On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <
> multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <
>>> multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
> I'm not trying to provoke, just making easy jokes maybe.
>
>
>>
>> Psychiatry as a whole faces the problem: imperative to categorize but
>> don't want to discriminate after their abandoning the asylum model, which
>> leads to interesting twist in countries that can afford it! These would
>> never dream of unconditional basic income... But abandoning asylum for all
>> but most dangerous patient, leads them to models of autonomy (daily affairs
>> stuff, pursuit of some goal) with such basic income as necessary to not
>> have to permanently monitor them, switching to needs based "when rupture
>> episodes" call for it kind of model.
>>
>> Of course still controversial... as is the field. But what I read in
>> Europe shows some aversion to authoritarian approach to psychiatry.
>>
>
> I don't disagree, but I don't see the connection with what we were
> discussing...
>

Labeling people by disorder while being fully invested into not
discriminating against them on institutional level. This leads banana union
republic of €urope to start reasoning for unconditional basic income. Say
if somebody has depressive episodes.


>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The emotional aspect is misleading perhaps; I can tolerate things I
>>>> don't understand, i.e. some fancy astrology stuff or bizarre sexual fetish
>>>> I don't share, because I do not know, even though on the surface, it
>>>> appears to make no sense to me and people spend a lot of time and resources
>>>> on them. Here my choice to decline is not in jeopardy.  But where other
>>>> people's decision making power is curtailed/abused by some agenda beyond
>>>> their view and ability to not be a part of it, like molesting, hurting,
>>>> raping, "blanketizingly" being forced into outgroups, theft/killing without
>>>> some tangible goal or evidence for betterment (like killing of some
>>>> dictator say...) etc. just is mindless harm without direction.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, but this is precisely the point. You easily forgive what doesn't
>>> offend you to begin with. I'm the same.
>>> So one could argue that "tolerance" is hypocrisy.
>>>
>>
>> Here you expose that I should forgive and judge with respect to
>> tolerance. That's a very Christian god's eye approach, if you don't mind me
>> saying
>>
>
> I think you misunderstand me. I am not preaching tolerance. I am claiming
> that tolerance preachers are hypocrites.
>

Hmm, don't you run by your own standards then the risk of preaching
yourself here?


> I see this in myself. For example, I am against racism and homophobia. I
> am against theses things because I think they are the refuge of mediocre
> people, that can find nothing to like about themselves except the color of
> their skin or their sexual orientation.
>

Racism, homophobia etc. are no go because somebody has to get to the bottom
of identity question, and then argue authoritatively or employ violence in
natural consequence to cover that up.


> I am also against positive discrimination, so I'm sure many of the
> tolerant will brand me as an intolerant.
>
>
>> + it's still off: a lot of musicians, given economic difficulties, are
>> charging hundreds of bucks for elite workshops of shamanic musical therapy.
>>
>> I have had students of mine stolen, because these hacks make people
>> believe that "just being with music" changes your energy in ways that they
>> can control, to the alleged benefit of the listeners... this instead of
>> learning and sharing music for ourselves.
>>
>> Offend? I don't know. Stolen? I'm almost sure of it, but since I'm not, I
>> tolerate it without bad mouthing it or marketing similarly. Jeez, it's of
>> course the guys with no profile on the performance circuits that sell this
>> stuff and have never seen a real shaman/mystical experience if it kicked
>> them in the face.
>>
>
> Sorry to read that.
> Notice the hypocrisy at play: by being con artists they make a profit. If
> they offered something close to the real shamanistic traditions, they would
> be arrested.
>
>
>>
>> I wouldn't overrate consistency, as you seem to either, though. You can't
>> tolerate that which won't tolerate. Again, you're idea that genuine
>> suffering must be somehow involved for one not to be hypocrite is
>> suspiciously Christian;
>>
>
> Genuine effort must be involved for one to be tolerant. By definition,
> tolerance is accepting what you dislike.
>

So if I drank a lot of Diet Coke, I would become more tolerant. Or I endure
a lot of sadistic games by someone who enjoys them? Nah, I see tolerance
more as benevolent attitude, rather than matrix of positions on stuff.
Stuff changes.


> Not being a hypocrite can be achieved without suffering: just by not
> advertising your tolerance. Christians did not invent trade-offs...
>

Agreed, but I think the dutch and folks making steps to end archaic things
like prohibition should advertise it.


>
>
>> like we're at confession or something + it doesn't make the
>> category/discrimination problem decidable. It just hands out a "we're all
>> hypocrites"- club, which isn't a great surprise as who is totally
>> consistent on all matters?
>>
>
> Boring people maybe. But hypocrisy is a specific type of inconsistency. It
> is when you try to obtain the social benefits of aligning yourself with
> some norms while secretly acting against said norms.
>

You're turning something broad, people's inconsistency vis-a-vis their
values into some hierarchy of hypocrites. This makes going to a shaman who
conflicts with social norms a person aligns themselves with, a hypocrite.
Don't buy that. A bit harsh.


> This is the main mechanism by which democracy is corrupted, for example.
>

I know that's your line but I don't see that; we are savagely naive,
particularly concerning commonly held beliefs around us, and some interests
exploits this. I don't think democracy was ever "better" and what you see
as corruption of it, are also growing pains that we have to deal with more
responsibly.


>
>
> Ok, so you're an outlier.
>

I don't know, am I?


> But you reject the idea that such behaviour is in the majority?
>

I have no idea. There is a difference between mise en scene of public life,
positions held internally, and reality. How would we ever know from
outside? "Gone girl" tackles this in cinematic context right now.


>
>
>>
>>
>>> Were I come from, people would go to great lengths to belong to the
>>> ingroups. Then there's sports, political parties, fashions, music
>>> preferences, "I don't understand how anyone could eat at McDonald's" and so
>>> on and so on. No need too invoke Freud's dubious ideas...
>>>
>>
>> Thousands of models like this in psychology, linguistics etc. Freud
>> doesn't matter; what I'm saying is being sold here are just pairs of new
>> glasses. Yes, you see the world differently: what before was x is now...
>> wow! => I don't care about the colors and labels of the thing; I care about
>> where people that wear those; where they go with them, if anywhere.
>>
>
> Isn't "where they go with them" also a label?
>

Everything is! And that's a problem for the approach in general as an
objective scientific tool of observation (and as pointed out in psychiatry
example).

But subjectively I do use "where are you going with this? what does this
mean to you beyond your prayer chants for and against some set of
propositions?" That's a matter that private internal theology can manage
perhaps better than some hugely nuanced try at "intolerance of tolerance"
with a lot of questionable definitions hanging not decidable on this.

>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> and a group can only exist in relation to an out-group. The group
>>>>> "atheists" exists because religious people exist. If everyone was an
>>>>> atheist, nobody would use such a label anymore. There is no 
>>>>> "pro-breathing"
>>>>> group.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> and people who at least aspire to and can point to histories where
>>>>>> they minimize harm + share joy doing so, intuiting Gödel a bit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect everyone thinks they are doing that...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then you live in a joyous world without authoritatively forcing
>>>> influence and abuse, which people denounce right, left, and center. Good
>>>> for you.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, what I'm saying is that the authoritarians think they are acting for
>>> the benefit of everyone. I truly believe that fascist dictators think like
>>> this.
>>>
>>
>> Have you asked one? Or is that from bedtime story?
>>
>
> The closest I came to that was Alberto João Jardim, president of the
> regional government of the Madeira islands since 1974:
> http://aventadores.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/jardim.jpg
>

I think it's closer to more common money and power stuff, with that
reasoning built on top as cover.
 PGC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to