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: Jacques Chitte who wrote (33394)	3/29/1999 2:47:00 AM
From: PiMac	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Lather.Rinse.Repeat. 1) My last reply on maxims was easily misunderstood. Let me rephrase: Maxims are good. They teach experience as verbal. Therefore they allow better use of the verbal skills to model a 'real' problem. My point is that ALL maxims are good. No honor among thieves..., and Honor among theives. No they wouldn't be 'taught' together, but if one is always taught, and the other never, then the parent is offering half the world to the child. If the maxim (and implied worthwhile action) were concerning intelligence as a virtue higher than all others, then this is a lesson only half done. How is the maxim, a little knowledge is dangerous...so to only one 'side' of the intelligence issue. Of course I had wrongly implied a maxim only has one opposite. Bad, Pi. Kid's movies are almost pure morality plays. This is inaccurate, so wrong, so debilitating. Movies for them that are no so clearly good side bad side are very often the animal movies. Both teach equally effectively, one teaches more completely. Kids can handle tragedy meaningfully, lovingly done. Art brings us another’s experience, whatever that may be. Without the extended family, where do kids get their experience with grief? A shallow country, of course: there is either Greatgrandma's bridge cruises or immediate family loss--no tragedy experience or too overwhelming a tragedy to incorporate into routine life. 2) Punk Rock...total rejection of authority...nihilism...yes, this is an easy trap for those whose ethos is not externally referenced, but grows with their own experience. It is also an easy rap. This is not what you and I propose. 3) Adaptive ethical bases: wonderful language again! 3a)I suspect I differ in my process from balance in the use of the extremes. [I also see your interest in my comment on the stoics well-rounded.]I would expect that while rejecting the ‘hang ups’ that impede the continued process, and continuing the process from a non-verbal, wholistic understanding of one's life [not the rational, limited hang ups] many would find a worldly [or widely held hang up] problem that experience says must be addressed. The possible tragedy is that the obstruction not be dislodged, or that it would be, but the former process person would be hung upon those old shoals. 4) I have a much different view of the 60's children. First, the recognizable strides from that time were racial--black and Mexican. The hippies were fighting the same prejudice battle on a different front. The sex and drugs were just red herrings to that movement, fading with use. The utopian communities were the most impressive. There was a genuine, self-sacrificial attempt to show society a new possibility of ruleless relating. Where I see the waste that this generation became is not of their doing. Rather it was the counter-revolutionary actions taken by a society that felt threatened. The numbers of this generation that were sent to war, threatened with the draft, ended in prison for drugs, or for lifestyle violations grew immense. The new struggling positive philosophies that were being born were aborted or murdered. The children's rejuvenation of society became a one issue movement--stop the war, and a one recourse response--burnout by drugs. The moral relativism was a premature stage that was stillborn, before mature philosophy could grow.