On 26 Aug, 16:55, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Let me expand then Pat, it should be no hard guess to say that I refer
> to myself and one of my brothers.
>
> On the subject of rearing children we were both brought up under some
> hard discipline. I was round my brothers house last night(Tuesday
> being cards nigth you see) and was once agian struck by the differance
> in the way we bring up our children.
>
> He(my brother) due to the way we where brought up, I can see is not
> such a disciplinarian, as a result his interaction with his kids is
> more like that of a friend, you can see the love they have for each
> other and how relaxed they are in each others company but.
> He was talking to his younger daughter last night about her school
> work, she is having some problems at the mo, and he really just left
> it up to her, no pushing, no driving, no discipline.
>
> Myself well because of the way we where brought up, I have instilled a
> more disciplined approach to my kids, they are both doing well in
> school dispite the dyslexcia, I psuh thyem, I have instilled the drive
> into them, there is more discipline in my house.
>
> We have both then taken opposite approaches and I can see that it is
> very much so because of how we where brought up, we both share the
> same genes, in lots of other respects we are similar(not the same ohhh
> now not the ame at all). Explian?
>
The first thing that comes to my mind is that your brother harbours
a fear that you don't. Namely, that, if he were more disciplinarian,
he might lose the relationship he HAS. Additionally, he may have felt
from the beginning (of child rearing) that discipline puts up a(n
undesirable) barrier between the parent (as an authority figure) and
the child. This may have been due to a perceived barrier in that
regard between he and your father. But that's only after about 3
minutes rumination given the above.
> On 26 Aug, 15:12, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 26 Aug, 15:07, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Umm lots to think on here and eventualy reply to Pat. Similar to you
> > > I am at work and so under certian constriants, not the same as you
> > > though these are not time constraints, it is a rather slow day today
> > > it seems.
>
> > > I will print out this post take it home, digest it and come back to
> > > you tomorrow.
>
> > > I Will say though that the latter part of what you say here I have a
> > > gut feeling towards agreeing with, determinism vs choice though, I'm
> > > still not sold on that one.
>
> > > I can agree that some portions of life are dependant on others, but it
> > > takes a looong leap of logic to aply the same to all aspects of life.
>
> > > Questions keep appearing. Such as how can two siblings who grew up
> > > under the same conditions have vastly differing outlooks on the same
> > > issues?
>
> > They each have a seemingly separate existence and the spatio-
> > temporal offset is what makes us all unique anyway, the package is
> > just a package. Have you EVER known two siblings that were always
> > treated exactly the same (this includes their names!! Perhaps we
> > should ask George Foreman)? I didn't think so. ;-)
>
> > > On 26 Aug, 14:46, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On 26 Aug, 13:43, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Heh wrong end of the stick I'm afraid old bean. I said that we
> > > > > > > all do
> > > > > > > things that we do not wish to do. Not that we have all done
> > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > that we wished we had not.
>
> > > > > > Simple time difference. if we are doing something we don't wish
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > do, once we have done it, we have done something we wished we
> > > > > > hadn't.
> > > > > > The time-frame is relative and doesn't alter the concept of whether
> > > > > > there was a choice involved. If you do that (things you don't wish
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > do) a lot, you may wonder why. The exact details would take volumes
> > > > > > to explain but the simple truth is, you had no choice.
>
> > > > > Ahh again I'm going to have to disgaree there. An example I think:
>
> > > > > Work the majority of us do not really wish to do it, but in order to
> > > > > buy the things we need to live , food ect.. we must work. I worked
> > > > > yesterday, I have no feeling of wishing I had not. I could of course
> > > > > choose not to work, and then I must face the consequences of that
> > > > > choice, but to say that I have no choice in the matter is not correct.
>
> > > > > I choose to work, yes I choose it because in order to live and provide
> > > > > for my family I must, but really the only thing that ensures I
> > > > > continue to work is myself, my own priorites my childrens needs, I
> > > > > could always neglect these, I could choose to be selfish.
>
> > > > It appears that way, but that is part of the illusion cast by not
> > > > being able to see what will happen. As far as choosing to be selfish,
> > > > given only One, we have no choice BUT to be. ;-)
>
> > > > > > > Sorry sir that also is not what I mean. When you inveriably
> > > > > > > reply to
> > > > > > > this post you will no doubt careful choose the words you wish to
> > > > > > > make. Each and every word you use you will think about prior to
> > > > > > > typeing it, this is you choosing. What compels you say, perhaps
> > > > > > > 'It
> > > > > > > is not so' rather than 'No, things are not like that'?
>
> > > > > > > Both mean the same, so where is the compusion?
>
> > > > > > The compulsion might derive on whether I feel one might be less
> > > > > > (or
> > > > > > more) offensive to the reader. And that, in turn, requires
> > > > > > reflection
> > > > > > and loads of presumptions that would be impossible to trace out.
>
> > > > > So then what you belive here is not on the basis of evideance but
> > > > > faith. On offense, again why would the choice or your wish not to
> > > > > offend the reader have any bearing on the matter? It is your choice
> > > > > to not cause offence presumably, you could choose it's opposite could
> > > > > you not?
>
> > > > No, it's based on more things than I have time to write here without
> > > > losing my job. And that's my compulsion.
>
> > > > > > > Ahh Pat I'm afraid my grasp on that sort of logic is pretty bad,
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > may have to find another way to explain it, that loks too much
> > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > maths to me, and my brain does funny things when ever I see that
> > > > > > > kind
> > > > > > > or formula written. Which is anothe way of saying that I have
> > > > > > > yet to
> > > > > > > discover a coping mechinism in order for my eyes to see and my
> > > > > > > brain
> > > > > > > to translate exaclty what that means.
>
> > > > > > > I wil say this though, and I have probably got your meaning
> > > > > > > entirly
> > > > > > > wrong but here goes. Choice A, eat the bacon sandwhich, choice B
> > > > > > > eat
> > > > > > > the banana sandwhich. What of choice C eat both, or D eat none,
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > choices E and F which are about the order of eating both of them?
>
> > > > > > The gist is you can only perform 1 of your choices not some
> > > > > > combination and there is no going back to redo and overwrite
> > > > > > history.
> > > > > > There are no loopbacks in the premiss, so there is no chance of any
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > them upsetting the arrow of time through space.
>
> > > > > Okay well I guess that must be taken as is, always. I mean I can not
> > > > > comprehend of any choice, which lets face it simply means do this or
> > > > > do that, that lets you do both. I still don't get the relevance of it
> > > > > in this context though Pat?
>
> > > > When it comes time to act, only one act can be performed at any one
> > > > place at any one time. This is the definition of an event. a spatio-
> > > > temporal point. And none are missing, therefore, all events are
> > > > extant in the whole. The future is always just around the temporal
> > > > corner, but, just because you can't see around the corner, don't
> > > > assume that there is nothing there.
>
> > > > > > > > > >Not necessarily. There could be a gun to your head each
> > > > > > > > > >time and
> > > > > > > > > > you are buggering, as it were, for your life and it has
> > > > > > > > > > nothing to do
> > > > > > > > > > with one's sexuality.
>
> > > > > > > > > Yet if there was not?
>
> > > > > > > > You could have some other reason. We could go on endlessly
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > hypotheticals. Are there any real examples we could discuss?
>
> > > > > > > Well thats the point Pat, there could be many reasons, and I say
> > > > > > > unless we can nail every single one of them down then we can't
> > > > > > > claim
> > > > > > > for sure that it is due to determinism rather than choice, to do
> > > > > > > so is
> > > > > > > claim based upon faith.
>
> > > > > > And to waste time nailing them all down is just that, a waste of
> > > > > > time. Let me save you that time...belive what I'm saying. ;-)
>
> > > > > Heh a copout if ever I saw one sir!
>
> > > > Only for the same reason as above and that to list the entirety is too
> > > > much for this forum, even, to contain.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Unless there's a gun to your head or some other stimulus
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > temporarily overrides your sexuality nature by the drive to
> > > > > > > > > > survive
> > > > > > > > > > (or protect loved ones, etc.). We don't read the lines
> > > > > > > > > > until they've
> > > > > > > > > > been drawn.
>
> > > > > > > > > So we can therefore make temporary changes to our nature?
>
> > > > > > > > No, you discover that another aspect of your nature kicks-in and
> > > > > > > > overrides the other part. No change but, perhaps, a new,
> > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > revelation OF one's nature.
>
> > > > > > > Yet you used the phrase 'temporarily overrides your sexuality
> > > > > > > nature'
> > > > > > > you did not mean this then? You meant instead undiscoverd part of
> > > > > > > your nature?
>
> > > > > > Yes. However, it may appear to the individual (with little
> > > > > > reflection) that it was a temporary override, thus allowable. We
> > > > > > justify all our acts internally based on what data we have at the
> > > > > > time. New data, later, may make us wish we'd had THAT data before.
> > > > > > But, in those cases, acceptance is the key.
>
> > > > > In essance then what you are saying here, specificaly about sexual
> > > > > preferance but the logic can of course extend elsewhere, is that ones
> > > > > 'nature' cannot be said to be known at all as you may discover other
> > > > > parts of it latter?
>
> > > > Or, rather, over time, we see more of it, just as more of
>
> ...
>
> read more »- 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
