[SA previously]
> > For about 5-6 months, I was doing much of the
> > work for I was in training mode. ... I had to wait
> > for [the staff] to catch on without ...making the
> > residential unit inhospitable. How I did this was
> > by setting limits. I kept the social structure of
> the unit intact to the best of my ability.
> > Some of the new staff would give choices to the
> > residents. ...Certain staff didn't allow for all
> these choices, and the dominant residents would
fight
> back at these staff.
> > Eventually, the residents became confused as to
> what they wanted to do, they couldn't agree, and the
> > routine, well, wasn't a free choice, it was chaos.
> ...Staff have slowly begun to reestablish the social
> > structure. ... This was put into practice by
> setting limits and expectations. Choices remain
intact.
> The residents can follow the expected routine or be
> placed out-of-routine as a consequence. ...
> > The same goes for the staff. They have a job
> to perform. ... They are expected to follow a
> > certain order outlined in their job description,
> but each staff has a certain style in how this is
> > accomplished. I'm learning that a good goal seems
to be keep a
> > unit orderly, while at the same time allow staff
> to make their own decisions in how this will be
> > accomplished.
> > Pure freedom is only chaos and not generative to
> > any static latches of good quality.
> > thoughts?
[Ham]
> As group leader, your experience demonstrates that
> individual freedom in a
> social system is not achieved without certain
> responsibilities to the
> society.
Correct. I see responsibilities as expectations,
limits, and organized endeavors.
[Ham]
> I don't know if your staff is paid,
Staff is paid.
[Ham]
> ...or under what conditions the
> residents have access to your facility, but law and
> order is prerequisite
> for any collective effort.
Yes. I agree. Not sure what "access to your
facility" your getting at, but yes, I agree "law and
order is..."
[Ham]
> Whether it's the family structure, the work
> environment, or a sovereign state, freedom isn't the
> right to have every want satisfied and every wish
fulfilled.
Sadly this is not a well-understood trade off. I
understand, but freedom is something learned. Freedom
doesn't last without understanding how freedom is
kept, which as you mention, freedom is kept by
responsibilities, law, and order, etc...
[Ham]
> Apparently, you have won the struggle and
established a workable
> "social democracy" of cooperative "happy
> campers". Congratulations, SA!
I have won NO struggle, and the goals have been
declared to the staff on how this social experiment
will work. We've tried the free-for-all, and now
staff hopefully realize that this free-for-all by the
residents will not work without some set-limits and
organization. I wish they were "happy campers",
hahaha.... thanks though.
[Ham]
> I don't recall anyone using the term "pure freedom"
in these
> discussions, nor have I used it.
> In my thesis, I point out that the freedom of a
> society or nation doesn't
> come freely. It's paid for by the struggle of
> enlightened individuals who
> know its value and are willing to make sacrifices to
> preserve it. Freedom
> can flourish only in a civilized society where the
> self-control necessary
> for developing individual responsibility can be
fully exercised.
How is this taught? I completely agree with you,
and I'm glad to see you have this spelled out in your
thesis. I'm curious. How does your thesis connect
with these real life practices. How do you join
Essence with self-control and responsibility? A
philosophy not grounded in real life events is not
truly a philosophy in my eyes, but that might be just
my opinion. So any help in how your thesis approaches
this need for society to understand freedom is not
without organization and structure, please feel free
to comment.
[Ham]
> The Islamic culture is in turmoil today because its
> people have been
> subservient to external authority and the "law of
> Allah" for so many
> centuries that they don't realize their innate
> freedom and are taught to
> look upon those who enjoy it as infidels who must be
> eliminated.
By "external authority" do you mean the Islamic
priests and such?
[Ham]
> No occupying nation, military power, or
international
> sanction can resolve the
> Islamic problem. A solution to the terrorism that
> now threatens the free
> world will come only when the Muslim people take the
> responsibility upon
> themselves to eradicate jihadism and everything it
> stands for from their culture.
Yes, clarifying ones position, whether Muslim or
whatnot helps establish what ones role is. Apparently
Muslims have many different factions, so does
Christianity, but a strong argument from the
foundation (whoever might represent this) of what a
true Muslim is would help clarify not only to Muslims
alike, but to non-Muslims what a more true Muslim is.
Right now, the voice that is loudest on the global
scale seems to be the radical Muslim, the Muslim that
fights and wants to rid the world of infidels. Since
that voice is loudest and pulls quotes from the Koran
more often for many to hear, then more and more people
become convinced that Muslims are out to kill for
their purpose. I've been convinced, with a
willingness to change my mind, that the Muslim
religion is founded upon killing for it's purpose.
Muhammad the prophet killed and his followers went all
the way to Spain killing for their purpose.
Christianity is founded upon an eye-for-an-eye
philosophy, but then Christ clarified this position so
much that that eye-for-eye was transformed into
turn-the-cheek. Now, I understand certain Christians
have come up with 'Just War' doctrines since then, so,
Christianity is muddied too. Buddhism has taken a
stance that has remained unchanged thus easier to
follow as to what Buddhism is. I guess what I'm
saying is clarification is important, and
argumentation is an important part of declaring what
one means and how they view the world. These
world-views/philosophies are jumping off points for
not only intellectual views, but social views as well.
[Ham]
> When I speak of Freedom here, it's generality within
> a philosophical
> context. Unless I'm otherwise informed, I assume as
> a "given" that the
> reader will be a citizen of a civilized country that
> recognizes the value of
> individual freedom and has come to grips with the
> problems of social
> responsibility. I also assume the person I'm
> talking to respects the
> man-made laws of his or her nation, as well as the
> right of fellow citizens
> to practice the religion their choice and freely
> pursue their life goals, so
> long as such behavior does not infringe on the
> rights of others. Do you
> think I've assumed too much?
I was pointing out a real life situation where
there are people who believe freedom means they can do
whatever they want. I was also showing how when they
were given the opportunity to do whatever they wanted,
how the social structure fell apart and chaos reined
upon the social level. This degenerative events are
an unfortunate reality in this culture, and other
cultures. I'm pointing out a philosophy that
recognizes this real events and has been able to
incorporate these real events within its' paradigm.
How does your thesis view/incorporate/account these
unfortunate, sad, and culturally insane events?
thanks.
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
