Quote #4 from Bradbury and the follow-up question: Two sides to a question is what current (& past) politics Thrives on. So having None would make us all more happy politically. This is Simplicity / Ockham's Razor. I suppose that is what is meant by the follow-up question 'regimes exploit desire for simplicity' (by narrowing the options to two upon which the populace can be divided for the regime's benefit and perpetuation). If it's not that, then it seems to be just distracting the populace with the next nut to drop from the tree... Regimes think of most of us as squirrels... and maybe most of us are (short memory & easily distracted). Cheers to better days ahead!
Q5: One of the functions of labels is to allow us to categorize and understand our world, and those around us. Sure, it can be reductive. But is there a way to recognize the value of labels, without seeing them as the singular expression of the value of a person? If Stout is right, then maybe we need to consider the category of the label itself. What is the purpose of the label, and how do we actually interact with that designation? Perhaps this is why religions have so much power; their labels are not “made by men,” but by God.
Love pondering the take on religion's power via labels, but if there is a Bible, Koran, Torah; etc. upon which the words/labels recorded were not made by men, but by god - Please advise what library its at - I'd like to see what God's handwriting looks like. The Original post follow-up question (labels/reductive/harmful/moral obligations/individuality/dignity) on Q5 sounds (to label it): "Progressive"?... Labels are equivalent to words or judgments. With-out them (particularly words with agreed upon meaning) language would cease to have the same value or much value at all. Likewise with judgements, we are all making them in every waking moment of our day; yet many will still demand of others to 'stop judging/labeling me'. There's an important msg. they are conveying in that; which should be heard and understood. Usually it speaks to whether the discussion, interaction or relationship should continue.... but maybe it also speaks to the words, labels & judgments being made too - by both parties (in which case maybe the discussion, interaction, relationship goes on; and has even more value.
I think you are getting at the whole point here; religions use spiritual labels which they argue have been given to them by God. I am not saying that they are correct in that, and even if they are, I doubt that most adherents actually use those labels in a way consistent with the original meaning. The original challenge to any supernatural law is represented in the serpent's comment in the garden: "Did God really say?" It also happens to be the most obvious and logical question.
My point, and I think Stout's original point, is that man-made labels are not enough to describe a person. People are more complex. Which, I think, might be because man was not made by man. Whether it was God or nature that caused man, our labels for ourselves are, at their core, insufficient.
Zitat Nr. 02: „Erst danach scheint eine neue Idee vernünftig. Zunächst einmal scheint es normalerweise unvernünftig.“ — Isaac Asimov
.
Eine neue Idee wird nicht per se als unvernünftig angesehen. Unvernünftig ist sie nur in den Augen derer, die mit ihr nichts anzufangen wissen. Es ist eine Frage der INTENTION desjenigen, der die Idee hat.
🌼
Zitat Nr. 03: „Wenn ein gefangener Geist nicht weiß, dass er im Gefängnis ist, lebt er irrtümlich. Wenn sie die Tatsache erkannt hat, auch für die Zehntelsekunde, und sie dann schnell vergessen hat, um Leiden zu vermeiden, lebt sie in Falschheit. Männer der brillantesten Intelligenz können in Irrtum und Falschheit geboren, leben und sterben. In ihnen ist Intelligenz weder ein Guter, noch ein Gewinn. Der Unterschied zwischen mehr oder weniger intelligenten Männern ist wie der Unterschied zwischen Kriminellen, die zu lebenslanger Haft in kleineren oder größeren Zellen verurteilt sind. Der intelligente Mann, der stolz auf seine Intelligenz ist, ist wie ein Verurteilter, der stolz auf seine große Zelle ist.“ — Simone Weil
.
Zunächst sehe ich nicht, dass die "Thematik" einen Bezug zu einem bestimmten Geschlecht hat.
Dass ein gefangener Geist, der das nicht weiß, irrtümlich lebe, ist deshalb ein Unsinn, weil Simone den Lebensplan dieses Geistes so wenig kennt, wie den eigenen.
Wir alle stecken in unterschiedlichen Masken, Rollen und Kulissen, machen in unseren Szenen dramatische Erfahrungen, ohne Einblick in den Regie-Plan zu erhalten - falls es einen gibt.
Dass sich eine Charakter-Rolle über eine andere mokiert, macht in einem Theaterstück keinen Sinn.
Sinn macht es, die Rolle, die wir gerade innehaben, voll auszuleben. Ob in einem kleinen oder einem etwas größeren Käfig..., ist hier irrelevant.
Choosing painful awareness over a comfortable illusion would create misery. Doing so is not more virtuous unless the former produces a greater good for the individual. Which arguably it would if we assume the captive mind is searching for answers or escapement from captivity. If we assume a comfortable illusion creates apathy, it is more human to choose a comfortable illusion. All one must do is observe how the illusion within social media impacts our productivity.
Perhaps I have missed the point, so I’ll start again. If an intelligent mind becomes briefly aware of its intelligence, then neglect to acknowledge it (to live in a comfortable illusion), they have chosen a more human(?) path. Searching for answers in painful awareness is more virtuous than bliss ignorance. And regarding the quote, pride in intelligence is greatly compared to a jailed man’s cell. As intelligence is gifted, not earnt or learnt. Thus, taking pride in it has no merit.
Wow. What a breakfast to come upon today. Much gratitude.
"fear is the mind killer..." In the end, should one's aspirations include enlightenment, a verdant mind's development of wisdom, with the compassion in one's heart, seems to be the tried and true path to it.
But like university doesn't fulfill all of the needs for spinning this world forward, there are many for whom Nirvana has no value.
Quote #4 from Bradbury and the follow-up question: Two sides to a question is what current (& past) politics Thrives on. So having None would make us all more happy politically. This is Simplicity / Ockham's Razor. I suppose that is what is meant by the follow-up question 'regimes exploit desire for simplicity' (by narrowing the options to two upon which the populace can be divided for the regime's benefit and perpetuation). If it's not that, then it seems to be just distracting the populace with the next nut to drop from the tree... Regimes think of most of us as squirrels... and maybe most of us are (short memory & easily distracted). Cheers to better days ahead!
Q5: One of the functions of labels is to allow us to categorize and understand our world, and those around us. Sure, it can be reductive. But is there a way to recognize the value of labels, without seeing them as the singular expression of the value of a person? If Stout is right, then maybe we need to consider the category of the label itself. What is the purpose of the label, and how do we actually interact with that designation? Perhaps this is why religions have so much power; their labels are not “made by men,” but by God.
Love pondering the take on religion's power via labels, but if there is a Bible, Koran, Torah; etc. upon which the words/labels recorded were not made by men, but by god - Please advise what library its at - I'd like to see what God's handwriting looks like. The Original post follow-up question (labels/reductive/harmful/moral obligations/individuality/dignity) on Q5 sounds (to label it): "Progressive"?... Labels are equivalent to words or judgments. With-out them (particularly words with agreed upon meaning) language would cease to have the same value or much value at all. Likewise with judgements, we are all making them in every waking moment of our day; yet many will still demand of others to 'stop judging/labeling me'. There's an important msg. they are conveying in that; which should be heard and understood. Usually it speaks to whether the discussion, interaction or relationship should continue.... but maybe it also speaks to the words, labels & judgments being made too - by both parties (in which case maybe the discussion, interaction, relationship goes on; and has even more value.
I think you are getting at the whole point here; religions use spiritual labels which they argue have been given to them by God. I am not saying that they are correct in that, and even if they are, I doubt that most adherents actually use those labels in a way consistent with the original meaning. The original challenge to any supernatural law is represented in the serpent's comment in the garden: "Did God really say?" It also happens to be the most obvious and logical question.
My point, and I think Stout's original point, is that man-made labels are not enough to describe a person. People are more complex. Which, I think, might be because man was not made by man. Whether it was God or nature that caused man, our labels for ourselves are, at their core, insufficient.
Zitat Nr. 02: „Erst danach scheint eine neue Idee vernünftig. Zunächst einmal scheint es normalerweise unvernünftig.“ — Isaac Asimov
.
Eine neue Idee wird nicht per se als unvernünftig angesehen. Unvernünftig ist sie nur in den Augen derer, die mit ihr nichts anzufangen wissen. Es ist eine Frage der INTENTION desjenigen, der die Idee hat.
🌼
Zitat Nr. 03: „Wenn ein gefangener Geist nicht weiß, dass er im Gefängnis ist, lebt er irrtümlich. Wenn sie die Tatsache erkannt hat, auch für die Zehntelsekunde, und sie dann schnell vergessen hat, um Leiden zu vermeiden, lebt sie in Falschheit. Männer der brillantesten Intelligenz können in Irrtum und Falschheit geboren, leben und sterben. In ihnen ist Intelligenz weder ein Guter, noch ein Gewinn. Der Unterschied zwischen mehr oder weniger intelligenten Männern ist wie der Unterschied zwischen Kriminellen, die zu lebenslanger Haft in kleineren oder größeren Zellen verurteilt sind. Der intelligente Mann, der stolz auf seine Intelligenz ist, ist wie ein Verurteilter, der stolz auf seine große Zelle ist.“ — Simone Weil
.
Zunächst sehe ich nicht, dass die "Thematik" einen Bezug zu einem bestimmten Geschlecht hat.
Dass ein gefangener Geist, der das nicht weiß, irrtümlich lebe, ist deshalb ein Unsinn, weil Simone den Lebensplan dieses Geistes so wenig kennt, wie den eigenen.
Wir alle stecken in unterschiedlichen Masken, Rollen und Kulissen, machen in unseren Szenen dramatische Erfahrungen, ohne Einblick in den Regie-Plan zu erhalten - falls es einen gibt.
Dass sich eine Charakter-Rolle über eine andere mokiert, macht in einem Theaterstück keinen Sinn.
Sinn macht es, die Rolle, die wir gerade innehaben, voll auszuleben. Ob in einem kleinen oder einem etwas größeren Käfig..., ist hier irrelevant.
🌼
"Das Leben ist nur ein wandelndes Schattenbild."
– William Shakespeare
Q3:
Choosing painful awareness over a comfortable illusion would create misery. Doing so is not more virtuous unless the former produces a greater good for the individual. Which arguably it would if we assume the captive mind is searching for answers or escapement from captivity. If we assume a comfortable illusion creates apathy, it is more human to choose a comfortable illusion. All one must do is observe how the illusion within social media impacts our productivity.
Perhaps I have missed the point, so I’ll start again. If an intelligent mind becomes briefly aware of its intelligence, then neglect to acknowledge it (to live in a comfortable illusion), they have chosen a more human(?) path. Searching for answers in painful awareness is more virtuous than bliss ignorance. And regarding the quote, pride in intelligence is greatly compared to a jailed man’s cell. As intelligence is gifted, not earnt or learnt. Thus, taking pride in it has no merit.
Mary Oliver yes!!!!!
Wow. What a breakfast to come upon today. Much gratitude.
"fear is the mind killer..." In the end, should one's aspirations include enlightenment, a verdant mind's development of wisdom, with the compassion in one's heart, seems to be the tried and true path to it.
But like university doesn't fulfill all of the needs for spinning this world forward, there are many for whom Nirvana has no value.