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 : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (98139)	3/15/2005 2:49:15 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 108807

I wasn't trying to disparage. I'm sorry it came across that way. Of course I feel that any approach other than mine is just plain wrong (and may I just say that it sometimes seems you feel the same way), but I know intellectually that right and wrong just aren't applicable to things like this. I ALWAYS know that, even when my post may not adequately communicate that I know it as I post my feelings about something. I think we all denigrate, at a feeling level, that which we do not agree with. I don't think we can help it. You, me, other people, we all get attached to our ideas. But you and I, and other people, we can also step back and say, "well sure, on this level I like my ideas, and why the heck don't you like them?" at the same time thinking, "Of course- you aren't me, we don't have the same background, the same family situation, the same goals in life, the same values- OF COURSE you're going to see this differently." Communicating that one is holding both those things in one's head at the same time is the trick. IMO

To: Lane3 who wrote (98139)	3/16/2005 10:42:43 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

There can be more than one earnest and sincere approach to a happier and safer world and reasonable people can disagree on what the best route is. There's no reason to disparage the motives of the competition simply because they are competition. Their judgment, maybe, but not their motives. Labels (Liberal, Conservative, etc) are fine. They are useful. Without these labels, it would be very difficult to have an intelligent discussion. The problem with labels is that we are still at the early stages of labeling things. All these labels are human constructs. Nature is much more complex than the simple labels that we put on them. Sure for now, these labels represent the heights of human intelligence. We can pat ourselves on our backs because of how we understand how one label is far superior to another label. Justice Antonio Scalia is a prime example of an egomaniac who thinks he has a greater grasp of labels than anyone else. And, chances are he does have a better grasp than most anyone else. But, the problem is that none of these labels work. One label does not fit all. Some of these labels probably produce a lot of evil (does more harm than good). We are not anywhere near the perfect label. The ultimate unifying theory of life. Until then we have to just cobble together things that work and hopefully one day, we will have enough information to come up with a more unifying theory of how life works or should work. But, if there is anything that we should know, we should know that by trying to fit all situations into one of our primitive labels is probably quite foolish. It's like when you are standing over someone and you can save that persons life, but you don't because it does not fit the label. That is foolish. The best that you can say is that more situations are going to be solved by this label than an even more primitive label that someone else believes in. There is no label out there now that is going to win the hearts and minds of a majority of people. There is probably still some dispute that E=MC2, but for the most part people agree. And, things work out that way. In the same way, when a philosophy that really rings true, most people will agree. The solution right now is not at hand. The unifying label has still to be defined.