Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,604 
July 25th, 2007, 09:36 AM
When Kreskin deletes what he regards as coment and opion not bearing directly on the thematic concept, how is that adjudication made?
When we compartmentalize thinking, is our interest in focusing on the "relevant issue" or is it to prevent the realization that everything is in fact related to everything else?
Not being personally derrogative or picking a fight here Kreskin, but isn't there a relationship between how people think about both abstract issues and politics for example? Isn't there a relationship between the consumer society and the myth of global warming...(got that in there for ya Walt
What formula do you use for dismissing comments and opinions that stray from the topical theme?
When Kreskin deletes what he regards as coment and opion not bearing directly on the thematic concept, how is that adjudication made?
When we compartmentalize thinking, is our interest in focusing on the "relevant issue" or is it to prevent the realization that everything is in fact related to everything else?
Not being personally derrogative or picking a fight here Kreskin, but isn't there a relationship between how people think about both abstract issues and politics for example? Isn't there a relationship between the consumer society and the myth of global warming...(got that in there for ya Walt
What formula do you use for dismissing comments and opinions that stray from the topical theme?
July 25th, 2007, 09:42 AM
Quoting MikeyDB
What did I delete regarding comments and opinion?
When Kreskin deletes what he regards as coment and opion not bearing directly on the thematic concept, how is that adjudication made?
When we compartmentalize thinking, is our interest in focusing on the "relevant issue" or is it to prevent the realization that everything is in fact related to everything else?
Not being personally derrogative or picking a fight here Kreskin, but isn't there a relationship between how people think about both abstract issues and politics for example? Isn't there a relationship between the consumer society and the myth of global warming...(got that in there for ya Walt
What formula do you use for dismissing comments and opinions that stray from the topical theme?
When we compartmentalize thinking, is our interest in focusing on the "relevant issue" or is it to prevent the realization that everything is in fact related to everything else?
Not being personally derrogative or picking a fight here Kreskin, but isn't there a relationship between how people think about both abstract issues and politics for example? Isn't there a relationship between the consumer society and the myth of global warming...(got that in there for ya Walt
What formula do you use for dismissing comments and opinions that stray from the topical theme?
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,604
July 25th, 2007, 10:02 AM
Don't know Kresin they're gone!
Please don't interpret my question as a jab or a negative criticism. I'm fully behind keeping a conversation focused on the intent of the communications. When conducting "group" you have to be sensitive and keenly aware of how and when some participant will try to de-rail the dialogue to avoid attention or invite attention....we have pangloss and Doc....great stuff.
What I'm trying to get at is, how is the determination made that "X" isn't topical while "Y" is...?
I believe that the unpreparedness of individuals within societies to regard the issues of discomfort and contradiction within conversations perpetuates the narrow world-view of many. If there's no relationship between X and Y then it's much easier to "allow" that there's no relationship between A and B.
When we talk about morality and ethics when we discuss "higher principles" (whatever those may be) is it appropriate to willingly restrict application of these kinds of ideas to only the "issue" or "event" under consideration and permit an entirely different and frequently antithetical concept to be considered in isolation from all others?
We're both handicapped and empowered by linear thinking. If we embrace the idea that: go to school get an education and you'll get a good job (good pay)....aren't there all kinds of caveats and influences and "forces" at work in that from here to there scenario that have the potential to radically effect the outcome....
When a society decides that it's appropriate for women to participate in the electoral process...and later it's appropriate for women to hold positions in the workplace.... isn't the course of events within the human social condition a response to many other ideas issues and situations?
We (men) allowed that women were human after all, and yes they could do this or that but they couldn't do other things....we were fighting a war so women in the workforce were invited to participate in a common cause....women can read and think and yet the fight for women to participate in religious ceremonies is still an issue fraught with debate and argument...
One thind isn't isolated from all others and when you hear Handel's Messiah you aren't hearing Beethovens Ninth...but the emotions aroused may be the same...
Am I making this too obscure....
Don't know Kresin they're gone!
Please don't interpret my question as a jab or a negative criticism. I'm fully behind keeping a conversation focused on the intent of the communications. When conducting "group" you have to be sensitive and keenly aware of how and when some participant will try to de-rail the dialogue to avoid attention or invite attention....we have pangloss and Doc....great stuff.
What I'm trying to get at is, how is the determination made that "X" isn't topical while "Y" is...?
I believe that the unpreparedness of individuals within societies to regard the issues of discomfort and contradiction within conversations perpetuates the narrow world-view of many. If there's no relationship between X and Y then it's much easier to "allow" that there's no relationship between A and B.
When we talk about morality and ethics when we discuss "higher principles" (whatever those may be) is it appropriate to willingly restrict application of these kinds of ideas to only the "issue" or "event" under consideration and permit an entirely different and frequently antithetical concept to be considered in isolation from all others?
We're both handicapped and empowered by linear thinking. If we embrace the idea that: go to school get an education and you'll get a good job (good pay)....aren't there all kinds of caveats and influences and "forces" at work in that from here to there scenario that have the potential to radically effect the outcome....
When a society decides that it's appropriate for women to participate in the electoral process...and later it's appropriate for women to hold positions in the workplace.... isn't the course of events within the human social condition a response to many other ideas issues and situations?
We (men) allowed that women were human after all, and yes they could do this or that but they couldn't do other things....we were fighting a war so women in the workforce were invited to participate in a common cause....women can read and think and yet the fight for women to participate in religious ceremonies is still an issue fraught with debate and argument...
One thind isn't isolated from all others and when you hear Handel's Messiah you aren't hearing Beethovens Ninth...but the emotions aroused may be the same...
Am I making this too obscure....
