A contradiction

[Jenyar]

And then what? It's not like they care.

But you will care. And there are people who care that you care. It won't affect those who won't be affected, but it will mean an immense amount to people who do wish to be in some relationship with you - especially if you are in a ("powerful") position to mean something to them.

I see your point, but the issue is far more practical than you make it out to be.

For example, when you choose your friends, you choose them by some criteria, and those who don't pass, they cannot be your friends, even if they would want to. In effect, you are telling them "You can only be this much to me, for you are a [insert reason for your decision]".

You could hardly call that a "psychological form of abuse".

Depending on whether it is abusive, I could call it that and much more - for practical reasons. Social cliques are formed like this, and people suffer under cliques. Not to mention other forms of elitism: religious, racist, political, intellectual. I don't find it strange that people will condemn the Ku Klux Klan, but approve of it when their children do not associate with those "lower class" kids. India's whole religious-political structure is built on the caste system, and it is the main reason for widespread poverty and suffering among the "untouchable" class. It comes from "you are a..." reasons (I prefer the word excuses).

We must transcend such external and superficial "criteria", and the best way to do that is to believe in it. I don't considere myself mroally or instrinsically superior to anybody, and if there is any kind of "superiority" to be found, it is to be found in love and service to others. You can't put your own artificial fences around friendship and love except the value of the person (and therefore the relationship) themselves. If you do, you are not loving or being a friend yourself. And whoever or whatever anyone else might be - you might act like a friend.

Before you call me a silly romantic again: yes, we do choose our friends, and should. But it comes in the form of who we associate ourselves with in the light of this view about people. I will not count murderers or rapists among my friends, nor will I hold someone's past against them if they become my friends. But there is no pseudo-objective sliding scale on which I judge them "worthy" of friendship.

Some fatal mistakes merely have a longer "action period". They don't kill right away, but they do kill eventually.

Then it's important to deal with them while someone still can, isn't it?

And what if it turns out that these people pull one up just to push one down even more?
Who is to blame that one surely fails then?
The person who accepted help?

What does blame have to do with it? If you are caught in a burning house and scream for help, and someone breaks in only to steal your jewellery, you aren't looking for someone to blame! If you're going to blame yourself for your situation anyway, you don't need help (or reasons) to do it. Blame has to do with guilt and judgment, and that is a whole other need than to be helped. If someone won't help you, don't look for ways to add them to your problems.

How is not a mistake?

It's an event, it's something happening. All of those things happened to people in various combinations when the tsunamis struck. You get people looking for someone to blame, and bereaved widows who think it was a mistake to go there on honeymoon or holiday, and all are just ways to try to deal with what happened.

But while you're there, trapped, sinking and drowning, you know that calling everything a "mistake" is a clinical reduction that belongs on a piece of paper in a filing cabinet somewhere in a tall building far away for smart people to ponder on as they look for reasons or excuses to help or not.

Yes, if one believes in God. But to believe in God, one must first believe in God ... .

That's just a stalling tactic. Making a choice is taking the step. Not before, not while thinking about it, not while intellectualising or abstracting or relativising it. You'll never get past this fact, and there is no way past it. No pressure - there's never any pressure. It's just unfortunate that many people wait until they are forced into disasters or disasterous relationships before they start making these decisions, and then are so aware of their circumstances that they can only continue on the path they have been on all along.

 

[water]

But you will care. And there are people who care that you care. It won't affect those who won't be affected, but it will mean an immense amount to people who do wish to be in some relationship with you - especially if you are in a ("powerful") position to mean something to them.

Well, if I were a mafia boss or some other hot shot, people would certainly care if I care. Now, it really doesn't matter to them what I think, and whether I expose things they might not like about themselves.

Depending on whether it is abusive, I could call it that and much more - for practical reasons. Social cliques are formed like this, and people suffer under cliques. Not to mention other forms of elitism: religious, racist, political, intellectual. I don't find it strange that people will condemn the Ku Klux Klan, but approve of it when their children do not associate with those "lower class" kids. India's whole religious-political structure is built on the caste system, and it is the main reason for widespread poverty and suffering among the "untouchable" class. It comes from "you are a..." reasons (I prefer the word excuses).

We must transcend such external and superficial "criteria",

Why must we transcend them?

and the best way to do that is to believe in it.

Believe in what? The criteria?

Some fatal mistakes merely have a longer "action period". They don't kill right away, but they do kill eventually.

Then it's important to deal with them while someone still can, isn't it?

And what if it is already too late?

If someone won't help you, don't look for ways to add them to your problems.

I meant: What if someone comes and deceives you? They offer you their help, you trust them, but then it turns out they have only used you, and put you in a situation worse than before.
Who is to blame?

It's an event, it's something happening. All of those things happened to people in various combinations when the tsunamis struck. You get people looking for someone to blame, and bereaved widows who think it was a mistake to go there on honeymoon or holiday, and all are just ways to try to deal with what happened.

But while you're there, trapped, sinking and drowning, you know that calling everything a "mistake" is a clinical reduction that belongs on a piece of paper in a filing cabinet somewhere in a tall building far away for smart people to ponder on as they look for reasons or excuses to help or not.

No. If everything is to be considered as a matter of choice, then, yes, then you have simply made a bad decision going there were tsunamis struck.

Yes, if one believes in God. But to believe in God, one must first believe in God ... .

That's just a stalling tactic. Making a choice is taking the step.

You've got easy talking.

 

[Jenyar]

Well, if I were a mafia boss or some other hot shot, people would certainly care if I care. Now, it really doesn't matter to them what I think, and whether I expose things they might not like about themselves.

It's not only the care of those who seem to have the most power on earth that matter. They're not the ones whose respect is worth much.

Why must we transcend them?

Did you read the paragraph? And you still have to ask?

Believe in what? The criteria?

In the above: in why we have to transcend them.

And what if it is already too late?

It's not the ones dying who decide that, but the doctors. And if we're talking about a person's life, then God decides when it's too late. That's why His love is an important detail to us.

I meant: What if someone comes and deceives you? They offer you their help, you trust them, but then it turns out they have only used you, and put you in a situation worse than before.
Who is to blame?

The same applies. Looking for blame is a bad way to deal with something where guilt and judgment is not the issue. That is probably what will make the situation seem worse than before. A better question to ask is where you should be looking for help, and what you should consider important in someone who offers their help.

I think trusting the mafia is likely to be a bad idea.

No. If everything is to be considered as a matter of choice, then, yes, then you have simply made a bad decision going there were tsunamis struck.

Very strange reasoning... very strange. A sort of inverted determinism. Then that decision was no better or worse than any other, and once again: looking for blame makes no sense.

You've got easy talking.

Yes, talk is easy. Choosing is more difficult.

 

[water]

Why must we transcend them?

Did you read the paragraph? And you still have to ask?

Yes, I have to ask. It seems you are suggesting to transcend evolutionary principles. Why should we do that?
It is not a matter of course, nor of fact, you know.

It's not the ones dying who decide that, but the doctors. And if we're talking about a person's life, then God decides when it's too late. That's why His love is an important detail to us.

If one gives God that authority, yes.
Also see this.

I meant: What if someone comes and deceives you? They offer you their help, you trust them, but then it turns out they have only used you, and put you in a situation worse than before.
Who is to blame?

The same applies. Looking for blame is a bad way to deal with something where guilt and judgment is not the issue.

Guilt and judgement are always an issue. Responsibility never vanishes: if you have made bad choice in seeking help, then you are responsible for this, and the subsequent failing as well. The guilt is all yours, and you will be judged.

No. If everything is to be considered as a matter of choice, then, yes, then you have simply made a bad decision going there were tsunamis struck.

Very strange reasoning... very strange. A sort of inverted determinism.

Determinism is determinism, it may seem "inverted" to you, but it is just consistent.

Then that decision was no better or worse than any other, and once again: looking for blame makes no sense.

It does: It come from the premise that everything is a matter of choice and free will.

To repeat what I've said in another thread:

Ponder: The main principle in our society is that of free will and choice -- intrinsically linked with personal responsibility; this is the basis of the law system. "You did it and you will be punished for it."

(I wish Wes Morris would be here, to give you a lesson on how everything is a matter of choice!)

Anyway, everything one does is a matter of his free choice, a matter of his decision.
All good and well when it comes to things that are good for you. But in order to be consistent, we must apply the principle of free choice and decision in all cases -- or set strictly defined boundaries.
(These strictly defined boundaries don't seem to be there though. It isn't always clear whether if you get hit by a meteorite while out walking is to be treated the same way as if you get raped. One can even always argue that it was a bad decision that one went for a walk when the meteorite was about to fall; and in the case of rape, the raped will be gladly blamed for allowing it.)

And thus, it follows:

1. Whatever you have, you have it because you have wanted it.
2. Whatever happens to you, it is because you have wanted it or because you have allowed it.
...
9. If you make bad decisions, you are a loser.
...
12. If you make good decisions, you are a winner.
...
16.If you have work, this is a result of your choice and decision.

17. If you don't have work, this is a result of your choice and decision.
...
38. If you are loved, this is a result of your choice and decision.

39. If you aren't loved, this is a result of your choice and decision.
...
81. If others don't kill the person in you, this is a result of your choice and decision.

82. If others kill the person in you, this is a result of your choice and decision.
...
123. If you are alive, this is a result of your choice and decision.

..............................................

Do all those people really want to watch basketball?

It must be that they want to watch basketball, or they wouldn't be watching it in the first place.


Go back in this thread. Anytime anyone is considered a weakling, a pathetic smatch, a loser, a woman when he is a man, -- it comes with the presupposition that they *want* to be a weakling, a pathetic smatch, a loser, a woman when he is a man; if you are something, it means that you want it, or are allowing for it.

It was *your* idea to be or become a weakling, a pathetic smatch, a loser, a woman when you are a man.

For, after all, Iraq *allowed* to be attacked by the US, you know.


Consistency is a bitch.

See, and when I am told to choose -- I find myself in the most absurd situation of being responsible for everyhting.

 

[stretched]

Hi water,

Quote water:
"See, and when I am told to choose -- I find myself in the most absurd situation of being responsible for everyhting."

We are responsible for the consequences of the actions emanating from our choices. Choices made through adequate information are essentially successful. Choices need not be made to a rigid schedule. Choices are reversible, or modifiable in the light of new information. Ultimately choices need not be made at all.

Allcare.

 

[Jenyar]

Yes, I have to ask. It seems you are suggesting to transcend evolutionary principles. Why should we do that?
It is not a matter of course, nor of fact, you know.

Not 'should', can. 'Should' only becomes a word when we are compelled to do something, and then the source of the compulsion is as close to a 'reason' you'll get.

And yet it is a matter of course. Just look at it deterministically, for instance, and it becomes clear that we transcend "evolutionary principles" all the time. Art, music, language are transcendent, morality and justice is transcendent. The notion of having a choice in matters is transcendent.

And the very observation that "evolutionary principles" have to be transcended to prevent living like particularly mindless and selfish animals is transcendent. Or you would have looked at the paragraph and found nothing strange - none of it threatens you personally, and it might as well have been some irrelevant principle of quantum mechanics.

If one gives God that authority, yes.
Also see this.

He already has the authority - like a doctor has the training, skills and means. You don't give that to Him, you give your life to Him.

Guilt and judgement are always an issue. Responsibility never vanishes: if you have made bad choice in seeking help, then you are responsible for this, and the subsequent failing as well. The guilt is all yours, and you will be judged.

Responsibility for your own life, yes. That includes not passing final judgment on it. You are already judged. The question is what are you going to do knowing that.

Determinism is determinism, it may seem "inverted" to you, but it is just consistent.

I didn't expect such an answer from you. "It is because it is". Duh. Consistency is like balance. Finding it or not finding it is besides the point if you're not going to do anything with it. It's just another way to say you have chosen to believe in it because the belief makes you feel comfortable, but you're not willing to act on it because that makes you feel uncomfortable.

It does: It come from the premise that everything is a matter of choice and free will.

To repeat what I've said in another thread:
The main principle in our society is that of free will and choice -- intrinsically linked with personal responsibility; this is the basis of the law system. "You did it and you will be punished for it."

Wow. The basis of the law is that you are punished for transgression, as transgression is defined. What you call here "choice" is exactly how I define it: as acting on something.

You are responsibile for your actions insofar as they fall inside or outside certain parameters. Justice sets those parameters. So does morality, and ultimately, God. That is why people would often say it "inhibits their freedom". They know that it has bearing on their choices, but the fact is that it doesn't stop them from acting on their will.

So all actions are potentially punishable, but it's a logical fallacy to conclude that they are necessarily punishable. Your premise is false: everything is not a matter of choice and free will. You are not personally responsible for where you are born, and it would by unjust to punish you for it. Unless you believe injustice doesn't exist?

All people have free will, some actions are punishable, therefore all actions must be punished?

See, and when I am told to choose -- I find myself in the most absurd situation of being responsible for everyhting.

It's absurd because the belief is absurd, and you can't escape its absurdity while believing it.