I am Justified

Ahnimus · October 2007

surferdude wrote:

I didn't say we all feel justified in our actions. I'm saying justification of actions is useless and time wasted. It's part of a baby's game of "I'm right and your wrong" or "look what you've made me do". Justification is to actions as a bike is to fish.

I don't share your perspective on this.

When I complain to a restuarant manager for poor service, I feel justified in doing so. It's not an after-the-fact, matter of supporting my ego. It is a background emotive state that facilitates the role of my agency. For if I did not feel my actions were rational or justified, what other motivation would I have?

I was in a restuarant a few weeks ago and a patron was harassing the waitress. Clearly she expected the waitress to serve her personally and above all her other duties. The woman was very rude and demanding. I could not rationalize or justify the patron's perspective or her behavior. But it seemed obvious to me, that she felt justified and rational. How else could she behave in such a way?

Ahnimus · October 2007

angelica wrote:

What is universal flows through everything. It is not outside of anything. It is the truth for all and everything, whether such truth is acknowledged or accepted. It is LAW--undeniably. We can tap into what is universal when we seek to embrace and resolve all differences and as you point to, expand to appreciate as much of the whole picture as possible, which includes agency, too. If we are going into separation, right/wrong views, etc, or if we are dividing things up, for example into categories (agency/non-agency) we are practising exclusion, not embracing, and are therefore not tapping into universal laws. We are therefore out of synch with reality.

I think you are referring to a breakdown of our language. We don't have proper terms to refer to matters on a continua. We either describe facts as true or false, events as good or bad. But we all intuitively know that some things which are bad, aren't really that bad, and may have a hint of good to them, while other things are horrible. But even these words "horrible", "terrible" and so on, don't reflect the actual position on the scope of what is good-bad. Rather, we have a subjective measure with a point of separation, where things exist on either side of that point. It's difficult to conceive of all things being equal on that point of separation and being neither good nor bad, especially since we have a natural propensity to do so. Then what is the sufficient condition for accepting that something should not be catagorical? Is this not just an ideological concept with no substantial logical proof? Surely you would not say that a 5 mile wide meteor crashing into the earth is neutral from our vantage point, nor would it be neutral from the vantage point of our ecosystem. It only becomes neutral from the vantage point of our solar system, and perhaps there has some effect that will detiorate the structure. At any rate, I'm having difficulty understanding your perspective.

angelica · October 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

I think you are referring to a breakdown of our language. We don't have proper terms to refer to matters on a continua. We either describe facts as true or false, events as good or bad. But we all intuitively know that some things which are bad, aren't really that bad, and may have a hint of good to them, while other things are horrible. But even these words "horrible", "terrible" and so on, don't reflect the actual position on the scope of what is good-bad. Rather, we have a subjective measure with a point of separation, where things exist on either side of that point. It's difficult to conceive of all things being equal on that point of separation and being neither good nor bad, especially since we have a natural propensity to do so. Then what is the sufficient condition for accepting that something should not be catagorical? Is this not just an ideological concept with no substantial logical proof? Surely you would not say that a 5 mile wide meteor crashing into the earth is neutral from our vantage point, nor would it be neutral from the vantage point of our ecosystem. It only becomes neutral from the vantage point of our solar system, and perhaps there has some effect that will detiorate the structure. At any rate, I'm having difficulty understanding your perspective.

NOW we are starting to see eye to eye. Language is logical, the reality the language describes is alogical. The logical language cannot fully do reality justice.

People who integrate their intelligence adapt and learn to operate within the continua, rather than aligning with illusions like either/or, good/bad, right/wrong, etc. With a holistic perspective, to exclude equals denial, and lack of realism. That's why as people become more holistic, they become more realistic.

When one aspires to align with what is universal and truthful they will continue to resolve false dichotomies to greater and greater degree. The closer we come to being one with what is universal, the more accurate, realistic and understanding we are of what is.

angelica · October 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

I think you are referring to a breakdown of our language. We don't have proper terms to refer to matters on a continua. We either describe facts as true or false, events as good or bad. But we all intuitively know that some things which are bad, aren't really that bad, and may have a hint of good to them, while other things are horrible. But even these words "horrible", "terrible" and so on, don't reflect the actual position on the scope of what is good-bad. Rather, we have a subjective measure with a point of separation, where things exist on either side of that point. It's difficult to conceive of all things being equal on that point of separation and being neither good nor bad, especially since we have a natural propensity to do so. Then what is the sufficient condition for accepting that something should not be catagorical? Is this not just an ideological concept with no substantial logical proof? Surely you would not say that a 5 mile wide meteor crashing into the earth is neutral from our vantage point, nor would it be neutral from the vantage point of our ecosystem. It only becomes neutral from the vantage point of our solar system, and perhaps there has some effect that will detiorate the structure. At any rate, I'm having difficulty understanding your perspective.

And, the truth of who we are deep inside, the majority of who we are and the part that is one with universal law recognizes the continua we are
"continuing" with at all times, including it's eternal nature. It is the ego or our filters and our personality that aligns with words, stances, time, arguments, perspectives etc. thereby willfully separating ourselves from the whole. This is the gist of the God stuff. When we fall from the Grace of the whole, we live out this hellish reality. And when we align with the whole, we live in peace and the Garden of Eden all around us. We choose in each moment. Reality which is stunning, or the illusions wherein we suffer due to our out-of-synchness.

Ahnimus · October 2007

angelica wrote:

NOW we are starting to see eye to eye. Language is logical, the reality the language describes is alogical. The logical language cannot fully do reality justice.

People who integrate their intelligence adapt and learn to operate within the continua, rather than aligning with illusions like either/or, good/bad, right/wrong, etc. With a holistic perspective, to exclude equals denial, and lack of realism. That's why as people become more holistic, they become more realistic.

When one aspires to align with what is universal and truthful they will continue to resolve false dichotomies to greater and greater degree. The closer we come to being one with what is universal, the more accurate, realistic and understanding we are of what is.

I'm not sure we are totally seeing eye-to-eye. Which brings me to Peter Gray's Psychology. One of the most widely used psychology textbooks on the planet. In the very introduction he lays the ground for an objective study of subjective phenomena, largely through biology. Which was a discussion we had before. As I recall you left biology out of psychology. Furthermore Gray mentions the influence Locke, Hobbes, Descartes, Darwin and so on had on the foundation of psychology, which is a scientific study and therefor must be causally connected to all other fields of science.

What are your thoughts on that?

angelica · October 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

I'm not sure we are totally seeing eye-to-eye. Which brings me to Peter Gray's Psychology. One of the most widely used psychology textbooks on the planet. In the very introduction he lays the ground for an objective study of subjective phenomena, largely through biology. Which was a discussion we had before. As I recall you left biology out of psychology. Furthermore Gray mentions the influence Locke, Hobbes, Descartes, Darwin and so on had on the foundation of psychology, which is a scientific study and therefor must be causally connected to all other fields of science.

What are your thoughts on that?

I don't leave biology out of psychology. I am not tied to my arguments. That argument was about that moment and the exact variables at hand at that time--the context. That cannot come close to encompassing the continua/potential that I identify as being.

Ahnimus · October 2007

angelica wrote:

I don't leave biology out of psychology. I am not tied to my arguments. That argument was about that moment and the exact variables at hand at that time--the context. That cannot come close to encompassing the continua/potential that I identify as being.

I recall you saying that you focus on psychology and I focus on neuroscience. But I can see throughout this text that neuroscience is a major factor in psychology.

angelica · October 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Furthermore Gray mentions the influence Locke, Hobbes, Descartes, Darwin and so on had on the foundation of psychology, which is a scientific study and therefor must be causally connected to all other fields of science.

What are your thoughts on that?

I don't take issue with this at all. I don't have many thoughts on the subject as it's one I know nothing about.

Within each context, all things are justifiable.

angelica · October 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

I recall you saying that you focus on psychology and I focus on neuroscience. But I can see throughout this text that neuroscience is a major factor in psychology.

Personality typing is a model. I made a point in a thread the other day using that model. I don't doubt there are other contexts where neuroscience may be shown to be interconnected with psychology.

What I said about your focus and my own served my purpose in the discussion at the time in order to get my point across. Now I'm a blank slate developing my perceptions for this subject.

Ahnimus · October 2007

angelica wrote:

I don't take issue with this at all. I don't have many thoughts on the subject as it's one I know nothing about.

Within each context, all things are justifiable.

Ok, so you don't know anything about psychology?

I was under the impression that you were somewhat of an expert.

surferdude · October 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

When I complain to a restuarant manager for poor service, I feel justified in doing so.

Who cares. Feeling justified is about as self-centered as one can get. It's useless except to build up your own ego. Feeling justified is the opposite of taking responsibility and accepting consequences for actions.

Even in your example it happened in the past. As someone famous said "you glorify the past when the future is all used up". Well my future is all about sunny skies to come even through the stormiest weather. I don't feel any need to justify my actions when I'm taking responsibility for and accepting consequences for them. You may want me to explain my actions but that's a far cry from justifying them. Justified actions are far too close to feeling sanctimonious for me, no thanks.

catefrances · October 2007

just because one feels they are justified in their actions doesn't mean they actually are.

Ahnimus · October 2007

angelica wrote:

Personality typing is a model. I made a point in a thread the other day using that model. I don't doubt there are other contexts where neuroscience may be shown to be interconnected with psychology.

What I said about your focus and my own served my purpose in the discussion at the time in order to get my point across. Now I'm a blank slate developing my perceptions for this subject.

Take a sheet of blank paper, love it, take it to france, feed it, sing to it, read to it Shakespeare, and the paper will not know love, france, taste, sound or Shakespeare.

An interesting take on the blank slate theory.

Ahnimus · October 2007

surferdude wrote:

Who cares. Feeling justified is about as self-centered as one can get. It's useless except to build up your own ego. Feeling justified is the opposite of taking responsibility and accepting consequences for actions.

Even in your example it happened in the past. As someone famous said "you glorify the past when the future is all used up". Well my future is all about sunny skies to come even through the stormiest weather. I don't feel any need to justify my actions when I'm taking responsibility for and accepting consequences for them. You may want me to explain my actions but that's a far cry from justifying them. Justified actions are far too close to feeling sanctimonious for me, no thanks.

You are still missing the point. I'm speaking of justification in terms of the present. As I stated initially, upon reflection, that is into the past, actions are more easily viewed as unjust. In terms of the Justice System, all judgements of justification are reflections on the past. But here I am discussing in-the-moment, as of the present, justification of current actions.

angelica · October 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Ok, so you don't know anything about psychology?

I was under the impression that you were somewhat of an expert.

I am not an expert, nor do I know anything about this: "Furthermore Gray mentions the influence Locke, Hobbes, Descartes, Darwin and so on had on the foundation of psychology, which is a scientific study and therefor must be causally connected to all other fields of science."

I know what I've learned about psychology. I feel I've personally interacted with universal psychic forces and have learned to alter them by understanding them. I can communicate about that to others. I feel I know quite a bit about the actual psychic forces that flow through us all, including the psychological principles that stem from these forces. and even in this context, I only know what I know. I don't know of or understand all of psychology, much less the myriad multi-dimensional facets, or the vast, multi-dimensional perspectives held on the matter.

Ahnimus · October 2007

catefrances wrote:

just because one feels they are justified in their actions doesn't mean they actually are.

And that's not the point I'm making.

Ahnimus · October 2007

angelica wrote:

I am not an expert, nor do I know anything about this: "Furthermore Gray mentions the influence Locke, Hobbes, Descartes, Darwin and so on had on the foundation of psychology, which is a scientific study and therefor must be causally connected to all other fields of science."

I know what I've learned about psychology. I feel I've personally interacted with universal psychic forces and have learned to alter them by understanding them. I can communicate about that to others. I feel I know quite a bit about the actual psychic forces that flow through us all, including the psychological principles that stem from these forces. and even in this context, I only know what I know. I don't know of or understand all of psychology, much less the myriad multi-dimensional facets, or the vast, multi-dimensional perspectives held on the matter.

So you know panpsychism, not psychology.

angelica · October 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Take a sheet of blank paper, love it, take it to france, feed it, sing to it, read to it Shakespeare, and the paper will not know love, france, taste, sound or Shakespeare.

An interesting take on the blank slate theory.

I allow life to arise through me. I open myself to the unique variation of the moment and my perceptions as they move through me. That's what releasing the ego and aligning with universality is about. I'm open to being and to potential and the continua. Therefore I'm not preconceiving, but rather am perceiving.

catefrances · October 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

And that's not the point I'm making.

then what is the point youre trying to make ryan.

angelica · October 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

So you know panpsychism, not psychology.

Whatever you want to call it...we both know the words and labels are exclusive, not inclusive. Therefore the labels are inaccurate.

I am Justified

Comments

Categories