Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Thought isn't evil: it's bossy and unresponsive

Expand Messages
  • Mary
    Jim, in one of Bohm s examples, our current mode of thinking might be compared to attempting to remove pollutants downstream but allowing the upstream source
    Message 1 of 68 , Apr 1 7:20 AM
      Jim, in one of Bohm's examples, our current mode of thinking might be compared to attempting to remove pollutants downstream but allowing the upstream source to continue. Please notice the curious etymology of the word responsibility from its origin, from response to responsibility, from one who answers, to one who is answerable; from one who acts in response to situation to one who must account for action

      Response indicates openness and range of possibility, whereas resposibility is dictated as law. The word-sign itself denies the depth of what it pretends to represent and its potential. Legal accountability which arises in society is for the sake of expedience, not transformation, which can only occur through education-by-example over time. And education, is a dialog, or at least it should be.

      With an reluctant nod to both St. Paul and Nietzsche, I agree that responsibility is for children and slaves, but response is for freely participating adults. The preponderance of laws in our communities, nations, and world fairly represents what we think of each other. Obviously, our thinking needs some adjustments.
    • Herman
      Hi Jim, ... Well, yes, but not reasonably. Aristotle believed that it lay in the nature of slaves to be slaves, and that the possibility for freedom was
      Message 68 of 68 , Apr 6 2:36 PM
        Hi Jim,

        On 6 April 2010 22:43, Jim <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
        > Hi Polly,
        >
        > Recall, Irvin wrote this:
        >
        > "Aristotle might emphasize that freedom is the ability to acquire those dispositions necessary for virtue."
        >
        > This account of freedom says nothing about the existence of slaves in a society. So even if Aristotle did mean his account of freedom to apply only to free men and women in a society where slavery existed, I can take Aristotle's account of freedom and say it is a viable definition of freedom, which can justifiably be applied to all human beings here and now.
        >

        Well, yes, but not reasonably. Aristotle believed that it lay in "the
        nature" of slaves to be slaves, and that the possibility for freedom
        was limited to the elite. So your notion of freedom is quite
        different, unless you believe that if Aristotle arrived on the scene
        today that he would not spy anyone who was servile by nature. (He'd
        best get his eyes checked if that was the case).

        Polly




        > Jim
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
        >
        > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.