The Wednesday Circle

"There is a time and a place for everything. I just forgot the time and the place."

Saturday, August 19, 2006

The Chicken and the Egg

What a wonderful legacy that creation, colonialism, has left us. We carve our souls out of the desolation that God may find us true and unwaivering in our belief, never considering that maybe, just maybe, our own faith created the desolation in the first place...

Is it safe to say that self-responsibility is the crux of all awareness?

posted by sleiman @ 2:02 AM  

13 Comments:

  • At 10:55 PM, August 21, 2006, Blogger KH said…

    I'm not sure that this is quite the dilemma it might first seem.

    In a christian sense (I won't speak of faiths I don't know about or break this down into denominations) there is an overarching importance placed on free-will and the consequences of the use of it.

    In that sense, I think that self-responsibility can also be called the crux of christianity, amongst many other things.

    The extent to which this paradigm is forgotten, or ignored, might explain many of the problems we see in the Western, colonialist, societies today.

     

  • At 1:42 AM, August 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I think that the problem may lie in identifying free will as God, or God-like, hence all of the differing religions and demoninations.

    My personal belief is that free will is the acceptance that our freedom is not ours.

     

  • At 2:40 PM, August 22, 2006, Blogger KH said…

    but if freedom is not ours, then there is no need for self-responsibility

     

  • At 2:01 AM, August 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I think that this is precisely the point where logic fails us.

     

  • At 10:56 AM, August 23, 2006, Blogger KH said…

    bro...

    that's not going to work.

    If you're going to come out with stuff like that, you're going to have to explain a little better.

    Otherwise I'm sticking to my position, which is if there is no free-will there is no (need for?)self-responsibility.

    Actually, the more I think abotu it the more I'm going to insist you expand, especially seeing as you tried to use the-much-aligned-by-Sleiman logic to kick this whole topic off in the first place.

     

  • At 1:54 PM, August 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Actually, it's not so much that I disagree with logic, it's just that we have to remember the old adage of everything in moderation. Colonialism and the 'scientific' basis behind it seems to be an obvious example of too much chocolate before bed. It's been keeping everyone awake for many, many years now...

    One of the main themes that I try to explore is that the learning never stops. I think that this is something we can all readily admit to. But the problem I feel, is that we tend to believe and hence act, as if learning is linear in nature. I was told once that learning doesn't have to be 'positive'. One of the ways that I interpreted that comment was that linear logic sets up it's answers to suit the questions. Perhaps higher level logic is more intuitive than I give it credit for but if that is the case, then I really don't have to worry about 'logic' anymore and I should focus more on intuition.

    So in that sense it becomes logical to not become caught up in logic. I think that it is here that we find the budo term of kyojitsu (falsehood-truth) coming alive. Perhaps it could be looked at as being plain old commonsense, but then, we all know how common such sense is.

    Free-will... there must be something to be free from for there to be free-will, yes? What about being free from the concept of freedom, at least in the way that we have moulded it's meaning (whatever the original meaning was)?

    I will stick to my position as well here by saying that free-will is based on acceptance that our freedom is not ours. The problem for debate though is that I personally don't want to be stuck on this position for too long if it becomes dogma. Never take a knife to a gun-fight, isn't that what they say?

    I wonder what God uses in his 'battles'? Well, if I get hit by a car today, at least my underwear will be clean...I think.

    (You can see me floating away from the debate here, but I can assure you that I feel like I am in the midst of it...)

     

  • At 6:50 PM, August 23, 2006, Blogger KH said…

    There are endless possiblities and paradoxes when we redefine words or ignore their understood meaning.

    Example

    Self-responsibility implies a responsibility for one's self and the consequeneces of those things the self influences - albeit external or internal to the self.

    But if free-will can be said to incorporate a freedom from freedom itself (an anti-freedom as opposed to some form of restriction), then perhaps the greatest form of self-responsibility is to not be self-responsible at all.

    The 'logic' here is that if free-will can depend on a lack of defined notions of freedom, then the greatest act of self-responsibility is to realise there is a natural order of things and seek not to be responsible for those things which we cannot control, including ourselves and the outcomes of our actions.

    The dilemma we have in life is that communication relies on a common understanding of words/symbols/acts/emotions etc.

    I see some validity in what your saying and was momentarily educated by you(for the 1st time - hahaha)when i realised that you were right about the possibility of free-will meaning free from freedom.

    However, if we're going to carry on with this discussion, we need to define just what it is we're talking about (which we're on the way to doing)

    Once we're there, we can contextually answer the question of whether it is safe to say that self-responsibility is the crux of all awareness.

    K

     

  • At 2:01 AM, August 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    In terms of redefining words, as you put it, well, that is where the beauty lies. There ARE endless possibilities and it is towards this world that I am trying to head towards with my trie-hard attempts at writing. I know it'll sound corny but it's like using the analogy of a seed. By this, I mean potential.

    Of course words have generally established meanings but as someone who speaks more than one language, you are more than familiar with difficulties in translation. The ironic thing is that language and words are, in general, meant to be make communciation between people easier! But the reality is, as you know well enough, it's just not that simple. I regard this point, in and of itself, as a very clear sign of the how important self-responsibilty is.

    Your implications regarding self-responsibility are interesting because you mentioned consequences of what the self influences. While there is that, too many people use that as a crutch to absolve themselves of self-responsibility so my question would be, what about the one being influenced? Where is his or her responsibility? As you can see, this is like two mirrors facing each other. In the final analysis, I guess one can only truly be responsible for ones own self.

    Now, this is probably where self-awareness seems to come into it's own, perhaps as a safe guard against egocentricism, arrogance and the like. Of course, maybe we need to be aware in order to accept self-responsibility. I can accept that as obviously you can't have one without the other. So in that sense, I am quite happy to change my original question into it's reverse.

    Will that throw off the discussion? (hehe) Well, to me it doesn't matter if it does because, to my way of thinking, it was never about definitions in the first place. When I write as if I am trying to 'establish' something, I get the sense that I am using my brain too much, as opposed to what's further upstairs. I've already been educated well enough in the world of human knowledge (though I wonder if a BA in Spts Stds really cuts it...). In anycase, my curiosity is for what lies next...

    When I talk about freedom from freedom itself, I am refering to human limitations of what we mean by freedom. I feel as if our important concepts are in fact used to limit us rather than to free us. That is the crux of my position in this discussion. (Perhaps I should have mentioned that from the outset but, to be honest, it seemed clear to me when I wrote it.)

    I was curious when you said that self-responsibility implies x-y-z. At first I thought that seemed reasonable but then I realised something, why does it have to imply x-y-z at all? Why not z-x-y? Or better yet, why can't self-responsibility simply imply self-responsibility? That 'definition' would really give credence to the notion that it's up to us to get it ourselves.

     

  • At 4:01 PM, August 24, 2006, Blogger KH said…

    I'm off to go skiing for the next few days

    Let's take this back up when I return

    K

     

  • At 12:53 AM, August 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Off skiing? lol

     

  • At 2:19 AM, August 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "The dilemma we have in life is that communication relies on a common understanding of words/symbols/acts/ emotions etc."

    What you wrote here Kim, strikes to the heart of the matter in so many ways it boggles the mind. But that's okay as I'm not trying to boggle the mind anymore. I'm retiring my syntactic sabre in favour of some good ol' fashioned blinding powder. Once the dust settles, hopefully we'll find something of interest.

    Communication does rely on common understandings of words, symbols etc but what I am trying to explore here are the uncommon understandings.

    "However, if we're going to carry on with this discussion, we need to define just what it is we're talking about"

    I'm not sure why we need to do anything of the sort. I think that attaching a definition will kill off whatever it is we are talking about. Well, maybe not as I'm full a shit anyway so I've got enough fetiliser in me to start up something fresh.

    For sure, we could work from defined terms but it seems so much more enjoyable to ride the winds and see where all of our hot-air takes us. Just remember to bring with you your top-10 all time favourtie albums 'cause we could end up in the middle of nowhere...

    As for my nemesis, Mr. Linear Logic, well, it is true that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line but... what happens if you bend that line into a circle?

    You watch. I'm sure someone out there will pull out their compass, draw a neat circle and do a spot'o'measuring to see if me words ring false...

     

  • At 3:48 PM, August 28, 2006, Blogger KH said…

    "Communication does rely on common understandings of words, symbols etc but what I am trying to explore here are the uncommon understandings"

    That's OK - but let me give you an analogy for what it is I'm saying.

    if you say the weather is hot in Japan in June, I can't understand why without an understanding of the contextual meaning of June being summer in Japan. Otherwise, I think that by June you mean winter (from my Australian understanding) and your comments mean something completely different.

    The key here is not whether someone is right or wrong by saying that it is hot in Japan in June, rather the point is that without a contextual understanding of the words you use, their meaning may be understood to be different to that intended.

    As with, for example, "freedom", I'm not saying that you're intepretation or mine is accurate. What I am saying, however, is that without further explanation or exploration of the use of the word we may be talking about different things.

    When we delve into and define what we mean by a certain word, we can then question the validity of an opposing point of view from, at a minimum, a common understanding of the context in which key words or ideas are derived.

    This doesn't infer that any "definition" is permanent. What it does infer, however, is that we can then work together to visit these uncomon understandings that may enlighten us both.

    Hope that clarifies things.

    Oh, You'll be happy to know that I'm only slightly injured from my skiing trip. Something tells me these chicken legs weren't meant for skis, mountains and snow...

     

  • At 3:27 AM, August 29, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Your perceptions depend, not only upon context, but just as importantly, on your perceptions. This has always been at the core of the phrase 'keep going'. This phrase, motto, or whatever you wish to call it, is the backbone behind everything that I try to write about. It's a phrase used, not to imply ignorance by others, but to recognise reality, especially human ones.

    With that in mind, you can understand how I would see providing definitions as being analagous to the process of McHumanfication that Chinua Achebe warned us about. Of course definitions have their place and I am not for a moment suggesting otherwise, but it is obvious that in this thread, you and I are, quite literally, exploring different things.

    In anycase, the fact that a person may contextualise a word or phrase differently IS my whole point. This is something that I cannot stress enough. With this in mind, something that Hatsumi-sensei said has been very encouraging. He spoke about how there is Picasso and Monet and Rembrandt but how there is ONLY one Picasso, one Monet and one Rembrandt. One way of interpreting this is that equality rests upon the unfamiliar face.

    It doesn't matter if your context is different to mine. It honestly doesn't. What I am hoping we all discover is the secret to perpetual motion. We have the phrase 'keep going' so if we can infuse ourselves with that sense, then perhaps we all can tap into the grid...

    What we have here is quite clearly a difference in approach but the common factor is that we both have chicken legs...

     

Post a Comment

<< Home