![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 2 to 26 of 26. Go back in thread:
Posted by Racer on May 9, 2004, at 18:59:45
In reply to »Racer: et al: What is reason? my history....., posted by 64bowtie on May 9, 2004, at 17:47:39
I have to admit, though, I'm put off a bit by the feeling that I get that you're saying that this is always and invariably what has lead to the troubles people here have experienced. I always distrust absolutes, though, so that would be enough to set up my hackles.
I think I'm also troubled by something I can't quite put into words, though. You seem to be saying that, if one follows a set of instructions -- Step One, Step Two -- relief from psychological problems will be the inevitable and easy result, and that we're wrong if we don't just do it the way you've set forth. Since I assume you mentioned me for something I posted elsewhere, you may also have seen what I expressed about my own experiences: that I am pretty harsh on myself for not being able to put my knowledge on and just fix everything. After all, it's so easy, isn't it? So, when I read many of your posts, it seems as if you're advocating One True Road To Relief, rather than sharing your own answers with us. And, again, I always get a sense of accusation in your tone, as well.
I guess what I'm saying here, Rod, is that I don't necessarily disagree with the principles you're putting forth. On the other hand, a more persuasive style of expressing them might be more compelling.
No hard feelings? Honesty should count for something, I hope, and I have been honest here.
Posted by Dinah on May 9, 2004, at 19:38:41
In reply to I agree with parts of that » 64bowtie, posted by Racer on May 9, 2004, at 18:59:45
Racer, not sure if you've seen Rod's website?
http://emerchant-services.com/10daycoach
per
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20040321/msgs/327006.html
Posted by finelinebob on May 9, 2004, at 19:53:21
In reply to »Racer: et al: What is reason? my history....., posted by 64bowtie on May 9, 2004, at 17:47:39
[Sorry about that non-sequitur...]
Is there a developmental neuropsychologist in the house?
Rod, if Piaget's beliefs (and how Americans misappropriated them to boot) went astray, it was in linking overt behaviors too tightly to underlying neurological structures and some sort of irreversible developmental progress altering those structures. The American insistence on establishing developmental yardmarks on stages of development in particular was something Piaget railed against.
Here's where a neuropsychologist could help, please.
From what I recall, developmental studies using modern brain imaging technologies show little difference in the fully developed brains of adults and those of children around age 3-4. Prior to that, however, there are significant differences. So, who's to say that differences in reasoning and decision-making between adults and children doesn't arise from differences in experience, not some biological developmental stage?
And adults aren't resistant to childish thinking. One of the best known Piagetian stage development yardmarks for infants is Peek-a-boo. Prior to 9 months, the game just doesn't make sense. When it does make sense is a marker of the infant developing Object Permanence. My point is that Piagetian theorists argue that the game gets old quick, and that a more mature brain should find the obvious existence of something hidden to be boring. Then again, there's the "Jaws" effect. You see the swimmer from under water. You hear the ominous music. You know what the movie is about. But still you scream when the shark finally attacks. And some people keep screaming no matter how many times they see the same scene. Object permanence, after all these years!
Social cognition theories talk about a Cognition-Affect-Behavior cycle in which an affective response is inseperable from a thought. What distinguishes shame from guilt? Perhaps where we believe we have no control over a personal failure, we feel shame. If we did have control, if we could have stopped it, well, maybe guilt is what we feel.
That is, as far as I can tell, 100% consistent with your summation on how adults think: we don't reason via feelings, rather our feelings have reasons. But the basis of the conclusion rules out fundamental biological developmental differences. Experience is what differentiates children's and adults' thinking.
Let me take it one step further: Read my lips:
If you thought you knew what I was going to say or, even better, the intent I had behind those three words, then you know what a "ventriloquism" is. Can meaning exist for humans outside of a social context? A comtemporary of Piaget -- Lev Vygotsky -- would argue that mind extends beyond our skin and only truly exists between people, not within an individual. That's why I can appropriate someone else's words and you can understand what I mean by them. The thought exists in the culture, and it has meaning to the extent that we share that cultural artifact.
So where's the freedom in that? (It's there) What sort of ownership can we have over a thought? (It's there, too, but they're both in the culture, not our wiring).
Sorry ... just HAD to toss out some alternative hypotheses for you, Rod!
flb
PS. While there was arguably a greater percentage of the population in the Flat Earth Society in the Middle Ages than today, people in the know knew it was round. The ancient Greeks knew it as early as 500 BC, and Eratosthenes had devised a method to estimate its circumference around 200 BC, and wsa accurate to within 1%. Remember, Columbus left Europe thinking he would hit the eastern shore of Asia in about 5000 miles or so. Can't do that on a flat earth (barring non-Euclidean geometries)! ;^)
Posted by 64bowtie on May 10, 2004, at 14:08:07
In reply to I agree with parts of that » 64bowtie, posted by Racer on May 9, 2004, at 18:59:45
Question: why do folks worship the absoluteness of God without worshipping God? Absolutes can be an abstraction. Worshipping the absoluteness without worshipping the object is carrying the abstraction of the absolute to the worthless level. Yet, aren't Nations and religions "controlling" citizens and believers by implied disaster of not honoring the absolute?
Yep! I agree! Absolutes are an abstraction, and yep, are'nt.....tangible!
Rod
Posted by 64bowtie on May 10, 2004, at 15:01:50
In reply to Re: Now we see the violins inheriting the system!, posted by finelinebob on May 9, 2004, at 19:53:21
> [Sorry about that non-sequitur...]>
<<<I think in non-sequiturs so I didn't notice...lol
> Rod, if Piaget's beliefs (and how Americans misappropriated them to boot) went astray, it was in linking overt behaviors too tightly to underlying neurological structures and some sort of irreversible developmental progress altering those structures.
<<<...as I understand it, he was railing at the neo-shrinks of his day. Again, as I see it, he would applaud Damasio, Penrose, and the best and the brightest of "neuro-folk" for there successes. He could only imply what they have discovered categorically, since he lacked the inventions that have brought so much out of the darness and into the light.
>What distinguishes shame from guilt?
>
<<< One school of thought is that shame is a kind of guilt. Blame is guilt for what you do and shame is guilt for who you are. I like this as a tool to point out the antithesis of who you are is what you do (or did). It appears that until we separate who we are from what we do (or did), we can't find freedom because we are trapped by our deeds.> Experience is what differentiates children's and adults' thinking.
>
<<< You are conveniently leaving out genetic clocks, stored in the process regions of the chain molecule (little studied and less understood till the last five years). They have been linked to the feeling nature of children's memory storage, being replaced in adolescence by the picture nature (analogy or metaphor) of adult memory storage. I for one don't only store my memories as pictures, but sometimes as multiple transparencies deep, to create a resultant image when I look down through them. Do ask me why me. I must be a "freak of nature", (prone to self-deprecating humor).> So where's the freedom in that? (It's there) What sort of ownership can we have over a thought? (It's there, too, but they're both in the culture, not our wiring).
>
<<< Sad if you inferred that I said "wiring gives us freedom". Only what we do with changes to our wiring can ensure freedom and personal power. Our behaviors and emotions can be context appropriate more effective as adults when we notice and honor the change that was inexorable. It happened! Are we gonna deny and wallow in our dysfunction of trying to be an adult with childhood values, status, and expectations? I suggestion we find our "sea-legs" as adults and mix feelings and logic to our problem solving strategy.*** Sidenote: I continue to hear all around me, "Problem solving? I ain't got no problems to solve! what are you talking about?" Yet, when I challenge cleints to start looking for problems and conflicts happening like grenades going off all around them, they invariably report back that they apologise. They had no idea what a problem or a conflict was. They were looking for a 9/11 episode, not what to do for lunch. Disagreements are conflicts. Because we don't remember them, we think they got solved. Look more closely. If you find a pattern of coercion, look out!
> PS. (your comment about people "in the know", knew)
>
<<< I was clear to say, "...in the street". Also, let me point out that Gallileo was in Italy in the 1500's and under house arrest for spouting off against those "in the know", that the Sun was the center of the universe....., in the 1500's.
Posted by Racer on May 10, 2004, at 16:50:45
In reply to I agree... Absolutes......are'nt! » Racer, posted by 64bowtie on May 10, 2004, at 14:08:07
For starters, you're doing something I've seen in a lot of academics: you're writing something so obstruse as to be meaningless at bottom. I realize that I'm oldfashioned and pedantic, but words are supposed to be a tool for communication. Even poetry is about communicating something to someone. When anyone writes something that I have to read multiple times to find the sense in, I figure there is a breakdown somewhere along the communication channel. Now, I'm insecure as all get out, and I generally figure I'm just not astute enough to understand the concepts involved. But once I've diagrammed every sentence, and modeled the reasoning -- well, if I still can't find good sense in it, I figure I'm not the end with a problem. I also noticed that you did not address what I wrote to you.
These boards are supposed to be about getting and giving support and information. From what you post here, it seems as if you are past the need for receiving support. Yet, your posts never tell us what you have gone through, what helped you get past it, and what steps you took to get there. You only tell us What To Do. (I think most of us have gotten a lot of that over the years. I know I have, and so I won't thank you for adding to it.)
Sorry, but if that's all you have to say, you're not trying to communicate with me -- think of it as "post" versus "get" in perl. One of those is two way communication.
Posted by 64bowtie on May 11, 2004, at 11:20:49
In reply to Nope, you don't agree with me » 64bowtie, posted by Racer on May 10, 2004, at 16:50:45
Pedantic is good...
20 or so years ago I was guilty of baffling-with-bull(doo-doo). I have worked very diligently to overcome that control-technique. I see it as a bad kind of manipulation, so I don't want to do it. If that is what you hear, thanx for telling me so. I'll "turn up the wick" on my effort.
Please evaluate me for my process. I am in progress toward better communication. My timing seems terrible, still. I've thought about putting myself "into the line of fire" by signing up to do stand up comedy amatuer's night, which would force me to think "timing!!!" because comedy is all in the timing.
Also, Racer, you are very direct about how if I can't communicate with you, I can't communicate. Am I reading you clearly? Bein' raised on a chicken "homestead", I can wax bucolic in an agricultural second. I think in mixed and "mixed-up" metaphors: "let's make like a tree and get the flock outta here". I collect chicken jokes. My picture at photos.yahoo.com/dr_rod1 is me on one of five tractors I've sold on eBay. I suffer from rusty memories, not Alsheimers; rusty is just slower (because I forgot to cover 'em up when the rain was a-comin').
Also, since I store memories several transparencies deep, I make connections today that people come back years later and applaud me for being right. Sorry. I'll try to keep that stuff to myself. I don't get conflicted anymore about being misunderstood. I also am not so arogant and in such denial that I am useless to myself. I am no longer my own worst enemy.
I am not here to offend. I only want to help; that includes myself.
Rod
Posted by spoc on May 11, 2004, at 11:52:50
In reply to Nope, you don't agree with me » 64bowtie, posted by Racer on May 10, 2004, at 16:50:45
> For starters, you're doing something I've seen in a lot of academics: you're writing something so obstruse as to be meaningless at bottom. ..
>
>I figure there is a breakdown somewhere along the communication channel. Now, I'm insecure as all get out, and I generally figure I'm just not astute enough to understand the concepts involved. ...I also noticed that you did not address what I wrote to you.
>
> These boards are supposed to be about getting and giving support and information. From what you post here, it seems as if you are past the need for receiving support. ...You only tell us What To Do. (I think most of us have gotten a lot of that over the years. I know I have, and so I won't thank you for adding to it.)
>
> Sorry, but if that's all you have to say, you're not trying to communicate with me...-----
Hi Racer, at the risk of doing something I was just advising *against* myself (posting the same thing multiple times), I find myself unable to avoid that because the discussions relevant here have been split into (now) seven locations! But they *warrant* being viewed together. In fact, I did not even know you had all "moved" to another thread on this particular board! But now I see it, and below is a link to my response elsewhere that you may find interesting.Although, I will now state again that I need to bow out of this (not that *you* stand in the way of that -- no, *I* tend to stand in the way of that). I get too obsessive, compulsive, behind on other things and stressed out when I participate! Anyway, please excuse the length of the post I am linking here! :- D
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20040507/msgs/345705.html
Posted by Racer on May 11, 2004, at 13:23:19
In reply to Don't see any progress in my posts??? » Racer, posted by 64bowtie on May 11, 2004, at 11:20:49
>>Also, Racer, you are very direct about how if I can't communicate with you, I can't communicate. Am I reading you clearly?
Nope, you're not reading clearly. I said that, when I read something I cannot break down and understand through diagramming and so on, I usually figure the communication problem is not with me. That was a general statement -- and there are always exceptions to general statements -- it was not directed at you personally, and I did not say that if you can't communicate your ideas to me, you cannot communicate at all.
That's all from me, Rod. Add me to your blocked list.
Posted by spoc on May 11, 2004, at 15:42:11
In reply to Re: Don't see any progress in my posts??? » 64bowtie, posted by Racer on May 11, 2004, at 13:23:19
Wow, what a convoluted web I may weave. It doesn't make sense for me get involved and then say I can't be involved. Just wanted to make sure it came across that when I say anything like that, I mean because I am a true Internet addict and it's infinitely clear I must limit myself, due to the havoc I wreak on myself and my obligations.
But I don't want anyone to think I mean, don't "banter" with me! I may *at times* just not be able to go round for round with weightier subjects; although I may still like to try my hand at getting an initial thought out before I realize I am in the grips of my "obsessive" need to tend all details again! ;- )
Posted by Dinah on May 11, 2004, at 16:19:54
In reply to Nope, you don't agree with me » 64bowtie, posted by Racer on May 10, 2004, at 16:50:45
Dinah here, acting as deputy for Dr. Bob.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Everyone, please remember the civility guidelines. Even if a poster encourages frankness, and even if the intent is to be helpful, please keep the civility guidelines in mind. I'm pretty sure the civility guidelines are a general rule about what is and isn't allowable on the site, and can't be overridden even with the poster's permission. I'm sure Dr. Bob will correct me here, if I'm wrong. And please do, Dr. Bob.
But until Dr. Bob comes by, please be careful. Here is an excerpt from the civility guidelines of the FAQ referenced above.
"It's fine to give others feedback as long as its constructive. It tends to be more constructive if you put things in terms of what the other person might do better rather than what they did "wrong". And it tends to be more conducive to harmony to talk about how you feel than what someone else did, for example, to use an "I-statement" like "I feel put down by what you said" instead of a "you-statement" like "you're so arrogant". But don't just try to disguise the latter as the former, as in "I feel Dr. Bob has gone overboard". :-)"
As always, posts about posting policies should be directed to Administration.
Thanks.
Posted by firenrain on May 11, 2004, at 22:58:32
In reply to Just a thought or two.... » finelinebob, posted by 64bowtie on May 10, 2004, at 15:01:50
> > [Sorry about that non-sequitur...]>
>
> <<<I think in non-sequiturs so I didn't notice...lol
>
> > Rod, if Piaget's beliefs (and how Americans misappropriated them to boot) went astray, it was in linking overt behaviors too tightly to underlying neurological structures and some sort of irreversible developmental progress altering those structures.
>
> <<<...as I understand it, he was railing at the neo-shrinks of his day. Again, as I see it, he would applaud Damasio, Penrose, and the best and the brightest of "neuro-folk" for there successes. He could only imply what they have discovered categorically, since he lacked the inventions that have brought so much out of the darness and into the light.
>
> >What distinguishes shame from guilt?
> >
> <<< One school of thought is that shame is a kind of guilt. Blame is guilt for what you do and shame is guilt for who you are. I like this as a tool to point out the antithesis of who you are is what you do (or did). It appears that until we separate who we are from what we do (or did), we can't find freedom because we are trapped by our deeds.
>
> > Experience is what differentiates children's and adults' thinking.
> >
> <<< You are conveniently leaving out genetic clocks, stored in the process regions of the chain molecule (little studied and less understood till the last five years). They have been linked to the feeling nature of children's memory storage, being replaced in adolescence by the picture nature (analogy or metaphor) of adult memory storage. I for one don't only store my memories as pictures, but sometimes as multiple transparencies deep, to create a resultant image when I look down through them. Do ask me why me. I must be a "freak of nature", (prone to self-deprecating humor).
>
> > So where's the freedom in that? (It's there) What sort of ownership can we have over a thought? (It's there, too, but they're both in the culture, not our wiring).
> >
> <<< Sad if you inferred that I said "wiring gives us freedom". Only what we do with changes to our wiring can ensure freedom and personal power. Our behaviors and emotions can be context appropriate more effective as adults when we notice and honor the change that was inexorable. It happened! Are we gonna deny and wallow in our dysfunction of trying to be an adult with childhood values, status, and expectations? I suggestion we find our "sea-legs" as adults and mix feelings and logic to our problem solving strategy.
>
> *** Sidenote: I continue to hear all around me, "Problem solving? I ain't got no problems to solve! what are you talking about?" Yet, when I challenge cleints to start looking for problems and conflicts happening like grenades going off all around them, they invariably report back that they apologise. They had no idea what a problem or a conflict was. They were looking for a 9/11 episode, not what to do for lunch. Disagreements are conflicts. Because we don't remember them, we think they got solved. Look more closely. If you find a pattern of coercion, look out!
>
> > PS. (your comment about people "in the know", knew)
> >
> <<< I was clear to say, "...in the street". Also, let me point out that Gallileo was in Italy in the 1500's and under house arrest for spouting off against those "in the know", that the Sun was the center of the universe....., in the 1500's.
>
>
I agree with your analogy of shame and guilt however, the idea of separating who we are vs what we do is far fetched to me. I believe this was written in the AA Big Book ... "We judge ourselves by our intentions. The world judges us by what we do". Hasn't any and everyone throughout history been judged by what they have done,written or painted? What other gauge do we have to measure by? That is not to say that there isn't value in all human life, but the sad reality is that society places a higher value in those who are smarter,prettier,faster, & stronger,always have and I believe always will. It's similar to the food chain and survival of the fittest... It is this realization that at times fuels my depression. I don't believe that makes it any less true... Please challenge my thoughts here ... also I am afraid that freedom from our deeds would change civilized society as we know it.
Posted by firenrain on May 12, 2004, at 0:57:19
In reply to »Racer: et al: What is reason? my history....., posted by 64bowtie on May 9, 2004, at 17:47:39
> Reason is a label for "lumpers" to not think about thinking... (Bad,Rod! Bad,Rod!)
>
> Did you ever wonder why children aren't capable of managing buying a house? They can reason. They can read the same books adults can. They could read a book on house-buying and do all the instructions. But they can't, or are not allowed to try, to buy a house. Wonder why?
>
> The results of "reason" to a child of five, six, or seven, is stored differently than when they are 17, 18, or 19. Five years ago all of this changed; a paradigm shift. 100 years from now, talk in the street will be about this change, trust me. In the 1500's, it took till the 1600's before talk in the street was about how the Earth was round, not flat, as it had been in the past.
>
> I call instincts "hardwire" elements to our nature. Here in the Silicon Valley (the Silicon Gulch to the locals), computer terms leak into my everyday parlance. Same thing, though. Instincts in humans act like "hardwired" does to a computer.
>
> However, genetics has thrown a wrench into the gearworks. We have genetic alarm clocks waking up this or that cell pattern, while putting this or that cell pattern back to sleep. Exempli Gratia: pubic hair; nuff said.
>
> Children store memories by satisfaction-dissatisfaction continuum. Remember, we come hardwired to avoid dissatisfaction. Bad-feelings are a no-brainer; circumstances that evoke them must be avoided in the future.
>
> Adults store memories more elegantly. Memories are pictures for efficiency. Vision is processing 95% of our waking time, so memories can be called up most quickly as pictures for the visual cortex of the brain. What gets tricky and elegant is that we carry some details from childhood memories as emotions.
>
> We no longer store the memories as feelings but we do add value to the picture by attaching a particular emotion to it. This is the nexus of intelligence. How chaotic our storage is determines our intellect. The myth is that mass quatities determines it, but if we can't get to it, we look stupider than we are while searching for it.
>
> We have a perception. We pass it by our belief filter (a tool). We sort out the attached emotional stuff. We check our options. We either add it to this or that pile of similar pictures, or do something fantastic; we suspend it till more information arrives; "Eureka! I found it!" phenomenon.
>
> The rewiring process, inferrentially alluded to by Jean Piaget over 80 years ago, is pretty much complete by age 15. From that time on, avoidance-of-the-new can seriously limit our performance. Yet many hold on tightly to the notion of avoidance, since they don't accept their newfound ways and powers of reasoning.
>
> They irrationally protect themselves from danger and evil that doesn't truly exist. They create more dysfunction than they avoid, thus more troubles in their lives. Then they go about their lives, and their families lives, creating layer on-top-of layer of more dysfunction. Then they demand their children, as well as their children's children, act in this same way.
>
> Istant multi-generational, multi-layer dysfunction.
>
> To recap: children reason with feelings; good=approach; bad=avoid. Adults reason via context appropriate sharing of thinking and feeling, reflecting on the pictures and studying them for value (feelings). Dysfunction emerges when reason is also based on a value sourced in the faulty belief used as a filter, or the picture is stored distorted by a faulty belief.
> Since a belief is a collection of facts and opinions which are supported only by testimony, faulty and distorted testimonies are the most common. Sad! Very Sad!
>
> I advocate suspension of beliefs until we can decide if the belief is ours, or has been induced onto us by someone else, making it their belief, not ours. Only then can we farret-out faultiness and distortion of beliefs closely held and useful to us. Only then can we find freedom, and those good feelings we been looking for.
>
> Rod
>Well said.
Posted by 64bowtie on May 12, 2004, at 2:24:42
In reply to Re:, posted by firenrain on May 12, 2004, at 0:57:19
Firenrain,
Thank you so much. I've had a bad week at Babble, so your careful reading of what I have posted is so refreshing.
Rod
Posted by 64bowtie on May 12, 2004, at 3:12:10
In reply to Re: Just a thought or two...., posted by firenrain on May 11, 2004, at 22:58:32
> ...the idea of separating who we are vs what we do is far fetched to me. I believe this was written in the AA Big Book ... "We judge ourselves by our intentions. The world judges us by what we do". Hasn't any and everyone throughout history been judged by what they have done,written or painted? What other gauge do we have to measure by?
><<< I saw several years ago that we can no longer be blackmailed by our past when we can separate who we are from what we do/did. My mentor, David Peck, said it this way, "Who we are is a fact. What we do is an opinion, a story about who we are. (The story) Doesn't change the fact of who we are. Also, facts are stored in a different part of the brain from opinion or belief". I have continued to improve on these and other connections made by David, and have come up with this social blackmail model.
Social blackmail is a control technique, not discussed in AA circles as much as Alanon (and other "survivor" program) circles. Remember, the big book was written by 100 folks that really cared, and was started in 1938. Lotsa science has improved on the tenets contained inside it since then. Bill W. was experimenting with mega-doses of B-complex vitamins when he passed away. Perhaps 12 step programs would have undergone major changes if he had lasted a few more years.
>
> ...also I am afraid that freedom from our deeds would change civilized society as we know it.
><<< For better or for worser?...lol
Why would you want to be trapped by what people think you outta be? I don't think you would. Remember, (Alanon again) what you think of me..., is none of my business! Also, if I judge my insides by other folks outsides, I'll loose every time!
(most everyone is struttin' their goods...
and hidin' their dirty linen...!)My insides can't compete with someone elses outsides can they? (If I'm irritating let me know). You claim to have an affective disorder, depression? Do other folks look or act depressed? Nooooo!!! See what I mean? Give yourself a pat on the back for being alive. They might be dead inside, and hiding it better than you can.
So what? Is that all life is about, looking good to feel good? I hope not.
Rod
Posted by 64bowtie on May 12, 2004, at 3:17:14
In reply to Please remember the civility guidelines, posted by Dinah on May 11, 2004, at 16:19:54
(((Dinah))),
I am sad If I have caused extra work for you or Dr. Bob. I was away for awhile and tried to post toooo much toooo soon.
I will do better as the process unfolds...
Rod
Posted by 64bowtie on May 12, 2004, at 3:46:19
In reply to Re: FYI, references to passing R due to MY issues, posted by spoc on May 11, 2004, at 15:42:11
Posted by spoc on May 12, 2004, at 10:21:08
In reply to So, the door is open for debate? (nm) » spoc, posted by 64bowtie on May 12, 2004, at 3:46:19
Hi Rod! (I just posted a response for you at your Admin thread too.) Thanks for dispelling any appearance of official blocks existing. The door is open -- to all things that foster goodwill between people! Or, maybe I should say, to all things virtually *guaranteed* to foster only goodwill between people! Yes, what I am saying is that for the sake of extreme caution, I am with Dr. Bob and Dinah all the way!
Dinah's seemingly obvious definition of what civility means here was actually very helpful to me yesterday. When she stated things in such a way that I finally understood that 'incivility' here doesn't necessarily mean that what was said would be likely to meet the definition of actual *rudeness* anywhere; but is rather -- and simply -- the person in charge's call as to what shouldn't be attempted here.
It was further revolutionary to me when, elsewhere, I also saw Dinah suggest to some people that they email their positions on a matter to Dr. Bob, since the issue would have been difficult to discuss within allowable PB parameters. AND -- she did *not* mean that anyone was necessarily going to flare up or disintegrate -- she simply meant (I believe) that the very debate itself *couldn't* fall technically within bounds here, even if the statements being made were *not* rude in any way!
Just technicalities of what's permissible, nothing personal as to anyone's ability or lack thereof to remain civilized! Such as, if I go into an Asian restaurant and must remove my shoes; or into some other cultural realm where I must cover my head, I don't *have* to get it, I just have to *do* it -- or not go there!
So all that being said, with no commentary on our respective abilities to handle this well from beginning to end, it wouldn't even be pleasurable or do justice to a subject with such a full spectrum of passionate views and potential examples, to dig into it within the firm limits of what is permitted here, by this private owner, and his right to make the rules.
We could make it a challenge and a potential growth exercise to try to do so anyway, and with all good spirits I acknowledge the possible usefulness of that, but choose to instead diligently set about my neglected obligations and keep the brain channels clear and focused on other things that will, for me personally, behoove concrete progress towards the priorities I'm messing up lately. And trust me when I say that I am, and while poor time management skills on the Internet and other personal business are areas I need to tackle eventually too, I must first apply myself to things like fulfilling my employment, organizational and cleaning needs.
Yes, strangely it *is* an either-or proposition for me at this point, so I know you will understand when I say that what I am doing is *removing* feeling and pleasure-seeking in order to do the responsible, mature, growth-fostering and selfless thing. Using reason over desires, just as advocated! But thanks for reopening the general lines of communication! :- )
Posted by spoc on May 12, 2004, at 13:36:10
In reply to Re: So, the door is open » 64bowtie, posted by spoc on May 12, 2004, at 10:21:08
Ok, just when I felt "complete" and began tackling other things, I started making myself paranoid over having unintentionally used only cultural examples in my last post (to illustrate the occasional rules or customs that we don't have to fully understand, just have to respect and comply with if we're gonna choose to be there).
Maybe I'm being silly but for the sake of caution, please allow me to add that I should have included other examples of the many situations wherein we comply happily with a rule we wouldn't necessarily have implemented ourselves if it had been up to us. Such as any mandates or requests we observe in so many places as we go through daily life, in airports or places of business or shopping malls or friend's homes, etc. etc.
Things designed to avert what wouldn't be all that unheard of to happen otherwise; and that have happened before in similar situations. Or, designed to enrich and improve an experience, in the opinion of the persons(s) in charge.
In other words, technical requirements that aren't judgment calls in any way, was what I meant to demonstrate -- mostly to myself, as the light was coming on. :- )
Posted by 64bowtie on May 12, 2004, at 13:40:11
In reply to Re: So, the door is open » 64bowtie, posted by spoc on May 12, 2004, at 10:21:08
We can do "Babble-open". You suggest a good time and I will do likewise. We must agree to stick to one topic per visit. ...discipline.
Email me at dr_rod1 at yahoo dot com. Give me your thoughts.
I'll agree if you'll agree and vicey-versey....
Rod
Posted by firenrain on May 13, 2004, at 8:20:48
In reply to Re: Just a thought or two...., posted by 64bowtie on May 12, 2004, at 3:12:10
So interesting. Wish I had more time. I want to see where this goes too. Be back tonight.
Posted by firenrain on May 13, 2004, at 17:31:33
In reply to I agree... Absolutes......are'nt! » Racer, posted by 64bowtie on May 10, 2004, at 14:08:07
> Question: why do folks worship the absoluteness of God without worshipping God? Absolutes can be an abstraction. Worshipping the absoluteness without worshipping the object is carrying the abstraction of the absolute to the worthless level. Yet, aren't Nations and religions "controlling" citizens and believers by implied disaster of not honoring the absolute?
>
> Yep! I agree! Absolutes are an abstraction, and yep, are'nt.....tangible!
>
> RodQUESTION... SOMETHING TO PONDER please take a moment to think about where I am coming from. A persons first experience with "God" is their primary care taker (that IS the master of their universe) so one can learn that their "God" will (1)fulfill their needs, lovingly set limits so to keep them safe, and trust that they will always be loved. Or (2) one can learn that their needs aren't important,that you mustn't do this or that because pain in one form or another will be inflicted, and they can come to believe that they are unworthy of love, and that love must be earned. Answer...How does one believe in the absolutes of god...(their are absolutes in this area all around, government for one) You must live this or that way or there will be HELL, FIRE and DAMNATION to pay. Lesson learned by child #2 (hardwire if you'd like). Worshiping, implies adornment, love, faith, trust. Faith and trust is a far reach for (the now adult) child #2. That is not to say one cannot change this belief system. However please do not try to tell me that something this complex (most people have no idea that this is the cause of their lack of faith, and once again believe it's simply another deficiency in their character) can be resolved in any 10 day course. If that were true couldn't we just post billboards and put an end to the suffering and dysfunction? This is extremely complex and I think to over simplify how and why we are would be way off base. The belief of the absoluteness of god in this text is fear and shame based so, yes this would etify no one thus reducing it to worthlessness. The worship of God is grace and love based, a completely different concept (in my mind at least).Does this make any sence to anyone else?
Posted by spoc on May 13, 2004, at 17:59:57
In reply to Re: I agree... Absolutes......are'nt! QUESTION ... » 64bowtie, posted by firenrain on May 13, 2004, at 17:31:33
Posted by firenrain on May 13, 2004, at 18:31:18
In reply to Re: I agree... Absolutes......are'nt! QUESTION ... » 64bowtie, posted by firenrain on May 13, 2004, at 17:31:33
What a nice compliment. Thank you and backatcha Spoc.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 14, 2004, at 8:27:36
In reply to Nope, you don't agree with me » 64bowtie, posted by Racer on May 10, 2004, at 16:50:45
> you're writing something so obstruse as to be meaningless at bottom.
>
> You only tell us What To Do.
>
> if that's all you have to say, you're not trying to communicate with mePlease don't jump to conclusions about others or post anything that could lead them to feel accused or put down.
If you have any questions or comments about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
or redirect a follow-up to Psycho-Babble Administration.
Posting something about your own issues and their possible role in your reaction might be an interesting exercise -- and might help others respond to you supportively.
Thanks,
Bob
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.