Philosophy

» spiritalk - Good Points

In response to Good Points posted by pink101:

Through introspection can come some worthwhile change...releasing old patterns, as an example. Some of our major societal and family problems seem to stem from repeated patterns over many generations.

God bless, J

-- posted by spiritalk

» pink101 - Reflection

In response to Good Points posted by spiritalk:
.
Reflection is closely related to introspection.
.
When we combine the two--it seems to me--we can move toward improved relationships with relative ease.
.

-- posted by pink101

» spiritalk - Reflection

In response to Reflection posted by pink101:

Do we sometimes need to be reminded to seek this within ourselves? The answers to all things are found within our own heart...if we but listen.

God bless, J

-- posted by spiritalk

» pink101 - Reflection

In response to Reflection posted by spiritalk:
.
The answers to all things are found within our own heart...if we but listen.
.
I hear that.
.
:)
.

-- posted by pink101

» paper_turtle - Good Points

In response to Good Points posted by LauriePK:

One way to encourage introspection is by teaching it to kids, both at home and at school -- in every day happenings, not necessarily as a separate subject. It can be woven into almost any experience!

When my son was in grade school, the school had a model it used in addressing problems--behavioral or general. Children were encouraged to first think about the choices they had made, and how these choices has brought about a particular outcome. They were then encouraged to think about what kind of choice they might want to make in the future to produce a different outcome.

This way of addressing the issues leads away from blame-fixing and creates an anmosphere more conducive to collaborative effort.

But it's also good to take a step back sometimes, and just accept that's the way you feel or acted, without analyzing it.

I agree--its not always necessary to rummage around in all the why's. Sometimes its better to just accept it, learn from it, and move on.

peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» pink101 - Good Points

In response to Good Points posted by paper_turtle:
.
Happy to see you're still around. Participants have been asking after you.
.

-- posted by pink101

» redback - Good Points

In response to Good Points posted by RLSharp:

Which "system" truly dictates? The legal system as you indicate for the blaming example, the justice system, political system or those who buck "unimportant" aspects of society's system of unwritten systems. Not to mention the spiritual concept of things pre ordained.

Tis interesting contemplating using a veil of ignorance rather than lifting it, for answers.

I'm too undisciplined. For example, I think the education system goes far beyond syllabi, the borders of the uni or school walls and that the concept of (human) 'society' is too broad for practical applications of universally consistent 'justice', Rawls style. (Unless we can isolate a small town in Texas for this development project cum 'thought experiment')

Status quo is relative ignorance for some, blissful for others. Those believing they are not ignorant may also be blissfully unaware they are stomping on others rights.

From Wikipedia: "... In the original position, however, representatives of citizens are placed behind a veil of ignorance, depriving the representatives of information about the individuating characteristics of the citizens they represent. Thus, the representative parties would be unaware of the talents and abilities, ethnicity and gender, religion or belief system of the citizens they represent. As a result, they lack the information with which to threaten their fellows and thus invalidate the social contract they are attempting to agree to"

You conclude with: "I leave it to you to decide whether this can work in practice." I'm still interpreting.

I think we also have to imagine skills like keeping a professional distance, honest intentions, being open minded (not empty minded), being objective etc don't produce what's truly needed by all. Wants remain variable?

That surely knowledge can be used well rather than only to someone's disadvantage? Imagine all these doubting thoughts also removed once safely ensconced behinds the veil?

This is also a challenge facing those who need to be as children to enter Heaven?

-- posted by redback

» spiritalk - Good Points

In response to Good Points posted by redback:

We all go to an afterlife. It is a place of heaven and/or hell depending upon our own thoughts and ideas.

The idea of children going to heaven is to do with the unsullied mind because of lack of life's experiences that tend to colour the adult's mind.

The more spirituality that colours our mind, in whatever manner, the more we find our heaven.

God bless, J

-- posted by spiritalk

» RLSharp - Good Points

In response to Good Points posted by redback:

I agree with the idea of being open-minded rather than empty-minded. First, we simply can't forget who we are, not because it is an imperative but because doing so is impossible. I can't forget that I am male or that I am an American, and I'm not sure that I SHOULD forget those things.

Second, I think we can remember who we are while still recognizing who other people are. A lot of people put this in terms of tolerance, but respect might be better. I can tolerate someone without respecting him or her. But in doing so, I could still condemn the action. Respect requires more than tolerance, and I think we can teach people to do this.

Third, I could envisage creating a society through Rawls's methods in a way that still tramples rights. Suppose I simply lack the imagination to realize the variety of things people might wish to do in a society. So I create a society that I THINK everyone would like, i.e. one where I don't care where I'm placed. However, the rights I create don't protect activities that I could never see myself or anyone else doing. In that case, I could create a society that prevents people from doing legitimate things, but not because I am malicious. Rather I would do so precisely because I am ignorant of such activities (and yes, I'm using 'ignorant' on purpose, as a reminder of Rawls).

-- posted by RLSharp

» redback - Pure Rawls

In response to Good Points posted by RLSharp:

"Third, I could envisage creating a society through Rawls's methods in a way that still tramples rights..."

Exactly. And I can see in your example, potential for a society worse than the ones we already have ie you in yours me in my Australian society. What I don't see yet is how did this become a value-added exercise? I don't know whether I was thinking beyond the Rawls exercise. When I think these things, I ask to what purpose. To achieve something different? Who was it said: "Something needs to be done, this is something so therefore needs to be done."

I don't see an either/or here. There are already Rawls streams within society IMO counterbalanced arguably by a myriad other streams. But Rawls 'theory' seems to be talking in absolutes or generalisations I always struggle with given their inevitable exceptions. I see compromises, degrees, overlaps, whenever terms such as 'tolerance', 'respect'...even 'condemnation' are used.

If I looked to find the operational or functional definition of the expression:

"I can tolerate someone without respecting him or her. But in doing so, I could still condemn the action."

my head would spin a la The Exorcist.

The freedom to annoy the hell out of me is a freedom I don't want to deny another!? I'll even defend to the death your right to do it, not. I may lack the imagination to know what a society would want fully condemned if equal opportunity was paramount.

Life is a learning experience God doesn't want to deprive us of. The introspection that Pink refers to and the thesis attempted by a friend a lifetime ago along the lines of incorrigible knowledge of one's self(?) makes it hard to "empty" my mind. I was told meditation helps...to totally clear our minds occasionally to stop thinking of elephants but all I think of then are...?

-- posted by redback