Ahh well it has been a blast today chaps, Pat, Chris, BB many thanks, you have given me much to think about tonight and if you would allow me to bastardise the words of an early 'Big Brother' contestant, 'I like thinking I do'!
I'm off be back tomorrow. On 26 Aug, 17:24, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 26 Aug, 17:13, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > 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? > > For that, I'm afraid, I would have to know more about the > relationships between each of you and your father. That is a huge > request and one that, if you fulfilled, would take years. And, of > course, the crux events are really those between your brother and your > father and not even you are privy to them all. Which is probably why > you don't already know the answer. > > > > > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
