Ahh yes of course we can I'm sure find all sorts of reasons, but I'm after the reasons why the reasons, err yeah?
On 26 Aug, 17:08, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more »- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
