Actually, Aistotle implied no such static 'balance point'. If anything, he called for an ongoing process ... acting in accordance with virtues with no implication that eudaimonia will be attained through some 'balance point' that 'deviate(s) markedly from this ideal...'. If anything, he states the opposite.
While 'pragmatic', the telos involved would have no meaning if such a subjective meaning were accepted. On Mar 13, 9:42 am, [email protected] wrote: > Try this criterion for "normal". Aristotle's golden mean indicates that the > best human beings can do > > to be reasonably 'objective' is to strive to attain and to sustain a > collective balance point. The components of > > this theoretical balance point are the head (thinking). the heart (feelings) > and the soul (spirit). > > Since human being - collectively and individually often deviate markedly from > this ideal - the golden mean suggests > > that each person strive to fashion and to sustain their own personal balance > point. > > The balance point is your normal. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > Sent: Sun, Mar 13, 2011 11:04 am > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Ambivalence > > Rigsy, of course what you say exists. And, my response was more > directed to Mr. Williams and in more of a rhetorical way. > > What I was attempting to imply is that psych, as useful as such an > area of study might be, doesn’t appear to have a clear, objective > standard as to what ‘normal’ is… at least not normal in the sense of > being healthy. I’m suggesting that one must first know what it is to > be a human being and have a grasp on the entire map of the psyche to > know this kind of knowledge. So far, I fear the ‘science’ of > psychology is in its infancy and has far to go before achieving the > actual label of science. > > Of course, we have come to our current point of the discussion over > how words are used and what they mean. The term ‘normal’ has numerous > meanings and uses. And, as one would expect from such a group, I’ve > but suggested a preferable view…one that integrates not only > ‘conformance to an average’ and ‘social norms, expected patterns of > behavior studied within the context of society’, but one that goes > beyond one current day of such a ‘specialized’ and therefore limited > way of viewing it all. > > Yes rigsy, one that even embraces and knows about fairy tales and the > automatic (normal?) use of drugs of all sorts to balance the psyche as > well as the media, its goals, methods and how it changes and even how > to integrate humor and bliss! > > On Mar 13, 5:16 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > It depends on the culture, religion and family, I think, where reality > > and honesty are glossed, suppressed or frankly, lied about. There may > > be more openess in our society- USA- but I think there are still > > unrealistic expectations- maybe in the opposite direction-less starry- > > eyed- the media is a good example of oversell while comics and cynics > > pull bliss to pieces. There are "let-downs" that are considered normal > > now- like post-traumatic stress, post-partum depression and one could > > cite all sorts of statistics/examples of modern behavior that > > illustrate at least part of this struggle. Unlike the fairy tales, > > ornamental, many do not live "happily ever after"- they make > > adjustments/adaptations and hopefully find contentment/a realistic > > point of view. They can also use drugs/rx to tune out- or food- or all > > sorts of escapes. > > > On Mar 12, 7:22 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > How can one with 'unrealistic expectations' be considered 'normal'? > > > > On Mar 12, 7:41 am, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > Ambivalence clinically (from the vantage point of a psychologist) > describes mixed feelings of love and hate directed to oneself and or > > > > > important love objects. These feelings are normal - to disappointments > (often due to frustrated unrealistic expectations) of self to self or > > > > > self and love object. > > > > > Further - because of unconscious repression and or suppression the > 'negative' hateful feelings and fantasies are unrecognized and are > > > > > often expressed in ways that are experienced as under or over reactions. > For example - a woman who has hostile feelings towards her > > > > > husband but has a difficulty in allowing herself to accept them - may > often treat the husband with excessive deference, niceness, and > > > > > subservience. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: rigsy03 <[email protected]> > > > > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > > > > Sent: Sat, Mar 12, 2011 9:59 am > > > > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Ambivalence > > > > > I thought more about this topic. I gave a minor example regarding an > > > > impending visit but ambilvalence can be more serious, I think. And > > > > maybe I have used the wrong term to begin with! We were raised, for > > > > instance, to ignore the incongruities in others and depended on > > > > etiquette to get us through- we didn't often question the disconnect > > > > but that began to change in the '70's with pop psychology and more > > > > openess in relationships plus new terms and tools for labeling > > > > behavior. > > > > > Ambivalence may be a primitive warning sign, for instance, that > > > > persons or events do not "add up", yet it resides initially in the sub > > > > cs./emotions to begin with until it is able to be an intelligent > > > > assessment. > > > > > On Mar 10, 12:25 pm, "pol.science kid" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > is ambivalence to be looked at in terms...or dissected of thesis, > antithesis > > > > > and synthesis..only...the anti thesis is as natural as thesis...not > merely > > > > > an artificial correction.... > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 6:33 PM, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Yikes! > > > > > > > But Mardi and Gibbs have other ideas on the subject which suggest > > > > > > ambivalence is quite normal. > > > > > > > It depends on the choice/decision. I am quite at ease in making most > > > > > > choices- informed, confident of my judgement and taste, etc. BUT... > > > > > > > There are some areas that do indeed get muddied up sometimes and > > > > > > that > > > > > > would often be relationships and the more intimate, the more > > > > > > complicated. But it could also be another type of decision that has > > > > > > consequences- a major purchase or committment to a career, etc. I am > > > > > > not talking about the Pruefrock debate. > > > > > > > Often there is a conflict between duty and expectation of one's > > > > > > position and desire, feelings, etc. that are hestitant or in > > > > > > opposition. In my case, I have agreed to a two week visit and I > > > > > > really > > > > > > do not feel up to it. (Guilt?) Could it be the long, longer, longest > > > > > > winter in memory? Is it putting away the knickknacks so the toddlers > > > > > > won't break them? Is it that my routine and order will fly to the > > > > > > winds? Or will the advent of spring- for surely it will arrive one > > > > > > of > > > > > > these days- open windows, no boots, change the entire atmosphere? If > > > > > > the past is a guide, it will be fun and lovely and I will grieve > > > > > > when > > > > > > they depart. BUT... > > > > > > > This child and I are very close yet have really gone through some > > > > > > stuff together. I debated and she made reservations. :-) Am I still > > > > > > remembering her as a teenager? > > > > > > > Perhaps ambivalence comes into play when there is a good deal of > > > > > > history/information and we get swarmed. So Mardi and Gibbs make good > > > > > > points- go with your heart and accept the ambivalences. Afterall, it > > > > > > is all all those differences that add spice to relationships, as > > > > > > well. > > > > > > > But she can't have that ivory Buddha... :-) > > > > > > > The instance when someone defined ambivalence was crucial and I > > > > > > suppose part of a plan to help me assess facts versus wishes until I > > > > > > finally had the courage to file for divorce. > > > > > > > On Mar 10, 2:44 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > When felt as being problematic as rigsy does, ambivalence by > > > > > > > definition is > > > > > > > ‘pathological’.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambivalence > > > > > > > > The issue is not having been clarified enough to actually > > > > > > > integrate > > > > > > > apparently differing issues, values, notions etc. So, in this > context, > > > > > > > her feelings of distress point to an actual need for > > > > > > > clarification. > > > > > > > > There is a point where one can actually integrate all aspects of a > > > > > > > situation/self. And, even though Wilber is more of a pop icon > > > > > > > than a > > > > > > > final embodiment of truth, he and his integralism is a good place > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > ‘start’ when it comes to this topic – ambivalence. > > > > > > >http://integrallife.com/http://www.integralworld.net/augustine4.htmlh... > > > > > > > > The topic, as simple as it is, can be made into a vast labyrinth > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > thought. > > > > > > > > Molly on occasion addresses this too and in one of the above links > > > > > > > philosophers are addressed including Plato. > > > > > > > > As far as I’ve found, his “The Fifth” is about as far as one can > > > > > > > go. > > > > > > > > On Mar 9, 8:34 am, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > > > Re ambivalence - It is not pathological but absolutely normal. > > > > > > Love/hate exist in every relationship both with the self and the > > > > > > self > and > > > > > > the self and others. If only we all were logical in the sense of > scientific > > > > > > cause and effect we could always be 'objective." But we human beings > are > > > > > > much more complex than simply disembodied intellects. There is also > the > > > > > > realm of mixed feelings. When you add linear (scientific causality) > logic > > > > > > with the realm of messy feelings you get a hybrid causality I refer > > > > > > to > as > > > > > > experiential logic (thinking plus mixed feelings and emotions). > > > > > > Acknowledging this fact validate my wise psychoanalyst's insightful > > > > > > observation: "In between black and white are not shades of gray; > rather, > > > > > > there are colors. > > > > > > > > > Gibbs Williams > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > From: rigsy03 <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > Sent: Wed, Mar 9, 2011 8:46 am > > > > > > > > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Ambivalence > > > > > > > > > I feel it in my mind > > ... > > read more »
