sigh
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick Jul 29, 2008 8:39 PM EDT |
So many red flag words... "divas" "whinging" "girls" "feminazis"... it's hard to get past them to see if there is any actual merit in the article. Maybe hearing the actual talks would have been better. |
| tracyanne Jul 29, 2008 10:04 PM EDT |
Quoting:..be the world you want to live in and be the change. This is one take away from her talk. It comes straight from something Gandhi is quoted as having said "You must be the change you want to see in the world" |
| gus3 Jul 29, 2008 10:37 PM EDT |
...which I saw at a coffee-house just two days ago. If that means I'm a hippie liberal, God help us all! ;-) |
| bigg Jul 30, 2008 4:00 AM EDT |
> it's hard to get past them to see if there is any actual merit in the article Good I'm not the only one. I gave up trying to find the point of the article and stopped reading. |
| tracyanne Jul 30, 2008 4:54 AM EDT |
Quoting:If that means I'm a hippie liberal What drinking coffee makes you a Hippie Liberal, wow, is that all it takes to make the world a decent place. Seriously the point that Gandhi was trying to make is you won't get the sort of world you want by complaining about what you don't like about the world as it is. I think it's the nice way of saying get off your arse and do something about it. |
| NoDough Jul 30, 2008 6:25 AM EDT |
>> What drinking coffee makes you a Hippie Liberal, wow, is that all it takes to make the world a decent place. That seemed uncalled for. >> I think it's the nice way of saying get off your arse and do something about it. Indeed. I believe it's also a rewording of the golden rule. |
| gus3 Jul 30, 2008 8:04 AM EDT |
No, I wasn't just drinking coffee. I was in... ...a COFFEE HOUSE! Yes, I was there! And that thing last week with the food coloring in the fountain! I did that, too! /me puts head on table, sobbing |
| tuxchick Jul 30, 2008 8:22 AM EDT |
Ha. I am a proud and unrepentant coffee-drinking food-coloring washed (sorry, I just can't do the unwashed thing) hippie freakin' liberal. Don't do coffee shops, though. The local shops serve pale brown water. Not worth driving hours for a good coffee house. OK so there is a useful message in there somewheres. Too bad it's obscured. "You girls need to stop whinging." To me that says right on mate, whinge less and slap you silly more. |
| number6x Jul 30, 2008 9:30 AM EDT |
Its not a bad article. The advice is good for any gender in all professions. You need to chart your own course in life. My course often involves a stop at a local coffee house. http://www.no-friction-cafe.com/ They serve Intelligentsia coffee not pale brown water. It doesn't make me smarter, but it makes me wider awaker and tastes good with no additives. |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 30, 2008 12:39 PM EDT |
Quoting:Don't do coffee shops, though. The local shops serve pale brown water. Be glad. Coffee shop in The Netherlands don't server coffee at all. Not even the pale brown water variant. |
| Libervis Jul 30, 2008 2:04 PM EDT |
"Be the change you want to see in the world." I love that saying. I think it should be a moto for every individual who wants to be free. Everything in this universe starts with you. You are your own leader, your own king, your own god, your own everything. It's a darn shame not to use this incredibly power instead of complaining about how things are. When a mind becomes free and you understand and continuously explore reality around you, you literally can bend reality to your own needs, because you understand the processes that are going on (action-reaction) and can adjust your actions to get the reactions you desire, and all this without harming anyone. Sure, it's an art form, but one we should all strive to master, for our own needs and goals. Ok, I might have gone a little too philosophical, but I couldn't resist. The statement is so incredibly important to understand. It literally, in one enlightening sweep, turns that other huge thread into mud if irrelevance. :D Cheers |
| jdixon Jul 30, 2008 3:45 PM EDT |
> You are your own leader, your own king, your own god, your own everything. Libervis is obviously not married. :) |
| Libervis Jul 30, 2008 4:09 PM EDT |
lol You're right, I'm not, but marriage doesn't really change any of the above. Marriage is a voluntary relationship which means *you* agreed to it. Secondly, it is *you* who fall in love and then act in a way that leads up to marriage. Certainly, you don't control other people and so can't (or shouldn't) compell other people to do anything for you, but that doesn't change the fact one bit that you control your own life entirely. It's just a fact of reality. Gravity pulls towards the center of the Earth. You can jump off a skyscraper hoping to fly up instead of fall down, and you WILL fly down. But to jump in the first place was your own decision and what gives you power is knowing how gravity works, aerodynamics etc. so if you really want to jump and fly away, you can do it! The point isn't that an individual is god. The point is that individual is "god" *to him or her self*. Even if you believe in a god in heavens, it is still YOU that decides whether to believe it or not. It all starts with you. :) Just clarifying. :P |
| dumper4311 Jul 31, 2008 10:46 AM EDT |
@Libervis
>"Certainly, you don't control other people. . ." Speak for yourself :) >". . . and so can't (or shouldn't) compell other people to do anything for you" You've argued in that other muddy thread that you (or I or anyone else) have no right to decide what anyone else should or shouldn't do. Funny that you continue to demonstrate a fundamental value system that you believe "should" apply universally - in spite of your professed relativism. >". . . but that doesn't change the fact one bit that you control your own life entirely. It's just a fact of reality." Be careful, decreeing facts of reality implies absolutes. >"Gravity pulls towards the center of the Earth." Gravity also has no motive or intent. Human beings (who have at least as much impact on each other as gravity), are driven by individual value systems - as you've demonstrated above - that directly influence other human beings. For your argument to have merit, gravity would have to pull much harder on some than it does on others, for reasons of it's own - not related to an individuals mass. >"and what gives you power is knowing how gravity works" No argument there, but I'd suggest that your circular reasoning on human interaction and self referencing value systems have left you with an incomplete knowledge. Ironically, we seem to be fundamentally close on the things we value: individual responsibility, personal freedom, the wellbeing of others. For me, such synchronicity tends to lend credence to the idea of absolute values of right and wrong, but that's just me. jdixon is right in that marriage does tend to change ones perspective on a great many things. Not that I'm not responsible for my own actions, but that there is a great deal more going on than "me". |
| jdixon Jul 31, 2008 11:11 AM EDT |
> jdixon is right in that marriage does tend to change ones perspective on a great many things. Thanks. It's mostly the "your own everything" which makes this point clear. Someone who has never been in a working marriage may have trouble conceiving just how important another person's well being can become to someone. |
| alc Jul 31, 2008 12:47 PM EDT |
"Someone who has never been in a working marriage may have trouble conceiving just how important another person's well being can become to someone." Throw a couple of kids into the mix, and things really get interesting. |
| hkwint Jul 31, 2008 1:44 PM EDT |
What's a working marriage, please? Does that mean you actually have to work to be(come) married or something? Or does it mean both partners have a day job? Or does it mean being married to work? Or that the marriage works out so-so, like in Bugzilla terms one would say WORKSFORUS? Hmm, obviously, I'm not married either. |
| jdixon Jul 31, 2008 3:04 PM EDT |
> What's a working marriage, please? One that's not headed for divorce court. In that regard, there was an amusing anecdote I read a long time ago, I believe originally in Reader's Digest, about a daughter who asked her mother if she had ever considered divorcing her father. Her mother replied something on the order of: "Oh no. Murder, yes, but never divorce." |
| Libervis Jul 31, 2008 7:22 PM EDT |
> Funny that you continue to demonstrate a fundamental value system that you believe "should" apply universally - in spite of your professed relativism. I could just be speaking for myself, but not being always explicit about that. I don't suggest that it must apply universally, but in case of non-coercion I think it is something that so many people could agree to that it would be almost universal. Call it an universal group consensus. :) That they don't always agree to it, or just don't act like they do, can be for many reasons. Most of the times they're just too distracted and confused to really give that one serious thought. What I was trying to point out in that other "muddy" thread was beneath that layer of my own personal moral convictions, a layer which is indeed much more challenging to discuss and within which ideas seem much harder to convey, because we all have our own value judgments from the layer above keep interfering. > Be careful, decreeing facts of reality implies absolutes. Yeah, well, I was aluding to one of the axioms I mentioned in that another thread from which you also know I don't hold it as an absolutely absolute. :P There's always small room for doubt. I think you largely misunderstood me though. I never actually said that I believe absolute doesn't exist at all. I'm just not very quick at accepting any particular statement as a portrayal of an absolute truth. It seems much safer for me as someone who wants to keep an open mind, to treat ideas as relative by default. > Gravity also has no motive or intent. That's just nature of these forces. > Human beings (who have at least as much impact on each other as gravity), are driven by individual value systems - as you've demonstrated above - that directly influence other human beings. And that's probably just nature of humans. So I don't see something like gravity and humans as the same. The difference is that we think consciously and forces of gravity, rocks, trees etc. for all we know, don't. Also, not all value systems directly impact others around you at all times. And whenever they do, I don't have a problem with it so long as it's as part of a voluntary relationship (consent). > For me, such synchronicity tends to lend credence to the idea of absolute values of right and wrong, but that's just me. Or we just might be the two guys who tend to agree on those things. Interestingly, as stated above, I think majority of people in the world, if they would only stop to think of it, would agree too. You seem to tend to call that a sign that these values are absolute while I view them as group consensus. It's not the universe outside of humans that said killing is wrong. People in a society said killing is wrong and made it their group consensus. > Not that I'm not responsible for my own actions, but that there is a great deal more going on than "me". Well, there is, because by choosing to get married you choose such a state of things. It is still only you that make your own decisions. It's just that at that point there is someone else that you care so much about that this love is now a defining part of *you*. Cheers |
| tuxchick Jul 31, 2008 7:45 PM EDT |
yikes. I was going to say something, but now never mind. Carry on! |
| dumper4311 Jul 31, 2008 10:03 PM EDT |
@Libervis: Dang, I've got to hand it to you, you've got an incredible gift for focusing on the inconsequential and missing the point. I can only hope that's intentional. :) |
| Libervis Aug 01, 2008 5:43 AM EDT |
Well, enlighten me then. From my perspective I *was* responding to your points... Anyway, I've actually read some reviews of that book you recommended and then later some more on wikipedia about relativism etc. I think that I probably am not such a relativist that would agree that *all* truth is relative, just more of it than some people would like to think... One thing I'm realizing though that an open mind is not necessarily tied to the philosophy of relativism. You can believe in absolute truth, yet still be open to the idea that you have it wrong and maybe have exactly that as a reason to believe in others' rights to think differently. But I think what the other thread demonstrated are the drawbacks of being absolutist by default. An absolutist is more likely to fervently try to convince another that his truth is the right one, even when minding your own business would've been much more rewarding. Cheers |
| dumper4311 Aug 01, 2008 7:14 AM EDT |
>"I *was* responding to your points..."
No, your response was non sequitur; choosing to focus on the properties of gravity and human nature, rather than the subject - the validity of your analogy. That being only the most recent example between these two threads and their various participants. The discussion has been helpful to me in one sense, however. I have a disturbing tendency to debate with "true believers" well past the point of extracting any useful information about their perspective for myself - which is all I could hope for. In that sense, I thank you for the reminder. >"An absolutist is more likely to fervently try to convince another that his truth is the right one, even when minding your own business would've been much more rewarding." Says the man who has now hijacked two recent threads down that exact path. . . . Perspective is a funny thing, I guess. I love hypocrisy, particularly "open" hypocrisy - whether we're discussing philosophy or software, the circles are always the same. I just can't figure out how I keep trying to pick out something new from it - OCD I guess. In any case, as I've said previously, good luck with that. |
| Libervis Aug 01, 2008 10:39 AM EDT |
Wow man, you're writing much more to it than there really is. A "true believer"? You could've said that for me when I was fervently defending FSF and Richard Stallman, but not today. The whole reason I am discussing is, again, not to win, but to understand more. If I say I don't understand and I seek further explanations ("enlighten me") I actually mean it. I've basically been asking you to point out the flaws in my thinking. I meant that too. Quoting:No, your response was non sequitur; choosing to focus on the properties of gravity and human nature, rather than the subject - the validity of your analogy. But you used the properties of gravity and human nature to disprove it. On a second read though I think you actually misunderstood the whole point. I merely pointed out that an individual controls his own thinking and actions, but cannot escape its consequences. That's why I used the gravity example, to demonstrate how while an individual is free to make any sort of a choice, he does not choose the consequences to those same actions. They always happen. Gravity always pulls down. At this point I've no idea how does your pointing out that gravity itself has no intent ties into all that. It is completely irrelevant. I wasn't talking about gravity making choices and facing consequences, but humans making choices and facing them. Quoting:The discussion has been helpful to me in one sense, however. And it's been helpful for me as well, believe it or not, in that I'm learning a bit more about the whole relativist perspective. I've downloaded that book you suggested, read more about it and really questioned my perspective and also continue to be investigative about it. Yet you seem to think I'm here just to convince you of something... Chill out man. If you're bored by the discussion that's cool, but nobody here is a "true believer" and nobody is trying to impose any particular belief on you. Hell, the whole point is the non-imposition of ones beliefs over another. Quoting:Says the man who has now hijacked two recent threads down that exact path I don't think I could ruin the thread any more than it already was and some have even acknowledged that a philosophical discussion is better than bickering. I started by pointing out that nobody is absolutely right or absolutely wrong and that instead of endlessly yet hopelessly criticizing the Linux promotion strategy of others why not just follow your own. Yes, I felt like the whole discussion was childish, unproductive and ultimately pointless. So I was not going about trying to convince anyone of my own truth. I was encouraging everyone to stick to their own instead. There is a difference. Good luck to you as well on your journey. |
| tracyanne Aug 01, 2008 3:11 PM EDT |
@dumper, stop, don't respond any further, it's not worth it. Libervis can, and no doubt will, continue to make almost intelligible statements until the cows come home. It's in the nature of people who hold to similar half baked circular opinions and beliefs to do so, it's an absolute, a given, an axiom. It's not a deficiency on your part that what he says seems almost understandable, but on deeper analysis isn't. The deficiency is in the circular nature of his assumptions and reasoning. |
| Libervis Aug 01, 2008 8:03 PM EDT |
> It's in the nature of people who hold to similar half baked circular opinions and beliefs to do so, it's an absolute, a given, an axiom You know, that almost sounds like a joke. But I actually admit that my views are half baked or certainly am not afraid to admit it. What do I lose? Nothing. I can only gain because such an admission implies I have more to discover and makes me prepared for it. By my own prior admissions, I don't hold what I say as absolute and an end to itself. > The deficiency is in the circular nature of his assumptions and reasoning. You're repeating yourself. Makes me doubt you even read my last post. What is so circular about it? Absolute reality exists. It is within which we exist. However, we only have our senses with which to perceive it and our own individual perspectives. So how can any random individual claim that what he finds to be true is absolutely true? Doesn't it make sense to leave that bit of doubt around to encourage further questioning and exploration as well as greater appreciation for what someone else, who might have a different view of the truth, has to say? If absolute reality itself were to observe it would indeed find some people right about something and others wrong, sure. But none of us are that absolute reality (something some people might call god), and whenever individuals did assume theirs is the absolute truth they usually caused great destruction of values causing what we consensually know as dark moments in history. I am not advocating absolute relativism, but modest relativism. Just enough to make the individual aware that there is a possibility that he could be wrong. What is so circular about that? Maybe you're confused by talks of consequences, but that's where I don't actually suggest anything whatsoever in terms of how should someone think, but just remark on that which I see happening. Reality always reacts to your acts. I have to make absolutely no judgment on someone's ideas or acts whatsoever. Reality will do the job just fine by itself. And it's up to that individual to learn from it best (s)he can. What's so circular about that? |
| tuxtom Aug 02, 2008 1:25 PM EDT |
@Libervis - Sounds like you need a healthy dose of brevity...or rehab. |
| Libervis Aug 02, 2008 2:03 PM EDT |
Maybe. |
| gus3 Aug 02, 2008 2:12 PM EDT |
Nah. |
| tuxtom Aug 02, 2008 2:21 PM EDT |
There, that wasn't so hard now, was it? |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!