I guess if we look beyond the individuality of control we can see the effects of etiquette and formality standards as having or influencing control. All is fair in love and war as it is said and I guess a complete lack of control could allow a society to descend into chaos. The feminist movement certainly broke down much of it all except for men like myself still opening doors and exercising a cordiality to women, well that would be women of the generation to whom those treatments were bestowed upon, the woman in combat boots could open her own door. I think placement within society and recognition of where one stands among and within the world helps to establish a level of control, which can be limited in certain circumstances.
On Jul 23, 7:47 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > I am surprised by the lack of reference to etiquette and formal > rituals in regard to this topic by which means society/religion/ > governments sets certain standards of behavior and a means of control > among humans. This breaks down in war- although the military has > retained a high standard, in general- and during and after a radical > shift of culture- for instance, the 60's. The breakdown of boundaries > and decline in respect can be disconcerting and "letting it all hang > out" can be chaos. You can see etiquette and ritual as constricting, > I suppose, but you could also look at them as respecting helps/aids in > dealing with self and other human beings. Perhaps women lose the most > in the changed western culture. If one no longer feels she should be > treated like a lady, she probably won't be. Plus men no longer wear > hats(ten-gallon cowboy hats and bbhats don't count) to doff or open > doors because it insults militant feminists.// There are two controls- > your position in life and your self. You often have limited means to > control the large picture of the world and your society and your place > in it. Self-control is a life-long learning process that begins in > childhood with standards set by your parents and later shifted to > education, religion and adjustment/adaptation to your culture. > > On Jul 23, 7:06 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > "...........our abilities in free will are mostly limited by not being > > able to do the practical enquiries that get to the truth."<<<Archy > > > Excellent point, limited free will. Obviously at the root of many > > inhibitions, phobias and personal hang ups. Maybe we should initiate > > an awards program for other group characteristics, such > > as............. > > > First Place > > > "Dreck Master Award" > > > or > > > Blue Ribbon Award > > for > > Subliminal Sarcasm > > > I think it's easier to be "in control" on an individual basis but > > something gets lost in the soup when trying to get group control. > > Controlling a society is like trying to keep a water color painting > > together in a swimming pool. > > > On Jul 23, 6:46 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I would like the mods to pre-read all the academic material I have to > > > swallow in the course of a year, in order to progress my free will. I > > > never want to read this dreck and always do before finding out it is > > > dross. I'll start feeding the stuff into the threads and book myself > > > seats for the next three Tests. Surprised I haven't thought of this > > > before ... > > > > Given how much 'control' I believe is exercised via pretty crude > > > biological mechanisms, I am surprised at how many people confuse what > > > happens to them as involving their 'considered' choice - often emotive > > > drivel is involved. Tony Blair used to influence me to agreement with > > > a few tricks - now I believe he is a vile manipulator. Watching the > > > no need to engage brain detective series 'New Tricks' last night I was > > > struck by the credulous levels of evidence and its consideration - I > > > was only watching for some mind numbing after applying for some new > > > jobs. The apparently complex plot could have been sorted by minimal > > > empirical enquiries. Not the point perhaps, but I've been struck a > > > lot recently that our abilities in free will are mostly limited by not > > > being able to do the practical enquiries that get to the truth. Hence > > > we end up in conspiracy when we don't need to be, or relying on turds > > > like Blair to tell us their persuasive truths. I go some way with > > > Molly (and quite happily), but I really don't bother much with free > > > will as deeply philosophical (though I know some of the arguments). I > > > think we might find more of it in a differently mannered society. > > > > On 24 July, 00:09, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > You are entitled to your personal, however limited, view. > > > > > On Jul 23, 5:11 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Of all the things you could say, this is the one thing you can not. > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > One thing I can say I am not is delusional. > > > > > > > ---- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
