This is just silly idealism and a profound ignorance of reality. — TimeLine

I think I have a good understanding of how people work. I'm sure you think you do too. I think maybe you and I are talking about different things. I'm talking about how communities of all sorts arise when humans get together. I think you're talking how community structures manifest, perhaps as communities get bigger.

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. — TimeLine

I have no idea what you are trying to say here and how it is relevant in this context.

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. — TimeLine

I was just having a discussion with BloodNinja over on the "Does Morality presuppose there being a human nature?" discussion. Here's BN quoting Aristotle:

Neither by nature, then, nor contrary to nature do the virtues arise in us; rather we are adapted by nature to receive them, and are made perfect by habit." — bloodninja

That makes sense to me. It doesn't make sense to, yes, project 19th and 20th century political philosophies that developed in response to the industrial revolution onto human behavior that has been around for hundreds of thousands, millions, of years.

That makes sense to me. It doesn't make sense to, yes, project 19th and 20th century political philosophies that developed in response to the industrial revolution onto human behavior that has been around for hundreds of thousands, millions, of years. — T Clark

If we are adapted by nature to receive virtues and are made perfect by habit, "power" is to advantageously utilise this nature of ours until we manipulate it to conform. If we did not have an evil nature - which I personally do not believe that we do - but that evil is a product of the material world, then ideology is a tool that communicates to the community what virtue is according to that ideology, which is thus accepted through habitus. Foucault' discourse or Marxist' superstructure is not "projecting" anything but rather assessing this process.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here and how it is relevant in this context. — T Clark

The point is that your view of the world is limited. Just a head's up that there are wars, violence, crimes, genocide, but you can continue to forget that as you live in complete ignorance of reality.

If we are adapted by nature to receive virtues and are made perfect by habit, "power" is to advantageously utilise this nature of ours until we manipulate it to conform. If we did not have an evil nature - which I personally do not believe that we do - but that evil is a product of the material world, then ideology is a tool that communicates to the community what virtue is according to that ideology, which is thus accepted through habitus. Foucault' discourse or Marxist' superstructure is not "projecting" anything but rather assessing this process. — TimeLine

I think either your approach is too rigid or your definition of ideology is inappropriately broad.

We have a little community going here. Please describe how this works with it as an example. How do Foucault and Marx apply to the PF? If you don't consider this a community, give me another simple, down-home example.

Describe the ideology, the set of beliefs, that applies when I am with my friends or children. Describe the ideology that applies when a bunch of chimpanzees are swinging through the trees.

The point is that your view of the world is limited. Just a head's up that there are wars, violence, crimes, genocide, but you can continue to forget that as you live in complete ignorance of reality. — TimeLine

And to think I said I admire your pugnacity. You're not supposed to use it against a delicate flower like me. I guess that's the way you do things in Australia.

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. — TimeLine

The theme I'm getting here is a savior complex. Based on your anecdotes, you seem to want to save the people you come into contact with who have severe issues. I know that feeling.

I was not able to achieve this because the conditions would not allow it. — TimeLine

Again...that's basically my entire argument here...

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. — TimeLine

It didn't require serious thought; it would have required a super-human ability to change the core of someone's lifetime's worth of experiences.

My question here, however, is how I can address that lack of motivation and find ways to stimulate it without being that role model. — TimeLine

I don't think you can. Outside of just exemplifying moral behavior in a passive way. Which is always, eternally, an option to anyone.

The critical developmental stages is cognitive, whereas morality requires reason — TimeLine

What's the difference between "cognitive" and "reason" here?

You can have a perfectly nuclear upbringing and still lack moral fibre. — TimeLine

I am nowhere advocating for a nuclear family as a moral litmus test.

Where does the community get it from? — TimeLine

From itself.

You only mention this idealism because you are still not aware of why individualism itself is ideological, a social construct. — TimeLine

Ok; can you explain it to me? I don't mean that sarcastically; if you're sure that I'm unaware, then surely you can explain to me what I'm missing.

We have a little community going here. Please describe how this works with it as an example. How do Foucault and Marx apply to the PF? If you don't consider this a community, give me another simple, down-home example. — T Clark

I'm not going to get caught in your slippery slope assertions, you have made me dizzy enough. I tried my best to explain political theory using sophomoric language and even still. I would prefer at this point to simply pat you on the head and say with a Scottish accent that'll do T Clark, that'll do. The OP is about forgiveness and reconciliation and I believe we came to this point as a way to explain how one can be influenced to believe in concepts that are not real or true. I think. As I said, you have made me dizzy.

And to think I said I admire your pugnacity. You're not supposed to use it against a delicate flower like me. I guess that's the way you do things in Australia. — T Clark

:D

The theme I'm getting here is a savior complex. Based on your anecdotes, you seem to want to save the people you come into contact with who have severe issues. I know that feeling. — Noble Dust

Yes, and no. The latter because there may perhaps be another subjective reason that consciously pretends to be motivated by an altruism when it is much more selfish then we make it out to be. Perhaps I wanted to believe that a bad person could change. I had a father who had similar behavioural problems and perhaps I unconsciously thought that if I am able to change him, then I could sustain a hope in the possibility of change in people like my father. Hope is powerful, both in a negative and positive way.

Another and perhaps a more plausible possibility is that I cared for him and thus became emotionally motivated to invest in an effort to help him the same way I helped myself as I truly felt I understood his condition. It was visually in my mind like a network but I was proven wrong in his case because he kept on hiding away and lying that it was just impossible to simply talk to him properly. As you say:

It would have required a super-human ability to change the core of someone's lifetime's worth of experiences. — Noble Dust

It is about accessibility. Had he been capable of being my friend, where we could have gone out for a coffee and talked, perhaps I may have been enabled with access to this core.

I don't think you can. Outside of just exemplifying moral behavior in a passive way. Which is always, eternally, an option to anyone. — Noble Dust

I have noticed how bad people feed on the misfortune of others, those that exhibit a lack of empathy in particular, as a way to contrast the superiority of their position, to make themselves appear to be fortunate and happy. While, eventually, the edifice of this self-deception crumbles and the reality is nothing but an underlying misery, they nevertheless either create problems in others or they despise those that are genuinely content and who do not need to contrast themselves with others. It just helps them prolong that self-deception.

It is not just exemplifying moral behaviour, but also taking care of yourself. I never accept handouts, I work really hard, I am healthy and strong and deeply content, together with holding strong convictions and integrity. You become impenetrable and that shapes a different understanding in this opposing ego.

What's the difference between "cognitive" and "reason" here? — Noble Dust

A brain and a mind.

I'm not going to get caught in your slippery slope assertions, you have made me dizzy enough. I tried my best to explain political theory using sophomoric language and even still. I would prefer at this point to simply pat you on the head and say with a Scottish accent that'll do T Clark, that'll do. The OP is about forgiveness and reconciliation and I believe we came to this point as a way to explain how one can be influenced to believe in concepts that are not real or true. I think. As I said, you have made me dizzy. — TimeLine

You and I disagree about the nature of human nature, at least in this context. You've called my ideas silly idealism, naïve. You say I'm ignorant of the world. You've told me a should probably see a specialist, although you didn't specify what kind. And, of course, you and your Scottish accent have been thoroughly condescending.

As my brother always said "knock yourself out." Are you familiar with that phrase? It just means have fun with that. So, TL, knock yourself out. Two points:

First - Those comments don't move the discussion forward. Are they good rhetoric? I'm thinking of starting a discussion on whether kindness is a good rhetorical strategy. Does your scorn convince people you're right? I don't think so, but maybe it does. Is your point to convince people or participate in reason. It always surprises me when you are self-righteous and rigid.

Second - I often think your understanding of the way people are is very naïve. Overly critical on one hand and overly idealistic on the other. I don't remember saying that before. I hope I didn't. I like and respect the story you tell about the world. It would feel disrespectful to sneer at it.

You're right. We've taken this as far as we can without driving the original post off a cliff.

It is about accessibility. Had he been capable of being my friend, where we could have gone out for a coffee and talked, perhaps I may have been enabled with access to this core. — TimeLine

What I'm saying is that you can't have access to that core; it's the very identity of the person built up over the years of their entire life. Being able to alter that would be like being able to change someone's mind on a philosophy forum. :P

It is not just exemplifying moral behaviour, but also taking care of yourself. I never accept handouts, I work really hard, I am healthy and strong and deeply content, together with holding strong convictions and integrity. You become impenetrable and that shapes a different understanding in this opposing ego. — TimeLine

I agree. Just be wary of becoming too impenetrable.

What I'm saying is that you can't have access to that core; it's the very identity of the person built up over the years of their entire life. Being able to alter that would be like being able to change someone's mind on a philosophy forum. :P — Noble Dust

It is not his core that I want to access, that is impossible. What I'm trying to tell you is that I wanted to help him access his own core; love, or friendship and a mutual bond, enables empathy and trust, it enables them to communicate, to articulate, to feel and thus begin to consciously understand themselves and their place in the world. Despite him knowing so many people, having tonnes of close friends and even being in a relationship, he was profoundly lonely and I knew that. He didn't. That is why I cared so much, that this vicious exterior had this gentle little boy inside. I know what it is like being completely oblivious to how one really feels, but I learnt how to access this core by exploring my feelings, analysing my thoughts and behaviours and why I knew he was very similar to me.

But, again, I agree with you, his identity has become completely absorbed into this external reality of his, that his life, his thoughts, his decisions are no longer his own though he believes it completely. He cannot see that his escape from that loneliness is all wrong, that there is an alternate way and so there he will remain stuck. Even though he may have wanted to, his decision to go down this unique path would inevitably mean turning his back on this reality, on all these people that helped shape that reality and for what? For me? That is what is impossible, so I let go and moved on.

When a person accesses their own core, they become conscious of their wrongdoing and that enables forgiveness, it enables reconciliation.

I agree. Just be wary of becoming too impenetrable. — Noble Dust

I have learnt that, unfortunately only quite recently. My door has a security cable and chain, but at least I am now opening it and talking to people. I'll wait a bit before unlocking it completely.

So much talk, and so little results... :’(

:D

Says the guy with the most posts here. :P

What I'm trying to tell you is that I wanted to help him access his own core; — TimeLine

That makes more sense. My arguments about this not being very probable still stand, but I get what you mean now, and I do think it's possibly a worthy goal, if you're willing to face the potential burn out. I'm just speaking from experience within the Church; this sort of relationship, with good intentions or ill, happens al the time in that context; it's often emotionally, mentally, and spiritually draining (if not manipulative) and doesn't warrant the desired result. Which is what you experienced, and I'm not trying to highlight that, I'm just saying it as a general principle. My views on mentorship changed when I learned my youth pastor was suicidal, sexually addicted, and a victim of abuse, and once I knew those things my eyes were opened to how he was carrying on the cycle of abuse (emotional in this case, but there could have been more I wasn't aware of). His faith, principles, and desire to mentor others didn't break the bonds of the cycle of abuse. He still contributed to the cycle, despite his efforts.

Says the guy with the most posts here. :P — Noble Dust

Ah, but you reformulated - alas, I liked your first formulation. Bring it back!

Slowly slowly, the results are coming ;)

Haha, I thought it was maybe too harsh. I'm such a nice guy.

Haha, I thought it was maybe too harsh. I'm such a nice guy. — Noble Dust

Yeah, but that's a little too late after you post it :P - I can always see the original >:)

Eh? How? You ain't a mod.

Eh? How? You ain't a mod. — Noble Dust

>:)

Sounds...obsessive and controlling.

That's good? :-O

That's good? :-O — Agustino

No?

No? — Noble Dust

Shocking! Why not? :P

Because obsession and control are not good?

Because obsession and control are not good? — Noble Dust

Why? :’(

Why? :’( — Agustino

exhibit A

exhibit A — Noble Dust

Which one is that? :-O

Which one is that? :-O — Agustino

exhibit B

O:)

exhibit C