okay, okay, so you caught me pushing the envelope to stir up controversy and create some discussion on here. FINALLY, someone can do something besides parrot and ridicule. now we're getting somewhere.
you said: I think the rough treatment of the self-reliant may have something to do with the fear of a slippery slope on the self-reliance continuum.
whilst you and i disagree on the lengths of societal structure that has demonstrated the most self reliance we've seen 'over here', (the native american culture comes to mind--especially before Polo-Columbus, etc invasion of their turf), why does self-reliance have to be a slippery slope? (<--that is your judgmental statement #1).
for instance, in this community, a dreadful bout with multiple sclerosis for the mrs., has brought a delightful couple out here to settle. guess what the mr. does?' late 1700-mid 1800's BLACKSMITHING! "swords into plowshares" will be a snap around here because of dan and sue. i'll be happy to pump the bellows for him, if he promises not to hammer on his anvil between the hours of 10 and 6 :)
but then you kind of ruin your philosophical bent with this second judgement call: Some of the doomers seem, at times, a little to(o) willing to go there.
now there you go, criticizing a part of the system you are analyzing; criticizing by applying 'distancing labels' of personal judgment upon someone:
who IS asking the self-reliance hard questions,
who is pushing the envelope to see what or who falls out
in order to better assess the stress or survivability of the participants, namely me, mine, and ours.
since i believe i've accurately perceived that because i, (for a single example) 'am/are going there' as you put it,
and
since that seems, by clear inference of your utterance, to be part of your 'unverbalized definition' of a 'doomer' what-/whoever the hell that or 'they' is/are,
i challenge your judgment call upon me, mine and our'n.
for starters, who said i was 'a little too willing to go there?
you do not know squat about the timeframe me/mine/our'n have been pursuing the edges of the self-reliance envelope.
you have no clue as to the kicking, screamimg, tearful discussion, impassioned speeches by one and all during endless family supper roundtable respectful, no holds barred freedom of speech exercises over the last 2+ years, that has taken place, creating the form for our matriculation and navigation into increasing self-reliance.
we reject the 'slippery slope' portion, to a man/woman/child of your judgemental label!
you have no concept of how difficult it is for anyone INCLUDING YOURSELF IF you have undertaken such self-examination) or how difficult system's analysis 'ANY SYSTEM' of a system you yourself are embroiled in, at the same time wanting to create a better system because of love, and 'shared social contracting' as you call it.
do you really think it is 'easy' to work out the personal and family definition of who is loved? who is neighbor? who is stranger? who deserves to live or die by my hand, or our hand, or from withholding 'our hand?'
don't you think Noah wished a couple more had made it onto the 'family living quarters section' on his ark before God slammed the door shut? (especially when it came time to mucking up after all those beasties EACH DAY for 40 days?) talk about a 'region' that needed to breathe :)
do you really think up all this judgment stuff, and apply it as a particularly useful standard when YOU are analyzing a system? especially one colored by your own participation/perpetuation thereof in the name of luxury or convenience?
i doubt it. but then, maybe you'll reply and i'll find out, i judged you wrongly, and you really DO believe your judgement stuff.
and this was just prompted by TWO of your judgemental statements in your philosophical discussion.
want to try for the third one i omitted tackling in this missal??
|
