Personal Responsibility
Manfred Schmidtke
>If the little voice is not *you*, liebe Manfred, precisely who might it be?
Yes, who?
>You are absolutely correct that every thing we do is done for reasons.
>Not, by the bye, that this is in any way connected with *responsibility*...
Of course not.
>If you punch me in the nose, it would probably be for the *reason* that my
>reply, quite understandably pissed you off. You would still, nonetheless,
>be entirely responsible for your actions. Not me, not society, not Goat or
>Carp; not even the pathetic pissant known as ANuS. Just you.
And if I hit the keyboard and write this reply, then the keyboard is
responsible
for it? If not, where's the difference between me doing something because of a
reason and the keyboard doing something because of a reason?
MANi
Manfred Schmidtke
>>I agree with Jeremy here. Personal responsibility doesn't exist.
>Then why are you here?
1) I am alive (kind of). This is biologic determination.
2) I am an anarchist. This is partially biologic determination (having that
cool anarchist-gene) and partially social determination (making bad
experiences with authorities).
3) I am able to read and write. I didn't choose this, it was teached to me
by the environment.
4) Because of 1), I have to do something with the time until my death.
Because of 2) and 3), I decided to do a Yahoo-Search about anarchy and
found this list. I didn't really choose it, it was a result of 1), 2) and
3). That's why I am here.
>Why do you care, or better, how can you care about
>what form of social system exists?
I am biologically determined to try having the most possible amount of fun
in my life. Caring about social systems is fun.
> What difference does it make, you have
>no choice in the matter.
I f you are hungry, why do you eat? Do you eat because you *choose* to eat,
or do you eat because you are hungry? Then, why do you eat at all? What
difference does it make, you have no choice in the matter.
Determination doesn't mean that we should all hang around and be bored,
because we can't "choose". It is more about the nonsense of someone being
"guilty" of something. Guilt is always a good reason to justify the
oppression of people. My government uses cruel punishments because people
are "guilty" of crimes, my church makes me suffer eternal pain because I am
"guilty" of committing sins.
How can you even believe that an anarchist society would work? If you say
that everybody "chooses" his actions, than we would, of course, have the
same amount of fascists and murders in an anarchist system?
> This silly computer model of the brain (which is
>essentially what you're both arguing) is wrong. It isn't simply a matter
>of garbage in garbage out, the brain can and will give unpredictable
>results from enviromental inputs. Why? Because by whatever mechanisms we
>still don't understand, the brain is a thing which can frequently act on
>itself without external stimulous. We can think, and in thinking we can
>change our opinions 180 degrees without *ANY* outside influences.
By "reflecting", you do nothing but compare the experiences you have made.
About *what* do you want to reflect if you didn't have any outside influences?
The computer model: To claim that you can think without outside influences
is like saying that your computer also works *without* a program.
MANi
P.S.: Just curious: Do you think that,eg. a dog also has personal
responsibility?
Robert Matthews
>And if I hit the keyboard and write this reply, then the keyboard is
>responsible
>for it? If not, where's the difference between me doing something because
of a
>reason and the keyboard doing something because of a reason?
>
>MANi
>
Could you clarify this statement for me a little. Is what you and jeremy
are arguing that human beings are the same as keyboards in the sense that
we just respond to stimuli? In other words that there is no "free will",
meaning we just react to situations. Is this an accurate statement of your
belief? (no sarcasm intended, genuinely curious)
Bob
Senex Rupicapra
> Could you clarify this statement for me a little. Is what you
back about 10 years BM i was a marathoner. in order to be
one y have to run a lot o training miles between races. i was a
nighttimer (held a night job) so i'd *choose* to run in the morning
before i went to bed rather than when i got up like the daytimers do.
one problem some daytimers have is bowel movements. they can't go
when they first get up, so they have to interrupt their roadwork to
take a dump. there was a guy i trained with occasionally who ran a
clothing store here in town. almost invariably he'd have to stop in
the middle o an eight or ten mile run to dump one. his *choice* was,
rather than finding a public toilet, to go in the bushes of any
private dwelling near to wherever he got the urge. it was a really
disgusting habit and i quit running with him on account o it (my
choice).
this next was told to me by the police chief. apparently,
Joe (not his real name), who by then was known to the police but
only as "the Phantom Shitter", was passing a construction site when
the need overtook him. as it was starting to get light out, he
went behind a pile o lumber to do his bidness. as he pulled down
his shorts he failed to notice the doberman which had been left to
guard the site. the mutt was on a chain, but it had sufficient
length that he was able to reach and take a sizeable chunk outta
Joe's butt. (Fido's choice) this enraged Joe so much that instead
o *choosing* to get the hell outta there and seek medical attention,
he *chose* to take his revenge on the dog. getting beyond the reach
o the dog's chain, he *chose* to pick up a two-by-four that was
leaning against the building, not noticing it was propping up a
large piece o plate glass which was to be installed that day. as
the glass toppled toward him he scrambled to get outta the way and,
in his haste stumbled and fell to the ground. as the glass fell on
top o Joe it broke into several large pieces and one o 'em decapitated
him.
Joe's widow later filed suit on the contractors for "leaving
an unsupervised and vicious animal" on the site. the judge could
barely keep a straight face as he threw out the case. he was later
heard to remark while in his cups at a local bistro that "I'll be
damned if I'll reward some idiot who *chose* to lose his head over
a piece of ass."
lotta choices there which led to a dis-ass-terous conclusion,
neh?
old goat.
potius mori quam foedari
邢 唷��
Robert Matthews
> back about 10 years BM i was a marathoner. in order to be
>one y have to run a lot o training miles between races. i was a
>nighttimer (held a night job) so i'd *choose* to run in the morning
>before i went to bed rather than when i got up like the daytimers do.
>one problem some daytimers have is bowel movements. they can't go
>when they first get up, so they have to interrupt their roadwork to
>take a dump. there was a guy i trained with occasionally who ran a
>clothing store here in town. almost invariably he'd have to stop in
>the middle o an eight or ten mile run to dump one. his *choice* was,
>rather than finding a public toilet, to go in the bushes of any
>private dwelling near to wherever he got the urge. it was a really
>disgusting habit and i quit running with him on account o it (my
>choice).
Thats kinda strange I'm running my first marathon in December. I've had
the same problem at times with having to go the bathroom. In fact I used
to rate the difficulty of my runs based on how many socks I come back with.
I realized I was a "runner" for the first time when I first took a shit in
a bush during a run. I've become more apt at knowing what time of day I
usually have to go and more careful of what I eat which has caused the
problem to almost disappear. During my training I've really come to
question how healthy running such long distances is. After my long runs
(between 13 and 18 miles so far) I feel very "beat up". Have you found
that running such long distance is detrimental to your health at all?
Bob
Senex Rupicapra
> I've become more apt at knowing what time of day I
> usually have to go and more careful of what I eat which has caused the
> problem to almost disappear. During my training I've really come to
> question how healthy running such long distances is. After my long runs
> (between 13 and 18 miles so far) I feel very "beat up". Have you found
> that running such long distance is detrimental to your health at all?
i ran for about 15 years before i retired. my retirement
was brought about by the shelling out o my knees. as long distance
runners go, i am a big guy. my lightest running weight was about
168 pounds although i ran my fastest times at around 172-175 pounds.
most really good marathoners are consistently under 160 pounds.
anyways, the pounding and the weight eventually did in my
knees. conversely, all the time i ran i had normal blood pressure
and normal blood sugar readings even though i am naturally hyper-
tensive and diabetic. also, i never had a cold or the flu or any
respiratory ailments even though i often trained in subzero weather.
once during a half-marathon i got hypothermia and a couple times in
the summer some heat exhaustion. on balance i think i was healthier
during my running than any other time in my life.
these days i walk. the Queen and i walk about 10-15 miles
a week under normal conditions. it helps. i've also given up
eating meat, dairy products, and all unnecessary fats. i prolly
shoulda eaten thataway when i was a runner, but i wasnt smart enow
to know it then. we get too soon old and too late smart, neh?
Robert Matthews
> i ran for about 15 years before i retired. my retirement
>was brought about by the shelling out o my knees. as long distance
>runners go, i am a big guy. my lightest running weight was about
>168 pounds although i ran my fastest times at around 172-175 pounds.
>most really good marathoners are consistently under 160 pounds.
> anyways, the pounding and the weight eventually did in my
>knees. conversely, all the time i ran i had normal blood pressure
>and normal blood sugar readings even though i am naturally hyper-
>tensive and diabetic. also, i never had a cold or the flu or any
>respiratory ailments even though i often trained in subzero weather.
>once during a half-marathon i got hypothermia and a couple times in
>the summer some heat exhaustion. on balance i think i was healthier
>during my running than any other time in my life.
I'm a heavy runner as well (about 205lbs) and I can tell my knees are
taking a pounding. I don't know if medically it is unhealthy to run long
distances, but I have a feeling it is from story such as yours (and others)
and just how I feel after long runs. I've invested too much time and
effort to stop training know and quit, but after this marathon I'm going to
cut down on my running quite a bit. I was considering training for half
triatholons so the run is only 13.1 miles and the biking and swimming
doesn't take too much of a toll on your body. The only problem with this
is that it gets expensive with all the equipment you have to buy.
I have to admit though during the week when I'm doing my shorter runs I do
feel like I have a lot more energy, than before I started taking running
seriously.
I need to eat healthier as well, I'm just not sure if its best to give up
white meat while I'm training. (Note: This is not an attempt to start a
debate regarding vegetarianism). It's difficult to know what is the
healthiest way to live these days, too much conflicting evidence.
Bob
Jerald Hellemeyer
>I need to eat healthier as well, I'm just not sure if its best to give
up
>white meat while I'm training. (Note: This is not an attempt to start
a
>debate regarding vegetarianism).
Is your concern about giving up white meat about not getting enough
protein? Plant products can provide the same amount and quality of
protein as meat if you know what you are doing. I've heard of many
athletes who trained while abstaining from meat consumption. As to
which is healthier, I agree with you that there is too much conflicting
evidence to know for sure. It all comes down to personal choice I guess.
Jerald
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
danceswithcarp
On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Jerald Hellemeyer wrote:
> I've heard of many
> athletes who trained while abstaining from meat consumption. As to
> which is healthier, I agree with you that there is too much conflicting
> evidence to know for sure. It all comes down to personal choice I guess.
Yeah, but red meat makes you horny.
I mean you try living by yourself out in the woods for a few seasons with
nothing but cows to keep you company. One of those suckers walks by the
campfire I get hungry and then as I watch them walk away I get these
romantic urges...
carp
Jerald Hellemeyer
while we are here.....
How does a (insert favorite nationality) find sheep in the tall grass?
Very satisfying.
Jerald
>Yeah, but red meat makes you horny.
>
>I mean you try living by yourself out in the woods for a few seasons
with
>nothing but cows to keep you company. One of those suckers walks by
the
>campfire I get hungry and then as I watch them walk away I get these
>romantic urges...
>
>
>carp
>
>
Senex Rupicapra
>
> Robert writes:
> > Have you found
> > that running such long distance is detrimental to your health
> > at all?
> giving news of victory. This should be a lesson to us all...
true, but he prolly fought a battle first.
old goat.
oú sont les nieges d'antan?
ÐÏ à¡± á
Brian J. Callahan
> Thats kinda strange I'm running my first marathon in December. I've
>had
>the same problem at times with having to go the bathroom. In fact I used
>to rate the difficulty of my runs based on how many socks I come back with.
> I realized I was a "runner" for the first time when I first took a shit in
>usually have to go and more careful of what I eat which has caused the
>problem to almost disappear. During my training I've really come to
>question how healthy running such long distances is. After my long runs
Unka Bart
In message Jeremy Dixon writes:
>
> OK, Scott I've been thinking as i do off and on.
Precious little evidence of that, Jeremy, ol' Twig. At least not in so far
as you've posted on this silly subject to date
> Parts of
> one complex *object*. When we watch a film we see it in sequence, Jack
> Nicholson gets his nose cut "because" Milos Forman was "personally
> responsible" for slashing him.
You have managed to completely miss the point of the whole "personal
responsibility" subject. Your illustration above is one of "guilt."
"Guilt" is the identification of the person who committed an act, the
identification of the "culprit." It is deals with the relationship of the
doer with the outside world. "Personal responsibility" deals with the
relationship of the doer to the doer's self. In the terminology of eastern
philosophies, it is karma.
> But in fact all scenes are on one cpiece of
> film.....if you say "but the world isn't on film" then you've missed the
> point again...
Thus speaketh the poster-boy for the Point-Missers of the world...
All said with a grin, of course...
By the way, Scott, Bravo! Yer Kindly Ol' Unka Bart is both delighted and
highly impressed by your delicious "Capra" zinger!
Yer Kindly Ol' Unka Bart
Unka Bart
> > Wait, you're arguing that because self-awareness is of mechanical origin,
> > that it isn't fundamentally different from non self-awareness? And that
> > this is some sort of basic truth?
>
> Thing is Scott, you do rather tend to expostulate and say in effect "this
> argument makes me very upset" rather than advance yr own argument. as
> bakunin put it in his letter to mazzini
And as Yer Kindly Ol' Unka Bart said in his Letter to the Anarchists (1st
UnkaBart: 1-15):
There are time, such as this message, where I honestly wonder: Is brother
Jer aware that he is speaking from his ass, and grinning at our
consternation; or does he take himself seriously here?
I lean towards the later evaluation, brother Jeremy, but you do sometimes
show flashes of what might be real insight, enough so to give me pause...
This is not, however, *one* of those times where you show any insight.
> There is only one world stuff. Dualism is the grin on the Cheshire cat of
> (the dominant form of) christianity. There is no scientific basis for
> dualism, Properly speaking no religious basis for it either, but the
> fascinating thing is how people who claim to be emancipated from religious
> mystifications still continue to believe (as shown by the assumptions
> they operate on) , that 'man has a body distinct from his soul'.
You, dear Jeremy, are like a parrot here, mouthing the words and even
pronouncing them correctly, but lacking any fundamental understanding of
their meaning. In the abstract, you are correct.
We life in the world of duality. (hint, it'd be a good idea to write that
down, even if you don't grasp it yet, dear Jer. There will be an exam,
even if it's only at the time of your death...)
You have not correctly grasped the fact that *this* wold, the one we live
in, is one of duality. You *seem* to have grasped that this duality is
illusionary, and there is an Unity that underlies all this duality. You
show no evidence whatever of grasping the fact that you are speaking of
another duality here, one-ness and not-one-ness.
What sets people apart is the tendency to apply labels to concepts so that
we can talk about them. This is because the labels, like "god" fer
instance, do not mean the same thing to every member of the discussion, yet
each of us *acts* like (and believes) that they do.
I mention that because you are speaking with the language of the spiritual
quest without understanding even their surface meaning. In the quest to
transcend this world of duality, it is necessary to transcend it, to "see
beyond" it.
To see what? That *is* the question. There is no answer without using a
label, and you know, because I just told you, the problem with that, but I
call it the "transcendent" because it transcends all dualities. T.C., DK
and others would call it "God" and that's cool by me (except that God is
one of those labels, with all its attendent differing connotations...)
Anyway, to see beyond the duality of "duality and non-duality," it is
necessary to remove all obstructions from the "mirror" (or lens, or eye, or
*mind* or *soul* or whatever you call that which you use to "see" it).
There way to remove these obstructions requires first grasping them (you
cannot let go of something that is not in your grasp, neh?). You are still
grappling with the basics, but they are still wriggling in your hand and
are not in your control. Worse, you don't see this...
> A good example is so called atheists who get upset at the suggestion that
> personality might be in part inherited. In their hearts they still
> believe, apparently, that a little soul slips into the flesh at birth...
Manfred asked earlier, "does a dog have personal responsiblity?" From
hints you've given in the past, you doubtless know that this is a
paraphrase of the first Koan in the Mumonkan (a collection of Koans); the
question a monk asked Joshu (ancient chinese Zen teacher) "Does a dog have
buddha nature?" and Joshu's answer was "Mu" (the negative symbol in
chinese, meaning "no thing" or "negative"). The real question is: What did
Joshu mean?
> You don't have to believe that "all is matter" scott. you can believe "all
> is mind". It comes to the same thing. There is only one world stuff, we
> call it "mind" at a certain level of complexity.
Where is that stone, Jeremy? Is it in your "mind" or on the ground?
Penny Gronbeck
> I need to eat healthier as well, I'm just not sure if its best to give up
> white meat while I'm training. (Note: This is not an attempt to start a
> debate regarding vegetarianism). It's difficult to know what is the
> healthiest way to live these days, too much conflicting evidence.
>
>
> Bob
>
I'm not a runner, but I used to dance (ballet, believe it or not) and I've
done a couple of martial arts. I took all this up after I went
vegetarian, and went vegan while I was dancing. I never had any problems,
but my parents, devoted meat eaters, freaked out and tried to make me eat
meat again, so I ended up doing a lot of research on it. (NOTE:
I don't want to debate food philosophies either.)
If you're worried about protien, try eating peanut butter and soy
products, or just beans and rice. Nuts are also good, but they can be
expensive and some kinds are really high in fat, if you're worried about
that. Spinach and bell peppers are good for iron, especially raw.
Seriously though, most people really overestimate how much protein they
need, and having too much of it is kind of bad, because when you have too
much, your body starts getting rid of calcium as well.
Penny
Manfred Schmidtke
>Manfred asked earlier, "does a dog have personal responsiblity?" From
>hints you've given in the past, you doubtless know that this is a
>paraphrase of the first Koan in the Mumonkan (a collection of Koans); the
>question a monk asked Joshu (ancient chinese Zen teacher) "Does a dog have
>buddha nature?" and Joshu's answer was "Mu" (the negative symbol in
>chinese, meaning "no thing" or "negative"). The real question is: What did
>Joshu mean?
OK, no answer to the dog issue. Next question (a bit harder this time): Is
a racist self-responsible for being a racist or is he a product of our
society?
MANi
Sandi & Scott Spaeth
>OK, no answer to the dog issue. Next question (a bit harder this time): Is
>a racist self-responsible for being a racist or is he a product of our
>society?
>
Both. this is easy.
Cheers,
Scott
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hard Luck S.C.
http://www.netscad.net/~vespags/hardluck/index.html
Piston Ported Vespas:
http://www.netscad.net/~vespags/piston-ported.html
words
http://www.netscad.net/~vespags/words.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
Manfred Schmidtke
>>OK, no answer to the dog issue. Next question (a bit harder this time): Is
>>a racist self-responsible for being a racist or is he a product of our
>>society?
>>
>
>Both. this is easy.
Good answer. But it doesn't work. If he is a product of society, then he
can't be self-responsible.
MANi
Unka Bart
> OK, no answer to the dog issue. Next question (a bit harder this time): Is
> a racist self-responsible for being a racist or is he a product of our
> society?
Of course he is. Are you the product of that society? Are you racist?
danceswithcarp
On Sat, 7 Nov 1998, Sandi & Scott Spaeth wrote:
> >OK, no answer to the dog issue. Next question (a bit harder this time): Is
> >a racist self-responsible for being a racist or is he a product of our
> >society?
>
> Both. this is easy.
Yes, but how would you go about alleviating the latter and correcting the
former without using coercion?
carpo
Sandi & Scott Spaeth
>
>
>Yes, but how would you go about alleviating the latter and correcting the
>former without using coercion?
>
Don't know, or rather, I don't think I would try to 'change' racists or
society in general, but I heartily support SHARP skins (and others) who
take action against racist attacks.
Dave Hayman
we don't have to go as far as your mutually exclusive extremes. The key
is to understand that the objectively correct answers implied by your
questions do not exist. I think a dog has some limited "personal
responsibility"; other opinions no doubt abound. The racist is *both*
pers. resp. for his/her own actions, *and* a product of society. Rather
than being exclusive, individual and group responsibilities tend to
overlap a lot. I predict that your next question will show that you
still don't get it.
Manfred Schmidtke wrote:
>
> At 13:39 04.11.98 -0500, Unka Bart wrote:
>
> >Manfred asked earlier, "does a dog have personal responsiblity?" From
> >hints you've given in the past, you doubtless know that this is a
> >paraphrase of the first Koan in the Mumonkan (a collection of Koans); the
> >question a monk asked Joshu (ancient chinese Zen teacher) "Does a dog have
> >buddha nature?" and Joshu's answer was "Mu" (the negative symbol in
> >chinese, meaning "no thing" or "negative"). The real question is: What did
> >Joshu mean?
>
> OK, no answer to the dog issue. Next question (a bit harder this time): Is
> a racist self-responsible for being a racist or is he a product of our
> society?
>
> MANi
catkawin
Manfred said:
> Next question (a bit harder this time): Is
> a racist self-responsible for being a racist or is he a product of our
> society?
Well then, Manfred: in being an anarchist, are you self-responsible for
this, i.e. was it any thought process - preferably yours - which led you
to certain convictions about anarchism, or do you happen to be a product
of society (which society?????) ?
catkawin
## CrossPoint v3.11 ##
Dave Hayman
use of force." I don't think that's a good idea. The key point is the
need to improve people's judgement about what constitutes acceptable use
of force. If we use "coercion" to mean "any pressure to make a
group/indiv act against their will", including self-defense (any defense
against an attacker is resisting the attacker's will, right?), then the
problem of discriminating justifiable from unjustifiable coercion is
always before us, and we have more opportunity to learn and get better
at it. With the former definition, I think people are more likely to
excuse their coercive urges by labelling them "non-coercive".
Hope that makes some sense.
danceswithcarp wrote:
>
> On Sat, 7 Nov 1998, Sandi & Scott Spaeth wrote:
>
> > >OK, no answer to the dog issue. Next question (a bit harder this time): Is
> > >a racist self-responsible for being a racist or is he a product of our
> > >society?
> >
> > Both. this is easy.
>
> Yes, but how would you go about alleviating the latter and correcting the
> former without using coercion?
>
> carpo