Polarity Resolved with Epiphany

.. or rising to the next level higher (Milton/Metamodel of NLP).  One can ask what is similar about both sides of a controversy, debate or disagreement; asking what is another example of what is being discussed, where one may discover that the polarity dissolves.  Real negotiators do this with success. It also works on an individual in psychotherapy.
Works for race & Obamacare. For racism I counsel that rise above black & white to what is common to both i.e. human . Note that some are multi-polar (different factions such as in elections & different races , etc.) Humans come in all flavors - some have children, parents, little money, lots of money, jobs, no jobs etc.  Those can usually be resolved for both if race is laid aside for human. Such does not degrade culture but elevates it.
What is common to both sides of the obamacare issue?  Presumably wanting health, easy access to healing where health is degraded & lower costs for health care when needed; perhaps evolving toward free & independent of the economic domain.  Insurance, fines, taxes, reverse incentives (those who are healthy are taxed more than those who need it when they get older), & bureaucracy are the lower elements of the Leviathan. If focus shifts away from insurance & governing we can uncover better paths; make life easier for doctors, nurses & hospitals & patients & drugs where needed & population will get healthier!

I counsel this versus this:
(A Synergy of Individuals versus the Right-Wrong Game)
...

Tags

  1. item 16862
  2. polarity

Comments


Seth says
I am reasserting my solution & casting aside the past of a bunch of conversations which were so nested & cumbersome that the threads were lost along with the understandings.


Seth says

Seth says
ME 2013-11-07 09:23:34 16881
seth 2013-11-07 09:07:31 16881
source: BTW, I removed the "an" from the title in order to remove the religious connotation & more appeal to the aha & outside (epi-) of the word & such a moment. 
... I think when an epiphany shows up, it is not usually the same one ... nor is an epiphany  necessarily the same one on each side of the same disagreement.  Hence grammatically me thinks it should be expressed with an "an".  what are you implying here?  But i like your title just as you have it,  "Polarity Resolved with Epiphany". 
While my inner sense of language made me do it, I first chose to make it sound more like a verb or process by removing the an. This section of the Wikipedia article also crisps it up as such.
p.s. I like the picture on the Wikipedia site since I experienced something similar on the very first altered state, I experienced - well beyond anything I could describe, & the picture is fairly close snapshot.




Seth says
seth 2013-11-07 08:26:48 16881
  It is great to know that many disputes or disagreements can be resolved with a mere epiphany.  For things to resolve each side needs to see an epiphany.   Resolution will happen when both sides feel the disagreement from the other side's point of view and apply the golden rule.
& then transcend both!  BTW, I removed the "an" from the title in order to remove the religious connotation & more appeal to the aha & outside (epi-) of the word & such a moment. 

Seth says
seth 2013-11-07 20:37:07 16881
ME 2013-11-07 10:11:03 16881
seth 2013-11-07 09:50:25 16881
source: mark "& then transcend both!"
... i think that "then" was already implied by my sentence.  "if both sides see the pertinant epiphany, and then see it from the other side's point of view, and then do unto the other side as they would have done to themselves ...then the dispute is resolved" (period) ... whatever the problem was would have already been "transcended" ... nothing more is necessary.
Maybe.... I can see something from your side & appreciate, respect  or acknowledge your point-of-view as valid for you, but if you don't acknowledge the Golden Rule the exercise is moot.  Try doing what you espouse with a terrorist who has just blown your family to bits.  Actually you might just do it with my principle right here, right now -  which says find a level of discourse which is inclusive at a hlgher level of granularity (e.g. humanity vs race or being vs winning or ends vs means etc.) & see what is common for yourself within that principle.  Empathy & the Golden Rule is a personal thingy & I have already said a lot about that here.


Well i definitely do like the idea of "find a level of discourse which is inclusive at a hlgher level of granularity" .   I don't see that as very different than my "if both sides see the pertinant epiphany, and then see it from the other side's point of view".  I think in most cases it would be the very same thing.  If you see the situation form both sides then you in fact have found that higher level of  discourse.   So, in a way, i think we have arrived at an agreement about that ... we just are expressing it a bit differently. 

If there is a real dispute where actual situations force groups to see things differently, then i seriously doubt that it will be resolved unilaterally except by stealth or force.  These kinds of resolutions happen with good will on both sides, or pretty much not at all.  For example it doesn't resolve racism for white people to suddenly just see all the common intentions and qualities they share with the rest of the races, but then continue to perpetuate the situations which cause other races to be disadvantaged (think of the Isralie building settlements on the west bank).  No there must be a component of will to change.  Also feeling and knowing the point of view of a terrorist or concieving of a level of discourse which is inclusive of those feelings, does not resolve any terrorism ... alone the inclusive conceptions do nothing, especially if they are unilateral.  Rather what is required is the will to change on both sides. 
Well the difference is between empathy & commonality at a higher granularity.  Nobody said unilateral would produce anything except in the case of capitulation, surrender etc. The Kerry-Obama pact with Iran's nukes is likely to be a surrender of sanctions & the middle East. If the disagreement is serious it is good to have a 3rd party who is reasonably unbi-assed to act as a negotiator.


Seth says
seth 2013-11-08 11:23:08 16881
Well for me, when it comes to resolving conflict, higher granularity is great ... empathy, when you can get it, works great too.
Empathy is one-sided, there is no guarantee that the other pole in a conflict will play & it is mostly imaginary like trying to imagine how somebody else feels.

Seth says
seth 2013-11-08 07:16:19 16881
well i guess i don't know what you mean by a higher granularity.  visually the smaller the pixels the higher the resolution.  i suppose that is your metaphor here, but how are you using it ... an example would help.
for the 99th (& LAST TIME) time :
there are more humans than black humans therefore human is a higher granularity (generality)
there are more people on Earth  then there are Americans therefore Earth or homo sapiens is a higher granularity (or generality) than Americans. 
There are language patterns (identified in NLP therapy & coaching) which help you find out how another is operating their ontology & at what granularity - my favorite is What else is like that? and all?
e.g. someone says  all liberals are stupid!
to crawl up the tree I would ask what else in your ontology is like that? & all?
... ( the first question goes up the tree the second one induces one to go down the tree of generalities or granularities)
a trained person can also induce a trance in a similar manner using the Milton Model NLP to go to higher granularity or larger generalization.   The converse is usually called the Meta Model NLP.
My books are buried but Tony Robbins had these questions mapped to fingers on a hand so that if you wanted get more specific you would ask what specifically? to go to a less general or finer granularity. (mapped to the middle finger). ... or could you google them?

Seth says
seth 2013-11-09 09:24:02 16881
Well if i can see a conflict from a larger perspective where there is no conflict it might prompt me to act in a way that will lessen the conflict.  Then too if a similar perspective is seen by the other side, then the conflict is more than likely on its way to being resolved.  That is the way i understand your method.

But i don't like where it becomes just a change in topic.  Like for example "hey we have a problem here, well let's look at a generalization where the problem doesn't exist, and then we won't need any more in depth communication about how the specific problem affects both sides."  That is especially heinous when used to favor one side or the other.
examples given are not a change in topic nor a generalization which would favor anything else other than both parties in a conflict
if both parties are focusing on being human there is no favoritism if they focus their action on their humanity


Seth says
Yep, resolve the colflict by admitting that you just don't understand AND you agree with mine.  Choose empathy as the vehicle of resolution.  Continue in that vein & admit why you don't want to see it my way. What else in your life is like or close to the stuckness that this controversy has for you?
(reposted to double effect)
... & the grand daddy of all RWG ... making the RWG Wrong!


Seth says
At all cost?  gives me a problem. I would not agree to that.  Please state specifically & exactly what you propose now.


Seth says
ME 2013-11-10 13:58:19 16881
ME 2013-11-10 13:38:43 16881
seth 2013-11-10 13:04:27 16881
source: mark
Well, Seth I have the same problem with your proposal. I like to know what I am agreeing to.
I like to know when you give your word that you are "in" that it means something I can count on.

... why? 

I thought about trying to go down a path here with you of defining the rules of dialogue down to fine details.  But i don't think that will work ... in a way we have been there, tired that. 

Also i'm not talking about ending disagreement ... rather i am talking about ending disagreement for disagreement's sake, especially that kind of argumentative disagreement where one person claims to be right at the other person's expense of being wrong.   I don't think that being much more specific than that would help us improve this dialogue.  We need a bit of latitude. 

Thing is, if i can assume that you are not just disagreeing to be be argumentative and project me in a bad light, then i can parse your responses differently and perhaps see things in them that i would have missed were i, as usual, just ignoring undeserved insults.  So, for me, knowing your intent and knowing that you actually are using your good will to do it, is quite enough for me.

But, hey, if you want to specify some more specific written rules for an agreement here ... i am all ears.
I will agree to give my best effort in suppressing my natural machinery of the RWG (as previously defined) in our discourse here at FastBlogIt. I will read my posts before posting them so as to edit them so as to eliminate the RWG from them to the best of my ability.



Seth says
seth 2013-11-10 13:11:39 16881
ME 2013-11-10 12:46:41 16881
At all cost?  gives me a problem. I would not agree to that.  Please state specifically & exactly what you propose now.


i said that to imply a scale of importance.  i'm sure there is a better way to say it ... i just couldnt think of one.  the point being that as i write a sentence it is very important to me that i respect what you have said and try to comprehend what you really meant.  it is very important to me that i respond to that and not get distracted by a irrelivant ego transaction between us.  "at all costs" just expresses the relative importance of that intention.  Do you know a better way to express it?
Yep, leave it out.


Seth says
seth 2013-11-09 09:48:55 16881
Now i am kind of guessing here that you are using this RWG controversy as a example of resolveing (or, er ..., not resolving) a conflict.  Well fine, i'll go with that.  We do seem to have conflicting attitudes towards RWG and fight over it a lot.

My stance is that it is just a bad habit that can and should be avoided at all cost.  I experience it as pain.  Why?  Well just because when it starts, any comprehension of the actual topic goes right out the window ... and instead of delving into some subject, we have to spend time defending ourselves and attacking the other side.  There is another real big reason i think we should stop it.  It is a total turn off to anyone else reading our dialogue. 

My understanding of your stance is summed up by your statement "the grand daddy of all RWG ... making the RWG Wrong!"  It seems to me that you are justifying and rationalizing this bad habit.  But i am all ears ... what is you stance in your own words?  and why don't you just renounce it and agree to avoid it here at all cost?
My feeling which sired the grandaddy statement was simply one of regret for ever exposing you to the RWG as a distinction.  You can read it in the tagroom that I was first exposed to it in a zen type class of Michael Hadley (Tony Robbin's COO?) & Peter Ralston's occasional sparring partner. In that context he essentially said that making the right-wrong-game wrong was also more of the right-wrong game. I rarely do so & invite you to do likewise. It is a matter of being & the Tao. As an example he suggestged that if you separated all of humanity into 2 classes - those who agree with you & are right & those who disagree (or agree with you) & are wrong & then eliminated those that were wrong the cycle would begin again with those who were more wrong  than you & those who were more right & agreed with you & then the elimination would continue.  Essentially in that loop there would be a final phase where you & I were the only ones left & then you would have to go!


Seth says
Woopse ... change the question to ...

Why can't we just renounce it and agree to avoid it here at all cost?

Seth says
seth 2013-11-09 11:35:33 16881
Woopse ... change the question to ...

Why can't we just renounce it and agree to avoid it here at all cost?
& yet your tone still is in the game.  It may also suffer from the golden rule syndrome - you first!
To do a true renouncing one would have to have the integrity to the principle "I am my word" - my word is my bond etc. See this & download. Any takings?


Seth says
What would a world without right & wrong be like? Ponder that for a second while I tell you a story about another epiphany in an altered state .  I woke up in a dream & a country where everyone, without haggling, did what was right.  It is of course easy to haggle about what is right, eh? Could there be my right & your right maybe? Maybe there are rationalizations which could make anything be right in a mind & yield what others have called sociopathic.  Still, without getting too biblical I hold that the Golden Rule, mediated by the heart is the best way to decide & is intuitive as well.
Such can handle the individual world of right & wrong, but what about others & the collective? What happens when someone does not subscribe to the Golden Rule? I say his community should communicate in the clearest & non-judgmental way their feelings & hurt about such.
The other day, during one of my piss-blogging excursions the original sentence of this comment occurred with much much more.
What if being all up & down the tree of life also was so loving & so innocent & while having perhaps at the highest realms had all the power to control yet found enough love not to use it? This being similar to a direct experience the words can't convey the aha associated with that. Some things can disappear - like the fear of God; punishment & retribution, maybe even some polarities.  In a while yet maybe even Yin & Yang.
The community mentioned in the beginning was called Thirth or Thearth in Greek, maybe the apotheosis of it All - (substitute whatever it you want).


Seth says
ME 2013-11-09 10:27:16 16881
seth 2013-11-09 09:48:55 16881
Now i am kind of guessing here that you are using this RWG controversy as a example of resolveing (or, er ..., not resolving) a conflict.  Well fine, i'll go with that.  We do seem to have conflicting attitudes towards RWG and fight over it a lot.

My stance is that it is just a bad habit that can and should be avoided at all cost.  I experience it as pain.  Why?  Well just because when it starts, any comprehension of the actual topic goes right out the window ... and instead of delving into some subject, we have to spend time defending ourselves and attacking the other side.  There is another real big reason i think we should stop it.  It is a total turn off to anyone else reading our dialogue. 

My understanding of your stance is summed up by your statement "the grand daddy of all RWG ... making the RWG Wrong!"  It seems to me that you are justifying and rationalizing this bad habit.  But i am all ears ... what is you stance in your own words?  and why don't you just renounce it and agree to avoid it here at all cost?
My feeling which sired the grandaddy statement was simply one of regret for ever exposing you to the RWG as a distinction.  You can read it in the tagroom that I was first exposed to it in a zen type class of Michael Hadley (Tony Robbin's COO?) & Peter Ralston's occasional sparring partner. In that context he essentially said that making the right-wrong-game wrong was also more of the right-wrong game. I rarely do so & invite you to do likewise. It is a matter of being & the Tao. As an example he suggestged that if you separated all of humanity into 2 classes - those who agree with you & are right & those who disagree (or agree with you) & are wrong & then eliminated those that were wrong the cycle would begin again with those who were more wrong  than you & those who were more right & agreed with you & then the elimination would continue.  Essentially in that loop there would be a final phase where you & I were the only ones left & then you would have to go!

ok, fine.

the real conflict, me thinks, doesn't have much at all to do with all psychological theory.    one could certainly see rwg as an essential mechanism of our beings, even i can see it that way if i want.  thing is i can also see is just as something that can be discarded too.  to me, it is not so much what it is ... it is what it does.   So for me the crucial conflict comes right down to answering one simple question honestly ...

Why don't you just renounce it and agree to avoid it here at all cost?

Incidentally i have already done that with all my heart.

Seth says
seth 2013-11-10 08:30:40 16881
ME 2013-11-09 11:51:15 16881
seth 2013-11-09 11:35:33 16881
Woopse ... change the question to ...

Why can't we just renounce it and agree to avoid it here at all cost?
& yet your tone still is in the game.  It may also suffer from the golden rule syndrome - you first!
To do a true renouncing one would have to have the integrity to the principle "I am my word" - my word is my bond etc. See this & download. Any takings?


My intended tone here was to say only that which would move us to improve our dialogue and communication here.  I have no problem with going first and actually intend to.  if we both have that same will and intention, i can guarantee you that things will improve.
Is intent good enough?

Seth says
ME 2013-11-10 08:23:02 16881
What would a world without right & wrong be like? Ponder that for a second while I tell you a story about another epiphany in an altered state .  I woke up in a dream & a country where everyone, without haggling, did what was right.  It is of course easy to haggle about what is right, eh? Could there be my right & your right maybe? Maybe there are rationalizations which could make anything be right in a mind & yield what others have called sociopathic.  Still, without getting too biblical I hold that the Golden Rule, mediated by the heart is the best way to decide & is intuitive as well.
Such can handle the individual world of right & wrong, but what about others & the collective? What happens when someone does not subscribe to the Golden Rule? I say his community should communicate in the clearest & non-judgmental way their feelings & hurt about such.
The other day, during one of my piss-blogging excursions the original sentence of this comment occurred with much much more.
What if being all up & down the tree of life also was so loving & so innocent & while having perhaps at the highest realms had all the power to control yet found enough love not to use it? This being similar to a direct experience the words can't convey the aha associated with that. Some things can disappear - like the fear of God; punishment & retribution, maybe even some polarities.  In a while yet maybe even Yin & Yang.
The community mentioned in the beginning was called Thirth or Thearth in Greek, maybe the apotheosis of it All - (substitute whatever it you want).


well i hold to ...
source: ― William Shakespeare, Hamlet
"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
Like Hamlet, i believe that good/bad are just judgements that we humans add to our reality and have no existence outside of our peculiar humanity.  So were we to be able to suppress our judging, then perhaps we would see the world as you have imagined it.  I am not so very sure that i could do it myself, but wouldn't it be a fine world to visit?  ... woopse, i just judged it

Seth says
ME 2013-11-10 08:34:12 16881
seth 2013-11-10 08:30:40 16881
ME 2013-11-09 11:51:15 16881
seth 2013-11-09 11:35:33 16881
Woopse ... change the question to ...

Why can't we just renounce it and agree to avoid it here at all cost?
& yet your tone still is in the game.  It may also suffer from the golden rule syndrome - you first!
To do a true renouncing one would have to have the integrity to the principle "I am my word" - my word is my bond etc. See this & download. Any takings?


My intended tone here was to say only that which would move us to improve our dialogue and communication here.  I have no problem with going first and actually intend to.  if we both have that same will and intention, i can guarantee you that things will improve.
Is intent good enough?

probably not ... which is why i added the component of will ... "intent + good will" would get the job done!   So, are you in?

Seth says
seth 2013-11-10 11:45:35 16881
ME 2013-11-10 08:23:02 16881
What would a world without right & wrong be like? Ponder that for a second while I tell you a story about another epiphany in an altered state .  I woke up in a dream & a country where everyone, without haggling, did what was right.  It is of course easy to haggle about what is right, eh? Could there be my right & your right maybe? Maybe there are rationalizations which could make anything be right in a mind & yield what others have called sociopathic.  Still, without getting too biblical I hold that the Golden Rule, mediated by the heart is the best way to decide & is intuitive as well.
Such can handle the individual world of right & wrong, but what about others & the collective? What happens when someone does not subscribe to the Golden Rule? I say his community should communicate in the clearest & non-judgmental way their feelings & hurt about such.
The other day, during one of my piss-blogging excursions the original sentence of this comment occurred with much much more.
What if being all up & down the tree of life also was so loving & so innocent & while having perhaps at the highest realms had all the power to control yet found enough love not to use it? This being similar to a direct experience the words can't convey the aha associated with that. Some things can disappear - like the fear of God; punishment & retribution, maybe even some polarities.  In a while yet maybe even Yin & Yang.
The community mentioned in the beginning was called Thirth or Thearth in Greek, maybe the apotheosis of it All - (substitute whatever it you want).


well i hold to ...
source: ― William Shakespeare, Hamlet
"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
Like Hamlet, i believe that good/bad are just judgements that we humans add to our reality and have no existence outside of our peculiar humanity.  So were we to be able to suppress our judging, then perhaps we would see the world as you have imagined it.  I am not so very sure that i could do it myself, but wouldn't it be a fine world to visit?  ... woopse, i just judged it
Wm left out context?  & you did? He may have  left out of the equation where you stand at the time of the experience; physically &/or metaphorically .
 

Seth says
seth 2013-11-10 11:49:14 16881
ME 2013-11-10 08:34:12 16881
seth 2013-11-10 08:30:40 16881
ME 2013-11-09 11:51:15 16881
seth 2013-11-09 11:35:33 16881
Woopse ... change the question to ...

Why can't we just renounce it and agree to avoid it here at all cost?
& yet your tone still is in the game.  It may also suffer from the golden rule syndrome - you first!
To do a true renouncing one would have to have the integrity to the principle "I am my word" - my word is my bond etc. See this & download. Any takings?


My intended tone here was to say only that which would move us to improve our dialogue and communication here.  I have no problem with going first and actually intend to.  if we both have that same will and intention, i can guarantee you that things will improve.
Is intent good enough?

probably not ... which is why i added the component of will ... "intent + good will" would get the job done!   So, are you in?
good will maybe, intent is mostly wishy-washy only known to the intender & arguable if it didn't work out.

Seth says
Are you into keeping your word?

Seth says
seth 2013-11-10 12:32:57 16881
ME 2013-11-10 11:52:53 16881
seth 2013-11-10 11:45:35 16881
ME 2013-11-10 08:23:02 16881
What would a world without right & wrong be like? Ponder that for a second while I tell you a story about another epiphany in an altered state .  I woke up in a dream & a country where everyone, without haggling, did what was right.  It is of course easy to haggle about what is right, eh? Could there be my right & your right maybe? Maybe there are rationalizations which could make anything be right in a mind & yield what others have called sociopathic.  Still, without getting too biblical I hold that the Golden Rule, mediated by the heart is the best way to decide & is intuitive as well.
Such can handle the individual world of right & wrong, but what about others & the collective? What happens when someone does not subscribe to the Golden Rule? I say his community should communicate in the clearest & non-judgmental way their feelings & hurt about such.
The other day, during one of my piss-blogging excursions the original sentence of this comment occurred with much much more.
What if being all up & down the tree of life also was so loving & so innocent & while having perhaps at the highest realms had all the power to control yet found enough love not to use it? This being similar to a direct experience the words can't convey the aha associated with that. Some things can disappear - like the fear of God; punishment & retribution, maybe even some polarities.  In a while yet maybe even Yin & Yang.
The community mentioned in the beginning was called Thirth or Thearth in Greek, maybe the apotheosis of it All - (substitute whatever it you want).


well i hold to ...
source: ― William Shakespeare, Hamlet
"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
Like Hamlet, i believe that good/bad are just judgements that we humans add to our reality and have no existence outside of our peculiar humanity.  So were we to be able to suppress our judging, then perhaps we would see the world as you have imagined it.  I am not so very sure that i could do it myself, but wouldn't it be a fine world to visit?  ... woopse, i just judged it
Wm left out context?  & you did? He may have  left out of the equation where you stand at the time of the experience; physically &/or metaphorically .
 

Well i must stand in the context of my humanity.  For me, that part of the context has been fixed and does not vary at all.    I cannot take the stand from what is called "The God's eye view".   But, i don't know, was that what you are talking about here with your mention of "context" ?  
One great example would be you witnessing a terrorist blow up you entire family from just enough distance to be able to survive it.  Would that event be good or bad? Would you just think to yourself it is just me making that bad?


Seth says
ME 2013-11-10 12:02:55 16881
Are you into keeping your word?

yes.

Seth says
seth 2013-11-08 12:17:43 16881
ME 2013-11-08 11:32:16 16881
seth 2013-11-08 11:23:08 16881
Well for me, when it comes to resolving conflict, higher granularity is great ... empathy, when you can [do] get it, works great too.
Empathy is one-sided, there is no guarantee that the other pole in a conflict will play & it is mostly imaginary like trying to imagine how somebody else feels.

well conflict can be resolved in more than one way.  

i don't understand why you keep bringing up the possibility of  asymmetry here.  one side seeing the other's view and imagining how they feel has the same structure as one side imagining things at a higher generality.  i don't see how that can be used as a criticism of resolving by empathy.  Why do you keep bringing up the possibility of asymmetry?

i actually have resolved conflicts unilaterally with empathy and a deep respect for others, so i know that it works.  where both sides do it ... where both sides have good will ... it should work even better.
Answering your embedded question - not all sides in a controversy are equal. It also depends upon whose side you are on the smaller or the larger. Take for example the abortion question.  Nobody much considers the potential human's point of view except those with a bit of anthroposophical nature.


Seth says
ME 2013-11-10 13:38:43 16881
seth 2013-11-10 13:04:27 16881
source: mark
Well, Seth I have the same problem with your proposal. I like to know what I am agreeing to.
I like to know when you give your word that you are "in" that it means something I can count on.

... why? 

I thought about trying to go down a path here with you of defining the rules of dialogue down to fine details.  But i don't think that will work ... in a way we have been there, tired that. 

Also i'm not talking about ending disagreement ... rather i am talking about ending disagreement for disagreement's sake, especially that kind of argumentative disagreement where one person claims to be right at the other person's expense of being wrong.   I don't think that being much more specific than that would help us improve this dialogue.  We need a bit of latitude. 

Thing is, if i can assume that you are not just disagreeing to be be argumentative and project me in a bad light, then i can parse your responses differently and perhaps see things in them that i would have missed were i, as usual, just ignoring undeserved insults.  So, for me, knowing your intent and knowing that you actually are using your good will to do it, is quite enough for me.

But, hey, if you want to specify some more specific written rules for an agreement here ... i am all ears.
I will agree to give my best effort in suppressing my natural machinery of the RWG (as previously defined) in our discourse here at FastBlogIt. I will read my posts before posting them so as to edit them so as to eliminate the RWG from them to the best of my ability.



Seth says
seth 2013-11-10 12:32:57 16881
ME 2013-11-10 11:52:53 16881
seth 2013-11-10 11:45:35 16881
ME 2013-11-10 08:23:02 16881
What would a world without right & wrong be like? Ponder that for a second while I tell you a story about another epiphany in an altered state .  I woke up in a dream & a country where everyone, without haggling, did what was right.  It is of course easy to haggle about what is right, eh? Could there be my right & your right maybe? Maybe there are rationalizations which could make anything be right in a mind & yield what others have called sociopathic.  Still, without getting too biblical I hold that the Golden Rule, mediated by the heart is the best way to decide & is intuitive as well.
Such can handle the individual world of right & wrong, but what about others & the collective? What happens when someone does not subscribe to the Golden Rule? I say his community should communicate in the clearest & non-judgmental way their feelings & hurt about such.
The other day, during one of my piss-blogging excursions the original sentence of this comment occurred with much much more.
What if being all up & down the tree of life also was so loving & so innocent & while having perhaps at the highest realms had all the power to control yet found enough love not to use it? This being similar to a direct experience the words can't convey the aha associated with that. Some things can disappear - like the fear of God; punishment & retribution, maybe even some polarities.  In a while yet maybe even Yin & Yang.
The community mentioned in the beginning was called Thirth or Thearth in Greek, maybe the apotheosis of it All - (substitute whatever it you want).


well i hold to ...
source: ― William Shakespeare, Hamlet
"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
Like Hamlet, i believe that good/bad are just judgements that we humans add to our reality and have no existence outside of our peculiar humanity.  So were we to be able to suppress our judging, then perhaps we would see the world as you have imagined it.  I am not so very sure that i could do it myself, but wouldn't it be a fine world to visit?  ... woopse, i just judged it
Wm left out context?  & you did? He may have  left out of the equation where you stand at the time of the experience; physically &/or metaphorically .
 

Well i must stand in the context of my humanity.  For me, that part of the context has been fixed and does not vary at all.    I cannot take the stand from what is called "The God's eye view".   But, i don't know, was that what you are talking about here with your mention of "context" ?  
Well, Seth I have the same problem with your proposal. I like to know what I am agreeing to.
I like to know when you give your word that you are "in" that it means something I can count on.


Seth says
seth 2013-11-11 07:36:52 16881
ME 2013-11-10 20:32:34 16881
I am presuming that you, Seth, will do the same.


Yes, I will make an extreme effort to avoid the RWG  here ... both in my writing and in my listening to you.
 

See Also

  1. Thought small motor - via G+ with 28 viewings related by tag "Polarity".
  2. Thought Not in my network with 3 viewings related by tag "polarity".
  3. Thought Why Mismatchers Get Stuck in Polarity with 1 viewings related by tag "polarity".
  4. Thought Partisans, Polarity & Consensus with 0 viewings related by tag "polarity".
  5. Thought Polarity & Distinction with 0 viewings related by tag "polarity".
  6. Thought Competition vs Cooperation with 0 viewings related by tag "polarity".
  7. Thought Democrat Tolerance or ??? Monkey Government ??? with 0 viewings related by tag "polarity".
  8. Thought being as a sustaining process with 0 viewings related by tag "polarity".
  9. Thought Vote for Divided Government with 0 viewings related by tag "polarity".
  10. Thought The Big Dipper Effect with 0 viewings related by tag "polarity".