The Relationship of Recognition.: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Social Sciences » The Relationship of Recognition. » The Relationship of Recognition.

The Relationship of Recognition.
Bringing it all back home.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

The Relationship of Recognition.

rigelrover
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 559

Posted 10/26/09 - 07:28 AM:	#21
It must also be said that one must earn his/her humanity. That is, we are all born into a variety of circumstantial conditions (e.g. wealth, race, gender, family, country, religion perhaps, etc., etc.) but most, if not all, have the opportunity available to successfully develop from animated bodies into persons by our own volition. There are, of course, things that are critical for the health of the individual; bodily, socially, spiritually (given the philosophical understanding of the term), etc. But somehow we can trust that despite many circumstances persons can emerge, for better or worse, on their own volition, not entirely dependent on the lack of proper conditioning during critical development. Sure, we must learn to acknowledge the 'humanity of each person', and this seems to be extremely crucial to their becoming socially adept, but we must not forgo each individuals responsibility to his/herself upon sufficient conscious awareness of his/her own situation given the capacity to understand without direct communication that he/she belongs to a 'society at large' whether sworn in or not. It makes complete sense that a individual being must at some point have confirmation that it is a human in order to adjust properly to the society at large, but this confirmation, if not given at an early age, can surely be implied (if not at a young age) at a more advanced age given the proper capacity for intelligent, conscious consideration. Maybe you are arguing, un-e, that this sort of consideration is never unlocked but for another individual passing the word on, but then were does it originate. It is certainly helpful to have others tell you directly, but not impossible to understand if one has observed others and understood that they are similar in essence to oneself. This is enough for me to place the responsibility entirely upon the adult; given that society at large should take what you say into consideration when raising new people up in it. We all should be aware of your expressed concern and in light of it be concerned ourselves, but we should not absolve others of their moral responsibility to ourselves and to the rest of us because of it. Edited by rigelrover on 10/26/09 - 07:44 AM. Reason: spelling, word correction
I am more interested in questions than answers; dialog than dictation. If we can reasonably believe that there is not just a breach, but a fundamentally unclosable gap between the individual mind and the ultimate nature of the reality; the primordial thing in itself, then 'true' mystery does exist.

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3283

Posted 10/26/09 - 07:36 AM:	#22
Desidude666 wrote: Recognition does not ideally present a problem to our choices. The examples you've quoted merely propositioned that the lack of recognition given to a criminal opens up avenues for him and justifies crime (ethical problem). I don't think I do. I am arguing that 'what one is' is largely socially constructed, and I have indicated in a very general way how I think it happens. I am actually not that interested in the psychology of the criminal, except to point out that he is the product of our vision of him. There is no question of justification. Desidude666 wrote: You again do not quite underline the fact that the actions of a criminal are not the result of a lack of recognition of him, or the problems in the circumstance in which he committed the crime, rather it's his actions. You infer that recognition alone results in such actions, with the negative reactions giving birth to monsters. If you then expand on conflict, and then distinguish opponents prior to justification of opposition and thus conflict, I would then point out that recognition is not entirely the sole proposition; either of the circumstance or these people who 'fight'. You can recognize children positively, and they may turn out to be 'monster's in the future, there are no guarantees. In fact, the relationship with recognition and human beings is one that is light and very finite in terms of possibilities. You can always recognize someone and not act, you can always not recognize a problem and act anyway affecting a circumstance or individual. So as a suggestion, I would suggest action as the form of mandatory after-effect of recognition. Recognizing a problem alone does not mean anything until we act. Well I have not gotten as far as choices and action, which are partly a matter of circumstances. A polar bear sees me as food, and this directs the choices that he considers, whether or not he attacks me, depends on circumstances - how hungry, how far away, how dangerous I might be... Similarly, the man who sees Africans as sub-human opens to himself the choice of treating them as beasts of burden and possessions. He might also see them as dangerous pests or of no interest to him, but he will probably not consider discussing philosophy. To be clear - in this thread I am recommending a way of looking and not a particular course of action. I am not therefore offering guarantees of success, there are all sorts of mishaps of development. I am saying that I do not believe in monsters, but that they are the creation of a frightened and isolated mind. If you see monsters, then you are liable to behave monstrously towards them. I am not suggesting shaking hands with a polar bear.
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Desidude666
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2007
Location: Singapore

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 334

Posted 10/26/09 - 10:40 PM:	#23
unenlightened wrote: I am saying that I do not believe in monsters, but that they are the creation of a frightened and isolated mind. If you see monsters, then you are liable to behave monstrously towards them. I am not suggesting shaking hands with a polar bear. Exactly what I have been emphasizing. The 'monsters' are not just the creation of a frightened and isolated mind, they are a creation of actions. You can think of a thousand sins and still be a saint, you can be a sinner otherwise. Of course you don't shake hands with a polar bear, but you can shake a convict's hands. My point is that he is a 'monster' not because of the recognition he didn't receive, rather, the actions that resulted from either too much recognition, or a lack of it. My point has been that the thought of a person is irrelevant, it cannot help you mould him, neither can it help understand him. It's through actions that a person may influence another. Reaction is evidence of an act, hence whatever that cannot be evidenced is very much not at all of any use for the ones who need it. The emphasis on recognition seems a little flawed to me, might be mistaken though. Because of the lack of confirmation where the mind is concerned.
What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3283

Posted 10/27/09 - 05:43 AM:	#24
Desidude666 wrote: My point has been that the thought of a person is irrelevant, it cannot help you mould him, neither can it help understand him. It's through actions that a person may influence another. Reaction is evidence of an act, hence whatever that cannot be evidenced is very much not at all of any use for the ones who need it. The emphasis on recognition seems a little flawed to me, might be mistaken though. Because of the lack of confirmation where the mind is concerned. I see, and I think I agree to a large extent. I take it that you accept that my own understanding will influence my own actions. In that sense, My interest is not so much in the criminal psyche, and more in the ordinary mind. But of course I am saying that they are not fundamentally different. Could I say, for example, that the psychopath is acting out a solipsistic understanding of the world? So my understanding is that one cannot communicate with someone for whom one does not exist, and therefore I must adopt his frame of reference, and deal with him as an object to be influenced by various forces and pressures. And this engagement with 'the fact' is equally necessary when a child runs into the road; first you act to restore them to safety, and consideration of relationships and identities must be left aside. But still I would hope to then engage with the child's understanding so that they will not do it again, not out of fear of punishment, but out of a right understanding of the world. Here is my question; how does one come to such an understanding of the world, or from my point of view, such a misunderstanding, that one can see as a valid choice, treating another person as a convenience? To answer, I have recourse to my own psyche as disclosed in relationship with others. It seems to me that I learn to treat others, from the way that I have been treated myself. I influence others by my actions, but I act out of my understanding, and my understanding is born (or not) in relationship. It is the inner world that gives birth to monsters, and it is the failure to understand this that results in monstrous acts. If I merely lock up the actor, I am remaining in the mechanical solipsistic mind-world of the monsters, and they will assuredly be back to haunt me again. I want to break free of this endless cycle of other as enemy by bringing 'them' into a real relation as part of myself.
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

rigelrover
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 559

Posted 10/27/09 - 05:58 AM:	#25
unenlightened wrote: I want to break free of this endless cycle of other as enemy by bringing 'them' into a real relation as part of myself. One of the things that Jesus demonstrated (and taught). We can see that this is the case through study, and self-reflection (as unenlightened has). But it is nice to know that we can learn about this through trusting an authority, expecially for those people in the world who are either unwilling or unable to reflect about it or learn about it the way the un-e has disclosed.
I am more interested in questions than answers; dialog than dictation. If we can reasonably believe that there is not just a breach, but a fundamentally unclosable gap between the individual mind and the ultimate nature of the reality; the primordial thing in itself, then 'true' mystery does exist.

Desidude666
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2007
Location: Singapore

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 334

Posted 10/28/09 - 10:50 PM:	#26
rigelrover wrote: One of the things that Jesus demonstrated (and taught). We can see that this is the case through study, and self-reflection (as unenlightened has). But it is nice to know that we can learn about this through trusting an authority, expecially for those people in the world who are either unwilling or unable to reflect about it or learn about it the way the un-e has disclosed. I don't think Yeshua has delved into cyclic karmic reactions. All Yeshua, or his brand (since he hasn't written a thing, it was written, supposedly, 70 or so years after his supposed historical death by his supposed disciples) today suggests are commandments. Yeshua didn't know a thing about cyclic reactions - these are Eastern concepts. Yeshua was killed because of his 'reactions'. His attempts to undermine Yahweh's worship by others led to his 'death' (and he comes back to life only to die again, how rather dumb, why not stay around for a good number of years and teach others?). If he had any idea of control of the senses, he would have not indulged at challenging the authority, rather - he would have conformed to it and survived so that more could benefit from his existence later. An immortal Yeshua (alive) is much more valuable to a branded Yeshua of the Constantine Empire which has political interests. The worst thing a Christian can always do is fail to realise that a Jesus who might have died at 30+ years of age had absolutely no philosophical value against a potential 100+ (or immortal? He was indeed 'God's' son) years worth of potential philosophy by him. Assuming he could engage in it. He died because of his failure to understand karmic reactions. So I don't think he demonstrated anything more than kindness and the potential applicability of the 'God' concept to every member of society. All worth listening to from him is the equality concept and how the poor have a future in an 'after-life'. At least their deaths are eased.
What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

Desidude666
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2007
Location: Singapore

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 334

Posted 10/28/09 - 11:27 PM:	#27
unenlightened wrote: I see, and I think I agree to a large extent. I take it that you accept that my own understanding will influence my own actions. In that sense, My interest is not so much in the criminal psyche, and more in the ordinary mind. But of course I am saying that they are not fundamentally different. Could I say, for example, that the psychopath is acting out a solipsistic understanding of the world? So my understanding is that one cannot communicate with someone for whom one does not exist, and therefore I must adopt his frame of reference, and deal with him as an object to be influenced by various forces and pressures. Right, however, his frame of reference isn't his mindset. Rather his cue to act is his understanding based on acts of others. Suppose a person is relatively not exposed to actions of others ever - can his mindset work it out on itself? I agree that an initial understanding is important, but it's not mandatory. A person might be an impulsive criminal? Some people just are impulsive shoplifters. Likewise, a person who might have a solipsistic understanding of the world might be acting as a reaction to actions of others over him? In that sense, the mind is downgraded when comparing to an action. That means it's 'formed' as a reaction to an action. And when we react, it then materializes someone's action and transforms our action into reaction to their actions. You can always think of a crime and not do it. You can always be unhappy at the world and not act. You can always think of a murder and not commit it. So, in that sense, if you want to refer - the appropriate reference would also be the actions within his personal sphere. A mind is worth nothing without action. So you might, or probably would have to, encompass actions of others. A person might be violent, probably due to a mental illness (that's where you stop), I suggest that this illness might have surfaced after an abuse, or neglect? And let's go further, he might have had a single-parent family unit resulting from irresponsible parental behaviour, his father might have been abusive, he might have been bullied in school... and so forth. These are actions of others. His mindset is formed, but it is not a reaction still - until he acts and commits something, it then is a reaction the actions of others. If you consider it, his mindset, if you think is developing, is a result of actions of others but is still not significant due to the non-existing action. In that sense, while I agree on a priori, I think we are prioritizing the limitedness of a mind over the influences of actions of others. unenlightened wrote: And this engagement with 'the fact' is equally necessary when a child runs into the road; first you act to restore them to safety, and consideration of relationships and identities must be left aside. But still I would hope to then engage with the child's understanding so that they will not do it again, not out of fear of punishment, but out of a right understanding of the world. Right. Then he states that his ball's on the road, or someone had thrown it when playing a game. Then he would tell you that his guardian might have not come to pick him/her up on time. So if you notice, the influences are always actions. They then exist once you react and acknowledge. The actions of his/her guardians will exist once you react to it by informing them or complaining to the authorities. unenlightened wrote: Here is my question; how does one come to such an understanding of the world, or from my point of view, such a misunderstanding, that one can see as a valid choice, treating another person as a convenience? To answer, I have recourse to my own psyche as disclosed in relationship with others. It seems to me that I learn to treat others, from the way that I have been treated myself. I influence others by my actions, but I act out of my understanding, and my understanding is born (or not) in relationship. It is the inner world that gives birth to monsters, and it is the failure to understand this that results in monstrous acts. If I merely lock up the actor, I am remaining in the mechanical solipsistic mind-world of the monsters, and they will assuredly be back to haunt me again. I want to break free of this endless cycle of other as enemy by bringing 'them' into a real relation as part of myself. You form your own understanding. That said, I suggest, to react after judging. If you consider the mind to be the final level where all things come to a halt, you then do not at all consider the fact that your actions are much more influential than what you think. Understanding isn't a constant - you can always be sound judge but make an amateurish error the next state, so if you do commit an error, despite being knowledgeable, what you then going to do? Can you simply state that by understanding yourself, you will omit errors? What are these errors anyways? Do you react, or act to a reaction? If you think that you treat another as you've been treated, then this treatment is the cause of concern, why the mindset? How can you 'understand' your reaction to an act of another? The idea here is that an act initiates a possible reaction. Your 'understanding' might form a minor form in a reaction, but it will only exist after you react. And then it doesn't exist. It's temporary. Once you react, you acknowledge that act and thus 'understand'. Since you cannot constantly 'understand' - it doesn't even exist if you consider my suggestion. Edited by Desidude666 on 10/28/09 - 11:38 PM
What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3283

Posted 10/29/09 - 09:28 AM:	#28
Desidude666 wrote: You form your own understanding. Well not on my own, but in relation to another. Desidude666 wrote: That said, I suggest, to react after judging. If you consider the mind to be the final level where all things come to a halt, you then do not at all consider the fact that your actions are much more influential than what you think. Understanding isn't a constant - you can always be sound judge but make an amateurish error the next state, so if you do commit an error, despite being knowledgeable, what you then going to do? No, understanding cannot be a constant, as it is part of a relationship; understanding is a stance in relation to another, expressed as action and constantly changing and updating. I thought I was making myself clear, but now I see I was mistaken. What shall I do - try again, or give up the discussion. Desidude666 wrote: Can you simply state that by understanding yourself, you will omit errors? What are these errors anyways? Do you react, or act to a reaction? If you think that you treat another as you've been treated, then this treatment is the cause of concern, why the mindset? How can you 'understand' your reaction to an act of another? The idea here is that an act initiates a possible reaction. Your 'understanding' might form a minor form in a reaction, but it will only exist after you react. And then it doesn't exist. It's temporary. Once you react, you acknowledge that act and thus 'understand'. Since you cannot constantly 'understand' - it doesn't even exist if you consider my suggestion. I am not claiming some total understanding of myself at all, nor to be free of error, nor do I suggest treating another as I have been treated. I see the result of my act of posting in your act of responding, and in your response I see myself reflected and distorted. Thus I come to understand that we are not communicating well. So my reaction might be that Desi is an incoherent idiot who does not understand my pearls of wisdom, which makes you, the other responsible, or I might maintain a mutuality that declares that we are not understanding each other, and then I wonder how I can best understand Desi, and how I can so express myself as to be understood by him. This is all quite active, and not confined to my inner world, so I am hoping that we can through active discussion come to some sort of common view of things, at least to the extent that we can each see what the other means.
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

NicodemusNewman
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 30, 2009
Location: Canada

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 10/30/09 - 11:27 PM:	#29
"One exists, and comes to know oneself in relationship to the world and to others." When it comes to knowing yourself in relation to others does that include trying to define ones self? To define ones self as a person who loves but is not fully a lover. They are part lover and also some part hater. Does the definition lover arise because it averages out to lover? That one is more inclined to love than to hate? And if so inclined then what makes one keep the status of lover? By continueing to love? What if the person hates as well? If they hate less than they love then are they still under the definition of lover? Only dealing with the two love/hate qualities that a person can have is confusing? Is there a logical way to think about this idea?
Make me understand.

Desidude666
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2007
Location: Singapore

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 334

Posted 11/02/09 - 12:07 AM:	#30
unenlightened wrote: I am not claiming some total understanding of myself at all, nor to be free of error, nor do I suggest treating another as I have been treated. I see the result of my act of posting in your act of responding, and in your response I see myself reflected and distorted. Thus I come to understand that we are not communicating well. So my reaction might be that Desi is an incoherent idiot who does not understand my pearls of wisdom, which makes you, the other responsible, or I might maintain a mutuality that declares that we are not understanding each other, and then I wonder how I can best understand Desi, and how I can so express myself as to be understood by him. This is all quite active, and not confined to my inner world, so I am hoping that we can through active discussion come to some sort of common view of things, at least to the extent that we can each see what the other means. You've not got the point. In fact, you cannot react by just understanding. Your understanding is irrelevant, whether you consider me an idiot, or a demi-God, it's irrelevant as it is not a reaction until you act. In this case, you have just stated that you aren't able to comprehend what is written up there because it might either be: 1. It's incoherent (to you, perhaps?) 2. You've over estimated the role of understanding and how it plays itself as a reaction to an action. 3. Your notion is entirely foolish to even propose (my radical side, I might add). But I don't think it is as such. My proposition to you is this: 1. You act. 2. Your act affects someone. 3. He then comprehends and thus forms a 'mindset' of your actions (Remember, he wouldn't form strong opinions if your actions don't exist, hence your actions represent you, not the other way around) 4. He reacts with an action - this is the reaction. A response to your act, hence then your 'mindset' exists. But you still wouldn't be able to guess rightly - because it's intangible. So what do you then do? Study the tangible action, or the intangible mindset? If you agree to this this far, tell me how understanding his mindset to your act can help you in understanding him. You cannot understand a mindset without understanding an action that forms that mindset, or reaction (and we are just predicting it). And remember, this prediction is merely judgment, actions are material, mindset isn't. What makes sense to you if you understand what is written up there? Studying what doesn't exist (mindset), or what forms reaction.
What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.