Philosophy

[idesign]

Interesting...

a thread ostensibly the result of personal attacks branching off into the same.


Looks like this was

prophetic, I should have kept my mouth shut.

I have no beef with anyone here, in fact I've gained in knowledge

and understanding from each and every one of you, and have enjoyed making some personal "relationships" outside the

forum. What really bothers me is that the spirit of the forum is being compromised.

I suppose the dynamics

which are common to any place where people gather to exchange ideas are in play, for good or ill. OK fine, none of

us are perfect.

No one person has a complete understanding of what is ultimately an unknown question vis-a-vis

pheromones and their workings. And yes there are disagreements on what is believed to be current understanding of

the "facts".

In fact, there is no better place to start a disagreement than a fact.

What I'm seeing is a

catfight, and, not aiming at any one person but everyone, I think all parties should examine their motives for

posting, and with excrutiating honesty determine what will contribute or detract from any discussion.

The primary

motive should be to increase understanding, and criticism is important to hone and develop divergent positions.

Personal criticism has no place in any discussion outside of your living room, and certainly not in a forum which

depends on mature and professional input of ideas.

Its up to each of us to self-police our methods and manner of

contribution.

As a member who is mostly ignorant of the science of pheromones, I depend on all contributors to

simply offer their knowledge as they see it, and if anyone should disagree, to respond with supporting information.



You can disagree and argue points of view without calling names and getting personal. The person who disagrees

with you is not an idiot, he just holds a different point of view, perhaps a view which is as valid as your own.

Emotional attachments to scientific points of view do not advance, they're the antithesis of advancement.

As a

layman with a degree of common sense, and a memory, I have to remind you scientists that what you discover today

will most probably be refuted by your own experiments next year, or the next, or the next. Don't get to far above

yourselves. What you're producing now is amazing, but you'll be ashamed of today's products compared to what you

produce tomorrow. I have complete respect for what you do, and produce, I only wish to be spared the drama, and the

drama of anyone who only wants to extend their ego or personal position or whatever. I suppose we're all guilty to

a point, but let it end.

Its all about perspective, and the broader each of our perspectives are the better it is

for all. Also, I've found that a proper perspective contributes to a sense of humor as well, which we could really

use here.

Science aside, if you take yourself too seriously you consign yourself to a dull antagonistic bot. A

lively intelligence should depend on the creativity that comes from inside yourself and sharpened by others' ideas.

There is nothing new, only what you can discover. Each one of us plays a part, and I would not want to give up

what another can give, Especially if they disagree with me, that is where I learn the most.


I'll read this

diatribe tomorrow and delete it, but there it is.

[idesign]

Nicely put.

I find that people who refer to others as fascist to be of a fascist bent themselves. And as far as calling leaders

of other nations fascist, no other native of another place has room to comment. And wether one has voted for that

idividual or not is irrelevent. Followers of opposition party members again have no room to talk.

As far as HEC

being banned,Bruce is the benevolent dictator here. Anyone who feels that censorship is a problem here should feel

free to move on.

As far as a "REVOLUTIONARY NEW PHEROMONE" sounds like fools gold and contrary to real

science. :think:

tongue, your post is as astute as it is inspiring.

NY Times headline: "Positions

Embedded in Pheromone Forum Seen as Fascist".

People Magazine: "The New Fascist Rave, Bruce Revealed!?" Read

how he crushed their ideas and capitalist spirit!

Cosmo Girl: "Getting Down with your Fascist, Tips for Screwing

the Man you Hate." Overcoming Bruce's strategy for revenge!

Vanity Fair: "Fascists We Love", an exclusive with

Bruce on page 3.

Time Magazine: "uhhhhhh"

Newsweek: "what Time said"

Edit: I just re-read this late-night

post, we all know its a joke in Bruce's favor, right? Making fun of those who are too eager to throw the word

Fascist into the discussion. Sorry, I know I'm insulting your intelligence, but you can't be too careful in this

hot climate.

[terry0400-40]

This thread seems like as if it has been going on forever like since the beginning of

time.

Speaking of myself i am a relatively uneducated person of limited schooling and little educated in

the ways of dialog and communication.



But i have learned much about the nature and also the individuality and

vunerabilities of those who have been posting and it is eye opening when i look behind the facades and veiw the

naked souls and inner conflicts that exist within the beings who the world considers educated.



Sometimes i

jump up upon my horse and take off at a gallop and then realize i am facing the tail

end.

Hmmm

maby horses could learn to gallop backwards.



Seeing that i really should be shutting down and moving on to the next world

soon, Id like to wish all of you whome i have rubbed up the rong way all the bestand not to take any of my

pigheadedness personally as i really and truily am a NO BODY within this plain of existence, But i honestly bless

you all with the very best of everything that you all will need for a joyfull and fullfilling life.



\o/

[idesign]

This thread seems like as if it has been going on

forever like since the beginning of time.

Yes bro, but venting is healthy.




it is eye opening when i look behind the facades and veiw the naked souls and inner conflicts that

exist within the beings who the world considers educated.

You only think you're

uneducated. Besides, you're poetic, which is better.


Sometimes i jump up upon my horse and take off at a gallop and then realize i am facing the tail

end.

This is one of the funniest and most correct observances of my life I've ever

read.


Hmmm maby horses could learn to gallop

backwards.

I'm still lauging! :lol: "Turn me around Martha, I'm headed to the wrong

field!"


Seeing that i really should be

shutting down and moving on to the next world soon, Id like to wish all of you whome i have rubbed up the rong way

all the bestand not to take any of my pigheadedness personally as i really and truily am a NO BODY within this plain

of existence, But i honestly bless you all with the very best of everything that you all will need for a joyfull and

fullfilling life.



Terry, check your inbox.

[terry0400-40]

Yes

bro, but venting is healthy.



You only think you're uneducated. Besides, you're poetic, which is

better.



This is one of the funniest and most correct observances of my life I've ever read.





I'm still lauging! :lol: "Turn me around Martha, I'm headed to the wrong field!"



Terry, check your

inbox.Yes just going through a difficult time with finance, and my

health is such that sometimes i dont think i am going to last so long

Sometimes i should think before i post, but i

post on the spur of the moment and usually dont plan what i am going to say, except when dealing with pheromone

quantities

I

dont post with the motive of trying to become popular or even witty, and i regard myself as just another speck of

sand that makes up the desert.

I dont mind a little joking around as it helps me from going insane or coming to the realisation

that i am insane.

But i do enjoy it when i read good friendly and fun posts by any of the forum members, and

sometimes i do react in a knee jerk fashion or go off half cocked when i get a button pushed out of synk, and i dont

mean any harm when it happens, but we all know that shit happens, as we all have our own share to shovel around at

times.

You

are a good bloke Greg a real asset to humanity. :angel:

[idesign]

Sorry you're having a rough

time Terry. Hang in there.

If all it takes to being an ass(et) to anyone is to be considerate, and care even

just a little about the people around you, then I suppose I could be an asset. This is what bothers me most about

the nature of this thread and some others.

If you don't care about the man you know, why would you watch his

back? If you don't care about the people you meet, why would you have any incentive to be even civil in

conversation?

Maybe the impersonal nature of the internet makes it easier to display behaviors which you would

never display in person. Maybe that's not the case, maybe those who misbehave will do so in any setting, whoever

and wherever you are.

Its just sad and disappointing, but that's life I guess, and people.

[belgareth]

If nothing else, each of us

should care about other creatures, human or otherwise, because they are living creatures and part of the

interlocking and dynamic miracle that is life. The ones that amaze me are the ones that will do anything to save a

tree or a spotted owl but treat their fellow man callously. We are all creatures of this world and all are deserving

of being treated with respect and kindness.

Even in the worst of situations behaving in a kind but forthright

manner is simply common courtesy. To insult or attack simply because you can or because it makes you feel better

about yourself places you lower than any other creature. Man and a few other primates seem the only ones capable of

such cruel behavoir.

[terry0400-40]

The differences in the nature of human beings can be amazing and just so

unfathomable.

You may give someone $100 bucks when they are in a jam, and then that someone may actually deny

another person $2 for the cost of a hot pie.



Its just the way that society is after all we are mere mortals and subject to

so many pressures that the universe places upon us or so it seems. :frustrate

At the end of the day i suppose we are all

learning to become fair and just individuals because of the learning conditions with which we find ourselves from

day to day.

I think a good number of us may actually make the grade. :thumbsup:

[belgareth]

In the end, we all choose how

we act. The escapist claims of 'They made me mad' 'I had to do this because...' 'It's because of how I was

raised, my parent's fault' and such are all crap. We are who and what we are because we make that choice time and

again throughout our lives. We are the person we ourselves create and our every action reveals the choices we have

made.

Nobody can make you mad, sad, or otherwise without your permission. That we allow others to control us is

a weakness in our natures, not too disimilar from blaming some non-ethereal diety for the good and bad in our

lives.

[idesign]

The differences in the nature of human beings can be

amazing and just so unfathomable.


That's the central point

Terry.


In the end, we all choose how we act.
(snip)
We are the person we ourselves

create
(snip)
That we allow others to control us is a weakness in our natures, not too disimilar from blaming some

non-ethereal diety for the good and bad in our lives.

Yes, well, we all choose to a point, but see

Terry's comment above, and read the words "differences in the nature of human beings" very plainly and literally.



Tell someone who suffers from depression that they need to control it and they'll tell you to defy gravity.

Those who experience things know those those things intimately, those who read about them know what they've

read.

I completely agree with your general point that our society tends to create "victims" of the "Disorder of

the Month". Creating a scapegoat solves nothing, and is irresponsible. But that is not always the case.

I'm

put off as much by those who want to "control" every micro-aspect of their lives as I am the "weak" who want an out

from responsibility. Control can be a weakness, and can be as ugly as lack of control.

As for being who we

create ourselves to be. Humph. True to a point, but arrogant to an equal point. Be careful what you "create". The

self-hypnosis of life-improving guru-speak, one hyphenated method after another, may just produce in-humans.

But

back to the thread, as HK and you and others say we should all grow up if we're going to post as adults and not

children. If you can't behave, you shouldn't be allowed to play.

[belgareth]

Well, we

all choose to a point, but see Terry's comment above, and read the words "differences in the nature of human

beings" very plainly and literally. Of course we are different but we still chose how we respond outside of

ourselves.


Tell someone who suffers from depression that they need to control it and

they'll tell you to defy gravity. Those who experience things know those those things intimately, those who read

about them know what they've read.
We have no more control of depression than we do other medical issues,

that's completely true. But do we allow it to control us or do we do whatever is needed to deal with it such as

taking medications? I was a cancer patient a long time ago but rarely speak of it and do not consider myself a

survivor, it was just something that happened and I dealt with it. It was no more or less than a medical condition

that I did what I had to about it. I decided that I was not going to be a victim of it even though it could very

well have killed me. For the time being I was alive and did what was needed.


I completely

agree with your general point that our society tends to create "victims" of the "Disorder of the Month". Creating a

scapegoat solves nothing, and is irresponsible. But that is not always the case.

I'm put off as much by those

who want to "control" every micro-aspect of their lives as I am the "weak" who want an out from responsibility.

Control can be a weakness, and can be as ugly as lack of control.

It isn't a matter of want, it is a

simple fact. Every action you take is because you decided to take that action. A friend argued that he had no

control if a car decided to skip the curb and run over him. Within limits, that's true, However, he made the choice

to be there at that time knowing that there was a risk to be there. Some people choose to be the victim of their

actions when they should have been considering if the action was worth the risk. If it was worth the risk then they

have no complaint. If it wasn't worth the risk, why was he there? SInce he was there, was he conciously watching

the world around him or wandering around oblivious to the dangers around him?


As for being

who we create ourselves to be. Humph. True to a point, but arrogant to an equal point. Be careful what you "create".

The self-hypnosis of life-improving guru-speak, one hyphenated method after another, may just produce

in-humans.

hummmm...Probably a point well made. And if I told you that what I am preaching has almost

nothing to do with those so called 'life improving gurus'? Rather, that it comes from philosophies that have been

in use for thousands of years? It always surprise me how often effective life philosophies from disparate parts of

the world match each other so well.

Don't get me wrong, I am not perfect and never will be. More than anything

else these things are a goal for me. I don't expect anybody else to follow the rules I set for myself and I don't

expect to ever achieve what I am after. However, to be fully and completely responsible for oneself is, in my

personal opinion, a worthy goal. Part of that goal is accepting that nobody else has any obligation to follow my

beliefs and no right to force their beliefs on me. We all expect our beliefs systems to be honored by everybody else

yet we constantly try to force our own beliefs on others.


But back to the thread, as HK

and you and others say we should all grow up if we're going to post as adults and not children. If you can't

behave, you shouldn't be allowed to play.
Most people here exercise plenty of basic courtesy to one

another. The job of moderator is pretty easy most of the time and I enjoy knowing all the people here. There are

very few times when it becomes a problem and it is never enough that there is any real resentment towards anybody,

mild exasperation at the worst.

[idesign]

Good discussion Bel, thanks.

BTW, I wasn't specifically targeting you, just a couple of ideas.

I chose depression as an example because its

something I have personal experience with. Before I learned how to deal with it and honed my skills, I remember

many instances of negative behavior which I only recognized after the fact. Did I choose to behave in that way? -

not for an instant. During the learning/healing process I can remember acting out while at the same time

understanding that what I was doing was wrong, and I *could not change it*, I just did not know what to do. It took

a long time to break that cycle. Even now sometimes something will sneak in and cause a little trouble, and the

"choice" doesn't come until I realize that its even there. By then I might have hurt someone close to me, or

pissed somebody off.

So, no, every action is not because I decided to take it. I chose not to be a victim, but

I still exhibit some actions that I don't specifically choose. I'm very thankful that I got the help I needed to

start me on the road, but not everyone has had that benefit. I also owe a debt to a good friend who was patient

enough to get me started. I'm glad she was responsible for me when I didn't have a clue.

In a "macro" way of

looking at it I would agree with you. The big decisions, and many smaller actions we think about and decide. I

think most of the small stuff is determined by our character, over which we *do* have responsibility.

We're

both assuming as well that each individual has the imagination and mental capacity to even think about these things.

I think you know what I mean. I know people who don't even have the capacity to care, I think its related to the

above. What I mean to say is that a complete set of tools is not standard issue. My bag is a little short, but

plenty of wrenchs, which often get thrown into the works. :)

Part of the equation has to be to acknowledge human

frailty, in the largest sense of the word. I agree about the wisom to be gleaned from the many philosophies and

religions of the world. However, there are some universal truths. Among them is the ultimate weakness of "man",

and his inability to overcome his corrupt nature. Unless you're Nietschze or Ayn Rand.

Therefore, I really

don't think becoming "fully and completely responsible for oneself" is all that worthy a goal. It would be if you

eliminated the "fully and completely" part. I just have the hardest time with that kind of emotional and

psychological control, it seems artificial, as if to become less human. And I don't mean to imply that you're

less human, your friendliness and willingness to help proves otherwise.


You've made me think real hard, and

I'm not used to that! Good job, and great response.

[belgareth]

I should thank you for opening

that door. We, as individuals, have the job, responsibility if you will, to help others when they need it. A friend

helped you to discover how to control something that you did not understand for yoursef. But, you are learning and

striving be be better, to be the best? Maybe or maybe not. That's not a competitive statement except in the sense

of becoming better than you are now. You are doing exactly what I am saying, you are taking responsibility for

learning once the tools were made available to you. Somebody had to give me the tools to cope with my own life and

it's issues too. It's how you make use of those tools that count.

In contrast to you, there is a lady living

near me that is bipolar. When she takes her meds she is able to cope. But she refuses so is supported by the state.

Her family has to deal with her rages and depression. She is not practicing responsibility for her actions.

No,

I do not see an end solution to anything, I see process and development that requires constant change and growth.

Personal responsibility requires that I keep adjusting to the world around me.

Oh, on another topic, last night

was a bust. Everybody was too tired to make it worth while and we went home early.

[idesign]

Well, taking a step back I see

that we agree on this point, dammit.

I think I just bristled when I read some of your words, bad memories of

people trying to "help" me. I'm still thinking though, and something eludes me but don't know what.

I count

myself very fortunate to be in that "process and development that requires constant change and growth". I think too

that part of being responsible is knowing to apologize when you've flung something into the fan. That probably

goes directly to the situation that "inspired" this thread.

Too bad about last night, there'll be more,

hopefully soon.

[belgareth]

If I hit a tender spot, I do

apologise. It wasn't intentional. None of my comments were directed at you or anybody else. They were mostly

generic, intended to open an interesting discussion.

There's a funny story from when I was in college. I worked

in a resturaunt to put myself through school. There was this guy who worked there as a dishwasher. He was very

limited mentally but had been there about ten years by time I was hired. He couldn't drive so rode his bicycle to

work everyday, from the group home where he lived. He was quite proud of the fact that he was self supporting where

none of the other members of the home were. It was great to watch him. His work was always done and done very well.

Always on time and never complaining, he was popular with the management and they gave him raises everytime he came

up for revue.

The point is that he was in charge of his destiny to the best of his ability. He did his best with

what he had and made the best of his lot in life. All he ever asked for was a fair chance and when given that

chance, he made good on it. I honestly had more respect for him than any of the staff that were just getting by and

always complaining about their work. He didn't want to be given fish, he wanted to fish and was going to catch

every one his meager equipment allowed him to catch.

It isn't the equipment you are given that count, it is

what you do with that equipment.

[idesign]

Hey, no problem, nothing was

taken as personal, and likewise I hope.

The conversation got away from me, and I never meant to drag my

personal stuff into it, I only meant it as illustration. I get carried away sometimes too when one thought leads to

another. I'm not a very disciplined thinker.

I enjoy batting around ideas though. You just have to use a

filter. :)

[belgareth]

You have to try pretty hard to

irritate me and sometimes I forget that others don't blow things off as easily. Sometimes it is all too easy to

offend others unintentionally. Can we agree that nothing is intended as offensive in future debate? I enjoy a good

debate and it hard to find good opponents that can discuss without anger.

[idesign]

Agreed Bel, yes, absolutely.

Life's too much too short to waste on anger. Intense sometimes yes, angry never. A little humor thrown in and you

have a good adversary.

The word "intense" gives me a lead on what's been eluding me in this conversation and

I'm hashing it out, but it concerns the interplay among intelligence, emotion and personality.

[terry0400-40]

:) This thread has become an interesting one and also a learning experience, one would have to be

entirley lacking in iq if they have not learned something from the intelligent presentations of late

here.

Every

picture tells a story dont it, every little movement every little sway. :type:

[belgareth]

Intense, huh? Some people have

described me that way. Others have described me as calculating. Both are probably true in some sense. There is

little I do that isn't thought through and that can bother others who are more reactionary. It's a trait I picked

up along the way while learning to control my temper.

To carry some earlier thoughts out a little further, we as

human beings have an obligation to all creatures on this planet. WIthout the life on this planet we would not exist.

Yet most people are oblivious to that obvious fact.

Once you realize that we are an integral part of this world

and must treat it with care you begin to see that there is something greater out there than just the sum of all

creatures. Some people try to explain it with words like god or nature or gia or hundreds of other terms. Why try to

name it? It is just something that is there and that deserves our respect. When we try to force it to our designs we

invariably fail, often causing catastrophe. But, when we embrace all aspect of it and accept that there is no real

good or evil, only action and consequences, we begin to learn to be compassionate about life.

True compassion

must encompass everything. That doesn't mean to never harm anything, that is completely unreasonable. There is a

natural order to things and each creature as their place in it. It does mean to never do harm without reason, a

reason greater than the harm you do. If you apply it to all living things you no longer place man above other

creatures but you do not place other creatures above man. Either is bound to fail eventually. The goal then is to

learn to live in harmony with the world around you.

In other words, Greg, I do not believe man is inherently

evil. Like any other creature, man is only as good or as bad as his actions. At the core, there is nothing good or

evil.

[idesign]

There's a funny story from when I was in college. I worked in a resturaunt to put myself through school. There

was this guy who worked there as a dishwasher. He was very limited mentally but had been there about ten years by

time I was hired. He couldn't drive so rode his bicycle to work everyday, from the group home where he lived. He

was quite proud of the fact that he was self supporting where none of the other members of the home were. It was

great to watch him. His work was always done and done very well. Always on time and never complaining, he was

popular with the management and they gave him raises everytime he came up for revue.

The point is that he was in

charge of his destiny to the best of his ability. He did his best with what he had and made the best of his lot in

life. All he ever asked for was a fair chance and when given that chance, he made good on it. I honestly had more

respect for him than any of the staff that were just getting by and always complaining about their work. He didn't

want to be given fish, he wanted to fish and was going to catch every one his meager equipment allowed him to catch.



It isn't the equipment you are given that count, it is what you do with that equipment.

I think

this story serves to prove that this guy had the tools necessary to live to a social standard.

I don't think

high intelligence is all that necessary a tool for a person to have. Thinking about this dishwasher and tools, it

obvious that he had at least emotional balance and some personality. What may be the most important thing he has

was opportunity.

If a person is lacking in some set of tools, ie intelligence, mental health, etc, then

opportunity is the venue in which tools that can make or break a person are learned. By opportunity I mean any one

of the following: good upbringing, loving and caring parents, a good friend, a good doctor or therapist, a good

learning environment, on and on. If a person has none of these things then the innate "fault" grows into adulthood

and probably becomes worse.

A person born with a faulty tool, can overcome that only if he is given the

opportunity: the environment, the help, the teaching, the patience of a family, the skill of a counselor, the love

of a friend.

I worked in a homeless mission for a couple of years teaching literacy. The program was a 1 on 1

setting, and I worked with 20-30 men in the course of 2 years. You can imagine the differences in intelligence,

personality, emotional states, etc.

Some were smart, some not, some had families, some not, some were abusive,

some not, some were ambitious, some not. Drugs, alcohol, abuse, abandonment. I met some of the best, most genuine

people in that place. Looking in from outside the walls few of these guys were taking personal responsibility for

their lives. Some made excuses, some didn't. It didn't matter to me, and it was during that time that I learned

from them to make the best of my own situation. I realized that I had the magic combination: a problem (depression)

and an opportunity (a caring friend, and later a great counselor).

The fact that they were not taking

responsibility for their lives is not even an issue. They, like your dishwasher, were playing the hand they were

dealt. The whole point of the literacy program was to give them better cards. If they didn't play the cards well

then so be it, I learned that some people are not able to understand the deck, not to mention the game. Its

disappointing, but yes, there are also some who are capable but just won't play to the rules. Well, ok, I don't

understand but I won't condemn.
I use this as an example because its pretty blatant. The fact is that the same

scenario is going on around us all the time just down the street.

I cannot possibly agree with you more about

having compassion for people. IMHO that is the only thing that will change the world. I'm sure Jesus said that,

and probably others. To borrow your true saying, teaching a man to fish not only feeds him for life, but it teaches

him that he can teach others.

I think if you're goal is taking responsibility for your every action then you

have a privileged position in life. And good for you I might add, with no sarcasm

whatsoever.





In contrast to you, there is a lady living near me that is bipolar.

When she takes her meds she is able to cope. But she refuses so is supported by the state. Her family has to deal

with her rages and depression. She is not practicing responsibility for her actions.

Mental disorders are

a snowball rolling downhill collecting emotional disorders. Who knows her story, or her life? You may be right in

condemning her, or wrong. She may not have been given an opportunity. Or she may be satan-in-your-neighborhood.

We all have those. :)


No, I do not see an end solution to anything, I see process and

development that requires constant change and growth. Personal responsibility requires that I keep adjusting to the

world around me.


I really like this quote, and live by it. I see part of responsibility as being

humility... allowing weakness and encouraging growth in others.

Well, this reply has been over several hours and

many interruptions, hope it makes sense.

Thanks again Bel for a good discussion.

[belgareth]

Certainly, he had some of the

tools to survive in the world. He made use of the limited tools he had. He still couldn't keep a house up or handle

his checking account unsupervised, that was where others came in. But he made the best of the tools he had because

he wanted to do so.

Sometimes we don't have all the tools we want to do the job. In place of the right wrench I

have been forced to use a pair of pliers. But you don't decide the job can't be done just because you don't have

a completely full tool box. Instead, you do the best you can with what you have. I can't tell you that my toolbox

is full or properly equiped or even that the tools in it are usable. I make do with what I have. That is what being

responsible for yourself is. Doing your best with what you have and not making excuses.

It sounds to me like

your work in the homeless shelter was a great experience. It also sounds like a group of people who, despite their

personality differences, were all doing the best they could with the tools available to them. They were trying and

in doing so, they were taking responsibility for themselves. That is the whole issue. They played the hand they were

given to the best of their ability rather than expecting the world to do for them. They were learning to fish for

themselves.

True enough about the saying, it is a snowball that can be set to rolling and building. However, I

am not in any way a christian. There is a lot more to the universe than the christian world, in my beliefs. However,

there is a lot to commend in the christian belief.

You misunderstand me about my neighbor. I do not condem her

and will reach out a hand to her any time she makes the slightest motion towards wanting it. In her better times we

are friends and I do not give her a hard time about her bad times. That would be hypocrisy.

It is an interesting

discussion. And you even made me think a couple days before answering you. Much appreciated.

[idesign]

Certainly, he had some of the tools to survive in the world. He made use of the limited

tools he had. He still couldn't keep a house up or handle his checking account unsupervised, that was where others

came in. But he made the best of the tools he had because he wanted to do so.

Sometimes we don't have all the

tools we want to do the job. In place of the right wrench I have been forced to use a pair of pliers. But you don't

decide the job can't be done just because you don't have a completely full tool box. Instead, you do the best you

can with what you have. I can't tell you that my toolbox is full or properly equiped or even that the tools in it

are usable. I make do with what I have. That is what being responsible for yourself is. Doing your best with what

you have and not making excuses.

It sounds to me like your work in the homeless shelter was a great experience.

It also sounds like a group of people who, despite their personality differences, were all doing the best they could

with the tools available to them. They were trying and in doing so, they were taking responsibility for themselves.

That is the whole issue. They played the hand they were given to the best of their ability rather than expecting the

world to do for them. They were learning to fish for themselves.

True enough about the saying, it is a snowball

that can be set to rolling and building. However, I am not in any way a christian. There is a lot more to the

universe than the christian world, in my beliefs. However, there is a lot to commend in the christian belief.



You misunderstand me about my neighbor. I do not condem her and will reach out a hand to her any time she makes

the slightest motion towards wanting it. In her better times we are friends and I do not give her a hard time about

her bad times. That would be hypocrisy.

It is an interesting discussion. And you even made me think a couple

days before answering you. Much appreciated.

Exactly, your dishwasher had the opportunity of caring

people in his life. They filled the gap in his life which gave him a platform to stand on. Others were responsible

for the gaps in his life, and he need only step out from a caring and loving place.

In my rambling I think I

failed to make my point, my fault. The point was that a large number of the guys at the mission were ultimately not

taking responsibility for their lives, even the ones who were trying to learn to read. Almost exclusively they did

not have support from anyone outside the mission, and no benefit from a family.

Sure, maybe some were trying, but

some did not try, and some were trying and failing. To me it did not matter what level of responsibility they

achieved, trying or not. Taking responsibility and succeeding was an achievement, but pretty much irrelevant to me

as to their worth or place in the world.

There are a lot of preconditions to responsibility, and it is a "high

order" of behavior in a very technical sense. Its a worthy goal to be sure, but the people I encountered who

exhibited the higher human qualities of love (in its truest form), forgiveness and acceptance, despite their lack of

social integration, deserve more respect than many give them.

Those who merely act out from a place of weakness

or immaturity in their lives should be given time, and during that time the support they need to nurture and achieve

the responsibility which society covets. At least to the point that they can function in a group. That is a worthy

goal, of course.

A man who is ultimately responsible for his actions is ultimately responsible for himself, to

himself, and to his own self-made ideals. Humanly speaking, I would not want to be in this position.

To assume

that there is something greater than oneself is to assume that one cannot comprehend it. That leaves us in the

humble place of learning and/or apprehending that which we do not know. You can't "not name it". You either

believe in "man", and his intellect, or something greater. If you believe in man's intellect, that is the same as

believing in yourself and your own intellect, in which you are capable of creating your own world, for good or ill.

Maybe that's the problem...

Edit: this is taking a philosophical turn along with the rest. Let it be known

that there are no targets, unless you wanna be... :) in which case tell me I'm full of it.

[belgareth]

That's where the other side

comes in. Within limits, we all have the responsibility to be compassionate and help others in need. Family does, of

course, have the first reponsibility but there are many cases where there is no family or the cannot provide needed

support. That's where social responsibility comes in. Either or both should be there to provide for, to fill in the

gaps as needed. Nobody is perfect and everybody needs help at times.

But that brings us to another quandry, how

much should we as a society do for others? Does society have an obligation to support a person who will not try, who

will make no effort in their own behalf? If yes, to what degree? A substenance living on welfare? How about a dorm

situation where they get food, shelter, medical care and the opportunity to improve their lives? What do you do when

they choose to abuse even that? Do you give them bread and circuses? Do you allow them to choose to forever be a

burden on the social fabric and teach their children the same values? Do the productive ones have the obligation to

support those who choose to not participate? Does society have the right to force participation on either the needy

or the productive? In my mind, there has to be some limit to what help can be provided and there is a firm limit of

forced participation for either group. I don't have all the answers and likely don't even understand all the

questions but the issue is troubling.

Perhaps you and I see personal responsibility differently. From my

perspective, you already are completely responsible for every thing you do. It isn't a matter of choice whether you

are or not, the only choice is whether you accept or acknowledge that responsibility and act accordingly.

How

can you name something you cannot comprehend and can barely concieve of? To name it confines it to your own

definitions of that name. Man should be humble! Why should man regard himself above the other life on this or any

other planet? Our vaunted intellect has done many great things but has also caused untold pain and suffering. Is

that something to be proud of? Man's mind is limited to a very small speck of dust orbiting a tiny sun in the far

reaches of a huge galaxy, one of many millions of galaxies. We should be humble in the face of that awsomeness. Many

things happen all around us that we do not understand yet we claim by right of birth to be masters of all that

surrounds us. What nonsense! All we can really do, in that face of our insignificance, is our best at whatever we

do. Anything less would be a waste of the gifts given us.

[belgareth]

To any who are interested.



A thread was removed from the forum. However, there was some interesting discussion in that thread. I copied the

discussion that seemed irrelevent to the reason the thread was removed and created a new thread. If the conversation

seems a little disjointed, that's because of the need to skip over certain posts. I apologise for any inconsistancy

or misunderstandings it may cause. It is not intentional.

Bel

[idesign]

Thanks Bel.

I look forward to

more interesting discussion. I hope that others might chime in and offer opinions. Feel free to speak, this is a

hostility-free zone.

On that note, I'm off to a hopefully hostility-free party.

Wishing you all a very

Happy New Year,
Greg

[idesign]

Perhaps you and I see personal responsibility differently. From my perspective, you

already are completely responsible for every thing you do. It isn't a matter of choice whether you are or not, the

only choice is whether you accept or acknowledge that responsibility and act accordingly.


I don't

think we see it that differently at all. Those who are capable of accepting responsibility are under the obligation

of using it. And there are no free rides for the silliness of some excuses you read about.

On the other hand,

there are those who, for one reason or another, just do not have the capability. Agreed, there are some who

"skate", and avoid what they are capable of achieving. However, there are those who need support, training,

counseling, time, understanding, etc. There is no passing judgement on any person whose experience lacks what you

and I have been given.

On a similar point, I have trouble with the words "ultimate" or "complete". A humble man

will never say that he has "complete" responsibility for anything, himself included. Maybe I'm splitting hairs,

and you don't really intend these words in their truest meaning.

If you do, then you really are treading on

spiritual ground, setting yourself up as an arbiter of life and how its lived.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

If not, then we can get to the last part of your last post.

[DrSmellThis]

Interesting. This is pretty

much the exact same philosophical issue Belgareth and I went around about years ago, in a very similar manner:

whether human responsibility is "absolute", etc. Same debate.

Idesign, I find your perspective a nice angle on

the issue. You are bringing up many of the same issues I did, in your own way. Belgareth seems to be keeping the

faith with his approach nicely.

BTW, Bel and idesign, I admire both of your capabilities to keep things cordial

and "intellectual."

I haven't chimed in because I wasn't about to participate in the "other thread" that this

discussion was pruned from. And frankly, I also wouldn't want to add anything to distract you all from what you are

already disussing so well without me. I do enjoy reading it.

But in hindsight, FWIW, maybe it would be useful

to talk about different "kinds" or senses of "responsibility" (which is, after all, just a word), that have

different definitions -- if both parties were willing. Philosophers often do that. That might make it possible to

come to more agreement on what is happening with people -- if that's even a goal for you all.

Or not. Carry on

and enjoy.

[belgareth]

Hey Doc, please join in. You

would be a very welcome addition to the conversation.

I do appreciate your forebearance earlier.

[belgareth]

Ok, Greg. Maybe it is a matter

of definition. If you are standing on a street corner, who's choice is it to stand there? You could as easily

choose to walk away or sit down. Only you can make that choice, nobody else. If, by some weird fluke, a car jumps

the curb and hits me, who's responsibility is it? I was there of my own volition and should have been aware of the

risks. It may have been the driver's FAULT that he lost control of the car but I still knew it was a risk to be

standing on the curb. Should I have been paying attention to the traffic around me? Should I have chosen to stand

someplace else? I cannot control all possibilities but I can be aware of the risks of any action and manage those

risks. That is being responsible within my capabilities. If I choose to go skydiving, I am responsible for those

risks too. You can bet I'll spend a lot of time checking my parachute and the airplane before we take off.

If

you try to learn something new but are incapable of learning it for whatever reason, you are still the person

responsible for having tried regardless of the success or failure. It isn't a question of whether or not you are

responsible for your actions, it is a question of accepting that you are responsible. The success or failure is

secondary. Even the fact that you tried is secondary. That you voluntarily took an action is the only real pertinant

fact.

Being responsible or not isn't a matter of judging somebody else. One has nothing to do with the other. I

do not judge you other than how it impacts me directly and the only judgement of you I am entitled to is whether or

not to allow you to impact my life. Then I should take whatever action I feel is appropriate, without anger or

rancor. If I feel it is appropriate to fight, I fight. If I feel it is appropriate to walk away, I walk away. If I

feel it is appropriate to laugh or if I feel it is appropriate to hand that person a thousand dollars I do it

because I choose to do it. And in the end, because I did what I what I believe was appropriate I am responsible for

what I did.

Tomorrow, in the kitchen cutting carrots I manage to lob off a couple fingers. Certainly, it will be

an accident. But I am the one holding the knife, I am the one who sharpened it prior to use and I am the one that

cut my fingers off. Who else could be responsible for my actions but me?

Recently I read that infinite

responsiblity results in infinite guilt and that may be where you are coming from. It does not apply because, while

we all have responibility to help one another, we cannot be responsible for another's actions. Thus, if you try to

do something or need help, I will help. But, if you decide that you want to sit on the porch and drink wine all day,

you are free to do so. I have no responsibility for that decision and no right to try to force you to do otherwise.

However, if you do make that decision, I have no obligation to make sure you get fed. Nor should I feel guilty if

you drink yourself to death. By the same token, if you need help and try to do something, when you are successful at

it, you are the one that gets the credit for it. You made the decision to do that thing. If I helped you, great. The

accomplishment is still yours. My help was no more than acting as a ladder or stepping stone. I may have been a

superb stepping stone and have the right to be proud of how I did that, but you are the one who took the step.

[idesign]

Hi Doc, very appreciative of

your remarks. I've been thinking that we were completely missing something and you nailed it on the head.



Different responsibilities relate to different modes in life, pragmatic, emotional, social, relational,

familial. etc. I guess that each person will exhibit different levels of responsibility based on particular time,

place, environment, capability etc. Is this what you're talking about?

Yes, agreement is always good where it

can be found. I really think Bel and I agree on a lot of this but have differences in approach. Finding common

terms or language would help. But if there's disagreement that's ok too.

-Bel, you've written another

prolific post, and I have to sort it out. I can see, though, that we continue to have at least some agreement. I

think in a couple of your examples personal responsibility is really not an issue. Standing on a street corner is

just getting a cab, I'm not responsible for anything except getting my date home.

[belgareth]

-Bel,

you've written another prolific post, and I have to sort it out. I can see, though, that we continue to have at

least some agreement. I think in a couple of your examples personal responsibility is really not an issue. Standing

on a street corner is just getting a cab, I'm not responsible for anything except getting my date

home.
Really? You didn't put yourself on that corner? Were you somehow beamed there against your will?

Cool trick! :rofl:

Seriously? You are going to get into a cab with a guy who happens to have an ax on the seat?

And you aren't going to look before you step out into the street? Might you notice if a guy wearing a hockey mask

and carrying a chainsaw happens to be running at you? The point is that you are not 'Just standing at the curb'.

You are there because you decided to be there and I would bet that it isn't a bad part of town after midnight while

waving hundred dollar bills and insulting the locals.

[DrSmellThis]

It might help to clarify what I meant by definitions

being an issue.

For example, it may well be possible to define responsibility, or freedom, in such a way as to

be legitimately absolute.

Why? Bottom line: Because we always have a modicum of freedom in any situation. It's

the "whatever you can do, to whatever extent, you can absolutely do, to that extent" approach.

Scientifically

speaking, it's about prediction: You can't add up all the "non-agentic causes" of behavior and completely predict

what someone is going to do. Causes of human behavior that are internal to some process of "freedom" are often

referred to as "agentic" causes, in the psychology of volition ("volition" roughly = "will").

There are always

situations where someone could perfectly well have done some thing other than what they did, whether by intending to

do so, trying, or what have you. At least that's the idea.

And there is a lot of psychological research, of all

things, that demonstates fairly compellingly that when someone tries to do something, they have a certain amount of

control over what they do.

Believe it or not, even this seemingly straight forward common sense conclusion is

controversial within the sciences, which traditionally exclude free will from consideration; and study only external

(non-volitional) causes from the "rest of nature"; like chemicals and physical forces.

But if you define that

"limited" (limited by the sum total of all non-volitional processes within nature) realm of control as yours, and

say you have absolute control over that, by definition, then you can define that as your "responsibility".

It's one kind of responsibility, anyway. An important kind.

You can then try to go the next step, of saying you

have some sort of "moral obligation" to "try your hardest" within that realm. Or you can say if you don't, no one

else is responsibile for helping you with that. Or not. Or some variation of the above. This part is tricky too, if

you are trying to establish a rational basis of argument, as the discussion so far has proved.

My academic

advisor was probably the biggest name in the psychology of volition, due to having first developed the experimental

methods to research it scientifically.

In my mind -- and I studied this issue intensively in grad school, from

a scientific as well as philosophical perspective -- that is what one would do to most successfully argue an

absolutist free will/responsibility position. Otherwise it might get down to matters of faith, and leave the realm

of rational debate.

Of course, there will be folks who will argue against even this position, citing various

neurological factors, genetics, upbringing, old habits, culture, etc. as external causes of all the choices

we make. Both sides have their absolutist folks.

On the other side are the determinists. There have always been

those who argue we have no freedom whatsoever, and therefore no ultimate "reponsibility" whatsover, in the

strongest sense of the word (again, definitions!). There have always been those who argued freedom was an

illusion. If there were a such thing as "responsibility", it would be merely a matter of social and legal

convention, something put onto people by others, or whatever. A concept. A word.

It has always seemed that this

age old debate was unresolvable; purely the realm of street opinion, contentious philosophy, and theology.

But

all these external and internal (volitional or agentic) causes of behavior either do contribute as causes or they

don't, to whatever degree they actually do.

In other words, it's an "empirical question". Because of that, you

can look at the whole thing as a scientific question, open to be answered by solid, scientific research. It's not

just about somebody's opinion or beliefs, however strongly held.

Appropriate case studies or even anecdotes

can of course support a scientific approach, being sort of empirical in their own way. That is one reason why this

discussion has been interesting.

Indeed, such research already exists, albeit in an early scientific stage,

since around 1980. I think it shows neither extreme is the most rational position to take.

Research seems to

indicate that freedom is neither an illusion nor an absolute, by most useful definitions. And as freedom goes, so

goes responsibility.

I don't know if it is even possible to isolate freedom, choice, and responsibility

in such a way as to make it an absolute in either direction.

To attempt an extreme example, the extreme

freedom/responsibility advocate might argue that even a totally paralyzed person has freedom to focus mentally on

one thing versus another -- but does he or she really, in an absolute sense? Is a "pure" case of absolute

freedom (or human determinism/fatalism, for that matter) even possible to define?

Even the simplest, most basic

thoughts seem to be, at least in part, determined by brain biochemistry, among other factors such as culture. That

applies as well to any thoughts related to trying to do something, for example. If so, no one could be absolutely

responsible for trying their best, or even intending to try their best! Even a thought of, say, "wanting to intend

to try somewhat" is subject to the forces of external causality, to some degree.

If even the most basic

thoughts that give rise to actions aren't "freely determined", then how could any human action be?

That is the

determinist side of the coin. I'm not so sure it can be ignored; unless at the peril of rationality. This isn't an

easy debate. Researchers have also struggled to answer all the questions, even in the simplest cases. And so, as

both of you have suggested, humility is a virtue.

Sorry for the long post. I tried to be brief initially, but it

just doesn't work with this issue.

[idesign]

Really?

You didn't put yourself on that corner? Were you somehow beamed there against your will? Cool trick! :rofl:



Seriously? You are going to get into a cab with a guy who happens to have an ax on the seat? And you aren't going

to look before you step out into the street? Might you notice if a guy wearing a hockey mask and carrying a chainsaw

happens to be running at you? The point is that you are not 'Just standing at the curb'. You are there because you

decided to be there and I would bet that it isn't a bad part of town after midnight while waving hundred dollar

bills and insulting the locals.

Following your first example, I could be responsible for my own death if

I merely woke up in the morning and an asteroid fell on my house. Ooops, I forgot to watch the news!

As for your

other examples, of course common sense prohibits placing oneself in a dangerous position. I suppose it is a matter

of basic responsibility, but really responsibility oriented in the realm of "don't be stupid" on a very basic

level.

We're getting way beyond the behavioral aspects of responsibility in living peaceably with others, which

is where we started.

I see that DST has posted again, have to catch up with his and your other posts.

[belgareth]

Living peaceably with others is

part of responsibility? No, I don't think it's quite that simple. If I saw somebody harming another person it

might be my responsibilty to step in and stop them and that might require violence or force on my part. How about we

rephrase that to say 'Never do harm unnecessarily'?

I regard all life the same, whether it be a human or a

butterfly or a daffodil. Life is life and all must be treated with the same respect. That does not mean that I quit

eating because it would destroy a life. It means that I do not hunt for pleasure but I would have the same

reservations about killing a man as I would a tomato plant. They are all a part of this world and I do not kill

anything unless it is required. Some call that an unhealthy outlook but I call it rational. Look around you at what

is being done to our world by rational human beings, ones who kill and destroy for personal gain or even pleasure or

because they were told too. Is it rational to fly an airplane over a city and drop tons of explosives on them

because some politicians say so? How is that different from killing a wasp nest to protect those around you? Is it

more responsible to surrender your soul to another and blindly kill for no better reason than a government or

religion said to do it? Or is it better to kill because you were providing food for the table?

It opens lots of

tough questions and that is where personal responsibility comes in. You are responsible to decide what you will do

and you are responsible for the results of your actions. But you cannot be held responsible for the actions of

others.

[idesign]

My brain hurts.

Doc, you

present a severe challenge to a layman. Reminds me of a HS teacher who I hated at the time but remember fondly now

for what he was doing and did.

I can see that what you posted goes directly to the discussion, and even

understand it, but will take some thinking on my part for a proper response. Thanks for your insight, I think.

:blink:


Bel, what I meant was that we are responsible for peaceably living with others to the extent that we

act according to certain social standards, ie being polite. Of course we can't predict or control others'

behavior, but most of us are able to not incite bad behavior.

[belgareth]

Doc, your post was insightful

and an interesting read but I disagree with Greg on the pertinence to the thread. We are talking about a

philisophical point here and you are talking about research, making a valid scientific point.

[idesign]

IMHO, this is one of those areas

where science and philosophy are inseparable, especially when an idea like "free will" is involved.

For a

scientist to discount will as a determining factor is in itself a philosophical position. To devote oneself

exclusively to will and discount the obvious and proven "non-volitional" factors amounts more to faith than

philosophy.

A middle ground is the obvious common sense explanation, with volitional and non-volitional factors

each playing a role in varying degrees based on the individual and a multitude of external factors.

[idesign]

It

might help to clarify what I meant by definitions being an issue.

For example, it may well be possible to define

responsibility, or freedom, in such a way as to be legitimately absolute.

Why? Bottom line: Because we always

have a modicum of freedom in any situation. It's the "whatever you can do, to whatever extent, you can absolutely

do, to that extent" approach.

I guess that means you can be "absolutely" responsible to the extent that

you have control over your will and external factors, over which you have only some control. An absolute with

constraints is not absolute.



And there is a lot of psychological research, of all

things, that demonstates fairly compellingly that when someone tries to do something, they have a certain amount of

control over what they do.

Believe it or not, even this seemingly straight forward common sense conclusion is

controversial within the sciences, which traditionally exclude free will from consideration; and study only external

(non-volitional) causes from the "rest of nature"; like chemicals and physical forces.

I think most of us

have a LOT of control over what we do if we think. I wonder why one would study behavior without including will?

To narrow the study to find out more about the relative influences of external factors?




But if you define that "limited" (limited by the sum total of all non-volitional

processes within nature) realm of control as yours, and say you have absolute control over that, by

definition, then you can define that as your "responsibility". It's one kind of responsibility, anyway. An

important kind.

Well, right on bro. This is the point of agreement I was looking for with Bel. Control

within the realm of capability of such is indeed possible. This is the "definition" I've been looking for.




You can then try to go the next step, of saying you have some sort of "moral

obligation" to "try your hardest" within that realm. Or you can say if you don't, no one else is responsibile for

helping you with that. Or not. Or some variation of the above. This part is tricky too, if you are trying to

establish a rational basis of argument, as the discussion so far has proved.

This part is nebulous I

think, and a higher order of responsibility would definitely have some "moral obligation".




My academic advisor was probably the biggest name in the psychology of volition, due to

having first developed the experimental methods to research it scientifically.

That would be some study.

How would you quantify free will? Interesting.


Of course, there will be folks who

will argue against even this position, citing various neurological factors, genetics, upbringing, old habits,

culture, etc. as external causes of all the choices we make. Both sides have their absolutist folks.



I think those things can be external causes of some choices, not all, and to varying degrees.




On the other side are the determinists. There have always been those who argue we have

no freedom whatsoever, and therefore no ultimate "reponsibility" whatsover, in the strongest sense of the word

(again, definitions!). There have always been those who argued freedom was an illusion. If there were a such

thing as "responsibility", it would be merely a matter of social and legal convention, something put onto people by

others, or whatever. A concept. A word.

:rolleyes: I've always liked the character "Data" on Star Trek,

but I've never identified with him...


It has always seemed that this age old debate

was unresolvable; purely the realm of street opinion, contentious philosophy, and theology.

But all these

external and internal (volitional or agentic) causes of behavior either do contribute as causes or they don't, to

whatever degree they actually do.

And the debate continues... All the things you and I and Bel have

mentioned effect behavior I think. Putting it into a scientific framework (thanks) is immensely important for a

better philosophical understanding. The boundaries are clearer, and better informed.




In other words, it's an "empirical question". Because of that, you can look at the whole thing as a scientific

question, open to be answered by solid, scientific research. It's not just about somebody's opinion or beliefs,

however strongly held.

This is where I think I have to disagree. With due respect to advancing

scientific advances, I'm not sure that quantifying and predicting human behavior is in the realm of possibility.

Even explaining it is somewhat of an "art form". Not that we should not try, but a complete understanding is just

not a capability that I think we have. The reasons I think that is beyond this discussion.




Appropriate case studies or even anecdotes can of course support a scientific approach,

being sort of empirical in their own way. That is one reason why this discussion has been interesting.

Indeed,

such research already exists, albeit in an early scientific stage, since around 1980. I think it shows neither

extreme is the most rational position to take.

Research seems to indicate that freedom is neither an illusion

nor an absolute, by most useful definitions. And as freedom goes, so goes responsibility.

I don't know if it is

even possible to isolate freedom, choice, and responsibility in such a way as to make it an absolute in

either direction.

I like your remarks. I think that freedom just "is", and is tempered in many ways.

Interesting that we use the term "free oneself" when speaking of inhibiting factors to a healthy life.





If even the most basic thoughts that give rise to actions aren't "freely determined",

then how could any human action be?

To my thinking, this is what makes us human.




Sorry for the long post. I tried to be brief initially, but it just doesn't work with

this issue.

I know what you mean. Thanks again Doc.

Greg