Philosophy

» spiritalk - Pure Rawls

In response to Pure Rawls posted by redback:
It would appear we are adopting a model here...and with all manmade models (religions come to mind) there is a modicum of fallacy. There is no perfection in human existence.

This is where knowing self and exercising free will choices come in. With responsibility to the whole as the base, there is no harm done. Without this respect, there is no society anyway.

Meditation has been done in many traditions and many way. And by the way, it is NOT about stopping the mind...merely giving it another thought to replace the aberrant ones.

All agree, it has the capacity to bring the sitter to some form of peace within themselves. In this peace centre is a place to learn and grow in individuality without harm to any. That, surely, is the best model for humanity and society we can find.

God bless, J

-- posted by spiritalk

» pink101 - More Elephants?

.
These are some good and thoughtful posts from the three of you.
.
I like to read this kind of input.
.

-- posted by pink101

» redback - Pure Rawls

In response to Pure Rawls posted by spiritalk:

"Without this respect, there is no society anyway."

When we think in terms of the human or global society, our mind can take us on either an indulgent or a spiritual journey. But decisions affecting others creates tensions. And a designated society needs decisions, hopefully all good, hopefully all unanimous. A friction between the process and the program.

To me, I think there is some unrealistic expectations when we over-use 'society'. It's core values remind me of what became non-core promises ie made during an election, OK to be broken.

Call me a cynic, but there is a difference betewen a football team and a football club. What we may think is a society may be a club. An example: The team largely works together building loyalty where a few need or want to excel for the common good. A club member simply turns up to enjoy the facilities because its in the neighbourhood...and complain if the beer is not cold enough.

Meditation is OK. Just joking based on a real-life experiment where 'elephants', a deliberately abberant thought, was imposed on us.

-- posted by redback

» pink101 - Pure Rawls

In response to Pure Rawls posted by redback:
.
You are a deep thinker, Jeff.
.
"I think there are some unrealistic expectations when we over-use 'society'. It's core values remind me of what became non-core promises ie made during an election, OK to be broken."
.
Would you explain that a little more plainly?

-- posted by pink101

» spiritalk - Pure Rawls

In response to Pure Rawls posted by redback:

But decisions affecting others creates tensions

Is there ever a time it is right to make decisions for other people?

Even in global groups (UN) and/or National groups, the decisions have the consequence of election to be made.

God bless, J

-- posted by spiritalk

» redback - Pure Rawls

In response to Pure Rawls posted by pink101:
Hi spiritalk. Plainly, I don't know what people mean when they expect something from this thing called 'society' and the bigger the ask, the more it sounds unrealistic to me. People want to blame something and "society" is intangible in that context.
Is the simpler question to define society as it is or as it could be if only....? The 2 sentences you ask about, don't greatly add to my post.
"... Implicit in the meaning of society is that its members share some mutual concern or interest, a common objective or common characteristics."
By extension IMO, it is probably explicit in the meaning of 'society' that not all common concerns are met, interests, goals achieved by all, let alone the uncommon ones. And if the FBI did a profile on what 'common characteristics' mean, many would remain unidentified.
I think there are unrealistic expectations for many things. Being unfairly treated in the courts, in gaining medical treatment and in resolving whatever problems Christianism is perceived to cause...to name a few.
"I" might expect the doctor to do better for me but "we" expect society to do better in looking after the ill among us.
Pure Rawls is confusing.

"Is there ever a time it is right to make decisions for other people?"

YES if on behalf of other people and depending on the decision needed but your simple question seems to hide a complex question???

-- posted by redback

» redback - pachyderms

In response to Pure Rawls posted by redback:
I add for Spiritalk: I know a lot about a little, a little about a lot and nothing about other things by definition unknowable or yet to know. It's the insight from the little and lots knowledge and the variable faiths they bring, that steers me when confronted with the unknown.
I imagine we're all like this EXCEPT your "little and lots" may be at least different if not more useful than mine. It makes our likeness so different.
This topic and your references to self awareness et al, encouraged me to revisit this site:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-k...
Every so often, I only think of elephants.

-- posted by redback

» spiritalk - pachyderms

In response to pachyderms posted by redback:

You might think also...all our littles and lots are our own for which we take personal responsibility. This is no reason not to respect each others' littles and lots. It is in this respect that mutual trust and actions can come.

At least, that is a part of my littles and lots.

God bless, J

-- posted by spiritalk

» RLSharp - Pure Rawls

In response to Pure Rawls posted by redback:

Sorry, redback, I was vague when I was talking about the tolerance vs. respect issue. What I meant was this. Tolerance technically just means that I allow you to do what you would do. I put up with it. I tolerate it. Respect requires more than that. I could tolerate what you do because I feel like there's no way I could stop it. Or I could tolerate it because I feel people should be able to live their own lives. In neither case is respect required. We might tolerate children, but without ever respecting them. Still, tolerance might be enough for a society. I'm not sure. I'm still trying to work that part out for myself. I am, however, sure that there are people who tolerate other people without respecting them.

-- posted by RLSharp

» redback - Pure Rawls

That's OK. Vagueness visits me too. Many words carry nuances that differ between cultures or societies or whatever it is I'm living in that differentiates me from the USA.

I don't know by how much political correctness gone mad has corrupted meanings of words. I probably tend not to use words like 'respect' or 'tolerate' if I didn't grade the terms. Their values overlap for me.

I agree with you that there would be people who barely tolerate others so respect can't make it on their radar. I respect many children's achievments but barely tolerate (soon forgotten) their noise over my quiet cuppa. Endless analogies.

When we discuss the common goals of a generic society, the expressed thoughts of its members range from being barely tolerated through to highly respected. A lot of wiggle room for things to succeed or fail.

"Still, tolerance might be enough for a society."

Would that be achieved by simple majority where the vocal minority would have to tolerate it?

-- posted by redback