this, you'll be fired, your wife will leave you, and your puppy will be shot pressures are to be applied.  And both parties must be capable of entering into a contract; that is, one of them can't be unconscious or too confused to make a binding decision."

This is grand but put aside working relationship, have you ever found a single case in real life? why should I agree with you? (on the contract?). Based on what I shall accept your suggestion? because I was feared of the penalty?  why I have to be afraid of the penalty? If I can leave the relationship anytime I want?

Because love. Love make people change to fit each other. The only force to change a person is love.

best

Tom

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

91 posted 2007-11-26 12:39 PM


Dear Stephanos,

         Once again I owe you an apology.  I have misquoted you.  "Sterile" was used in relationship with "truth" (small T).  I'm not comfortable enough with computers to skip back and get the entire quote and feel comfortable that I won't end up deleting this paragraph and the next two as well.  You should have had a chance to reply, given that I was way off base.

        It is not my perception that you've had a revelation of the Truth that bothers me.  It's your perception that your personal revelations are more important and correct than those of others that gets under my skin.

     I don't think all beliefs are equal, although I'm actually not sure how I'd go about defending that rationally.  I spent about fifteen years working on locked psychiatric units and patients used to ask my help sometimes in killing themselves.  Yes, I believed they had a right to decide their own fates, and no, I wasn't going to help them, even if it contradicted my beliefs because it didn't feel right.  Sometimes I wish I were more rational, sometimes I wish I were more feeling; instead, I'm stuck being a person caught in the middle, trying to make sense of things.

     I do think that all the different positions of faith that I've spoken about are valid positions.  None of them need my personal defense and most of them have people who are as deeply convinced in their authenticity as you are in your particular christian position.  Some of them might even overlap with your christian position.  What makes your position different is that you believe it with the force of revelation.  And that you are unaccepting of people who believe differently, because your revelation tells you you should and you've got a system of logic worked out that works if you're already a believer and only sometimes if your revelation is other.

    I don't think any of the people of faith that I know feel their Faith is convenient or for personal gain any more than you feel that yours is.  Though, Stephanos, I have trouble believing you if you suggest to me that your faith doesn't supply you with liberal personal gain in addition to its more substantial nourishment.  And I fail to see why such wouldn't be the case for others as well.

     I would like to confess confusion about a couple of statements of yours.  I'm working from a printed copy here, undated:

     "I'm not denying that there is such a thing as an innocent kind of ignorance.  But there is also such a thing as a willful ignorance.  If this is true, it should at least challenge your egalitarianism of ideas."

     What is an "egalitarianism of ideas?"   It appears I asked before.  You quote me asking, "As for my egalitarianism of ideas, what's that? Is it bad?  It sounds bad.  Should I be severely punished right now?  Sounds like maybe I should be.   Hmmmm.  Bad again, and in public too."

     I was somewhat confused when you graciously offered to grant me mercy as an alternative to punishment, in the somewhat mistaken belief that I thought I'd actually done something wrong.  Pray tell, what?  I was asking for clarification.  Not only did you grant me absolution for the sin of nothing, but you still didn't tell me what egalitarianism of ideas was.  

     Then used it again at the end of the paragraph:  "I just just want to point out that the moment you protest punishment, you've lost your egalitarianism of ideas."

     Then, "An atheistic Buhhhist philosophy, and a Christian Philosophy cannot be admixed."

     Perhaps straight Atheism and Christianity can't be mixed; the two theologies are at loggerheads.  I'm not clear about Christian Philosophy being at odds with The Four Noble Truths.  Simply because they have nothing to say about God doesn't make them false.  Much about The Eightfold Path is compatable with Christianity.  Certainly is fits well enough with Judaism and Islam, although the more conservative members of all these faiths grumble.

     I've spent twenty years working on mindfulness and know of Jesuits who've done the same.  A lot of the Loyolla spiritual exercises are very close, I hear.
Till later, Affectionately BobK
    

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

92 posted 2007-11-26 02:56 PM


(hugging Stephan)
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
93 posted 2007-11-26 04:17 PM


BobK:
quote:
It is not my perception that you've had a revelation of the Truth that bothers me.  It's your perception that your personal revelations are more important and correct than those of others that gets under my skin.


Wouldn't a "revelation of the Truth" by its very nature, create the possibility of other claims being non-true, in relation to it?  I'm not talking about all other claims from other traditions, but merely those ones which really do contradict.


For example, the claims that Jesus Christ is the divine incarnation and the only sacrifice for sins are already at odds with some of the statements of the Koran (written some 600 years later after the gospels).  You can easily see how the Biblical revelation would really be at odds with a claim that he never died, or that humankind has no sin, etc ...


You may personally struggle with how revelation is validated at all, but at least you can see that Truth claims create a kind of hierarchy by their very nature.


quote:
Yes, I believed they had a right to decide their own fates, and no, I wasn't going to help them, even if it contradicted my beliefs because it didn't feel right.


Is there the possibility of conflating a "right" with something like will or ability?

I believe that there is a moral law which gives a person no more "right" to kill themselves, than to kill someone else.  And yet we have a terrible freedom to do what is not right, which brings us back to the concept of absolutes, morality, and sin.  

That's not to say there's not a whole medical and psycho-social angel from which to consider such a thing like suicide, or reasons for compassion.  If Jesus could say of sin "They know not what they do", then so may we.

If you doubt what I say, I will at least point out that your feelings of "not right" seem more in line with what I'm saying here.

I also work among suicidal people as well, since I work in an ICU at a local hospital.  

quote:
I do think that all the different positions of faith that I've spoken about are valid positions.  None of them need my personal defense and most of them have people who are as deeply convinced in their authenticity as you are in your particular christian position.  Some of them might even overlap with your christian position.  What makes your position different is that you believe it with the force of revelation.



I have no problem with the overlap of truth.  The periphery of all religions contain an embarrassment of truth, wisdom, and what is quite compatible with Christianity.  It is the central cliams whcih radically differ (which in Christianity involves very poignant metaphysical claims about the nature of humanity and God, as well as historical happenings).  I don't even begin to see how all of these contradictory foundational claims can be valid, if you understand what they are really saying.  

One could more easily make the claim that they are all false, than to say they are all true.  It seems you are making a very general claim, rather than dealing with specifics of comparative religion.  The mere fact that people believe differently, is no evidence that all religious beliefs are valid.  

And again, I acknowledge that you personally have a problem with how any such claim might be vindicated above another, and with validation.

quote:
And that you are unaccepting of people who believe differently, because your revelation tells you you should and you've got a system of logic worked out that works if you're already a believer and only sometimes if your revelation is other.


I would only ask you to consider whether there is a difference between being unaccepting of people who believe differently, and being critical of beliefs.


The Christian revelation says nothing about being unaccepting of people.  The command is rather to love people, whether they believe like you or not.  And that is a serious challenge for Christians, as for anyone.


quote:
I don't think any of the people of faith that I know feel their Faith is convenient or for personal gain any more than you feel that yours is.  Though, Stephanos, I have trouble believing you if you suggest to me that your faith doesn't supply you with liberal personal gain in addition to its more substantial nourishment.  And I fail to see why such wouldn't be the case for others as well.


I agree with your observations.  But I think you might have misunderstood me when I mentioned "personal gain".  I meant that your acceptance of religious ideas seems based upon the question of personal benefit alone, and not upon the religious ideas themselves.  

I've never denied that a relationship with God is not beneficial.  I'm only telling you that in the area of religion, it is secondary.

quote:
What is an "egalitarianism of ideas?"


By "egalitarianism" I was referring to a kind of assumed equality of ideas ... which is useful as an approach, for a hearing.  But as an absolute of philosophy, its not so good.

quote:
You quote me asking, "As for my egalitarianism of ideas, what's that? Is it bad?  It sounds bad.  Should I be severely punished right now?  Sounds like maybe I should be.   Hmmmm.  Bad again, and in public too."

     I was somewhat confused when you graciously offered to grant me mercy as an alternative to punishment, in the somewhat mistaken belief that I thought I'd actually done something wrong ...

Then used it again at the end of the paragraph:  "I just just want to point out that the moment you protest punishment, you've lost your egalitarianism of ideas."


No, it was tongue in cheek.  You were the first to jokingly mention punishment.  And I jokingly replied that I prefer to offer mercy, adding that any protest of punishment on your part devastates your 'egalitarianism of ideas' ... since you obviously don't think your own punishment would be such a good idea.

Bad joke perhaps, but with a truth.

quote:
Perhaps straight Atheism and Christianity can't be mixed; the two theologies are at loggerheads.  I'm not clear about Christian Philosophy being at odds with The Four Noble Truths.  Simply because they have nothing to say about God doesn't make them false.  Much about The Eightfold Path is compatable with Christianity.


But there is more to Buddhism than "The Four Noble Truths" and "The Eightfold Path".  These are instructions for virtuous living, and they are rich with moral truth.  But when I say that Christianity and Buddhistic Philosophy can't be mixed, I am referring to the central statements about the kind of world we live in.  Pantheism and theism are at odds.  A world which God created with a standard, is not the same as a world which is monistic.  If everything is one, and there is no other, then there is no god save 'everything'.  


I have difficulty seeing how the 'nobility' of the noble truths can be anything but conventional, if distinctions themselves are ultimately unreal.  


But as far as the prescriptions for wisdom and life, Buddhism holds much truth, and is very compatible with Christianity.  There again, I don't want you to imagine that I find all these traditions without truth.  There is rich truth, and I don't think that's accidental.  


later,

Stephen.    

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
94 posted 2007-11-26 04:26 PM


Karen,

Your hugs are always appreciated

(hug right back)

Stephen

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
95 posted 2007-11-26 05:34 PM


Stephanos


If everything is one, and there is no other, then there is no god save 'everything'.
  


But that is like saying the head can't be part of the whole body without the whole body being the head too.

I think everything can be one whole that includes God, without everything needing to be or be considered as being God too.  The word universe itself implies oneness, therefore, anyone that uses it, I think, is somewhat giving into a monistic approach.  


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
96 posted 2007-11-26 07:09 PM


quote:
But that is like saying the head can't be part of the whole body without the whole body being the head too.
I think everything can be one whole that includes God, without everything needing to be or be considered as being God too.


But Eastern Pantheism doesn't recognize a "head".  Such distinctions are considered illusory.    

And Christian Theology makes a sharp distinction between God and his creation.  God is not merely a "part" of a bigger whole, but the source of the whole.  He is not dependent upon it, in the same way the creation is dependent upon him.

Stephen  

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

97 posted 2007-11-26 11:19 PM


Dear Stephanos,

         My time is limited, but I wanted to say that I greatly appreciated your last long contribution.  It seemed deeply felt and well thought, clearly your own unique point of view without compromise that I could see and yet substantial and humane as well.  I felt there was room for more that one person in the world you were offering to share with us, and I feel honored to be included in that offer.  Thank you.

     Some of the others in the discussion are up to interesting tricks, I see.  I think that offering paradox here isn't really very helpful.  If you'll look at the paradoxes closely you'll notice—as Bertrand Russell points out in his Theory of Logical Types—that paradox is generated by confusing two levels of abstraction with each other.  If the statements are reformulated to read correctly (apples to apples, as it were) Achilles beats the hare every time on the one hand and, one the other, you can certainly keep dividing the distance between two points forever, to revisit the Achilles and the hare paradox.  You'll not have to worry about Achilles never catching up.

     Try going back to the levels of abstraction around Universe and Everything and God and the various other terms you're juggling, and I suspect that the apparent confusions will simply vanish.  I think they're linguistic artifacts more than actual issues.  Anyway, it hurts the brain less to check the suggestion out than to live with unnecessary and resolvable paradox, I find.
Affectionately, BobK

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

98 posted 2007-11-26 11:23 PM


I realize I wasn't clear that the "you" I was addressing in the last two paragraphs was Essorant.  Beg pardon, and all my best, BobK
TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
99 posted 2007-11-26 11:24 PM


Stephen,
========"But as far as the prescriptions for wisdom and life, Buddhism holds much truth, and is very compatible with Christianity"

where did you get this?

Does Buddhism work on observation, fact, feelings, experience and superstition? Does it say that it exists only because you believe it. It were not there if you didn't believe it?

May be I shall learn more.  

Tom



TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
100 posted 2007-11-26 11:27 PM


Dear Bob K, I read part of an article about Social Neuroscience...Interesting field.

I'll see if I can tell you more.

Tom

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

101 posted 2007-11-28 11:37 PM



Dear TomMark,

I looked at a few web sites about Social Neuroscience and it looks interesting, though it has a bit more hard science to it than I find I can follow or understand easily.  I'm going to have to find one of those Neuroscience for Fools primers someplace if I want to keep up.
     I do know that there were some hard markers found for schizophrenia back in the early '80s at Harvard; something about abherrant eyetracking movements that seemed to show up in folks with a fairly solid diagnosis of schizophrenia..  I'm still at the place though that I'm uncertain and uncomfortable about assigning any but the most basic of psychiatric diagnoses to people in the first place.  Historically, diagnoses seem to be quishy.  
     For some reason, Psychiatry seems to feel justified in taking a jump way beyond that, assigning diagnoses with what they seem to think a high level of confidence, and then using these (to my mind) rickety, diagnoses to draw conclusions about heritability, biochemistry, structure and evolutionary function.
     It's possible, especially with advances in real time brain imaging, that some of these conclusions are possible.  That's why I'd like to have a look at some of the research and talk to people who might help me puzzle it out.  My sister probably know this stuff well enough, and I'm going to be seeing her in a few weeks,  She and her husband may be able to fill me in a bit.  


     You asked Stephanos about Buddhism.  I thought I'd chime in a bit as well.  I have some thoughts on the matter that might diversify your imput.  Buddhism's been around 500 years longer than Christianity.  It's got as many differences and quirks as anything can acquire over that time.  Some nooks and crannies of Buddhism are more complex than others.  I think they'd all agree on The Four Noble Truths and The Eightfold Path.  You can probably Google a thumbnail description of the first in one or two simple pages.  The second can be laid out in three or four simple pages.  
     Remember, I used the word "simple," and not the word "easy," please.
     I happen to think the theology is compatable with Christianity.  I think Stephanos is respectful of the core of it, the ethical core of it, but doesn't see a Christology or a sense of salvation and redemption to it, and finds it lacking there.  I think the eschatology may be a problem for him as well.  The End, if I understand correctly, in Buddhism is not a final day of judgement between Good and Evil, but that time when all beings have reached enlightenment and have been helped off the wheel of incarnation and the moment to moment suffering implicit in that.
     Two different views, both driven by a sense of radical love.  I have more understanding of western notions of creation—where all this came from—so I find Stephanos more understandable in may ways.  His ontology is familiar.  But I'm still learning.  It should be good to hear from Stephanos, and find out what he has to say.  Anyway, Nice to chat, Affectionately, BobK

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
102 posted 2007-11-29 12:16 PM


Dear Bob K,

Scientists are now targeting a gene called Neuregulin-1. I know that one is trying to screen her 170 some blood samples of Schizophrenia patients.

and other
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=18032396&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
103 posted 2007-11-29 01:05 AM


And about the Buddhism.

I view their "wisdom" as mind game. But I have to say that the most smart one was their master. He was a truth searching man.

may I ask Who defines their terms, such as  "suffering" ?

Sculptors are able to sculpt anything to beauty. Human mind too, can make anything we believe a beautiful logical thing.  

If human beings' basic existing was to live and to propagate, then how did we get to the point of create religion? Does religion make us live better? if yes, we shall choose the best, the most easy one, right? We can't possibly make life easier by hardening our life, can we? But for the enjoyment of philosophical thinking and talking, we shall have the most fancy one, like those psychoanalysis, right? (don't be offended, I am joking) Buddhism dose not close to either ends.

what am I talking about?

best

Tom

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
104 posted 2007-11-30 12:29 PM


BobK,

My reply may take a while.  (busy)

But it will come around.


Stephen

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

105 posted 2008-01-21 02:52 AM


Dear TomMark,

         I think Stephanos will probably be a while longer.  So I thought I'd say about "suffering," that to use the term doesn't make much sense at all unless the one who defines the term is the one with the messy end of the stick.  I never met anyone who was willing to listen to me when I said to them that they weren't really suffering.  Despite my confidence in my grip on reality, for some funny reason they always thought they knew more about what they were feeling than I did.

     Wisdom is funny.  If you claim to have it, you're wrong, almost by definition, aren't you?  If you do have it, and other people claim you have it, then you know they're wrong because you know how little you actually do know.
It dumps you into the funny situation of accepting that vast and deep humor of the world, and of the funniness of  flawed fools loving each other and learning how to laugh and take things seriously at the same time.  Wisdom is funny, I suspect no matter how you look at it.  Someday I hope to get some or earn some, or awaken to some or laugh myself sick into some.  It would be nice, wouldn't it.

     Psychoanalysis isn't a religion, it's a method of investigation with highly specialized uses.  It sometimes is useful as a psychotherapy as well, but it isn't for everybody and probably not for anybody all the time.  Classically, it's best for people with obsessive-compulsive problems and for people with what they used to call Hysteria, a psychiatric illness with no exact modern equivalent but which overlaps several others, such as hystrionic personality disorder and borderline personality disorder.  

     A religion, by definition, needs to be more broadly defined.  Nor is it clear to me that Buddhaism is as much a religion as a method of living, though that is certainly much much more debatable.  I may even probably be wrong there.  Hope you don't mind me reopening an old discussion, I simply thought that waiting for Stephanos gave away more control than I actually had to.  Bob K.

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
106 posted 2008-01-21 02:53 PM


So I thought I'd say about "suffering," that to use the term doesn't make much sense at all unless the one who defines the term is the one with the messy end of the stick.
Suffer is kind of feeling. If you want to acknowledge it.  Beside the cursed two: man has to sweat to get food and woman shall bear pain when delivery.

I never met anyone who was willing to listen to me when I said to them that they weren't really suffering.

One can possibly not feel and understand how other is feeling.  And how can one erases other people's feeling by rational reasoning?

Despite my confidence in my grip on reality, for some funny reason they always thought they knew more about what they were feeling than I did.
truth.
One man complained about his ex-wife to show that he was suffering from the marriage because his ex didn't do such thing as " I have to iron my own tie". (true story heard on last Saturday)
But my father happily polished my mother's shoes which was also truth.

To understand human feelings is to feel but not to analyze.

Wisdom is funny.  If you claim to have it, you're wrong, almost by definition, aren't you?

No. By definition, Everyone can possesses wisdom. What is  your definition of Wisdom?


If you do have it, and other people claim you have it, then you know they're wrong because you know how little you actually do know.

Wisdom is not knowledge. But a fair and fine judgment. Illiterate people can have it. Or I misunderstand you at all?


It dumps you into the funny situation of accepting that vast and deep humor of the world, and of the funniness of  flawed fools loving each other and learning how to laugh and take things seriously at the same time.

one needs to be a fool sometime because overly-smartness can trap one to be more foolish.

Wisdom is funny, I suspect no matter how you look at it.

why?

Someday I hope to get some or earn some, or awaken to some or laugh myself sick into some.  It would be nice, wouldn't it.

agree.

Psychoanalysis isn't a religion, it's a method of investigation with highly specialized uses.

I have never seen one usage in my life time. But if I wanted to tell people that we were not suffering, I might use it to numb their emotions.

It sometimes is useful as a psychotherapy as well, but it isn't for everybody and probably not for anybody all the time.

You are right here. But I have not seen a single case.  

Classically, it's best for people with obsessive-compulsive problems and for people with what they used to call Hysteria, a psychiatric illness with no exact modern equivalent but which overlaps several others, such as hystrionic personality disorder and borderline personality disorder.
if you have data on this.  

A religion, by definition, needs to be more broadly defined.  Nor is it clear to me that Buddhaism is as much a religion as a method of living, though that is certainly much much more debatable.

Yes, I agree.

  I may even probably be wrong there.  Hope you don't mind me reopening an old discussion,

You can say anything you want, dear Bob K. we all learn from each other. And I do cherish your every post here and in other forums because you are writing what in your mind with you heart in great passion.

Thank you, dear Bob K.

TM

"why do you twist my passion into a string to fit in your thread?" TM

[This message has been edited by TomMark (01-21-2008 05:17 PM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
107 posted 2008-01-21 04:27 PM


BobK,

Looking back, it seems you've expressed the essential differences of Christianity and Buddhism quite well.  You've noted the different metaphysic and ultimate goal, even noting that it is not clear to you whether Buddhism is a religion.  I guess I'm trying to figure out what you were expecting of me, by way of a response (that hasn't been touched upon already).  My short version has been that Buddhism and Christianity have totally different centers, and goals, though having a similar expression of ethics.  But it seems you've acknowledged this already.

(and my apologies, I had forgotten about this thread)

Stephen

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

108 posted 2008-01-22 12:56 PM


Dear Stephanos,

         No clear expectation, I think.  But I did miss your imagination and your thought,  Can't say I agree all the time, but then I can't even say that about myself.

Yours, BobK.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
109 posted 2008-01-27 10:49 AM


BobK,

To begin the discussion then, I would ask you why you consider Buddhism and Christianity to be compatible or complimentary?  Or if you think their differences are at all significant, and why or why not?

Stephen


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

110 posted 2008-01-30 12:56 PM


Dear Stephanos,

           Thanks.  I don't know quite how to approach this because of the first commandment.  In so many ways it makes discussion of other paths and how they relate to the varieties of the judeo-christian path very very difficult.  The proscription against Idols and having no other Gods before God cuts deep.  It's one of those places in the bible where it's tempting to say, okay, this is a good place to stop; we've got the whole thing in a nutshell right here.

     It never actually seems to work that way, though, does it?  I mean, when you think of it, most of the problems we have in life probably come from putting something between ourselves and God.  Money, job, ambition, whatever, and we lose sight.  I think in some ways we can let rules and prescriptions intervene between ourselves and God as well, although nobody's ever done to my mind a good job of teasing out the element of madness that so easily gets jumbled up in the mixture.  

     The story about the sacrifice of Isaac seems to illustrate the principle.  In Abraham, we have a man who allows nothing to get between himself and his God.  God is jealous.  Anything that you set up as equal importance has got to go, and the story is absolutely ruthless in its point.
It simply doesn't address the identity of God, though; and not everything that identifies itself as God, is God.  Sometimes it's God, sometimes it's madness, sometimes it may be the IRS.  Faith is our attempt to transcend the difficulties.  I shouldn't speak for others; it is my attempt.

     Unfortunately, I've never been able to tell myself that I believe in the truth of something when I'm not actually convinced.

     These things are the province of religion and of faith.  People have been trying to apply logic to religion, especially to Judiasm and to Christianity, for thousands of years.  The proofs of God's existence are definitive for believers.  For non-believers, they are not.  For doubters, they haven't been very convincing on the whole, perhaps because doubters are seeking something more substantial than logic alone can supply:  Something perhaps of surity and comfort that logic has not been engineered for.

     I suspect that the great religions of the world are systems which attempt to give life meaning, and which actually succeed in doing so for the majority of people.
Religions are sense.  Most religions have strong feelings about the quality of the sense they offer and have grown protective and proprietary.

     Some of the things that folks call religions I would not.  Unlike religions, which are systems and which require belief, these are more properly methods,  which are paths or ways, which require practices.  Buddhaism, which is what I'm talking about here, is one of that latter group.
Buddahism has a longer history than Christianity, so its practice has become quite heterodox, and it has in some of its iterations at this time picked up its share of Gods and Goddesses.  I don't think they are central to the path, however, which is at its heart fairly basic.

     It addresses the Problem of Pain in as direct a fashion as it has ever been addressed.  And it offers a solution to it, and a method for implimenting the solution that works.
And then it offers a prescription for living that is practical and straightforward as well.  I see nothing in the Buddhaist approach that needs to incompatible with a Christian world view.  I once has the notion of reincarnation explained to me on a very here and now basis, and karma as well.  I think these things can be done, and with some utility, but I think that it's unlikely that it will happen.


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
111 posted 2008-01-30 05:24 PM


BobK:
quote:
Thanks.  I don't know quite how to approach this because of the first commandment.  In so many ways it makes discussion of other paths and how they relate to the varieties of the judeo-christian path very very difficult.  The proscription against Idols and having no other Gods before God cuts deep.


Yes, that's true.  But I've also recognized (like you) truth in other religions / philosophies.  Despite the monotheism of my religion, I can't say rashly that the insights of other religions are all wrong.  Truth is liberally scattered throughout our world.  The story about Paul and the altar to "The Unknown God" illustrates this.  Though the Athenians didn't know God per se, they had insight enough to unwittingly acknowledge him in their Pantheon.  There is both beauty and truth in other traditions, including Buddhism.  The rub, I think, is the Christian assertion that the "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" are found in Christ, and that redemption is found in him alone.  But even with this exclusivity in mind, I find myself free to recognize truth anywhere I might find it.  

quote:
Faith is our attempt to transcend the difficulties.  I shouldn't speak for others; it is my attempt.


You have spoken well.  Who ever imagined it was supposed to be easy?  

quote:
These things are the province of religion and of faith.  People have been trying to apply logic to religion, especially to Judiasm and to Christianity, for thousands of years.  The proofs of God's existence are definitive for believers.


I have a slightly different take on this.  In my lay study of Western Philosophy I have seen the weaknesses of Rationalism as well as Empiricism.  The insight of postmodern thinking was to realize that modernistic boasts of watertight certainty is fluff.  In other words, nearly EVERYTHING involves an ingredient we might call faith.  If not faith in the religious sense, it is very akin to it.  I don't think it is wrong for people of the Christian faith to appeal to logic, reason, evidence, or any such thing ... simply because it is within the Telos of the Judeo-Christian Revelation that such things retain their significance.  That doesn't mean that these things are not always limited.  They are.  But will one make the inference that such things are a chance product of an irrational nature, or a part of some meaningful design?  To me, the inference which trivializes inference itself is most questionable.


It's not that the Christian faith doesn't have its cognitive and practical difficulties.  It most certainly does.  The question is, which set of difficulties is merely mystifying, and which is damning?  As G.K. Chesterton once wrote (paraphrase):  We all argue in a circle, but which circle is the best circle?  Which explanation holds the most explanatory power for who we really are?


quote:
For doubters, they haven't been very convincing on the whole, perhaps because doubters are seeking something more substantial than logic alone can supply:  Something perhaps of surity and comfort that logic has not been engineered for.


True, this is the experiential part of faith ... or the existential part, if you will.  But it holds its own difficulties.  It was like pulling teeth for me to come to God, not because of intellectual difficulties, but because of hardness of heart.  The doctrine of original sin is a dogma for Theologians to discuss; But practically it is a personal rebellion against God that is closer than breathing.  And it is one that we can hardly even explain ... that we ourselves are even unconscious of much of the time.  I believe that honest doubt exists, but I also know that much intellectual contention about the faith is a kind of smokescreen.  To use a children's tale of C.S. Lewis; No one wants to come to Aslan at the first.  And even those who have will not mitigate the idea of Divine danger, but only add the epithet "but he is good".


quote:
Buddahism has a longer history than Christianity, so its practice has become quite heterodox, and it has in some of its iterations at this time picked up its share of Gods and Goddesses.  I don't think they are central to the path, however, which is at its heart fairly basic.


I agree with this.  The religious aspect is somewhat extraneous to the central thrust of Buddhism.
quote:
It addresses the Problem of Pain in as direct a fashion as it has ever been addressed.  And it offers a solution to it, and a method for implimenting the solution that works.


The greatest difficulty with the Buddhistic philosophy I have is the stance it takes toward "desire".  It seeks to transcend desire completely.  But so much of our humanity is rooted in desire.  It seems to me that the Christian answer is better in proposing a dualism in the area of desire.  Good versus bad desire or (if you prefer) proper desire versus improper, inordinate affection, too much of a good thing, uncontrolled impulses, unruly passion etc ...  I think this is truer to human nature and the problem we have at its most basic level.  It is not desire that is intrinsically bad.  Its that we do not know how to possess it without letting it possess us.  It is a problem of the spirit, of not knowing how to wield the glory for which we were created.  Opposing desire, to me seems to be tossing the baby out with the bath.  


Does that mean that suppressing desire is wrong?  No, I'm sure it is a practical way to avoid mayhem in many cases.  I simply need a philosophy which encourages some desires and discourages or keeps in check others.    


quote:
I see nothing in the Buddhaist approach that needs to incompatible with a Christian world view.


Well for one, the Christian worldview celebrates individuality, and the uniqueness of one's soul.  Isn't it true that the Eastern Hindu-Buddhist paradigm views individuality as illusory, or as the root of the whole problem?  Or the distinction could be put this way:  While Christianity is about the abolition of the sinful self, Buddhism is about the abolition of the self.


That's why the resurrection and the Christian "Heaven" is quite different than Nirvana.  One is restoration of all things, and the other seems to be (as far as I understand it) the dissolution of all things.  Paradise versus a kind of Oblivion.    


More later,

Stephen            

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

112 posted 2008-01-31 04:39 AM


Dear Stephen,
           Thanks for the thoughtful response.  I too should take some time to think.  But I am happy simply at having a chance to have a decent talk about such basic things.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
113 posted 2008-01-31 11:39 AM


BobK,

The feeling is mutual.  I will not be able to really respond to much for the next several days, so please take your time.


~frustrated writer~
Member
since 2008-02-25
Posts 84

114 posted 2008-03-21 05:31 AM


people can't change you, unless you let them..


MindBodySoul
Member
since 2007-01-10
Posts 196
NJ
115 posted 2008-07-05 04:21 PM


Wow!  I recently told a friend that you can not teach an old dog new tricks... People don't change old habits, specially if they find joy in them.  In relationships we change in order to adjust to the situation that we allow, but it is usually a one sided change..  I only speak of my own experiences... i have seen change, but it doesn't last for too long, however i give credit to the effort in trying to change..

I believe that we all have the ability to change, as long as WE ARE WILLING, without the WANT, change is very difficult to come by....  

Alison
Deputy Moderator 5 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Rara Avis
since 2008-01-27
Posts 9318
Lumpy oatmeal makes me crazy!
116 posted 2008-07-05 09:47 PM


Every time I read the title to this thread I wonder ...

Why would you want to?

----

Either they are worthy of your love and friendship - and you accept their weakness with their strengths.  Or they people you might not associate with - in that case, why spend the time trying to change them?

Most change comes from within.

A

Falling rain
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2008-01-31
Posts 2178
Small town, Illinois
117 posted 2008-07-07 12:54 PM


I agree with Alison on this one. I mean really, Do you really want to change a person?
But to answer your question.. Yes you can.. It is possable...

~Zach~  

"And so the lion fell in love with the lamb....,"he murmured. "What a stupid lamb," I sighed. "What a sick, masochistic lion."

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

118 posted 2008-07-08 12:02 PM




     My observation is that we are long on opinion about what people are and should be.  People can change or people cannot change.  We should leave them as they are or we should attempt to change them.  We are or aren't worthy or each other.  If pressed, and under specific circumstances, I have opinions like this myself; I'm not trying to exclude myself here.

     Almost always, I've noticed, we leave ourselves out of consideration when we look at how changeable others may be, as though we were looking at people in isolation.
There's this friend or lover or husband or father or wife who's making terrible waves (out there somewhere) and is it possible to fix them, to make them turn out right.  Are they really, secretly, people we ought not associate with, too good for us or not good enough.

     We have our own plans for them, and part of what they are doing may well be a reaction to that plan.

     Jay Haley, one of the Family Therapists to emerge during the fifties and Sixties, has an interesting piece in which he tracks a dialogue between a couple.  It''s not a particularly significant conversation; the content after all this time evades me, but really it might have been about anything, the weather, the garden, anything.  Haley shows how every exchange is about not only the subject of the conversation, but is also about who is in charge of the relationship at that particular moment.

     Once you've noticed this level of interaction in conversations, they never sound the same to you again.  Most surprising, I've found, are not the things that other people say, but the things you find yourself saying and later defending. . . .

     Have you noticed this, had a chance to remark on it in your relationships?  Do you have thoughts on the matter?

Sincerely, BobK.  

Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » Philosophy 101 » Can you really change a person?

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary