Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rick Julian who wrote (10003)	4/20/2002 9:00:46 AM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Good morning Karma, I think my protestations to your original post about all actions having consequences a la Newton is that applying scientific theory to the field of ethics, which is what we're talking about, is a bad fit. I think life is exceedingly complex, even to the extent that no matter how hard we try, getting a firm grasp on the discrete pathway between action and consequence is beyond us. I have to admit that when I received a message from a person with whom I'm not familiar, whose screen name is Karma, giving me a lesson in Existence 101: Each action we perform, no matter how apparently benign, yields a corresponding reaction. You seem to be inferring that those who participate in certain "unusual" sexual behaviors are immune (not "sullied") to the consequences of these behaviors I "read" a veiled moralism into your words, one which may or may not be present. That's what I reacted to yesterday afternoon with my wholesale rejection of your statement. Indulge me here a bit, if you will: In a Newtonian system, every effect is the inevitable effect of prior causes, but just because a system may be deterministic, being able to predict outcome is another matter. The more complex the system (humans versus apples; ethics versus sporting events), the less predictability. There's a problem when applying this sysyem to moral behavior. Morality seems to require responsibility for actions. Morality seems to require free will. So, it would likewise seem that morality and determinism don't work well together. It goes like this: " I can't be held responsible for my actions if eveything I do is the inevitable result of prior causes." That said, you don't know me either, so your statement: You're suggesting "negative" sexual experiences don't manifest themselves in the form of neuroses? . . . that many victims of sexual abuse, don't experience [def.] " symptoms such as insecurity, anxiety, depression, and irrational fears" in subsequent relationships? Is off the mark. I trained as a psychodynamic clinical psychologist. The centerpiece of training was deep reading of everything ever written by Freud, investor of the term "neurosis". My definition of neurosis is more formal than the lay definition, which may or may not be how you are applying it, but the hairs on the back of my neck stand up when I see psychoanalytic terms being tossed about and used improperly. And second, you have used an unfortunate inference in your suggestion that I believe that victims of sexual abuse do not experience great psychic pain. Everyone who reads this thread regularly knows that I'm a survivor of profound abuse, and that I've worked with abuse survivors, both as a trauma therapist and a mentor for abused adolescent girls. I will suggest to you that "neurosis" is an inadequate term for what happens to the hearts and souls of abuse survivors. Trauma on that scale can result in a wide range of consequences, many of which cannot be predicted, many of which will never be understood by the abuser or the victim. We part ways on the subject of "crossing the breach as an act of caring". I think there should be a balance between hands-on caring and a healthy respect for the integrity of the individual. It's been my experience that, more often than not, a rush to interject guidance is the fulfillment of one's own personal and narcissistic urges rather than something that will ultimately be helpful to the save-e. I've got a house full of family, so my time this weekend is limited. I felt that I needed to give you a more considered response and I hope this fits the bill and explains where I stand.

To: Rick Julian who wrote (10003)	4/20/2002 3:53:48 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

So you disagree that all actions have consequences. If so, science needs to back up about three centuries and ignore Newton's Third Law of Motion. Oh, cut the crap. Scientific findings have limited fields of applicability. The first and most basic is the experimental evidence that underlies the "laws". If that turns out to be in error, the entire structure vanishes. In physics in particular, evidence leads to equations. The truth is in those equations. They say what they say and the don't say more. But Newton's third law only relates to PHYSICAL forces- -NOT psychological. If you think you can formulate and prove such a law in psychology, you are welcome to attempt. But basing it on a wildass extension of physics is BS.