Rules, roles, & codes to live by


Reply
 
Topic Tools Search this Thread
mary_mary is offline mary_mary Post #11  July 21,2010, 4:04pm

is reasonably contrary

Quick Study

Joined: Jul 2010

Posts: 127

See profile

bigfincat wrote :
I am more interested in why we systematically allow for predetermined roles to guide us as a whole & how that relates to freedom & free individual thought.
I'm not sure that anyone (me included) is quite getting what you're talking about.

Maybe some examples?
 
  Reply With Quote
Can_I_just_be_Jo is offline Can_I_just_be_Jo Post #12  July 21,2010, 4:07pm

blames self-help books

Power Poster

Joined: Oct 2009

STL

Posts: 4,879

See profile

bigfincat wrote :
That is very true & it makes problem solving difficult.

When the fringes make mountains out of molehills it can take the focus off of real problems.

It actually is to the point where one fringe verbalises a nonsense issue simply because the other fringe has brought up similar nonsense issues in the past.

As a nation we certainly don't need the distractions.
In some ways they remind me of children. Like when Obama did the recess nominations. I said that is not right. Like clockwork I hear but Bush did it on this. Well then Bush shouldn't have done it either Jimmy but as it is we caught you. Two wrongs do not make a right, don't make me put you in time out!

There was a lot of bad behavior under Bush, that is why the Republicans lost so much. Now there is bad behavior under Obama, saying it happened as well under Bush isn't going to save them from being voted out.

The problem with both parties is they aren't listening to the middle. They are both listening to special interests. This is one reason the tea party is so popular, not because they have done anything but because they are not either party.

I remember my dad telling me I should vote for Bush because he is pro-life. I said but if the president allows the economy to suffer there will be more unemployment and more poverty. If women cannot afford their child there will be more abortions. He never could see the logic in that statement. Hum, wonder why I don't like the fringes.
 
  Reply With Quote
bigfincat is offline bigfincat Post #13  July 21,2010, 4:08pm
bigfincat's Avatar

Virtuoso

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 4,077

See profile

I think that Jo was speaking in more of a very strict, predetermined rule book that one might go to when dealing with a situation.

You & I seem to have much more general "rules" as to how to proceed.

Some people do have actual rules for most anything. I think that those fall very far on the fringes.
 
  Reply With Quote
bigfincat is offline bigfincat Post #14  July 21,2010, 4:17pm
bigfincat's Avatar

Virtuoso

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 4,077

See profile

mary_mary wrote :
I'm not sure that anyone (me included) is quite getting what you're talking about.

Maybe some examples?
I have heard many comments on these boards stating that people want to know what role they are supposed to fill.... so that they can act & fill that role. Why?

Another example: Corporate structure is not synonomous with capitalism but people in our history felt the need to build a structure that had rules & hierarchy & roles that are given out for individuals to fill. In many ways, individuals set up systems to keep people in line so that they act in the manner in which they prescribe.

Is there a need to have an external guide as to how to live? Why is that?
 
  Reply With Quote
mary_mary is offline mary_mary Post #15  July 21,2010, 4:39pm

is reasonably contrary

Quick Study

Joined: Jul 2010

Posts: 127

See profile

bigfincat wrote :
Some people do have actual rules for most anything. I think that those fall very far on the fringes.

I have heard many comments on these boards stating that people want to know what role they are supposed to fill.... so that they can act & fill that role. Why?
Ah, okay. Very often along the lines of: women today have so many different expectations and preferences, how is a poor guy supposed to know what rule book he's supposed to be following?

My answer is always: their own.

bigfincat wrote :
Is there a need to have an external guide as to how to live? Why is that?
And here you are dragging us into deep waters.

The desire for first principles seems to be very strong in humans -- of ocurse I'm not convinced it's innate. I suggest that the desire to impose authority came before the desire for external authority. It's a created need!

Religion is an obvious example. Stone tablets, burning bushes, insert your religion's sources here: something immutable and authoritative (even if subject to interpretation, it's still immutable and authoritative), delivered by a supreme authority.

It comes in government form, too. The divine right of kings, and every other final authority, be it an elected, hereditary or appointed final arbiter, or a parchment from a couple of centuries ago. Immutable and authoritative.

I'd love to come up with a form of government in which there is no such supreme authority, other than the collective will. But when that is not unanimous and is determined by a majority, the result can be disastrous; hence the parchments and arbiters. Which can be changed / ousted ... and round and round it spirals.

I imagine that believing there is some supreme being who not only makes all the rules but cares whether one follows them must offer some comfort in what is, in reality, chaos. I imagine that's why the idea is so popular. Yes, it does mean not having to think for one's self. If one is willing to pretend that one isn't responsible for one's choice of believing in said being and accepting said rules. Which is, of course, the foundational act of thinking for one's self.

We all do live by rules -- and every single one of them has exceptions that every single one of us recognizes, when the value the rule derives from is superceded by another value. Even the "thou shalt not kill" one (unless one adheres to the "thou shalt not commit murder" interpretation, and even there ...). The sainted and dreadful Mother Teresa person excused Lady Diana for her adultery, in the circumstances!

At bottom, everybody lives by their own rules, whether they attribute them to some external authority or not. I say: just do it -- live by your own rules! And take responsibility for making/adopting those rules, and live with the consequences for yourself.
Last edited by mary_mary; July 21,2010 at 4:42pm. Reason: typo.....s
 
  Reply With Quote
bigfincat is offline bigfincat Post #16  July 22,2010, 12:02am
bigfincat's Avatar

Virtuoso

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 4,077

See profile

I don't care if someone lives by a code or even why they do so.

It seems that they may view others actions from that frame of reference though.

There are many examples in media that are quite annoying. Glenn Beck seems to be of the opinion that a person should figure out what group they identify most with & then adopt the view of that group. (I think that is pretty irresponsible of him but that is neither here nor there.) He is huge on the need for labels & clear, identifiable lines of belief. Millions of people relate to him & possibly the use of labels to make sense of the world.

That is fine as well but I wouldn't be in favor of those ideas being systemic.

It also seems that in many cases some may prefer that type of structure in an economic system or a familial system.

Those types of structures fly in the face of freedom in the view of many. Structure, by definition, is restrictive.
 
  Reply With Quote
Can_I_just_be_Jo is offline Can_I_just_be_Jo Post #17  July 22,2010, 7:15am

blames self-help books

Power Poster

Joined: Oct 2009

STL

Posts: 4,879

See profile

bigfincat wrote :
I don't care if someone lives by a code or even why they do so.

It seems that they may view others actions from that frame of reference though.

There are many examples in media that are quite annoying. Glenn Beck seems to be of the opinion that a person should figure out what group they identify most with & then adopt the view of that group. (I think that is pretty irresponsible of him but that is neither here nor there.) He is huge on the need for labels & clear, identifiable lines of belief. Millions of people relate to him & possibly the use of labels to make sense of the world.

That is fine as well but I wouldn't be in favor of those ideas being systemic.

It also seems that in many cases some may prefer that type of structure in an economic system or a familial system.

Those types of structures fly in the face of freedom in the view of many. Structure, by definition, is restrictive.
I don't think people judge by the code of their affiliation. It may color their view but it is more colored by their perception of themselves and where their successes are.

Take a autoworker in the union. They think it is fine that the government gives them bailout money. Even though some don't even have a high school education. Even though they only got the job because they were lucky enough to know someone in the union. Even though there are a lot of jobs that are much harder, much more dangerous, and pay far less they believe they are worth the pay they get. Those that have the harder jobs know the autoworker isn't worth what they are paid. Those that have worked their backsides off to make as much as the autoworker does knows they are not worth their pay.

People see what they want to see. Codes, rules, and roles are just a few of the ways this vision is colored. Why I question things differently has nothing to do with codes, rules or roles, it has to do with how my brain is wired. If you look at how I was raised, where I was raised and what I was taught I should have become a very different person.

If I understand the subject you are trying to discuss it is far more complicated than you realize. It all comes down to cognitive dissonance.
 
  Reply With Quote
bigfincat is offline bigfincat Post #18  July 22,2010, 8:50am
bigfincat's Avatar

Virtuoso

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 4,077

See profile

I am ultimately trying to understand why masses of people feel that the government can take away their freedom but that other man-made power structures do not do so on a much more daily & consistent basis.

Our history is filled with ways in large businesses have been given advantages over very small businesses & individual contractors & consultants. Any attempt to change that dynamic is pushed back by a decent percentage of the middle or lower class.

Changing that dynamic would be more fair for the middle class yet they are not willing to accept that change.

I am thinking that it is because they would rather not have that everyday freedom to define their own economic world. They would rather have a structure in place that has a directive as to what they will do on a particular workday.
 
  Reply With Quote
Rand_011 is offline Rand_011 Post #19  July 22,2010, 9:21am
Rand_011's Avatar

Enthusiast

Joined: Jan 2008

Anaheim

Posts: 998

See profile

bigfincat wrote :
I am ultimately trying to understand why masses of people feel that the government can take away their freedom but that other man-made power structures do not do so on a much more daily & consistent basis.

I am thinking that it is because they would rather not have that everyday freedom to define their own economic world. They would rather have a structure in place that has a directive as to what they will do on a particular workday.
Simple ... I see company A ... What their stated goals are ... How they proceed to meet those goals ... I then support Company A ... If the leadership in Company A changes so that I don't support them any more I can change and support Company B ...

With the government, I can't make that change ... I am stuck with what others want and think is best for all ...

Example being healthcare reform ... As a broker I know the various mandates will squeeze profit margins ... Result being that my comissions will shrink ... Normally, if it was just a Company decision to reduce rates, my business would go to support the competition ... Thereby without collusion among quite a few companies, the comission rates have to remain roughly where they are ...

So ... The end result being that I can't change to a different government ... I could support a different party, but that is quite a bit different than taking my spending dollars to Company B ... That would be more of a 'I hope party B is most liked by everyone else and they win' ... Quite a different scenario ...
 
  Reply With Quote
bigfincat is offline bigfincat Post #20  July 22,2010, 9:44am
bigfincat's Avatar

Virtuoso

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 4,077

See profile

Rand_011 wrote :
Simple ... I see company A ... What their stated goals are ... How they proceed to meet those goals ... I then support Company A ... If the leadership in Company A changes so that I don't support them any more I can change and support Company B ...

With the government, I can't make that change ... I am stuck with what others want and think is best for all ...

Example being healthcare reform ... As a broker I know the various mandates will squeeze profit margins ... Result being that my comissions will shrink ... Normally, if it was just a Company decision to reduce rates, my business would go to support the competition ... Thereby without collusion among quite a few companies, the comission rates have to remain roughly where they are ...

So ... The end result being that I can't change to a different government ... I could support a different party, but that is quite a bit different than taking my spending dollars to Company B ... That would be more of a 'I hope party B is most liked by everyone else and they win' ... Quite a different scenario ...
That sounds like a reason for you the individual as opposed to a general way of life.

I will admit that my views of our way of life are not about me.

I will likely do my own thing in spite of the fact that I am up against a system that incentivises my larger competition. I will back those that fight for a level playing field for all in that regard.

Individuals have created the corporate structure & that is arbitrary & could/should be changed & adjusted to support fairness when possible. Corporate structure ensures that Company A through Company T all share the same restrictive structure. (It was incentivised to be set up that way throughout the last 80 years.) Only a small percentage of individuals will be inclined to live outside of that structure because the system is geared to make it difficult.

The founders certainly didn't create the structure as it is today. That was done through influence & power. Our government should protect its citizens from those that choose to wield power onto others.

I hear what you are saying about your industry & that is unfortunate. It is a rather arbitrary industry however. It is a 3rd party industry that can be judged as to how well it is performing its function to control costs. If it isn't there to control costs then why do we need the 3rd party payor?
 
  Reply With Quote
Reply


« On drugs. | Politics | Basil Marceaux »
Topic Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new topics
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Similar Topics
Topic Topic Starter Board Replies Last Post
Are There Really Rules for Dating? fjp5 Dating 16 December 8,2009 10:57am
Inappropriate Material and the Rules DennisWisconsin Groupies: A Group For Group Board Owners & Admins 21 December 2,2009 11:35am
where do all you people live?? kat5560 About You 131 July 25,2009 6:53pm
Searching for meaing Teh_Good_Dr Religion & Spirituality 5 July 2,2009 8:18pm
I feel like the kid that doesn't understand the rules in peewee soccer Ron2758 Dating 14 June 4,2009 11:29am

Looking for a Great Relationship?

Get started now. Fill out this form and take the questionnaire to receive your matches.

First Name:

I'm a:
seeking

Postal Code:

Country:

Email:

Confirm Email:

Password:


How did you hear about us?


Latest on our Dating Advice Discussion Boards

“The tennis ball story is a good analogy, RD, and that's how I interpret "gut feeling" -- a conclusion/sense of something that's a thought, not a feeling; though it will have feelings associated with ... ” –  Sassafras54

Join the “Is Your Gut Leading - or Misleading You?” discussion

“Agree. Given where you are emotionally, I would cease all communication with Mr. Trade Show. You're vulnerable. He's up for a challenge. It's playing with fire. You'll be in a bad place in the ... ” –  emma_hazards

Join the “Received lovely email from former poofer” discussion

“How about phone calls, then?” –  barbarella_42

Join the “Advice on Response time” discussion

“I have never spoken to a woman like he has. Yeah, I have never spoken to a woman like that either. It is a hard call to whether he is just as jerk, or whether he is a player. Both are feasible ... ” –  ScottK

Join the “So, men. Explain this to me, please!” discussion

“I have come to this same conclusion. Thank you.” –  bibittyboo

Join the “Confused about date #2” discussion

“Harmonygirl, I do not usually make up my mind on blanket situations but instead would examine each one on it's own merits, so I cannot answer your question. However, just in the going about of daily ... ” –  Ephemera

Join the “Atheism, Religion and Tolerance” discussion

“I was ok until the kiss on the cheek part....That doesn't sound like your defenses were up at all... It's one thing for a guy to walk up and start with the cheesy lines....But as soon as I say, "no ... ” –  Ingytravel

Join the “So this guy walks into a bar . . .” discussion

“ No. It is not wise. You have to throw all your eggs into one basket for love to work at all. Relationships are inherently riskier than careers. You can't use the same rules. You might lose ... ” –  harnomygirl

Join the “Becoming Exclusive” discussion



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:36am.

Discussion Boards Archive

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0