Speaking of unemployment

[creativesoul]

somehow nothing could be further from the truth! i know you do not lack imagination, having read your writing, i guess i was just lucky , had the right words at the right time!

[stilltrucking]

What I remember from the time I looked at those inkblots was was a lot of anxiety. I was trying so hard to come up with the right answers. I was 22 years old at the time and I could not get to sleeep at night without imagining a shotgun tucked up under my chin and my finger on the trigger. So I guess I could imagine somethings

My mind wanders far from the topic of this thread. Sorry

[hester_prynne]

NS: It being…?
I think it is you who misses the larger point that thievery, brutality, and murder, come from all sorts of directions, including our fellow humans. And that it really doesn’t matter a heck of a lot, in the final analysis, whether a virus or a felon steals your wealth, health, or kills you outright. Nor, can we exclude either cause from its ultimate source, i.e. ‘nature.’

HP;I think we have major differences in opinion here. I don't see felons, thievery, brutality and murder as from the ultimate source, rather more a weak manmade aberration, perhaps mostly due to lack of nurture at the heart of it, before it becomes a money-making subjective in the field of psychology.

I'm headed out today for a day with my mother and mother nature. My mom lives on a beautiful little island. I'm looking forward to a walk on the beach.
Mother's day present to myself.

H

[mtmynd]

NS : I think it is you who misses the larger point that thievery, brutality, and murder, come from all sorts of directions, including our fellow humans. And that it really doesn’t matter a heck of a lot, in the final analysis, whether a virus or a felon steals your wealth, health, or kills you outright. Nor, can we exclude either cause from its ultimate source, i.e. ‘nature.’

I agree with you, Hes'. We hu'mans have either been given a gift or a deception which we call 'free will' which has been discussed and pondered over as long as we have noticed our thoughts.

We choose between 'doing the right thing' and 'doing the not-so-right thing'... what or who benefits at what cost to who at the time. When we have a group of thieves who choose to call themselves bankers, which is taking a perfectly beneficial job for all, and turning that profession into a non-stop activity to accumulate wealth only because they can no matter who gets hurt (and we all know how many innocents fell from financial security), the people have to let there feelings be known and judge these criminal activities as one of choice the thieves made without regard to who they served.

If NS chooses to believe "it really doesn’t matter a heck of a lot, in the final analysis, whether a virus or a felon steals your wealth, health, or kills you outright. Nor, can we exclude either cause from its ultimate source, i.e. ‘nature,’" that certainly is one's perogative. But the overall tone of that statement hints at a 'who cares?' attitude because it's all natural in the end... a foolish concept, IMHO, and one that shifts the blame to something so large that 'we' matter little, when in reality 'we' do matter... our choice always defines our next move. Make it wisely or pay the price dearly.

[Barry]

My own take on “right,” is that it’s pretty much a subjective affair. We’re lucky on those rare occasions to even discover what is ‘right’ for ourselves.

But see, you assume I meant the subjective "right" of ethical or moral questions of right and wrong. I did not. I meant the objective "right" of what's factual and what is not. In that context it doesn't matter what we "think" or "feel" is right. What is right just is, whether we want it to be or not.

So I say again, I hope I never forgo learning what's right for being right.

Peace,
Barry

[hester_prynne]

MT;.......... Nor, can we exclude either cause from its ultimate source, i.e. ‘nature,’" that certainly is one's perogative. But the overall tone of that statement hints at a 'who cares?' attitude because it's all natural in the end... a foolish concept, IMHO, and one that shifts the blame to something so large that 'we' matter little, when in reality 'we' do matter... our choice always defines our next move. Make it wisely or pay the price dearly.

Indeed Cec, to shift the blame to something so large that we matter zero, is demotivating as hell for me. In that case, well, why the hell not cheat and kill??????Seems a childish, unevolved notion to me.

Is mankind becoming manunkind? I mean, look where we are now, what all the not mattering has done, to the planet and to folk's souls.
Sends a cold chill right through me.

Thank you for helping make what I was trying to say clearer.
You got it spot on.
H

[mtmynd]

Hes' : Is mankind becoming manunkind? I mean, look where we are now, what all the not mattering has done, to the planet and to folk's souls. Sends a cold chill right through me.

The changes seem to be coming faster and faster all around this old world of ours and with it a chaos within each that radiates a fear of not knowing the answers to what will be. If there is anything we can do it seems to remain as calm as we can. If we can accomplish this seemingly simple state, at least we can sit on the sidelines of confusion and accept that which may well necessitate truth over b.s..

[tarbaby]

I don't always take you at your word Non Sum. Sometimes I think it is just your shtick.

Kurt Vonnegut coined a word for it: samaritrophia

As Vonnegut defines it so appropriately, samaritrophia is causing more problems in American business and government than any other ideology or policy. ...

Anyone working in Corporate America sees the same thing every day, watching a continual parade of incompetent middle and senior management coming in, making a mess then leaving with a nice severance package and moving on to other horizons / disasters. The upper crust of Corporate America is exactly where most of the samaritrophia is cultivated and encouraged. Where do many top politicians in both parties and certainly the vast majority of policy makers in the Bush Administration come from? Corporate America -- the great "meritocracy" of the 21st century.

http://watchingtheherd.blogspot.com/200 ... ophia.html

The Plauge of the 20th Century
Samaritrophia: A hysterical indifference to the troubles of those less fortunate than oneself

Samaritrophia is the suppression of an overactive conscience by the rest of the mind. "You must all take instructions from me!" the conscience shrieks, in effect, to all the other mental processes. The other processes try it for a while, note that the conscience is unappeased, that it continues to shriek, and they note, too, that the outside world has not been even microscopically improved by the unselfish acts the conscience has demanded.

They rebel at last. They pitch the tyrannous conscience down an oubliette, weld shut the manhole cover of that dark dungeon. They can hear the conscience no more. In the sweet silence, the mental processes look about for a new leader, and the leader most prompt to appear whenever the conscience is stilled, Enlightened Self-interest, does appear. Enlightened Self-interest gives them a flag, which they adore on sight. It is essentially the black and white Jolly Roger, with these words written beneath the skull and crossbones, 'The hell with you, Jack, I've got mine!"

- Kurt Vonnegut, God bless you, Mr. Rosewater

[Non Sum]

Hi
MT: We hu'mans have either been given a gift or a deception which we call 'free will' which has been discussed and pondered over as long as we have noticed our thoughts.

NS: You’re right, MT, it is an ancient, and unresolved debate. Leaving plenty of room for each of us to choose our preferred flavor: ‘free will,’ ‘soft determinism’ (psychological estimation), or ‘hard determinism’ (fate fixed in concrete from the beginning of time). Mine is the latter.

MT: We choose between 'doing the right thing' and 'doing the not-so-right thing'..

NS: Begging the hell out of the question: whence cometh the inclination to choose A over B, or B over A. Alan Watts once pointed out that we think we choose when we first consider the alternatives, and then make a selection, but when did we choose: to choose to consider? And, when did we choose: to choose: to choose to consider? Etc.

MT: But the overall tone of that statement hints at a 'who cares?' attitude because it's all natural in the end..

NS: The “who cares” that you infer refers, not to the loss itself, but rather to the source of the same loss. If I steal $1.00 from you, or you accidentally dropped it, you are still shy a buck.

MT: 'we' do matter... our choice always defines our next move.

NS: How could it, if, as you suggest, I am free to choose my next move?

Hi
Barry: But see, you assume I meant the subjective "right" of ethical or moral questions of right and wrong. I did not.

NS: No, you assume that I made that assumption, when (‘in fact’ = in my mind’s opinion) I did not.

B: I meant the objective "right" of what's factual and what is not. In that context it doesn't matter what we "think" or "feel" is right. What is right just is, whether we want it to be or not.

NS: There are several definitions as to how a factual truth is determined (e.g. coherence, consensus, pragmatic grounds). I won’t fatigue you with epistemological exercises, but take my word for it, ‘right’ is always an airy affair regardless of which object categories you are referencing.

Hi
Tarbaby: Samaritrophia is the suppression of an overactive conscience by the rest of the mind.

NS: ‘Consciences’ are derived from ingrained cultural influences, viewed through a changing lens of perspectives. In short, a conscience may insist that you ‘steal and murder’ (in another’s eyes), though you will see it as ‘safeguarding and defending’. Why “suppress” a conscience, when one only requires a rationalization/justification? I would suggest that a ‘conscience suppressive’ person is a person who lacks imagination.

Kurt Vonnegut: It is essentially the black and white Jolly Roger, with these words written beneath the skull and crossbones, 'The hell with you, Jack, I've got mine!"

NS: It is Kurt who is stuck in the “black and white,” and missing all of the gray that comprises personal motives. More often ‘Jack’ gets sent off to hell by others via the road of good intentions.

[mtmynd]

NS: Leaving plenty of room for each of us to choose our preferred flavor: ‘free will,’ ‘soft determinism’ (psychological estimation), or ‘hard determinism’ (fate fixed in concrete from the beginning of time). Mine is the latter.

You chose/choose this 'hard determinism' over the first two you mention as if you believe your path has been known long before you were.

But yet you ask: whence cometh the inclination to choose A over B, or B over A.(?)

If I gave you an answer would you choose my answer over Alan Watt's comment? Or would you choose to even reply to this comment? Do you choose which stocks to invest in daily, weekly, monthly or occasionally?

I really am not seeking any answers to my own questions, NS, but merely suggesting choice leads to the next choice that arises as it may.

NS: If I steal $1.00 from you, or you accidentally dropped it, you are still shy a buck.

Wouldn't be the first time. Loss is a non-event in and of itself. It's the meaning behind what has been lost that may or may not pervade the mind... which choice becomes yours?

NS: How could it, if, as you suggest, I am free to choose my next move?

You ask the damnedest questions, my friend, as if you know nothing. I know better. You chose all the questions you have asked including this one.

[tarbaby]

I read an interesting bit the other day called The Moral Life of Babies. Interesting how quickly we derive our cultural influences, even in the womb in seems.

Yes you make a point about gray between the black and white. Human behavior is over determined. What interests me in these discussions with you is what are you thinking when you make your black and white pronouncements. Vonnegut was a satirist. He made his black and whites to tell a story. You constantly make black and white judgments. What is your point other than a game of King of the hill?


Sorry Non Sum, I stopped taking you serious.
I guess that is your shtick
It is just a game.
Enjoy
sincerely
Have fun with it.

Who can take any of it seriously?

We are made to be immortal, and yet we die. It's horrible, it can't be taken seriously. Eugène Ionesco

[Non Sum]

Hey MT, I was wondering what had become of you and Soo. I feel much better now, knowing that you’ve returned to fill in as my overly suppressed conscience.

MT: You chose/choose this 'hard determinism' over the first two you mention as if you believe your path has been known long before you were.

NS: Exactly, “as if.” To choose does not imply freedom, since that act too may be just as determined as the ultimate choice itself.

MT: But yet you ask: whence cometh the inclination to choose A over B, or B over A.(?)

NS: Yes, ‘whence’?

MT: If I gave you an answer would you choose my answer over Alan Watt's comment?

NS: I suppose that would depend upon how well you answered.

MT: Do you choose…?

NS: I, like all my fellow “pus sacks” (Buddhist endearment term for bodies) am determined to breath, excrete, and make choices. What else can a poor boy do?

MT: merely suggesting choice leads to the next choice that arises as it may.

NS: But, if it “leads to the next choice,” isn’t it already ‘determining’ to some extent one’s narrowed range of choices?

MT: It's the meaning behind what has been lost that may or may not pervade the mind... which choice becomes yours?

NS: Not sure you’ve stayed with the topic here? You were sympathizing with Hes about how major the differences between a losses’ source, while I am saying that ‘all’ events are natural events, regardless of outcomes, including natural humans and their actions. Untrue?

MT: You ask the damnedest questions, my friend, as if you know nothing.

NS: I’m sorry to be such a burden, my friend. Your patience is greatly appreciated. Actually, I do know “nothing,” beyond the inescapable ‘I am.’

MT: You chose all the questions you have asked including this one.

NS: Perhaps so, but who chose me to be me (i.e. this person who’s disposed to ask these questions)? One must dig deep to find the true origin of things beyond the mere proximate and apparent, no?

HI
Tarbaby: What interests me in these discussions with you is what are you thinking when you make your black and white pronouncements.

NS: I say “gray, not black & white,” and you respond by saying this??

TB: You constantly make black and white judgments.

NS: Any colorist will tell you that where there are both B & W, there is inevitably gray.

TB: What is your point other than a game of King of the hill?

NS: Always difficult to judge our own true motives. Near impossible to judge the motives of another. And, to construe another’s motives in a negative light, is more often an attempt to insult. But, in your case, I’m sure you are genuinely curious as to why I challenge established norms, and “common sense” notions, and can find no other alternative motives than that I must seek some egotistical reward. I wonder why the possibility that someone may seek intellectual stimulation evades your reckoning?

TB: Sorry Non Sum, I stopped taking you serious.

NS: Why apologize for being so astute, TB? Why would I want you to take me serious, when even I don’t? Do you want to be taken serious? Is the opinion of others important to you? Why is that?

TB: It is just a game.

NS: Now you’re getting it! What did you think, that your conversation was working towards world peace, and a cure for death?

TB: Who can take any of it seriously?

NS: Indeed. Yet, I sense that this saddens you, no? Lord Krishna says that this is all merely play (‘lila’), and to buy into it as real and serious is to set oneself up for needless suffering. How does he have that wrong, in your opinion?

TB: Quote:
We are made to be immortal, and yet we die. It's horrible, it can't be taken seriously. Eugène Ionesco

NS: Why “horrible”?? Especially if “it can’t be taken seriously.” Wouldn’t that imply that we should be laughing, rather than in ‘horror’? He contradicts, no?
BTW: we ARE “immortal,” only bodies die, ergo: don’t mistake yourself for a corpse.
NS (Never Serious)

[still.trucking]

Pray for me Non Sum

[hester_prynne]

Man, there is way too much thinking going on here for this heartist.
Here's how I feel about it:

Big wow whistle!

H

[mtmynd]

NS: Hey MT, I was wondering what had become of you and Soo. I feel much better now, knowing that you’ve returned to fill in as my overly suppressed conscience.

Due to new scheduling of shows my time has been altered to the occasional chit-chat. But I'm glad you feel better... that drab unhealthy face you carried seems to have slipped off for the good.

NS: To choose does not imply freedom, since that act too may be just as determined as the ultimate choice itself.

You do understand this statement was a choice of yours to write..? Such is freedom.

NS: I suppose that would depend upon how well you answered.

Suppositions suggest the vagueness of knowing. One might just as well whistle underwater.

NS: I, like all my fellow “pus sacks” (Buddhist endearment term for bodies) am determined to breath, excrete, and make choices. What else can a poor boy do?

Do the same as a rich boy.

NS: But, if it “leads to the next choice,” isn’t it already ‘determining’ to some extent one’s narrowed range of choices?

This sounds as tho you are choking on language rather than speaking without mind. Choices only narrow when confronted by Truth. Until Truth is known choices serve as alternative paths to achieving understanding.

NS: ... while I am saying that ‘all’ events are natural events, regardless of outcomes, including natural humans and their actions. Untrue?

There, you've said it. But yet you still question it's truthfulness... as well you should.

NS: One must dig deep to find the true origin of things beyond the mere proximate and apparent, no?

Go within, go deeply within until all questions are answered or become irrelevant. All else are simply opinions from the chattering mouths of speaking hu'mans.