Changing the mindset on how we view human interconnection

Introducing people of all ages to mythology... in pre-college educational curricula, youth orgs, the media, etc. Share your knowledge, stories, unit and lesson plans, techniques, and more.

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Locked
Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato » Thu May 15, 2014 7:19 pm

CarmelaBear wrote:Neo, I kinda like the pink ones. As elephants go, they can be cool.

The red ones are a mixed bag. The white ones can be trouble.

But pink ones....well, I guess it depends...

~
Ahhh...but the Pink Elephants are kind of like the Will-o-wisps. They're mesmerizing and beguiling but they'll lead you deep into the "forest" and leave you stranded to fend off the "spirits" for yourself. :wink:
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.
Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato » Thu May 15, 2014 7:37 pm

JamesN. wrote: And since you have brought this up perhaps you have a solution for the ( " Defense against " Pink Elephants " syndrome ) which the gun lobbyists seem to insist that the general public " arm " themselves against? :idea:

Here in Tennessee we just passed one of those " Guns Everywhere " bills that are so popular in the " Red " states; you know; good for bars, churches, parks, shopping malls; traffic encounters of road rage; etc. But I think more to the point might be how do we help make people safe; not by giving a teacher a gun to help protect the school classroom. There is a huge difference between a " home invasion " and seeing any adversary as an enemy; and I certainly don't think you saying otherwise; ( any of us would do whatever we felt was necessary to protect our children or our families ); and having a disagreement with someone does not constitute a threat to personal safety. But I think there are some major distinctions that need to be cleared up within the conversation that politically is taking place; ( but as " in the article " you have to establish a " dialogue " first before that can happen ). :wink:

What do you think?
I like the analogy of the "Pink Elephant Syndrome" (PES for short, pronounced "PEZ") because that would make mass media, religion, politics and other organized institutions nothing but "PES Dispensers". :lol:

So then, in order to establish a rational dialog with another person on serious issues affecting our society, such as gun control, you have to first convince your counterpart to put down his "PES Dispenser". This would enable the person to have a clear mind not affected by the "sugar".

It seems like every-time someone says "You must establish a dialog" they assume that the person is automatically willing to stop sucking on their PES Dispenser.

IMHO, only clear minds can establish an un-inebriated conversation. :wink:
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.
JamesN.
Associate
Posts: 2187
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 2:46 am
Location: Nashville, Tn.

Post by JamesN. » Thu May 15, 2014 9:44 pm

I like the analogy of the "Pink Elephant Syndrome" (PES for short, pronounced "PEZ") because that would make mass media, religion, politics and other organized institutions nothing but "PES Dispensers". Laughing

So then, in order to establish a rational dialog with another person on serious issues affecting our society, such as gun control, you have to first convince your counterpart to put down his "PES Dispenser". This would enable the person to have a clear mind not affected by the "sugar".

It seems like every-time someone says "You must establish a dialog" they assume that the person is automatically willing to stop sucking on their PES Dispenser.

IMHO, only clear minds can establish an un-inebriated conversation. Wink

Interesting Neo; perhaps the parents of those children slaughtered in " Newtown " or in the other mass school shootings might think differently; no? Or do they offer an " un-inebriated " point of view?

I don't see the " sweeping generalizations " as a very valid disagreement against " conflict resolution "; especially since children learn everything from adults as to what things matter as important. A " PES Dispenser " seems a pretty poor argument against a mentally enraged individual with an AR-15. Of course to get enough people to think differently; much less to the voting booth to change anything you have to get them to the table to understand that having a rational discussion about how a PEZ dispenser may or may not be in their best interest is worth having. But then perhaps mass media, religion, and all those other things might get in the way? Really?

Sure everyone gets frustrated; that's the problem about conflict isn't it? Are there powerful political interests that will say or do anything to further their interests? You bet. Yes there are jerks; bullies, and manipulative power hungry individuals; but some of those folks may not see my point of view the same way as I do. There are a lot of things in this world that are really screwed up; but that doesn't make all people evil or not worthy of effort. Do I have bad moments and issues and get exasperated; ( absolutely ). But I would much prefer to live in a world where people actually " give a damn " and make an effort than to just mark that up as " Oh how nice " and not of any " real " value.
It seems like every-time someone says "You must establish a dialog" they assume that the person is automatically willing to stop sucking on their PES Dispenser.

IMHO, only clear minds can establish an un-inebriated conversation. Wink

Or perhaps I misunderstood your point. :? If that is the case my apologies; for that is one reasons I come here for sanity. Some of the rhetoric I live around concerning this issue and the NRA logic this ultra-conservative mindset promotes makes me just nuts. :!: :evil:

One last thing I might mention as to why this particular issue gets to me is that crime and violence; ( especially domestic violence ); are the #1 concerns in law enforcement here. ( You can underline " juvenile " violence and crime with that too. ) There is not a day that goes by when the lead story is not about someone being killed; and sometimes several. Other places have this too I know; but this is not just about " crime " and is not the point. :idea:
What do I know? - Michael de Montaigne
CarmelaBear
Associate
Posts: 4087
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 3:51 pm
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Post by CarmelaBear » Fri May 16, 2014 12:17 am

I have to step back now, because I studied negotiation and conflict resolution under top experts, and yet nothing in all my training or experience gives me the slightest clue how to address the issues you raise in this thread.

Gave it my best shot, James.

~
Once in a while a door opens, and let's in the future. --- Graham Greene
JamesN.
Associate
Posts: 2187
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 2:46 am
Location: Nashville, Tn.

Post by JamesN. » Fri May 16, 2014 4:08 am

Indeed Carmela; a huge issue with a tremendous divide; but what are stakes of doing nothing? The AAP; ( American Academy of Pediatrics ); is approaching this from a standpoint of trying to establish compromise. ( This part of the article may point out some of the particulars concerning that. ):
An estimated 20,600 people under the age of 25 are injured by a gun every year and 6,570 die, according to the AAP. Guns kill twice as many in this age group as cancer, five times as many as heart disease and 20 times as many as infections. By 2015, guns are expected to surpass motor vehicle crashes as a cause of death for young people, according to the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.

In the year after Newtown, six states—California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey and New York—passed comprehensive gun safety laws. Gun rights groups immediately mounted challenges and have countered by lobbying for and passing legal expansions of gun rights. Most recently in Georgia, the governor signed what detractors call the “Guns Everywhere” Act allowing licensed gun owners to carry their weapons in public places, including schools, churches and bars. The NRA called its passage a “historic victory for the Second Amendment.”

In the last year and a half, states have been duking it out in a sort of tit-for-tat legislative pattern—the number of state laws strengthening firearm regulations (64) is close to the number weakening them, according to The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, an advocacy group that tracks state gun laws. The largest gun rights expansion efforts were concentrated in the south, while the coasts passed stronger gun control laws.

Meanwhile, even as fewer Americans choose to own guns—the share of households with a gun has dropped to about a third down from half in the 1980s according to the Pew Research Center—public support for the regulation of firearms also seems to be down. In the 1990’s, support for stricter gun laws hovered between 60 and 78 percent. More recent polling shows fewer than half of Americans think gun laws should be more strict, down from 58 percent from a survey given just after the Newtown shooting.

Because of this public reluctance, the AAP has started to focus on how to realistically reach parents in red states as well as blue—and to soften some of its language on gun control. The most recent policy statement affirms that “the most effective measure to prevent suicide, homicide, and unintentional firearm-related injuries to children and adolescents is the absence of guns from homes and communities,” but no longer calls for a total ban on handguns, instead advocating for “the strongest possible regulations” for their use.

Likewise, pediatricians and gun control advocates have tempered their message—and they say the less controversial efforts are working.
There is a lot more in the piece but what I found interesting was their determined efforts and realistic approach. Especially considering what they are up against.

In West Virginia, where pediatric resident Lisa Costello notes that one out of every two homes has a gun, similar local efforts are underway to promote firearm safety from the pediatrician’s office.

Costello is one of the chairs for the P.A.V.E. campaign (Pediatricians Against Violence Everywhere), a one-year advocacy effort focusing on firearm injury prevention by the special arm of AAP for pediatricians-in-training.

The operation encourages the 13,000-member group to mobilize on gun safety at the clinic, the community, and the state and federal level, as well as on social media.

“I see this in my clinic, we see this in our emergency rooms, in our inpatient wards, in our ICUS. We see these children and families impacted by firearms. That’s why we’ve been motivated to focus on this issue,” says Costello, who for her part counsels parents on firearms and injury prevention.

“My parents are very receptive to the issue of firearm injury. They appreciate that as a pediatrician I’m concerned for my patients’ health and safety,” Costello says.

Most recently, the NRA and the AAP have been embroiled in a very public legal feud over the rights of doctors to talk with parents about gun safety. In 2011, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed a NRA-sponsored law that forbade pediatricians from asking about guns in the home. A federal judge later struck down the law as unconstitutional and a decision on the state’s appeal is pending. The NRA has sponsored similar legislation in at least five other states—Alabama, North Carolina, West Virginia, Minnesota, and Oklahoma.

AAP guidelines urge pediatricians to counsel parents during checkups about the dangers of allowing kids to have access to guns. About half of all AAP pediatricians say they recommend the removal of handguns from the home, according to a national survey of AAP members.

There’s also the issue of funding for federal research—of which there has been almost none. Even after President Obama lifted the long freeze on gun research—lobbied for and won by the NRA in 1996—Congress still has yet to appropriate the promised $10 million in funds promised to the CDC for gun research, an amount that even if released would be too little for quality research, according to pediatricians I spoke with. But the amount isn’t likely to matter. As a researcher who spend over $1 million funding his own work, put it “hell will freeze over before this Congress gives them [the CDC] money.” Moreover, the long moratorium has resulted in a paucity of qualified experts to research firearm injuries.

Despite the challenges, or motivated by them, pediatricians say they’ll continue to push for more research and a change in policy that will make children safer. As for the opposition, doctors insist the tide is turning.
Now as to whether " the tide is turning " it may be a little early to make a call on that; but IMHO you have to establish " common ground " somewhere to change perception. As Joe said; ( " Turning someone from an " it " into a " thou. " ) is part of what is necessary to change the dynamic from turning an enemy into a fellow human being. That was what was so unique about Martin Luther King's non-violent; passive resistance technique; and Gandhi as well. But being creative about something like this is pretty difficult when the atmosphere is so full of animosity and the deck is stacked so high against you as with the NRA and how they manipulate political power. Certainly I like everyone else have no way of knowing how all of this will turn out; but this was pretty cool I thought when I read it. :wink:
What do I know? - Michael de Montaigne
CarmelaBear
Associate
Posts: 4087
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 3:51 pm
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Post by CarmelaBear » Fri May 16, 2014 10:40 am

Words, James. They are words. Squeaky geeky words. The geeks know how to geek. Meanwhile, emotion rules. Relationships determine outcomes. Diplomacy!

The twain (reason and emotion) can meet, and it requires that geeks quit trying to appeal to reason, and concentrate on reaching hearts. Words do not help. Pictures are better, and real life has a fighting chance.

Back to the drawing board.

~
Once in a while a door opens, and let's in the future. --- Graham Greene
Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato » Fri May 16, 2014 1:12 pm

Mmmm…It looks like my point didn’t come across the way I intended it. Okay, I’ll attempt to clarify. :?
Interesting Neo; perhaps the parents of those children slaughtered in " Newtown " or in the other mass school shootings might think differently; no? Or do they offer an " un-inebriated " point of view?
Everyone is “inebriated” to some degree by their own “Pink Elephant Syndrome”. IMHO it can’t be helped since we’re being constantly bombarded by PES Dispensers. Some people are more aware of their personal Pink Elephants than others; these people are more opened minded when it comes to engaging in dialogs. It’s the people whose Pink Elephants are running their lives (such as the NRA) that seem to be close minded on important societal issues.

So how can a dialog be established with people who can’t see the Pink Elephants and can’t keep the PES Dispenser out of their mouth? I’m not implying that it is wrong to try to establish a dialog, I’m implying that the efforts may be futile given the mindset of the people that must be engaged.
I don't see the " sweeping generalizations " as a very valid disagreement against " conflict resolution "; especially since children learn everything from adults as to what things matter as important.
However, please keep in mind that the parents will most likely pass along their PES Dispensers to their children. In other words, the apple doesn’t fall that far from the tree. I don’t think this is a generalization but a form of our societal indoctrination. Parents have a tendency to teach everything that matters to the parents, to the children.
A " PES Dispenser " seems a pretty poor argument against a mentally enraged individual with an AR-15.

I think these cases represent an individual who has overdosed on too many PES Dispensers. Their Psyche violently rejects the “sugar” and they go into a type of “Insulin Shock” which results in a total mental breakdown.

How do you keep the AR-15 out of his hands? One view says “more restrictions on guns” the other view says the problem is “people who want to kill will kill with or without guns”. And Neoplato says that a society that tolerates and promotes the use of violence, proliferates war, and ignores individual mental health issues has too many pink elephants running around that eventually results in a “rampage” that destroys innocent victims.
Of course to get enough people to think differently; much less to the voting booth to change anything you have to get them to the table to understand that having a rational discussion about how a PEZ dispenser may or may not be in their best interest is worth having. But then perhaps mass media, religion, and all those other things might get in the way? Really?
I’m not sure what was meant here. I wasn’t promoting the use of more PES Dispensers, I just wish there was a way to through them all in the trash.
Sure everyone gets frustrated; that's the problem about conflict isn't it? Are there powerful political interests that will say or do anything to further their interests? You bet. Yes there are jerks; bullies, and manipulative power hungry individuals; but some of those folks may not see my point of view the same way as I do. There are a lot of things in this world that are really screwed up; but that doesn't make all people evil or not worthy of effort. Do I have bad moments and issues and get exasperated; ( absolutely ). But I would much prefer to live in a world where people actually " give a damn " and make an effort than to just mark that up as " Oh how nice " and not of any " real " value.
IMHO, until people can put down the PES Dispenser, no one will give a damn or make an effort because they’ll be too concerned about “the others” taking all their “sugar” away. There are so many factors in our society that prevent clear rational thought and dialog. It seems a wonder how we manage to get along in the first place.
Or perhaps I misunderstood your point. :? If that is the case my apologies; for that is one reasons I come here for sanity. Some of the rhetoric I live around concerning this issue and the NRA logic this ultra-conservative mindset promotes makes me just nuts. :!: :evil:
Looks like you recognized a pink elephant. :wink:
One last thing I might mention as to why this particular issue gets to me is that crime and violence; ( especially domestic violence ); are the #1 concerns in law enforcement here. ( You can underline " juvenile " violence and crime with that too. ) There is not a day that goes by when the lead story is not about someone being killed; and sometimes several. Other places have this too I know; but this is not just about " crime " and is not the point. :idea:
I believe promoting what’s right instead of displaying examples of wrong behavior (and the consequences) would prevent the pink elephants from running amok in the first place. :!:
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.
JamesN.
Associate
Posts: 2187
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 2:46 am
Location: Nashville, Tn.

Post by JamesN. » Fri May 16, 2014 2:37 pm

CarmelaBear wrote:Words, James. They are words. Squeaky geeky words. The geeks know how to geek. Meanwhile, emotion rules. Relationships determine outcomes. Diplomacy!

The twain (reason and emotion) can meet, and it requires that geeks quit trying to appeal to reason, and concentrate on reaching hearts. Words do not help. Pictures are better, and real life has a fighting chance.

Back to the drawing board.

~
Carmela I'm sorry but you lost me here. If you are saying action speaks louder than words; sure; the " rhetoric " of diplomacy may seem a stretch; and granted changing hearts and minds is not easy; but consider the enormous task that is involved that these people and others like them undertake when so many around them say: " can't happen ". Turn on the news and tell yourself when you see another report about gun violence and kids and say: " it's too hard; not worth my effort; it's only talk ". Surely saying " that is not what matters and is only words " is not your point? These folks are organized and are taking steps to gain traction. And if any of us no matter what the endeavors we seek to employ can make a difference a challenge such as this can point to something larger within ourselves and is worth the effort. Rose-colored glasses here; I think not; but a huge challenge; yes. Joseph Campbell didn't think that way or I doubt many of us would even be here.

" Changing mindset " is one of the main topic themes of this thread; with Joseph Campbell's insight's and human beings sense of inter-connectedness being another. Looking down the road ahead It would seem if this planet is going to survive people had better start thinking about what is going to be necessary to keep them from tearing each other to pieces; and I think this is part of what he saw coming to meet human society as the future evolves. So the question I think arises: " How do you do that? " My point was not just about ( gun control ) per say; but about the conflict; mindset; and human interaction that must be addressed within these kinds of " Gordian Knot " constructs. So many of the difficult situations and challenges to be faced ahead and breaking through the gridlock are going to be the challenge here I think; just look at the United Nations for an example of how difficult finding ( common ground ) and providing results can be. :lol:

Yes; I take your point it is very difficult. But it has been done before and society must find a way and ( the will ) to accomplish it. :wink:
What do I know? - Michael de Montaigne
JamesN.
Associate
Posts: 2187
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 2:46 am
Location: Nashville, Tn.

Post by JamesN. » Fri May 16, 2014 2:41 pm

Neo that post is much better and much more helpful; ( thank you ). I'll be back later but I have to take care of some things first. :)
What do I know? - Michael de Montaigne
JamesN.
Associate
Posts: 2187
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 2:46 am
Location: Nashville, Tn.

Post by JamesN. » Sat May 17, 2014 5:32 pm

Hey Neo; sorry it took awhile to get back to this.

Your points; ( now that they are better presented ); are well taken. ( But ) what I was trying to clarify was that this issue isn't just something that society can walk away from. The doctors and parents involved in the " article " realize that any political traction is only going to come about by changing the perception; ( but to do that dialogue and compromise have to be established and some kind of agreement reached before attitudes can have a chance to change ).

I don't know about how you experience this issue; but where I live " gun violence " grows everyday. In shopping mall parking lots; at traffic intersections; in schools; and in homes and neighborhoods it is on the local news growing here every day. I often overhear other folks commenting on this by saying " I can't believe how this is happening. " And these are the reasons why the " Guns Everywhere " law disturbs me so greatly. No this is not the " Middle East " or some global " hotspot " where anarchy is ruling or the societal infra-structure is disintegrating. ( But " Yes "; I have heard gunfire late at night where I live. And I wonder and ask myself: " Is this direction where our society is headed? " )

IMHO part of the problem rests with political advertising and the way an issue is portrayed. More money is spent on this from party coffers in election campaigns within the process than any other single aspect within the political system; ( i.e. " Super-Pacs " especially are another good example ). Then of course with the " lobbyists " for the ( special interests groups like the NRA ); and the party's particular agenda engineering " the message " they are able to energize their voting base to create an emotional connection; ( i.e. fear, anger, resentment; perception ). And this is what has to be overcome by the personal connections the other side is trying to establish and win over. ( Yes; it's very difficult. ) But now this particular group has the " credibility " that the medical community provides that they did not have before to help persuade the general public's point-of-view. ( Does this offer a panacea; hardly. But it helps. )

As to this particular point I believe that is what the folks in the article " are " promoting:
I believe promoting what’s right instead of displaying examples of wrong behavior (and the consequences) would prevent the pink elephants from running amok in the first place.


How this will all play out within the public arena I don't know. And I am not inferring you necessarily see this more differently than I do but maybe you look at this from another viewpoint. But as to any notion of ( futility and human nature if that is where you disagree ); I will offer the idea that the next time you hear about a school shooting; a gang drive-by; road-rage or domestic violence or any other type of incident involving " firearms " where innocent people can be affected ask yourself about societal dysfunction and if the issue of " perception and mindset " has relevance. :idea:
What do I know? - Michael de Montaigne
Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato » Sat May 17, 2014 9:57 pm

I will offer the idea that the next time you hear about a school shooting; a gang drive-by; road-rage or domestic violence or any other type of incident involving " firearms " where innocent people can be affected ask yourself about societal dysfunction and if the issue of " perception and mindset " has relevance
I liken this situation to a manufacturing production line. Either the company can build the car right in the first place or they can do a massive recall when critical parts fail. However in this case, the company still has responsibility.

In society, when critical parts fail, we usually blame the driver and imprison him or pronounce the death penalty. This is the societal form of "recall" IMHO. Society doesn't own up to the cause.

The corrective action can either be on the front end or the back end. As a society, we tend to focus on the back end and point the finger at the driver. We don't consider he might have been driving a defective car in the first place.
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.
JamesN.
Associate
Posts: 2187
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 2:46 am
Location: Nashville, Tn.

Post by JamesN. » Sat May 17, 2014 10:25 pm

In society, when critical parts fail, we usually blame the driver and imprison him or pronounce the death penalty. This is the societal form of "recall" IMHO. Society doesn't own up to the cause.
Perhaps it is how the ( we ) aspect is being defined within the context of this discussion. ( Part of this may have to do with how I have framed my original viewpoint. ) By that I mean if you are saying society as a whole has a predetermined collective opinion I must disagree. That may be subject to change or can be influenced. If that is not what you are saying then perhaps you can clarify this a little more so I can understand your point-of-view better. :idea:
What do I know? - Michael de Montaigne
Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato » Sun May 18, 2014 9:47 am

JamesN. wrote:
In society, when critical parts fail, we usually blame the driver and imprison him or pronounce the death penalty. This is the societal form of "recall" IMHO. Society doesn't own up to the cause.
Perhaps it is how the ( we ) aspect is being defined within the context of this discussion. ( Part of this may have to do with how I have framed my original viewpoint. ) By that I mean if you are saying society as a whole has a predetermined collective opinion I must disagree. That may be subject to change or can be influenced. If that is not what you are saying then perhaps you can clarify this a little more so I can understand your point-of-view better. :idea:
I wouldn't say a "predetermined collective opinion". IMHO, it's more of a skewed view based on learned cognitive perceptions generated by external influences. In other words, people have been sucking on their PES dispensers so long, they can't taste anything else but "grape".

I am implying that the cause of the mental breakdown of the individual and the unwillingness to discuss solutions to the situation are rooted within the fabric of society itself.

I am not saying that the individual should be pardoned or has an excuse for his actions. I'm saying that until the cause can be done away with, this disease of committing violence against the innocent will continue to fester and manifest itself among other individuals.
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.
JamesN.
Associate
Posts: 2187
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 2:46 am
Location: Nashville, Tn.

Post by JamesN. » Sun May 18, 2014 4:09 pm

This is precisely " the reason " why I created this thread! Eureka

Taken from Neo's context:
In society, when critical parts fail, we usually blame the driver and imprison him or pronounce the death penalty. This is the societal form of "recall" IMHO. Society doesn't own up to the cause.
( Yes )

I said:
Perhaps it is how the ( we ) aspect is being defined within the context of this discussion. ( Part of this may have to do with how I have framed my original viewpoint. ) By that I mean if you are saying society as a whole has a predetermined collective opinion I must disagree. That may be subject to change or can be influenced. If that is not what you are saying then perhaps you can clarify this a little more so I can understand your point-of-view better.
( This was what I was trying to point out. )

Neo:
I wouldn't say a "predetermined collective opinion". IMHO, it's more of a skewed view based on learned cognitive perceptions generated by external influences.
( " Bingo " and nicely stated. )

Neo:
I am implying that the cause of the mental breakdown of the individual and the unwillingness to discuss solutions to the situation are rooted within the fabric of society itself.

I am not saying that the individual should be pardoned or has an excuse for his actions. I'm saying that until the cause can be done away with, this disease of committing violence against the innocent will continue to fester and manifest itself among other individuals.
( Like I said Neo; I really don't think we are that far apart. The purpose I am aiming at in this thread is exploring Joseph Campbell's ideas on how to " break through " some of the mental barriers to better understand and realize how one might take a different approach in looking at " the way " we think about these issues. The point is not about " Gun Control " per say; but more succinctly about " changing mindset ". )


Thread Topic:
Changing the mindset on how we view human interconnection

I am starting this thread because more and more I think issues are starting to emerge about disasters, recovery, inequality of wealth, and the way society perceives itself, defines what success is, and what is perceived as normal reality. Much of Joseph Campbell's work dealt with changing how human understanding must adapt to meet the demands of a new Global dynamic where the old paradigms are dissolving to give way to a new consciousness of itself.

Our human interconnectedness; sense of community; and the perception of what is of value are challenged when natural disaster or horrendous political injustices of various forms force our mental and emotional sensibilities to a deeper spiritual awareness that we must confront in our interpretation of what is worthy of our societal responsibility to each other.

Here in the US an election has just taken place where the country has been shown to be in just this kind of evolutional debate concerning the creation of wealth with small government verses fairness of equality and societal responsibility and a larger government of regulation. Just this week China also is installing a new leadership where their 2 major concerns of wealth distribution and economic growth model are addressing these same kinds societal and economic issues and adjustments for their population. And indeed across the world as the dramas of the various multicultural and multi-dimentional human dilemmas unfold in this new internet interconnected place in time in which we find ourselves in.

Many of the discussions that take place on these great forums tackle various political and societal conundrums as well as deep philosophical and abstract concepts. ( Other whimsical pursuits not withstanding. )

But concerning the planetary growing pains of ( disaster, relief and recovery, and the questions of global societal resource distribution as well as the new normal concept of climate change ) that are presenting themselves to us; I thought it might be interesting to explore the question of ( mindset ) from how Joseph Campbell's work might help in this understanding and ( it's various possibilities of interpretation ).


In short I think the conclusion one evidently comes to is:" No dialogue; no change! " :idea:
What do I know? - Michael de Montaigne
Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato » Sun May 18, 2014 11:05 pm

In short I think the conclusion one evidently comes to is:" No dialogue; no change! "
I believe our point of disagreement is not "should a dialog take place" but "can a dialog take place"?

And as of today, I don't believe a dialog can take place and barriers can't be broken because people are so unconscious of their own mindsets they will defend the most irrational thought or belief to the death. Typically that means the death of innocent victims. :(

I think what we're really talking about here is the philosophy behind "game theory". How do you get a person to choose the option that maximizes the benefit to everyone when that person is only interested in maximizing his benefit and minimizing everyone else's?

We're dealing with people who want their guns and really don't care who has to die in the process. I really see no way to open a dialog with someone inflicted with societal insanity.

You can't have a discussion with a brick wall (or a cat).
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.
Locked