On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> >>>> 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
