Kipling in the poem 'If' wrote: If you can trust yours self when all others doubt you, but make allowances for their doubting too. . . it always is a balancing act. You are the one who in the end is responsible for your judgement. Allan
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Binah Hochma <[email protected]>wrote: > Allen, being true to yourself is probably the most difficult. Can we give > up our right to be right, even when we "know" we are right, in favor of > respect for others? In favor of being in relationship with others, as we > are social beings? Our we willing to believe that maybe, just maybe we > don't have the truth? > Some times in order to be in relationship with others you have to keep > yourself to your self and then the question is, are you in real relationship > if you can't share your true self. > Binah > > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 7:38 AM, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> One's truth may be true and still dangerous or irritating to others. I >> think we have pieces of truths but respect- or try to respect- >> different points of view. >> >> No- just an earthquake in Japan. How about you? >> >> On Mar 12, 10:17 am, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: >> > No Rigsy being true to oneself does not stop you from being a social >> > person.. but is it a rough day today? >> > Allan >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 3:28 PM, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > I disagree, Allan. We are social creatures, afterall. One's truth may >> > > be a falsehood and dangerous or irritating to others. >> > >> > > On Mar 12, 1:33 am, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > Your only obligation in any lifetime is be true to yourself >> > > > Allan >> > >> > > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:34 PM, pol.science kid < >> [email protected] >> > > >wrote: >> > >> > > > > 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 >> > >> > > > -- >> > > > ( >> > > > ) >> > > > I_D Allan >> > >> > > > If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken >> > > > Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,- Hide quoted text - >> > >> > > > - Show quoted text - >> > >> > -- >> > ( >> > ) >> > I_D Allan >> > >> > If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken >> > Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,- Hide quoted text - >> > >> > - Show quoted text - > > > -- ( ) I_D Allan If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
