(Apart from the 10 minute wedding prep. I bet you 50 bucks that's hyperbole).

You owe me fifty bucks, ol' sock. I figured out the algorithm to looking good; wearing tonnes of make-up makes no difference to wearing a little bit of make-up. And shave your legs the night before. (Y)

Cheque's in the post. ;)

Frick. You made me burn the brownie.

Serves you right for getting your priorities wrong. :)

What's wrong with you? First you think broccoli is weird. Now you think baking a brownie is not a priority? Psychopath.

Au contraire, I meant replying to me should not be a priority. Yet you persist in repeating the same mistake!

Meh. Its called multitasking. I'm having a bath too and writing a sonnet for my pet fish. Gerald.

I am with Zizek on this heart and soul: — TimeLine

The one measure of true love is: you can insult the other

Desire is always fascinated with the obstacle, the rival. What is hardest to attain, what rejects it the most, what humiliates it, that is its attraction. The beloved which insults - the true mirage of desire, the imagination of the contradiction of rejection and acceptance.

Indeed, desire cannot love except the lover who is unattainable. Desire fails in love not because of any failure of the world, but because it sets the rules of the game itself, and then forgets its own role. It is its pursuit of the impossible that guarantees it will fail. And so it goes on through repetition - the whole scenario repeats through its whole life - in the past it was another man, now it's yet another, and so on - its failure is guaranteed, because what it seeks is precisely what is unattainable, and once the unattainable has been attained it can no longer be sought and is thus worthless and must be sacrificed. Onto the next. And on it goes repeating itself, unto its own destruction. From the outside, it looks like a death instinct - indeed, there can be no other end to desire except death. And from the inside it's about pleasure. It's always waiting for the right man, waiting for the right baby, waiting for the right job - on it goes projecting its sought-after self-sufficiency, its narcissism unto each and every object - the harder it is to attain, the more appealing it looks, the greater pleasure it holds in store, the more it must be pursued, the more violent and unrelenting it is justified to be in its pursuit... The attachment to the impossibility to attain is required in order for desire to remain blind to its own vanity and emptiness.

What you have done is a classic interpretative error, where you attempt to articulate my identity by implicitly verifying an abstract belief based on what I write to be somehow legitimate. That is how ideology traps people. At an epistemic level, assumptions are the framework that can solidify uncertainties, contradictions, confusions into a generalised whole and you assume some sort of shared language, but this is manufactured by your ego. — TimeLine

When I first read your response, I didn't understand where it came from, so I went back and read through our posts. I still don't get it. I don't think any further explanation will change that.

When I first read your response, I didn't understand where it came from, so I went back and read through our posts. I still don't get it. I don't think any further explanation will change that. — T Clark

No amount of writing can ever express what a person is like and to say that you 'know me' is projecting and exposing your own character. It is no different to a person saying "that's the truth" - what truth? If you 'knew me' you would know what I was like and what I was not like and many people rely on assumptions that they make of others thinking that they "know the truth" about them and getting one or two things right about them somehow increases the probability of this "truth" to absolute fact.

So the point is, always doubt yourself.

The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing - Socrates

To believe in hasty generalisations and assumptions is the very heart of ignorance. Do not ever place me into a box again.

Desire is always fascinated with the obstacle, the rival. What is hardest to attain, what rejects it the most, what humiliates it, that is its attraction. The beloved which insults - the true mirage of desire, the imagination of the contradiction of rejection and acceptance. — Agustino

Not really. I am talking about having a sense of humor because aggression is causally rooted in the ego, our self-defense mechanisms provoking our emotions that makes us say and do bad things to others. When two people are in genuine love with one another, the ego dissipates and therefore it is impossible to feel angered at the humour because we know where it is actually coming from.

Some people indirectly insult others, are being malicious or cruel but do so with a smile and then say "I was just joking!" which is a load of garbage. It is actually hostility in this relationship and what hurts is not what is actually being said but rather where it is coming from; it is a disconnection. Two people who are so separate from one another must work really hard to maintain this relationship and they'll come up with their own formula to make it so, whether it is changing homes or rearranging furniture or working late or other projects keeping them preoccupied on a daily basis that they end up becoming the joke.

A connection, however, is fundamentally rooted in happiness and when we violate the "serious" patterns of our perceptions - that is, a relationship itself is serious, life itself is serious - and we turn it into something incongruous, laughter or humour between the two becomes the affection at the subtle recognition of the futility of this seriousness and a mutual understanding.

Indeed, desire cannot love except the lover who is unattainable. — "Agustino

I have always found it disturbing how people just do the same thing day in day out until they die as long as they do what everyone else is doing, so afraid of their own feelings and of actually 'living' that a vain pat on the head is enough to keep them happy. Then you have those that become conscious of this and try to escape but end up going back, returning to their unhappy state as long as it is not being alone because they are so afraid to take the challenge until they grow old and regret that they were just cowards.

If you have reasons to love someone, you don’t love them.

And of course:

Humanity is OK, but 99% of people are boring idiots.

No one understands just how important time is.

The attachment to the impossibility to attain is required in order for desire to remain blind to its own vanity and emptiness. — "Agustino

It is intentional when person attaches themselves to something impossible because there are a number - a very large number - of people who do not actually understand what happiness is. They are so comfortable with unhappiness that it becomes the very source of their happiness, indeed when they are presented with the opportunity, they destroy it because they do not subjectively understand what those feelings actually are. That is why they get stuck, they have trouble living and they formulate their environment in such a way that they remain locked in it.

However, if you think the pursuit of happiness is impossible, where you make your decisions based on what is good and right, you may need to think about what is going on subjectively. That is not a vain thing to pursue, even if it means being alone until finding it.

You missed a few things that I said, actually, — TimeLine

Sorry this is four days old, but what exactly?

just working with your flow — TimeLine

Not a good idea >:O

And yes, I did agree that some people can play the victim as a method of gaining power over others, but only after someone apologises authentically. — TimeLine

Surely playing the victim can be done at any time in a situation. On the contrary, it can be used to extract an apology. Is that apology authentic? Authentic in the sense that the person really feels the need to apologize (emotionally) because of manipulation, sure.

where if you continuously and blindly forgive then you are at fault also. — TimeLine

Do you mean using forgiveness as a form of power over someone?

As for the latter, you become somewhat responsible in effecting change, to make them see that repeating the same mistake is wrong, but this is where it can get dangerous and why ultimately it is not our responsibility. — TimeLine

Yes, as I've tried to underline, feeling responsible for "effecting change" in anyone is a slippery slope which leads to either manipulation or just burn-out; total emotional exhaustion. "Effecting change" in oneself is task enough; and if you succeed at that, then your actions, your words, and your way of life become an "effecting change" in themselves in a passive way, without any directed will of yours towards a specific person; responsibility is just example. And if you need evidence of this, look at the opposite: irresponsibility is also example; we learn through observation of actions of those above us. Of course, words are powerful, but they have power within context; there are moments where the right words to someone can make a real difference; that's usually based on the emotional context. But we can't will that someone be emotionally ready for certain words; that's actually the definition of manipulation.

ultimately it is not our responsibility. — TimeLine

And as I'm trying to emphasize here, it's not just "ultimately" not our responsibility, it just plain isn't.

Sorry this is four days old, but what exactly? — Noble Dust

It was four days ago, how the heck should I know?

Not a good idea >:O — Noble Dust

It is not a good idea doing most things that make life interesting and adventurous. I'll give up if you make me way too dizzy.

Surely playing the victim can be done at any time in a situation. On the contrary, it can be used to extract an apology. Is that apology authentic? Authentic in the sense that the person really feels the need to apologize (emotionally) because of manipulation, sure. — Noble Dust

There is always this clear schism between what is authentic and what is not authentic when you deconstruct the intent. For instance, studies show that attractive women who put themselves down in front of others only do so because of social-psychology, a way of saving themselves from gossip or disdain because an attractive woman who is actually happy with herself is negatively categorised as dangerous. They don't actually believe it but are unconsciously playing the crowd to avoid conflict.

If you have a crazed person who is attracted to you and no amount of anything can get rid of him, to save yourself you present yourself in a way that provokes him to lose interest and eventually he leaves and draws his attention to something else. We act in some ways to save ourselves, but we also act in ways where we try to save those that we love and I learnt from this latter experience that trying to move the conscience of a heartless man is going against an impossible grain. But that is what love is, it is that fight for some moral awakening and it doesn't mean that you are actually a victim, but an attempt to try and get them to feel empathetic and thus transcend.

Have you watched Dead Man Walking? If you haven't, watch it and then you may understand what I am trying to get at. I do understand and agree with you, but I am not referring to the inauthentic.

Do you mean using forgiveness as a form of power over someone? — Noble Dust

Yes. Every first apology must be quickly accepted. An act repeated, though, is when you need to start thinking a little bit harder as to the causal reasons in order to try and reach an outcome that is righteous, but it should be done with utmost empathy.

Not long ago, I was in my friend's car and the lady parked next to me opened her car door and clipped the side of the car. My friend was immediately like, "what the?!" and the lady was really apologetic. My friend let it slide and went into subway to get food. The lady came back and clipped the car again. When you use the word "sorry" in vain, it is simply a way of escaping from any wrath or possible consequences, but it loses the meaning of why we apologise, the very reasons for actually saying you are sorry. The fact that we actually did something wrong that hurt someone else. This is ethics, empathy, love, moral consciousness.

Sometimes, conversely, people don't accept an apology without necessarily any reason not to (usually it is for the stupidest reasons) and drawing out the apology until they become the reasons why it loses meaning, why people start lying as they become afraid to say sorry. I have often found that men who have domineering mothers tend to be liars.

Yes, as I've tried to underline, feeling responsible for "effecting change" in anyone is a slippery slope which leads to either manipulation or just burn-out; total emotional exhaustion. — Noble Dust

I get that. What I am trying to say is that there are methods to "effect this change" that is different with each individual, but the driving force behind any authentic intent to change is usually for love. If it is manipulation, it is done for the wrong reasons. If you are burnt-out, you used the wrong methods. I have been burnt-out and I understand exactly what you are saying and agree for the most part.

And as I'm trying to emphasize here, it's not just "ultimately" not our responsibility, it just plain isn't. — Noble Dust

If you believe in individualism, then yes. If you are communitarian, a utilitarian, or just someone who believes they are a part of a whole rather than an individual (hence, the Aloha - there you go, I remembered now), then you are wrong about responsibility. It becomes a moral duty, in a way, but a very tricky one.

Do not ever place me into a box again. — TimeLine

I think what I wrote, which you called "placing in a box," would not be considered that by most people. Certainly not by me. I can see you're angry. Like I said, I don't get it.

I can see you're angry. Like I said, I don't get it. — T Clark

:-} I'm not angry. I am asking you to stop saying things like that and like:

You use your feelings and experiences as illustrations and explanations of your ideas and philosophical positions. You wear your heart on your sleeve. — T Clark

It is highly imaginative of you to continue placing an image of what I am based on what I write. That is the point. You can never "know me" just as much as you can never know "the truth" and to say otherwise is wrong. Get it.

Get it. — TimeLine

No.

You probably need to see a specialist, then. You're out of my depth.

For instance, studies show that attractive women who put themselves down in front of others only do so because of social-psychology, a way of saving themselves from gossip or disdain because an attractive woman who is actually happy with herself is negatively categorised as dangerous. They don't actually believe it but are unconsciously playing the crowd to avoid conflict. — TimeLine

So what's inauthentic here? Obviously the person is acting a certain way because of insecurity; what's inauthentic about that? There's clearly an authentic motive behind the facade of action. The woman puts herself down out of insecurity; that insecurity is the result of the question of whether she's "beautiful", or if she's "just another pretty face", or whatever. And why are those questions for her? Because she has the same desires that the rest of humanity has: acceptance, love, happiness. The will beneath her actions is as authentic as a physically unattractive person. The insecurity is just expressed differently because of the external circumstances.

Have you watched Dead Man Walking? — TimeLine

I haven't; I'll look it up.

I have often found that men who have domineering mothers tend to be liars. — TimeLine

I pride myself on my honesty. :P

I get that. What I am trying to say is that there are methods to "effect this change" that is different with each individual, but the driving force behind any authentic intent to change is usually for love. — TimeLine

What are the methods? Are you talking about a mentorship type relationship? In romance, or among equals, or from abused to abuser, for instance, I don't think change can be effected through the will. But obviously a relationship that involves teaching of some sort is different.

If you believe in individualism, then yes. If you are communitarian, a utilitarian, or just someone who believes they are a part of a whole rather than an individual (hence, the Aloha - there you go, I remembered now), then you are wrong about responsibility. It becomes a moral duty, in a way, but a very tricky one. — TimeLine

I believe in individualism as well as community. Community is made up of autonomous individuals; again, the responsibility of individuals within a community is to exhibit exemplary behavior, rather than to talk someone into behaving a certain way, manipulate someone's behavior, or otherwise strong-arm someone's behavior. Trust me, I grew up in the Church...I know a lot about this...

What are the methods? Are you talking about a mentorship type relationship? In romance, or among equals, or from abused to abuser, for instance, I don't think change can be effected through the will. But obviously a relationship that involves teaching of some sort is different. — Noble Dust

You can call it unconditional love. It is cultivating friendship, which forms the nucleus of empathy and a shared sense of value and respect.

The only way I am able to describe this to you is to ameliorate a personal experience. I met this young man who lacked a conscience. He had no empathy. He had such a profound pathology because of a very deep or inherent confusion, like he had absolutely no idea how to live or who he was that he would simply follow others, exhibited by clearly chopping and changing himself with each person that he met; his conformism was severely irrational. If it were suggested that being homosexual was great, despite being heterosexual he would likely choose to do so only because others suggested it, for instance. He himself said that his girlfriend has a "power of him and he does not know why" but he did not realise that everyone can have this power because the problem is in him.

It is as though he were still a child who had reactive attachment disorder, that his internal network was sensitive to all the wrong things where he would respond in a strangely hypervigilant manner as though resisting a non-existent threat, his eyes impassive as he would stare out and say some incredibly vicious comments. His insecurity drowned the screams of the real person he was that he became very nasty to me and others. He excluded me, slandered me, said some pretty vicious comments to me including indirect threats, but somehow my heart believed that I knew the source of this problem and despite the fact that I myself was going through some incredibly difficult experiences at that time, I remained convinced I could help him. So, 1. I was being a friend, I was being empathetic towards his condition and I felt I could help him.

The methods were, in my mind, speaking of friendship and love, I started talking about my own past to make him trust me enough to open up to me, I showed him kindness despite being terrified of him, sometimes I would exhibit anger to try and get him to stop and think, and I would try to work through his lies by pretending that I was not aware of them. He lived "himself" in his fiction writing, his identity could only be articulated when he wrote it in other characters, but he had no idea how to live or apply this real him in reality, the person I identified as being highly intelligent and gentle in nature. So, 2. my intent was to enable him to learn how to be a friend, to learn how to develop and build a conscience (as a child does) and be empathetic towards others. I wanted him to see that any past rejection (likely from a parent) was not going to happen with me and I wanted him to learn to believe in himself because I believed in him, to get him to stop doubting himself.

Unfortunately, nothing worked because he kept on hiding in these characters, kept on lying and misunderstood everything that I was trying to tell him. In the end, he gave up on me and I was so profoundly dejected at my failure that I became really sick and rather sad for a while. So the methods cannot be articulated in some format, it is a process that over time contributes to form a bond or trust and solely dependent on the intent. I can assure you that I have been successful at applying this in many other contexts, especially young girls.

I pride myself on my honesty. :P — Noble Dust

Haha, your mum must be awesome. (Y)

I haven't; I'll look it up. — Noble Dust

Please do, amazing movie.

I believe in individualism as well as community. Community is made up of autonomous individuals; again, the responsibility of individuals within a community is to exhibit exemplary behavior, rather than to talk someone into behaving a certain way, manipulate someone's behavior, or otherwise strong-arm someone's behavior. Trust me, I grew up in the Church...I know a lot about this... — Noble Dust

I grew up on my own; I had no (proper) family, no church but they are not the basis that make a person moral or immoral. You say the responsibility of individuals is to exhibit exemplary behaviour, but where do they attain any knowledge of what "exemplary behaviour" is? It is as you say either manipulation, or conformism, or fear. Our responsibility is to transcend those incorrect initiatives and the value of moral behaviour as it is universally and indeed that requires an autonomy of mind. If what you say is true, that a community is made up of autonomous individuals, those that have been manipulated to conform through fear are not a part of this "community" and so, where does your obligations lie?

You say the responsibility of individuals is to exhibit exemplary behaviour, but where do they attain any knowledge of what "exemplary behaviour" is? It is as you say either manipulation, or conformism, or fear. Our responsibility is to transcend those incorrect initiatives and the value of moral behaviour as it is universally and indeed that requires an autonomy of mind. If what you say is true, that a community is made up of autonomous individuals, those that have been manipulated to conform through fear are not a part of this "community" and so, where does your obligations lie? — TimeLine

I don't think that's an accurate description of where morality comes from in a community. Sure, it can come from conformity and fear, but I don't think that's the primary source. I think that's a sense of belonging. A willing, but probably not self-conscious, act of surrender to the will of the community. Surrender is not something I'm good at, so that's not really a choice I have. Also, in the US now, there really isn't a community for me to surrender to. Other's have churches, small towns, the military, social groups, large families, and many other institutions. My communities are smaller - my family, friendships, work. This forum is starting to become a community that I value.

I don't think that's an accurate description of where morality comes from in a community. Sure, it can come from conformity and fear, but I don't think that's the primary source. I think that's a sense of belonging. A willing, but probably not self-conscious, act of surrender to the will of the community. Surrender is not something I'm good at, so that's not really a choice I have. Also, in the US now, there really isn't a community for me to surrender to. Other's have churches, small towns, the military, social groups, large families, and many other institutions. My communities are smaller - my family, friendships, work. This forum is starting to become a community that I value. — T Clark

This unconscious act of surrendering to the will of the community is conformism, however you are speaking from a Foucauldian angle. Foucault' study on the power of discourse is a process that authenticates social stratification, and ideological positions almost always draw a focus on an opposing force which is used to justify the legitimacy of a social arrangement, be it the inner networks of these communal groups that you mention. But, power in this discourse that enables a person to conform unconsciously because it is automatically processed as "truth" is not always negative, but can actually provide a productive mobilisation that closes an existing gap between culture and society. This is comparatively an opposing view of something like Marxism and the superstructure, that it is inherently the elite exercising dominance over the proletariat, ideology itself existing because the latter desire in order to fulfil the bourgeoisie agenda. In the end, the community itself - should there be this lack of consciousness - may motivate social cohesion, but it is nonetheless imagined and could also be the impetus of injustice and immorality since people are not autonomously committed to morality but simply conform to this deeply rooted sphere of social life used to interpret an imagined communal character.

Unfortunately, nothing worked because he kept on hiding in these characters, kept on lying and misunderstood everything that I was trying to tell him. In the end, he gave up on me and I was so profoundly dejected at my failure that I became really sick and rather sad for a while. So the methods cannot be articulated in some format, it is a process that over time contributes to form a bond or trust and solely dependent on the intent. I can assure you that I have been successful at applying this in many other contexts, especially young girls. — TimeLine

Unfortunately this more or less underlines what I'm trying to say; of course you weren't able to change this guy; you were in a position of social equality; you were within a friend group. As you said, often when your methods here were successful were with younger women; that's a teachable situation in which that person views you as a role model of some sort. Once again, among equals, the best we can do is exemplify behavior; I can observe the changes over the years in the characters of the guys in my band, for instance, and I know my own influence as the band leader has influenced them; but who am I to say what influence I really had on them? Again, we're social equals, even if I lead the band. I can't try to change anyone's habits or perspectives, all I can do is try to exemplify the lifestyle I think is right (and I fail at that all the time anyway).

Haha, your mum must be awesome. (Y) — TimeLine

I think you missed my sarcasm. :P

I had no (proper) family, no church but they are not the basis that make a person moral or immoral. — TimeLine

Surely one's environment during critical developmental stages determine some aspects of a person's moral framework.

You say the responsibility of individuals is to exhibit exemplary behaviour, but where do they attain any knowledge of what "exemplary behaviour" is? — TimeLine

Through community.

If what you say is true, that a community is made up of autonomous individuals, those that have been manipulated to conform through fear are not a part of this "community" and so, where does your obligations lie? — TimeLine

I'm speaking idealistically here; obviously not all members of a community have individual autonomy. Maybe that concept of community isn't correct; I think an ideal community would be made up of autonomous individuals, but I'm well aware that won't happen given the human condition. At least not in this life. But a community made up of autonomous individuals would not be a community in which manipulation and fear would have any power. SO, what I meant to imply (and didn't) is that, in this imperfect life, individual autonomy is more valuable than community because the virtues of individual autonomy are more realistically achievable than the virtues of a community which does not build itself on manipulation and fear; community is a word with good connotations, but the "heard mentality", for instance, a less sanguine way of putting it, will always be built on manipulation, fear, and a lack of intellectual inquiry.

This unconscious act of surrendering to the will of the community is conformism, however you are speaking from a Foucauldian angle. Foucault' study on the power of discourse is a process that authenticates social stratification, and ideological positions almost always draw a focus on an opposing force which is used to justify the legitimacy of a social arrangement, be it the inner networks of these communal groups that you mention. But, power in this discourse that enables a person to conform unconsciously because it is automatically processed as "truth" is not always negative, but can actually provide a productive mobilisation that closes an existing gap between culture and society. — TimeLine

I tried to read Foucault once. It was like beating my head against a wall. You and a lot of people here are a lot more patient and philosophically well-read than I am. I enjoy the chance to learn about philosophy from experienced people without having to read anything myself. The reason my philosophy is so spare is that I am really lazy.

I see the process we are discussing as primarily cultural, not political. It's not about legitimacy to me, it's just the way things are, the way we are. I'm not really sure if you and Foucault are agreeing with some of that or not.

This is comparatively an opposing view of something like Marxism and the superstructure, that it is inherently the elite exercising dominance over the proletariat, ideology itself existing because the latter desire in order to fulfil the bourgeoisie agenda. In the end, the community itself - should there be this lack of consciousness - may motivate social cohesion, but it is nonetheless imagined and could also be the impetus of injustice and immorality since people are not autonomously committed to morality but simply conform to this deeply rooted sphere of social life used to interpret an imagined communal character. — TimeLine

Again - I see what you call conformism and what I call surrender to a community as a cultural process, not political, ideological, or moral. I think it started before there was civilization, and I guess before there was really society or culture as we think of them.

You say "the community itself - should there be this lack of consciousness - may motivate social cohesion, but it is nonetheless imagined..." Is that you or Marx speaking? I certainly don't agree with that. The idea that a community motivates social cohesion is a bit tautological. A community is social cohesion.

I tried to read Foucault once. It was like beating my head against a wall. You and a lot of people here are a lot more patient and philosophically well-read than I am. I enjoy the chance to learn about philosophy from experienced people without having to read anything myself. The reason my philosophy is so spare is that I am really lazy.

I see the process we are discussing as primarily cultural, not political. It's not about legitimacy to me, it's just the way things are, the way we are. I'm not really sure if you and Foucault are agreeing with some of that or not. — T Clark

I will try to simplify it, but when you purport that things are just the way that they are, that is the very heart of power and legitimacy; culture, politics, society - all interconnected - require people to believe that the way it is must be true, factual, right otherwise any sustainability of this mobilisation would crumble. Foucault calls this discourse, it makes people believe that things are just the way that they are so that they do not fight the system or doubt it in any way and what differs between him and Marx is that he believes that this can actually make people productive and have a positive effect, so in a way you are agreeing with Foucault. In the end, however, it is still signing the contract. If you are a part of a community, you have conformed in some way or another.

I was going to mention Heidegger, but if you feel dizzy with Foucault :-x

Again - I see what you call conformism and what I call surrender to a community as a cultural process, not political, ideological, or moral. I think it started before there was civilization, and I guess before there was really society or culture as we think of them. — T Clark

So, I take it that you agree with Rousseau vis-a-vis the state of nature?

You say "the community itself - should there be this lack of consciousness - may motivate social cohesion, but it is nonetheless imagined..." Is that you or Marx speaking? I certainly don't agree with that. The idea that a community motivates social cohesion is a bit tautological. A community is social cohesion. — T Clark

It is actually Anderson, not Marx. It is not a community that motivates social cohesion but the ideology that the community believe in that does.

Unfortunately this more or less underlines what I'm trying to say; of course you weren't able to change this guy; you were in a position of social equality; you were within a friend group. — Noble Dust

He wasn't a friend, that was what I was attempting to rouse in him because it is only in friendship that a person can begin to experience empathy. He was attracted to me but I had no feelings for him, on the contrary he was just a guy that I was forced to work with and his pathology both frightened and intrigued me. There was a moment where I thought that perhaps the reason I feel so convinced I can help him is because I am attracted to him too, but that came right at the moment he left and in the end, after everything was over, all that was real were memories of a man who bullied me that I wanted to believe could find the courage to be better. I was not able to achieve this because the conditions would not allow it.

As I said, he was caught up way too deep into his own lies that it became a reality to him; to penetrate that required some serious thought, something I could not give. He is long gone, now, and though I see him occasionally, he is no longer worth the effort. I am only ever capable of talking about the past when I am not tied to it emotionally. It is merely an example.

As you said, often when your methods here were successful were with younger women; that's a teachable situation in which that person views you as a role model of some sort. Once again, among equals, the best we can do is exemplify behavior; I can observe the changes over the years in the characters of the guys in my band, for instance, and I know my own influence as the band leader has influenced them; but who am I to say what influence I really had on them? Again, we're social equals, even if I lead the band. I can't try to change anyone's habits or perspectives, all I can do is try to exemplify the lifestyle I think is right (and I fail at that all the time anyway). — Noble Dust

I get what you are trying to say, there needs to be a willingness. He needs to want to improve and be motivated to become a better man. Those girls are motivated by seeing me as a role model and I understand how that works. My question here, however, is how I can address that lack of motivation and find ways to stimulate it without being that role model. That is why you need to watch Dead Man Walking to understand that moral position I am trying to find.

Surely one's environment during critical developmental stages determine some aspects of a person's moral framework. — Noble Dust

The critical developmental stages is cognitive, whereas morality requires reason and it is why Epictectus is right when he says reason shapes and regulates all other things, it ought not itself to be left in disorder. You can have a perfectly nuclear upbringing and still lack moral fibre.

Through community. — Noble Dust

Where does the community get it from? Perhaps think of the keyword ideology.

I'm speaking idealistically here; obviously not all members of a community have individual autonomy. Maybe that concept of community isn't correct; I think an ideal community would be made up of autonomous individuals, but I'm well aware that won't happen given the human condition. At least not in this life. But a community made up of autonomous individuals would not be a community in which manipulation and fear would have any power. SO, what I meant to imply (and didn't) is that, in this imperfect life, individual autonomy is more valuable than community because the virtues of individual autonomy are more realistically achievable than the virtues of a community which does not build itself on manipulation and fear; community is a word with good connotations, but the "heard mentality", for instance, a less sanguine way of putting it, will always be built on manipulation, fear, and a lack of intellectual inquiry. — Noble Dust

A neo-Kantian community is what every moral philosopher would want applied to distributive justice, but it is not realistic. You only mention this idealism because you are still not aware of why individualism itself is ideological, a social construct. It is why in the US everyone boasts of this "individualism" and yet blindly moves in masses.

I will try to simplify it, but when you purport that things are just the way that they are, that is the very heart of power and legitimacy; culture, politics, society - all interconnected - require people to believe that the way it is must be true, factual, right otherwise any sustainability of this mobilisation would crumble. — TimeLine

You and your buddies Marx, Foucault, and the rest are projecting your political ideology onto human nature. To a large extent, the ways people are with other people come from inside. Power grows out of social cohesion, not the other way around.

What is this "inside" you speak of? Are you saying everyone is the same? There is no such thing as violence, greed, egotism, pride but that they are the product of social cohesion?

What is this "inside" you speak of? Are you saying everyone is the same? There is no such thing as violence, greed, egotism, pride but that they are the product of social cohesion? — TimeLine

Inside - we are built that way. We are endowed by our creator with certain inherent capabilities and behavioral and emotional tendencies. Everyone is not the same, but we are all human. And communities have their own characteristics. They're organic, they grow from the inside. They aren't imposed from the outside. It's not about power.

Inside - we are built that way. We are endowed by our creator with certain inherent capabilities and behavioral and emotional tendencies. Everyone is not the same, but we are all human. And communities have their own characteristics. They're organic, they grow from the inside. They aren't imposed from the outside. It's not about power. — T Clark

This is just silly idealism and a profound ignorance of reality. No different to those privileged people whinging about the most superficial situations in their personal life, using emotional manipulation as they remain completely oblivious that the world is coming to an end. It is like me walking the streets of Mosul plucking daises singing he loves me, he loves me not as people are getting massacred around me. And then you have the audacity to say:

projecting your political ideology onto human nature — T Clark

Are you sure we are the ones "projecting" what human nature is? Reality is built on language, and ontology or epistemology are not some fluffy characteristics based on determined inherent tendencies but based your environment and how we communicate to one another. If there is anything determined, it is biological, cognitive. But meaning, interpretation that form emotional and behavioural attitudes don't just pop out of nowhere.