Sounds like this a bit Over the Counter! lol
On Jan 3, 10:31 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Why are you countering my comment with the same comment that I was
> myself countering?" - chaz
>
> Chaz, all I was doing was showing what I had said as being different
> from what you were countering. You can counter anything you wish. In
> this case, it clearly wasn't me.
>
> On Jan 3, 8:13 am, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 3, 2:59 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > "I disagree that deconstruction has to lead to ignorance, on the
> > > contrary. You have to know your stuff in order that you can
> > > effectively deconstruct it." - chaz
>
> > > "...As valuable as skepticism can be, as Neil has said elsewhere,
> > > deconstruction can be used to the point of nihilism..." - orn
>
> > Why are you countering my comment with the same comment that I was
> > myself countering?
>
> > > On Jan 2, 9:25 am, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 2, 1:33 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > As valuable as skepticism can be, as Neil has said elsewhere,
> > > > > deconstruction can be used to the point of nihilism. And, the
> > > > > selection of such a methodology along with using it as an ontological
> > > > > foundation in this context results in ignorance.
>
> > > > > It may appear to be a preferable way of approaching reality. Then
> > > > > again, to many, common hedonism is seen as a virtue.
>
> > > > I disagree that deconstruction has to lead to ignorance, on the
> > > > contrary. You have to know your stuff in order that you can
> > > > effectively deconstruct it.
>
> > > > Ask anyone who knows Zizek or Foucault if they are ignorant.
>
> > > > Hedonism, though not exactly applicable can provide suitable
> > > > diversions in the light of the angst and futility of the absurd.
>
> > > > > On Jan 1, 1:08 pm, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Harking back to what I said in another thread about choice and
> > > > > > interest in the selection of "appropriate evidence" I would imagine
> > > > > > that much of this stuff is likely to be highly biased in selection.
> > > > > > One wonders how he defines non-religious for his comparisons.
> > > > > > One wonders if the study tends to define a religious person as one
> > > > > > who
> > > > > > is s regular church goer, or dedicated observer of his/her religion,
> > > > > > in which case the study would be choosing people with self-control:
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > self fulfilling prediction.
> > > > > > Did the study acknowledge the fact that there is a higher percentage
> > > > > > of the religious in prisons than in the general population? Are cons
> > > > > > achievers who exhibit self-control?
> > > > > > 8 decades of selection. Probably not worth the paper it is printed
> > > > > > on.
>
> > > > > > On Jan 1, 8:36 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I found the following (I've cut it down) and think it may be of
> > > > > > > interest.
> > > > > > > Self-control is critical for success in life. University of Miami
> > > > > > > professor of Psychology Michael McCullough finds that religious
> > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > have more self-control than do their less religious counterparts.
> > > > > > > These findings imply that religious people may be better at
> > > > > > > pursuing
> > > > > > > and achieving long-term goals that are important to them and their
> > > > > > > religious groups. This, in turn, might help explain why religious
> > > > > > > people tend to have lower rates of substance abuse, better school
> > > > > > > achievement, less delinquency, better health behaviours, less
> > > > > > > depression, and longer lives.
> > > > > > > McCullough evaluated 8 decades worth of research on religion,
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > has been conducted in diverse samples of people from around the
> > > > > > > world.
> > > > > > > He found persuasive evidence from a variety of domains within the
> > > > > > > social sciences, including neuroscience, economics, psychology,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > sociology, that religious beliefs and religious behaviours are
> > > > > > > capable
> > > > > > > of encouraging people to exercise self-control and to more
> > > > > > > effectively
> > > > > > > regulate their emotions and behaviours, so that they can pursue
> > > > > > > valued
> > > > > > > goals. The research paper will be published in the January 2009
> > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > of Psychological Bulletin.
> > > > > > > The importance of self-control and self-regulation for
> > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > human behaviour are well known to social scientists, but the
> > > > > > > possibility that the links of religiosity to self-control might
> > > > > > > explain the links of religiosity to health and behaviour has not
> > > > > > > received much explicit attention. Among the most interesting
> > > > > > > conclusions that the research team drew were the following:
> > > > > > > • Religious rituals such as prayer and meditation affect the
> > > > > > > parts of
> > > > > > > the human brain that are most important for self-regulation and
> > > > > > > self-
> > > > > > > control;
> > > > > > > • When people view their goals as "sacred," they put more
> > > > > > > energy and
> > > > > > > effort into pursuing those goals, and therefore, are probably more
> > > > > > > effective at attaining them;
> > > > > > > • Religious lifestyles may contribute to self-control by
> > > > > > > providing
> > > > > > > people with clear standards for their behaviour, by causing
> > > > > > > people to
> > > > > > > monitor their own behaviour more closely, and by giving people the
> > > > > > > sense that God is watching their behaviour;
> > > > > > > • The fact that religious people tend to be higher in
> > > > > > > self-control
> > > > > > > helps explain why religious people are less likely to misuse
> > > > > > > drugs and
> > > > > > > alcohol and experience problems with crime and delinquency.
> > > > > > > The question is essentially how the same social force that
> > > > > > > motivates
> > > > > > > acts of charity and generosity can also motivate people to strap
> > > > > > > bomb
> > > > > > > belts around their waists and then blow themselves up in crowded
> > > > > > > city
> > > > > > > buses. By thinking of religion as a social force that provides
> > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > with resources for controlling their impulses (including the
> > > > > > > impulse
> > > > > > > for self-preservation, in some cases) in the service of higher
> > > > > > > goals,
> > > > > > > religion can motivate people to do just about anything.
>
> > > > > > > There are some obvious critiques, yet I feel something important
> > > > > > > lies
> > > > > > > in this.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
