you know..another thing here...struck me kind of late...re-enforcement....acknowledging of our 'achievement'...the basic need for approval...rewards..and constant need for proving...does it have anything to do with the underlying psychological social bent ...and are they necessarily innate... On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:02 PM, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote:
> I do agree with the innate idea- thinking of the joy an infant feels > when learning to stand/walk/toss food off his highchair tray,etc. But > that joy is best when encouraged by parents or caregivers and that > bonus really doesn't change much through life. An individual can feel > a sense of accomplishment on his own yet still yearns for re- > enforcement of some sort- of which their are many- one could even > depend on abstract rewards.// Family, religion, education, society are > some of the more important channels we must choose how to swim/ > navigate and our own individual nature may have to oppose rather than > comply which can be subtle or violent and everything in-between. I > feel rebellion against authority is a natural state of becoming a > distinct individual but all rests on method and outcome. Another > factor is maturity- often our understanding of and empathy for our > parents comes round when we become parents, for instance > > On Mar 9, 6:18 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > PSK, the notion of feeling empowered *IF* associated with actual being/ > > will, is innate. Such an experience one either is aware of or asleep > > to along with differing levels of perception. > > > > Conditions?...it can make a difference; however, the same setting for > > different people will often result in different levels of awareness of > > will so as I see it, other factors are of more importance. > > > > On Mar 9, 2:45 am, "pol.science kid" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > As you say....the modes are both only different methods of percieving > > > perhaps....what i want to know orn...is when does an individual feel > > > empowered....an individual...a will...an active will....what attributes > to > > > it...what conditions...is it more likely in a certain setting.....i > hope i > > > make sense > > > > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 5:09 PM, ornamentalmind > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > “i guess ..i meant a secular rather than a religious or theological > > > > mode of > > > > understanding things...the world.... “ – PSK > > > > > > Well, that does point towards an area of your beliefs so thanks for > > > > this much. Perhaps you could be even more specific? > > > > > > As far as I’ve found out…reviewing human thought over the ages,… > > > > secular and religious views often are at the very least intertwined. > > > > > > On the other hand, perhaps you are being much more literal when you > > > > use the notion of “…mode of understanding things…”. If this is the > > > > case, a more specific unpacking of what the two apparently (to you) > > > > different modes would be of value, OK? > > > > > > I’ll suspend judgment until I hear more. > > > > > > On Mar 7, 3:01 am, "pol.science kid" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > i guess ..i meant a secular rather than a religious or theological > mode > > > > of > > > > > understanding things...the world.... > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 4:21 PM, ornamentalmind > > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > “…revolution in knowledge and philosophy…” – PSK ??? > > > > > > > > To continue the discussion, one would need to know what you mean > here. > > > > > > Would you unpack it a bit? > > > > > > > > Before actually knowing what you mean, I see little if any > > > > > > ‘revolution’ in this context. Yes, there is a process of change > in > > > > > > thought over the millennia yet such general ‘change’ doesn’t mean > a > > > > > > progression towards a more accurate view. Case in point – you are > > > > > > apparently using the dialectical view of one view being in > > > > > > contradiction with another. While many do apprehend in this way, > in no > > > > > > way is that an indicator of the accuracy of such a view. > > > > > > > > As best as I can see, both can be known consubstantially. > > > > > > > > On Mar 7, 2:25 am, "pol.science kid" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > I was thinking .... i agree with what yuo guys say ....could it > also > > > > be > > > > > > the > > > > > > > revolution in knowledge and philosophy...when it was > > > > questioned....what > > > > > > > can an INdividual know.....it kind of pitts one against the > whole in > > > > this > > > > > > > struggle to know...or salvation through knowledge...what > say.... > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 9:01 PM, pol.science kid < > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > True we have come a long way..and the word has been taken for > > > > > > > > granted....but i would like an opinion of each one of you > ...on the > > > > > > > > Sanctity of Freedom.... it is also my casual inference > > > > > > > > that....individuality ...the modern obsession with it....how > come > > > > > > > > some primitive tribes...hold the community at a level above > the > > > > > > > > individual....while it is not quite so in our > 'modernised'...or > > > > rather > > > > > > > > westernised world.....are there concepts of radicalised > > > > individuality > > > > > > > > in the oriental philosophy..... need your opoinions fellows > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > \--/ Peace > > > > > > > -- > > > > > \--/ Peace > > > > > -- > > > \--/ Peace- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - -- \--/ Peace
