@Weenis uhm… maybe i should have explained no actual loss has taken place yet. Guy at work was torn up because his ma is sick and to return home would be Russian roulette
@Weenis
Even Jesus would minister first to immediate and even some secondary physical needs before proverbially dropping the 98-lb Schofield Reference Bible on their head and walking away.
Your answer is partially correct, but conveniently incomplete.
Life gets to define life. Or bring it down to an ecosystem level: the physical reality of a certain area gets to define the life that exists in that area. There are some species that can then modify that area on larger scale more to their liking (ie. beavers, humans). But the environment got to first side which species could exist in that ecosystem to make that transformation.
It comes down to knowing our place in the grand scheme of things, and not suffering too much from delusions of grandeur.
@griz no darkness able in this scenario. We all (god included) have incongruities. That’s why i am able to say with 100% confidence that everything has hypocrisy!
@Jear77
We cannot judge that which we cannot experience. Consider that axiomatic.
And the incongruities that we would try to protect upon the greatest archetype (God, Life), are actually the very deepest core incongruities of ourselves. (Lesser incongruities we can project onto lesser targets!)
We experience ourselves, even on levels we cannot consciously map. That means we are able to judge that even unto condemnation. Much of this happens on the levels of the subconscious and the collective consciousness. Not being consciously aware of them is what triggers anxiety, angst, nihilism, ideological possession, social and psychological toxicity and suffering that we cannot account for; though it tries to resonate off of the collective suffering of everything and everyone into a great self-destructive feedback loop.
But we cannot judge that which we cannot experience. Instead we cast twisted projections of the darkest sides of ourselves that we need to cast out because they are so terrifying.
And the more fundamentally terrifying they are, the bigger the screen we need to try projecting them upon.
(I know that’s deep. But try not to just dismissed it. It’s a point of potential healing).
@Jear77
But that’s an arrogance presumption: the notion that any/all extra-human power structures must conform to human parameters — that we are the ultimate and baseline definers of all things apparently including those things we cannot define. What rational grounds could we have to presume this?
@griz that’s even worse! Something that is other judging us by its standards… standards that I see throughout the bible are free to be broken by it (and those following it) time and time again.
@Jear77
By what standard do you judge that your hair needs to be cut or your toenails clipped? They are a part of you but technically not “you”.
Like it or not you are a part of Life. Either quest for a philosophy of Truth that will enable you to become all that you possibly can be (and perhaps more).
Or settle for an ideology that will leave you angsty, nihilistic, separated, despondent, victimized, bitter, projecting, disempowered.
@griz prove first that anything matters. Oh, in the short term to us, certainly! But in the scope of history, in the blink of an eye it’s meaningless, worthless. The moment any of us dies the best of us, the worst of us dies, life still goes on, no matter our accomplishments, irrespective of the terrible things we’ve done. Oh friends and family may mourn us for a time, but if they don’t take care of themselves, they too will die, and life will once again move on.
@Jear77
The push towards better understanding, a better life, better health are just three good meanings that have been applied successfully over many generations. I saw some good graphs in a lecture just yesterday that show how amazingly far we’ve come in just 200 years.
There are just so many awesome examples of people who have brought such wisdom meaning and advances to the whole race that live on long after they’re gone, that to feint nihilism would take many layers of very big blinders.
@griz but those advances are temporary. You must not know how vulnerable these advances are. A good sized solar flare, an earthquake in the wrong place, a large enough storm and we go back 150 – 200 years. Yeah services may be restored eventually, but in tbe case of a solar flare that repeatedly acts as an emp pulse, it may be a year plus to get things going again because even the people who work at the upper levels of a power plant really don’t know how it works.
@Jear77
Not so far as we are currently concerned. Do you think history was a cake walk up to the 1700’s? We have built things up to have the environment and circumstances tear them down since time immemorial. Yet here we still are.
I recognize that a lot of people are addicted to technology and convenience. And should one of these catastrophes come to pass nature will select against them.
The survivors will survive because they always have otherwise we wouldn’t be here. And I have sufficient training that I would likely be one of them.
And that to large degree, because I’ve not surrendered to nihilism and still find meaning.
BTW, you do know there are other ways to light a light bulb than a complex power plant? I could probably build you a micro power generator that would run off of a very small stream and power a 60 watt light bulb in just a few days with materials that will be left laying around all over the place after one of these catastrophes you mention.
But again people who are addicted to convenience and tech will be heavily selected against.
By their own choice.
@griz Because we don’t know how to do things our ancestors did… many will perish. This isn’t a thing of might. Will. And the sun is a ticking time bomb, so it’s not a matter of if. It’s a matter of when.
@Jear77
It’s one heck of a cool ride if one doesn’t stray too deeply into the encampments of resent arrogance or deceit. These are the deadly three “Life killers”.
They are far more of a deadly present danger than an exploding Sun, an EMP, or pestilence: because we are not currently actively threatened by these things in our little boxes within boxes within boxes of protection. They exist as just a worry and worry is manageable.
But resentment arrogance and deceit can be daily right there in our insulated reality with us. Many people struggle with them on a daily and hourly basis.
They are perhaps THE major cause of ongoing systemic suffering.
@griz you don’t get my point. Many of the medications/ medical advances are rooted in today’s technology. We’d very soon have bodies piling up left and right because people can’t do without their medicine. We rely on electronic devices too much, and there aren’t enough people handy/ inventive enough to support society.
All of society. Harsh though it may be, Society is all of us yet none of us individually.
Can you think of a single social bubble from human history that hasn’t popped?
But others have formed. This is the nature of life as we currently know it. Arrogance resentment and deceit seek to destroy this cycle. (Whether a person at a time, or in vast swaths with technology).
You may have missed the point that these three are even a greater cause of human suffering than anything else.
You do cite suffering quite frequently, without seeing the pernicious feedback loop.
@Jear77
If you’re talking total annihilation then nothing will matter.
But how many humans does it take to make a social group? And from social groups come societies. That isn’t rocket science.
And there’s a notion existing somewhere between science and fiction that no matter how great the catastrophe or variant the plague, there is a great chance there will be survivors.
@Jear77
That would be Evolution/Mother Nature judging the Industrial Revolution as an error and correcting for it.
Perhaps not an error in principle but an error in process; but still want that needed correcting.
And the longer it is artificially maintain without necessary correction the costly or the correction will be.
The Babylonian creation myth with Tiamat the mother of all things, was a brilliant foreshadowing of this very process.
@Jear77
My finding a problem with reality is not going to keep it from happening.
So why use that to drive suffering angst worry resentment arrogance or deceit to unmanageable levels in myself? Levels that will effectively guarantee I will be unable to deal with what made need to come.
It’s like the fear of losing hold of a handful of sand. The tighter you clutching the quicker it will run away.
Myth was the earliest attempts to manage these things in the species. We’ve lost track of how to do that. You’ve lost track of how to do this.
So a return to the basics of how our very primitive ancestors dealt with it is not disallowed. It’s actually a rather good place to start.
Because a lot of the things they came up with to manage this were genius compared to what we’re NOT coming up with, as life slips meaninglessly through our fingers!
If you’ve lost your way in the present, the wisest option is to retrace your steps. Whether individually or as a species.
They split off from the chimpanzee when the Congo River first flowed and divided their territory. They are the matriarchal sex-crazed variant of the chimpanzee!
1 : visionary theorizing
2 a : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture
b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture
c : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program
@luftballooneyegouge
An ideology is a set of guiding Concepts and Notions. they are based on a mix of fact and faith. That way we can incorporate things that we feel are good without being able to fully and intellectually articulate them. There’s nothing particularly Insidious about that; unless the mix is too far off to one side or the other.
The problem is people stop using them as a set of tools for understanding reality, and start worshiping them as ideologues.
Like it or not the most stable structure over time has been deistic religions. Societies with pick one and say this is the ultimate one to worship. You can worship these other little things but this overarching one needs to trmp them so there is some form of cohesive unity. Even in Pantheon’s there was always a king of the gods that overruled them all.
This was the age of faith and has existed for as least as long as civilization has existed (6000 yrs); and quite feasibly in some shape or form for far longer.
Then came the Age of Enlightenment. The various core disciplines of science only sorted themselves out in the 1700s, meaning the Age of Constructive Enlightenment has only been with us for 200 years. But some are apparently calling it a failure and wanting to move on to the next Age.
Cue the Age of Destructive anti-Enlightenment. This is most notably manifest in postmodern neo-Marxism.
A linear regression (1000’s of years, to 100’s, to perhaps 10’s) it’s not a good indicator of success for this process.
Compound this with anything remotely Associated to Marxism failing horrendously in very short order, and we have another powerful indicator of failure.
Am I advocating the return to “the Good old days”? Or perhaps just a return the last stable footing that we had?
Is the road ahead is crumbling under one’s feet, a return to known stable footing would seem wise.
Both faith and Enlightenment seem to have stable aspects to them.
Factionating anti-Enlightenment victimhood identity politics? Evidence to date is that it has none. Just look at how many silly constructs of anti-science and denial of sound evidence forthe sake of feelings that movements like feminism, BLM, the NRA and the GBLTTIQQP. . . are coming to rely on more and more often. They are more interested in emotional activism, than making sure they are on scientifically and statistically stable footing.
@griz
But the history of Europe would be a huge argument against deistic religions being stable structures. They were sticking people’s heads on poles for most of it, when they were at war, which was most of European history, and when they weren’t.
What’s anti-science about not wanting to get shot by police for nothing? Just because it’s very motivated by an emotional aspect of the suffered loss, doesn’t mean it’s going against science. BLM & even the NRA also use mostly existing reliable stats or data, which support their cause.
The United States was founded by incorporating emotional activism for better or worse, so it’s a proven model for change.
I’d wager you’d have an emotional response if you were weighed more frequently than you are now, & that’s not anywhere near as life threatening & therefore as frightening, statistically speaking, as being black and being pulled over.
The basis of activism is to get people to empathize/feel, who are not, to build a popular momentum.
Call it faith because I don’t have stats for it, but I think if it wasn’t for feelings we’d have gone extinct without each other a long time ago.
(in a galaxy far far away?)
Warning:(Neutral)Emotional Content to Emphasize the Power of Emotional Content
@luftballooneyegouge
The Age of Faith failed catastrophically at the hands of the Roman Catholic religion because as a man-made power hierarchy they strayed outside of the the core teachings into despotism.
The essential lessons to take from this are two: (starting with the ability to separate between faith and just faith in a specific religion)
1) Just how long various faith-systems persisted (thousands of years universally organized, perhaps millions in less organized forms), how much we as a species of hairless apes advanced under them into socially constructive groups able to take the next step to an age of Science and Reason (DESPITE religion’s bid to maintain despotic control) . . . and how they kept us from all killing each other until we got here. (Yes, I know we killed each other a lot in the names of various things — but we are still here and are the dominant lifeform, for now)
2) That the same power-grab, control-of-the-masses process is still around, just wearing a different fleece.
I’m not sure what to say if you think NRA and BLM data is scientifically sound. There are huge logic-disconnects and biasing of data, setting for uni-varied analysis when multi-varied analysis would be the only option a competent researcher would take. Both are beset with trying to make the data support the preferred stance rather than let the data dictate what stance is supportable.
Emotional activism certainly does spark change. But change for the better over time? You can probably count as many times in your life when reliance on emotions alone ended in disaster rather than in triumph: and more than a few times when a cool head with emotions in control brought a more desired outcome.
Change is essential to adapt to an ever-changing environment (liberalism). But change for change’s sake destabilizes any society or system and needs the stabilizing effect of conservatism. We have ready and deadly examples in just the past century of what happens when either side gets out of control. (This ties into an intelligent conversation I tried to have with @Weenis about the need for both sides to live in balance rather than at odds in extremism).
Consider the “reach” (the out-of-control) in the assertion that controlling our feelings and not letting them run out of control . . . is a call to eradicate emotions.
They serve a purpose. But so too does self control and critical thinking. Some things have to be taken on faith, and some things carried by emotions (but hopefully not emotionalism!). But when critical analysis shows something different (or even opposite) is happening as we hoped for, we need to be able to reign in subjectivity, emotionalism and activism.
Let’s remember that not being able to let our emotions and feelings submit to fact and critical analysis, is what morphed Marxism (a la Derrida and Foucault) into today’s scourge of postmodern neo-Marxism and it’s bevy of political power identity groups grabbing for control over the society.
@griz
Could you show some examples of the NRA & BLM using unsound data?
The various faith systems didn’t really persist, they changed with the times, and they certainly didn’t keep people from killing each other. They were indeed, actually, used to get people to kill each other, & still are today.
Do you see BLM & the NRA as “today’s scourge of postmodern neo-Marxism and it’s bevy of political power identity groups grabbing for control over the society”?
@Weenis
If someone has talked about an ideologue process in the Christian religious churches one should be wary of and another keeps seeing personal accusation AND keeps wanting to return to it . . . something is amiss.
The Solid Rock doesn’t produce such an artifact.
@Weenis
I’m the one talking about it, “Earth to Weenis”.
And it happens in the Christian ideology when the letter of the word exists in the absence of the Spirit on points where it is convenient to do so. Also, when the letter of the word becomes corrupted to fleshly purpose/agenda more in keeping with ego than Spirit.
Ideologue process becomes entrenched when “adherents” are dissuaded from thinking for themselves, and told just to have faith in the religious hierarchy.
So I’ve answered your questions. Let’s not neglect the ones that I’ve asked you that have remained unanswered.
There’s one on the thread of whether you can respect your political adversaries that you’ve danced all around without answering. Can you name a stable free and long-lasting political system that is a been based just on one party? You first went dodgy and then absolutely silent on the notion of a society meeting both trait-conservative and trait-liberal representation: stable yet dynamic enough to avoid stagnation in deal with change.
Can you name a stable free and long-lasting political system that is a been based just on one party?
On earth? There is none, because people are involved. The most ideal of all political systems will be what we had prior to the fall, and what heaven will be, which is a monarchy where Christ is king.
That will be a single party system, and it will be the most perfect system of all.
Now, there are examples of times in history where there has been a stable, free, and somewhat lasting political system with one party. There have also been examples of times in history where there has been a stable, free, and somewhat lasting political system with multiple parties.
But here’s where we get into your lack of logic… whether or not I can name a stable free and long-lasting political system that is a been based just on one party is irrelevant. Whether or not I can point to one is equally so. This is where we get into your tangential argumentation. If I can successfully argue for a single party system, on the basis of a biblical ideal, namely Christ is king, whether or not I can point to earthly historical single party systems or not doesn’t matter. What matters is the philosophy and logic behind the argumentation, not the historical representation of such a system. Same with whether or not we can point to a successful two or more party system. Doesn’t matter. We’re discussing ideals, of which we ought to strive toward.
See, with Marxism for instance, we can argue logically and philosophically for why and how it’s bad and terrible. That’s the primary and most important argument to have. The fact that we have so many historical examples of the failures of Marxism, matters much less than the logical consistency of the argumentation that proves it’s a bad system.
Are you able to wrap your mind around that? Do you understand that? I’m not sure you do.
But these types of discussions don’t work with you, because as you get to the point of “So I’ve answered your questions.” and you’re ready to ask your BIG question, it’s a flop.
Can you name a stable free and long-lasting political system that is a been based just on one party?
This has nothing to do with anything. It’s a stupid question. It’s the wrong question, and it doesn’t get the conversation to go anywhere.
This is why you continue to prove yourself a waste of my time.
@Weenis
And those ideals involved a tribal adversarial separation of your society into left and right you spend more time bickering amongst themselves than solving the nation’s problems?
I recognize that you cannot cite a single successful example of what your political agenda seems to be driving your nation towards.
My comment about “the salvation” you bear witness to is abundant in your words. Galatians 5 talks about the spirit of the world being one of the factions and dissension and war. Is this what you bear witness to and many of your posts?
Is this what you are saying we should be striving towards?
This remains a very big question of what you are bearing witness to.
@Jear77
People tend to say they want to do something to help another, when often what they mean is they want to do something so they don’t have to feel so bad in hearing of this person’s plight. That’s not a poke at anyone, but a shared element of Humanity in those who have not become calloused as an attempt to not have to feel anything for others in the first place.
Everything beyond this, involves social commitment. Be there for them; walk alongside them as they ask/allow/need. One needs a healthy mix of concern and respect for them. They have already probably encountered a lot of people who want to do something just to make their own self feel better. Set this aside and become committed to helping them as opportunity presents — which means being around them to see opportunity present!
Invite them to some leisure; something to distract and get their mind off things for a while. Our minds have a wonderful way of working things out when we dial down the anxiety, fear and panic. Among groups of really good friends we’ve sometimes conspired to “shanghai” a really downed friend to some leisure and recreation. They resented it at the time but afterwards said it was the best thing we could have done for them. But again, that takes a really good groups of friends to get away with exercising that kind of liberty.
But these are all “relational” things, with commitment to more than just our own feelings riccocheting off of their plight. A sober warning that this will make existing friendships deeper; and cause friendship to happen with casual acquaintances. And true friendship is an interesting mix of knowing when to give someone space, and when to get in their face. (Because true friendship grants this “authority” to be used wisely)
While the specifics might vary, human stories tend to have a lot in common. The archetypal heroic journey. The archetypal betrayal. The archetypal child. The archetypal descent into the belly of the beast to die and be reborn as something better.
Without this we would not have any ability to live together and meld into a society, and not be totally overcome by desire to kill anyone from an “alien” society.
Exact specifics of someone’s story may forever remain theirs — or more likely belonging to just a small group. POW or childhood abuse survivors for example.
But there is almost always a human connection possible.
Unless they decide to isolate and cut themselves off from humanity.
From their humanity. In a way, it belongs to all of us. We are all equal inheritors of the Human heritage.
I think that comfort is one of the few things that can be offered by not really doing anything more than listening. Being the valve a person may need to release.
Extreme illustration is when you attend a funeral of someone you are not personally close to, however, you are close to someone who is. Being there is way more important than saying the right thing, because there is no right thing to say to a person whose head is wandering in strange territory.
Just BE in the most intentional way possible, FOR them.
66 responses to “how do you comfort those whose story you don’t know/ understand?”
With the gospel, which transcends their situation and both our understandings.
@Weenis uhm… maybe i should have explained no actual loss has taken place yet. Guy at work was torn up because his ma is sick and to return home would be Russian roulette
@Jear77
My answer still applies.
@Weenis
Even Jesus would minister first to immediate and even some secondary physical needs before proverbially dropping the 98-lb Schofield Reference Bible on their head and walking away.
Your answer is partially correct, but conveniently incomplete.
@griz
No.
And it’s Scofield.
And the Scofield Reference Bible is a pile of garbage.
@Weenis
Anything that doesn’t serve one’s ideology tends to be seen as garbage in a mindset of exclusion.
@griz
No, Scoffield was a dispensationalist. Dispensationalism is recent man made garbage heterodoxy.
Get out of here with your psychobabble, “serve one’s ideology” and “mindset of exclusion.”
Again, this is you not engaging, but bringing in unfounded tangents and retardation.
@Weenis
Sigh.
The weight was the issue not the authorship. Density weenis. If both makes and breaks the analogy.
Most belief systems that are not in God alone, rely heavily on judgement and exclusion.
Authorship and misspelling were tangents weenis.
For future reference that is what a tangent looks like.
@griz actually god does too “sheep /goats” and being spat out of the mouth anyone?
@Jear77
It’s rarely a good idea to confuse our selves with God!
@griz the thing of it is, if god (if it smexists) says something, it’s the pot calling the kettle black.
@Jear77
Only in a certain dark light!
Life gets to define life. Or bring it down to an ecosystem level: the physical reality of a certain area gets to define the life that exists in that area. There are some species that can then modify that area on larger scale more to their liking (ie. beavers, humans). But the environment got to first side which species could exist in that ecosystem to make that transformation.
It comes down to knowing our place in the grand scheme of things, and not suffering too much from delusions of grandeur.
@griz no darkness able in this scenario. We all (god included) have incongruities. That’s why i am able to say with 100% confidence that everything has hypocrisy!
@Jear77
We cannot judge that which we cannot experience. Consider that axiomatic.
And the incongruities that we would try to protect upon the greatest archetype (God, Life), are actually the very deepest core incongruities of ourselves. (Lesser incongruities we can project onto lesser targets!)
We experience ourselves, even on levels we cannot consciously map. That means we are able to judge that even unto condemnation. Much of this happens on the levels of the subconscious and the collective consciousness. Not being consciously aware of them is what triggers anxiety, angst, nihilism, ideological possession, social and psychological toxicity and suffering that we cannot account for; though it tries to resonate off of the collective suffering of everything and everyone into a great self-destructive feedback loop.
But we cannot judge that which we cannot experience. Instead we cast twisted projections of the darkest sides of ourselves that we need to cast out because they are so terrifying.
And the more fundamentally terrifying they are, the bigger the screen we need to try projecting them upon.
(I know that’s deep. But try not to just dismissed it. It’s a point of potential healing).
@griz the larger the power (base), the larger the incongruities are, the more stark they are when revealed.
@Jear77
But that’s an arrogance presumption: the notion that any/all extra-human power structures must conform to human parameters — that we are the ultimate and baseline definers of all things apparently including those things we cannot define. What rational grounds could we have to presume this?
@griz that’s even worse! Something that is other judging us by its standards… standards that I see throughout the bible are free to be broken by it (and those following it) time and time again.
@Jear77
By what standard do you judge that your hair needs to be cut or your toenails clipped? They are a part of you but technically not “you”.
Like it or not you are a part of Life. Either quest for a philosophy of Truth that will enable you to become all that you possibly can be (and perhaps more).
Or settle for an ideology that will leave you angsty, nihilistic, separated, despondent, victimized, bitter, projecting, disempowered.
@griz prove first that anything matters. Oh, in the short term to us, certainly! But in the scope of history, in the blink of an eye it’s meaningless, worthless. The moment any of us dies the best of us, the worst of us dies, life still goes on, no matter our accomplishments, irrespective of the terrible things we’ve done. Oh friends and family may mourn us for a time, but if they don’t take care of themselves, they too will die, and life will once again move on.
@Jear77
The push towards better understanding, a better life, better health are just three good meanings that have been applied successfully over many generations. I saw some good graphs in a lecture just yesterday that show how amazingly far we’ve come in just 200 years.
There are just so many awesome examples of people who have brought such wisdom meaning and advances to the whole race that live on long after they’re gone, that to feint nihilism would take many layers of very big blinders.
@griz but those advances are temporary. You must not know how vulnerable these advances are. A good sized solar flare, an earthquake in the wrong place, a large enough storm and we go back 150 – 200 years. Yeah services may be restored eventually, but in tbe case of a solar flare that repeatedly acts as an emp pulse, it may be a year plus to get things going again because even the people who work at the upper levels of a power plant really don’t know how it works.
@Jear77
Not so far as we are currently concerned. Do you think history was a cake walk up to the 1700’s? We have built things up to have the environment and circumstances tear them down since time immemorial. Yet here we still are.
I recognize that a lot of people are addicted to technology and convenience. And should one of these catastrophes come to pass nature will select against them.
The survivors will survive because they always have otherwise we wouldn’t be here. And I have sufficient training that I would likely be one of them.
And that to large degree, because I’ve not surrendered to nihilism and still find meaning.
BTW, you do know there are other ways to light a light bulb than a complex power plant? I could probably build you a micro power generator that would run off of a very small stream and power a 60 watt light bulb in just a few days with materials that will be left laying around all over the place after one of these catastrophes you mention.
But again people who are addicted to convenience and tech will be heavily selected against.
By their own choice.
@griz Because we don’t know how to do things our ancestors did… many will perish. This isn’t a thing of might. Will. And the sun is a ticking time bomb, so it’s not a matter of if. It’s a matter of when.
@Jear77
It’s one heck of a cool ride if one doesn’t stray too deeply into the encampments of resent arrogance or deceit. These are the deadly three “Life killers”.
They are far more of a deadly present danger than an exploding Sun, an EMP, or pestilence: because we are not currently actively threatened by these things in our little boxes within boxes within boxes of protection. They exist as just a worry and worry is manageable.
But resentment arrogance and deceit can be daily right there in our insulated reality with us. Many people struggle with them on a daily and hourly basis.
They are perhaps THE major cause of ongoing systemic suffering.
@griz you don’t get my point. Many of the medications/ medical advances are rooted in today’s technology. We’d very soon have bodies piling up left and right because people can’t do without their medicine. We rely on electronic devices too much, and there aren’t enough people handy/ inventive enough to support society.
@Jear77
Correction.
All of society. Harsh though it may be, Society is all of us yet none of us individually.
Can you think of a single social bubble from human history that hasn’t popped?
But others have formed. This is the nature of life as we currently know it. Arrogance resentment and deceit seek to destroy this cycle. (Whether a person at a time, or in vast swaths with technology).
You may have missed the point that these three are even a greater cause of human suffering than anything else.
You do cite suffering quite frequently, without seeing the pernicious feedback loop.
@griz you don’t get it. There won’t BE a society at that point. It will cease to exist.
@Jear77
If you’re talking total annihilation then nothing will matter.
But how many humans does it take to make a social group? And from social groups come societies. That isn’t rocket science.
And there’s a notion existing somewhere between science and fiction that no matter how great the catastrophe or variant the plague, there is a great chance there will be survivors.
@griz what about a world where every man is basically for himself
@Jear77
The human without Society is perhaps the most vulnerable creature on the planet.
Anarchy can only result in either coalition (the recreation of society); or extinction.
@griz eventually, perhaps. But at the cost of 90%+ of people in industrial nations.
@Jear77
That would be Evolution/Mother Nature judging the Industrial Revolution as an error and correcting for it.
Perhaps not an error in principle but an error in process; but still want that needed correcting.
And the longer it is artificially maintain without necessary correction the costly or the correction will be.
The Babylonian creation myth with Tiamat the mother of all things, was a brilliant foreshadowing of this very process.
@griz and you don’t see a problem with that? I’m not talking myth. I am talking reality.
@Jear77
My finding a problem with reality is not going to keep it from happening.
So why use that to drive suffering angst worry resentment arrogance or deceit to unmanageable levels in myself? Levels that will effectively guarantee I will be unable to deal with what made need to come.
It’s like the fear of losing hold of a handful of sand. The tighter you clutching the quicker it will run away.
Myth was the earliest attempts to manage these things in the species. We’ve lost track of how to do that. You’ve lost track of how to do this.
So a return to the basics of how our very primitive ancestors dealt with it is not disallowed. It’s actually a rather good place to start.
Because a lot of the things they came up with to manage this were genius compared to what we’re NOT coming up with, as life slips meaninglessly through our fingers!
If you’ve lost your way in the present, the wisest option is to retrace your steps. Whether individually or as a species.
@griz
Not sure what you’re talking about. You’re back to not making any sense.
@Weenis
And that’s the tragedy: to have real-time access to the Author of Life, and just settle for a pale ideology.
@griz
Like I said, not sure what you’re talking about. You’re back to not making any sense.
What’s the pale ideology that you’re assuming I’m settling on?
@Weenis
The one you bear witness to.
@griz
What pale ideology am I bearing witness to?
@Weenis
We each bear witness to what is dearest to our heart.
If it’s neither pale nor ideological (ie, based on and not just religious construct) one has nothing to worry about.
@griz
Well good, my ideology is neither pale nor ideological.
@Weenis @griz
Have I mentioned something about a Complete Waste of Time?
@luftballooneyegouge
Having some expertise on the things one proposes speak with any wisdom or intelligence on is rarely a waste of time.
It sure beats only being able to mock and make fun of them!
@griz
YOU’LL PAY FOR THIS!!!!! YOU AND YOUR CHIMPANZEE COMPANION!!!!!
@luftballooneyegouge
Chimps are fun but for an alleged good time get a bonobo!
They split off from the chimpanzee when the Congo River first flowed and divided their territory. They are the matriarchal sex-crazed variant of the chimpanzee!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo
@Weenis
Hmm.
You may have missed the point that an ideology . . . is ideological! And is at very high risk of producing nothing more than ideologues.
It’s based on ideas which are based on the fallen nature. Whereas Truth, is Life. It is based on fellowship, not just pale ideas.
@Weenis @griz
Have I mentioned something about a Complete Waste of Time?
@griz
Definition of ideology
plural ideologies
1 : visionary theorizing
2 a : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture
b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture
c : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideology
GOSH but merriam-webster doesn’t say if it’s ‘Ideology’-capitalized or ‘Ideology’ as viewed through an egocentric lensssssssssssssssssss!
@luftballooneyegouge
An ideology is a set of guiding Concepts and Notions. they are based on a mix of fact and faith. That way we can incorporate things that we feel are good without being able to fully and intellectually articulate them. There’s nothing particularly Insidious about that; unless the mix is too far off to one side or the other.
The problem is people stop using them as a set of tools for understanding reality, and start worshiping them as ideologues.
Like it or not the most stable structure over time has been deistic religions. Societies with pick one and say this is the ultimate one to worship. You can worship these other little things but this overarching one needs to trmp them so there is some form of cohesive unity. Even in Pantheon’s there was always a king of the gods that overruled them all.
This was the age of faith and has existed for as least as long as civilization has existed (6000 yrs); and quite feasibly in some shape or form for far longer.
Then came the Age of Enlightenment. The various core disciplines of science only sorted themselves out in the 1700s, meaning the Age of Constructive Enlightenment has only been with us for 200 years. But some are apparently calling it a failure and wanting to move on to the next Age.
Cue the Age of Destructive anti-Enlightenment. This is most notably manifest in postmodern neo-Marxism.
A linear regression (1000’s of years, to 100’s, to perhaps 10’s) it’s not a good indicator of success for this process.
Compound this with anything remotely Associated to Marxism failing horrendously in very short order, and we have another powerful indicator of failure.
Am I advocating the return to “the Good old days”? Or perhaps just a return the last stable footing that we had?
Is the road ahead is crumbling under one’s feet, a return to known stable footing would seem wise.
Both faith and Enlightenment seem to have stable aspects to them.
Factionating anti-Enlightenment victimhood identity politics? Evidence to date is that it has none. Just look at how many silly constructs of anti-science and denial of sound evidence forthe sake of feelings that movements like feminism, BLM, the NRA and the GBLTTIQQP. . . are coming to rely on more and more often. They are more interested in emotional activism, than making sure they are on scientifically and statistically stable footing.
@griz
But the history of Europe would be a huge argument against deistic religions being stable structures. They were sticking people’s heads on poles for most of it, when they were at war, which was most of European history, and when they weren’t.
What’s anti-science about not wanting to get shot by police for nothing? Just because it’s very motivated by an emotional aspect of the suffered loss, doesn’t mean it’s going against science. BLM & even the NRA also use mostly existing reliable stats or data, which support their cause.
The United States was founded by incorporating emotional activism for better or worse, so it’s a proven model for change.
I’d wager you’d have an emotional response if you were weighed more frequently than you are now, & that’s not anywhere near as life threatening & therefore as frightening, statistically speaking, as being black and being pulled over.
The basis of activism is to get people to empathize/feel, who are not, to build a popular momentum.
Call it faith because I don’t have stats for it, but I think if it wasn’t for feelings we’d have gone extinct without each other a long time ago.
(in a galaxy far far away?)
Warning:(Neutral)Emotional Content to Emphasize the Power of Emotional Content
@luftballooneyegouge
The Age of Faith failed catastrophically at the hands of the Roman Catholic religion because as a man-made power hierarchy they strayed outside of the the core teachings into despotism.
The essential lessons to take from this are two: (starting with the ability to separate between faith and just faith in a specific religion)
1) Just how long various faith-systems persisted (thousands of years universally organized, perhaps millions in less organized forms), how much we as a species of hairless apes advanced under them into socially constructive groups able to take the next step to an age of Science and Reason (DESPITE religion’s bid to maintain despotic control) . . . and how they kept us from all killing each other until we got here. (Yes, I know we killed each other a lot in the names of various things — but we are still here and are the dominant lifeform, for now)
2) That the same power-grab, control-of-the-masses process is still around, just wearing a different fleece.
I’m not sure what to say if you think NRA and BLM data is scientifically sound. There are huge logic-disconnects and biasing of data, setting for uni-varied analysis when multi-varied analysis would be the only option a competent researcher would take. Both are beset with trying to make the data support the preferred stance rather than let the data dictate what stance is supportable.
Emotional activism certainly does spark change. But change for the better over time? You can probably count as many times in your life when reliance on emotions alone ended in disaster rather than in triumph: and more than a few times when a cool head with emotions in control brought a more desired outcome.
Change is essential to adapt to an ever-changing environment (liberalism). But change for change’s sake destabilizes any society or system and needs the stabilizing effect of conservatism. We have ready and deadly examples in just the past century of what happens when either side gets out of control. (This ties into an intelligent conversation I tried to have with @Weenis about the need for both sides to live in balance rather than at odds in extremism).
Consider the “reach” (the out-of-control) in the assertion that controlling our feelings and not letting them run out of control . . . is a call to eradicate emotions.
They serve a purpose. But so too does self control and critical thinking. Some things have to be taken on faith, and some things carried by emotions (but hopefully not emotionalism!). But when critical analysis shows something different (or even opposite) is happening as we hoped for, we need to be able to reign in subjectivity, emotionalism and activism.
Let’s remember that not being able to let our emotions and feelings submit to fact and critical analysis, is what morphed Marxism (a la Derrida and Foucault) into today’s scourge of postmodern neo-Marxism and it’s bevy of political power identity groups grabbing for control over the society.
@griz
Could you show some examples of the NRA & BLM using unsound data?
The various faith systems didn’t really persist, they changed with the times, and they certainly didn’t keep people from killing each other. They were indeed, actually, used to get people to kill each other, & still are today.
Do you see BLM & the NRA as “today’s scourge of postmodern neo-Marxism and it’s bevy of political power identity groups grabbing for control over the society”?
@griz
I think I completely missed your point. You keep making claims about some pale ideology I hold to, and yet you won’t say what it is.
Like I said, you’re a waste of brain power, keep on trucking boy.
@Weenis
If someone has talked about an ideologue process in the Christian religious churches one should be wary of and another keeps seeing personal accusation AND keeps wanting to return to it . . . something is amiss.
The Solid Rock doesn’t produce such an artifact.
@griz
What is an example of “an ideologue process in the Christian religious churches”?
And who’s talking about it?
@Weenis
I’m the one talking about it, “Earth to Weenis”.
And it happens in the Christian ideology when the letter of the word exists in the absence of the Spirit on points where it is convenient to do so. Also, when the letter of the word becomes corrupted to fleshly purpose/agenda more in keeping with ego than Spirit.
Ideologue process becomes entrenched when “adherents” are dissuaded from thinking for themselves, and told just to have faith in the religious hierarchy.
So I’ve answered your questions. Let’s not neglect the ones that I’ve asked you that have remained unanswered.
There’s one on the thread of whether you can respect your political adversaries that you’ve danced all around without answering. Can you name a stable free and long-lasting political system that is a been based just on one party? You first went dodgy and then absolutely silent on the notion of a society meeting both trait-conservative and trait-liberal representation: stable yet dynamic enough to avoid stagnation in deal with change.
@griz
On earth? There is none, because people are involved. The most ideal of all political systems will be what we had prior to the fall, and what heaven will be, which is a monarchy where Christ is king.
That will be a single party system, and it will be the most perfect system of all.
Now, there are examples of times in history where there has been a stable, free, and somewhat lasting political system with one party. There have also been examples of times in history where there has been a stable, free, and somewhat lasting political system with multiple parties.
But here’s where we get into your lack of logic… whether or not I can name a stable free and long-lasting political system that is a been based just on one party is irrelevant. Whether or not I can point to one is equally so. This is where we get into your tangential argumentation. If I can successfully argue for a single party system, on the basis of a biblical ideal, namely Christ is king, whether or not I can point to earthly historical single party systems or not doesn’t matter. What matters is the philosophy and logic behind the argumentation, not the historical representation of such a system. Same with whether or not we can point to a successful two or more party system. Doesn’t matter. We’re discussing ideals, of which we ought to strive toward.
See, with Marxism for instance, we can argue logically and philosophically for why and how it’s bad and terrible. That’s the primary and most important argument to have. The fact that we have so many historical examples of the failures of Marxism, matters much less than the logical consistency of the argumentation that proves it’s a bad system.
Are you able to wrap your mind around that? Do you understand that? I’m not sure you do.
But these types of discussions don’t work with you, because as you get to the point of “So I’ve answered your questions.” and you’re ready to ask your BIG question, it’s a flop.
This has nothing to do with anything. It’s a stupid question. It’s the wrong question, and it doesn’t get the conversation to go anywhere.
This is why you continue to prove yourself a waste of my time.
@Weenis
And those ideals involved a tribal adversarial separation of your society into left and right you spend more time bickering amongst themselves than solving the nation’s problems?
I recognize that you cannot cite a single successful example of what your political agenda seems to be driving your nation towards.
My comment about “the salvation” you bear witness to is abundant in your words. Galatians 5 talks about the spirit of the world being one of the factions and dissension and war. Is this what you bear witness to and many of your posts?
Is this what you are saying we should be striving towards?
This remains a very big question of what you are bearing witness to.
@Jear77
People tend to say they want to do something to help another, when often what they mean is they want to do something so they don’t have to feel so bad in hearing of this person’s plight. That’s not a poke at anyone, but a shared element of Humanity in those who have not become calloused as an attempt to not have to feel anything for others in the first place.
Everything beyond this, involves social commitment. Be there for them; walk alongside them as they ask/allow/need. One needs a healthy mix of concern and respect for them. They have already probably encountered a lot of people who want to do something just to make their own self feel better. Set this aside and become committed to helping them as opportunity presents — which means being around them to see opportunity present!
Invite them to some leisure; something to distract and get their mind off things for a while. Our minds have a wonderful way of working things out when we dial down the anxiety, fear and panic. Among groups of really good friends we’ve sometimes conspired to “shanghai” a really downed friend to some leisure and recreation. They resented it at the time but afterwards said it was the best thing we could have done for them. But again, that takes a really good groups of friends to get away with exercising that kind of liberty.
But these are all “relational” things, with commitment to more than just our own feelings riccocheting off of their plight. A sober warning that this will make existing friendships deeper; and cause friendship to happen with casual acquaintances. And true friendship is an interesting mix of knowing when to give someone space, and when to get in their face. (Because true friendship grants this “authority” to be used wisely)
@griz one guy gave him his number, invited him over to stay the weekend to chill.
While the specifics might vary, human stories tend to have a lot in common. The archetypal heroic journey. The archetypal betrayal. The archetypal child. The archetypal descent into the belly of the beast to die and be reborn as something better.
Without this we would not have any ability to live together and meld into a society, and not be totally overcome by desire to kill anyone from an “alien” society.
Exact specifics of someone’s story may forever remain theirs — or more likely belonging to just a small group. POW or childhood abuse survivors for example.
But there is almost always a human connection possible.
Unless they decide to isolate and cut themselves off from humanity.
From their humanity. In a way, it belongs to all of us. We are all equal inheritors of the Human heritage.
I think that comfort is one of the few things that can be offered by not really doing anything more than listening. Being the valve a person may need to release.
Extreme illustration is when you attend a funeral of someone you are not personally close to, however, you are close to someone who is. Being there is way more important than saying the right thing, because there is no right thing to say to a person whose head is wandering in strange territory.
Just BE in the most intentional way possible, FOR them.
@spitfire3dc
There are a lot of things that can comfort another person.
A few of them even involve words!
I let them know that I am here for them, if they need anything. I will listen if they want to talk.
Learn to use Jim-Faces
It’s actually quite simple.
Listen with an open heart and mind. Key word: listen.