Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Reply personal responsibility is a crock: here is why

Page 17 of 51 [ 801 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 ... 51  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,514
Location: the island of defective toy santas

22 Dec 2020, 10:38 pm

AngelRho wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
AngelRho, I would love to listen to some of your music. Could you post some samples please?

https://angelrho.bandcamp.com/album/green-sahara

i was drowsy and nodding off when i put your sample on the cans, and suddenly my eyes were open wide. 8O what magic stimulation harmonic did you put in this? :dj:



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

22 Dec 2020, 11:11 pm

cubedemon6073 wrote:
This is the issue with personal responsibility and why I see the whole thing as a bunch of poppycock. If I make the right choices and I still end up with negative circumstances then was my circumstances dependent upon the choices I made?


IN NT speak it simply means taking personal responsibility for your decisions regardless of the consequences. Attempt to improve outcomes by modifying decisions to learn from mistakes.

Life isn't fair and according to buddhism life is considered to be "suffering", So we make decisions that ultimately alleviate suffering for others (help the community) maintain harmony/peace. We learn from our mistakes and continually educate ourselves to better serve humanity.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,958

23 Dec 2020, 12:29 am

AngelRho wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
AngelRho, I would love to listen to some of your music. Could you post some samples please?

https://angelrho.bandcamp.com/album/green-sahara

Most recent thing I’ve done. I’ve got a lot more where that came from, but as I was listening back to my material for the 2nd album like that, it occurred to me that the synth programming was severely lacking and far below my ability, imagination, and standards. I think with Green Sahara I’m on the right track, but still have a long way to go.

At present I’m programming a Waldorf Blofeld. My base patches are fine. Now I’m working on automation to morph from one sound program (or patch) to another using only control data. Had a breakthrough today...successfully created control arrays that follow the logistic function. Now I have to repeat for multiple parameters and figure out where to place the code within the composition algorithm so it will render a proper MIDI file. Writing MIDI is weird for me because each event counts ticks from the last event, and note off events are separate events. I usually work from a time-point paradigm, i.e. a point within a regular cycle. So now I have to alter my program to calculate event durations to schedule when controller events happen and coordinate that with note on and note off messages. The best way to think about what I’m trying to do is a fusion of Webern’s 12-tone approach, Babbitt’s handling of rhythm, Cage’s aleatoric strategies, and Xenakis’ mathematical rigor. It’s the math part that’s got me down. I’m also borrowing from Carnatic tradition to generate synthetic scales, and I’m using something similar to Euclidean rhythms. I’m less concerned for harmony right now, but I have some ideas I’d like to experiment with in the next year. It’s basically what I’m going for, and I don’t feel any urgent need to fix anything in that area just yet.

I’m very, very picky about it. The stuff I’m not comfortable making public just doesn’t get the overall effect consistently enough, so I choose to compromise to get something listenable. As long as it helps my wife relax, I’m content to play it in the privacy of my home. I wouldn’t dare share anything in public I felt I compromised on, and I admit I’m uneasy even playing it for her. But that just makes it all the more urgent that I make better music.

Good job on practicing your Dale Carnegie skills, btw. :mrgreen:


AngelRho, I love it. It actually is relaxing to listen to. I have to say you are talented. I don't know how to explain it but it's like listening to perfection!

Thank you for your compliment about my Dale Carnegie skills. I should get the book. I wonder if there is a kindle version. I'll have to check.

Looking at the wikipedia article about it makes it extremely simple. I bet I'd get a lot more from the book itself.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,514
Location: the island of defective toy santas

23 Dec 2020, 1:00 am

i believe our primary purpose here in this hellworld is to "be in this world BUT NOT OF IT." IOW don't become worldly-wise and inured to evil.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

23 Dec 2020, 1:55 am

auntblabby wrote:
i believe our primary purpose here in this hellworld is to "be in this world BUT NOT OF IT." IOW don't become worldly-wise and inured to evil.


Yes no point getting too attached to our meat shell



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,958

23 Dec 2020, 3:19 am

Whether I disagree or agree with you AngelRho I still love your music.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,958

23 Dec 2020, 10:16 am

AngelRho, I found a free pdf version of his book. I'm going to probably have to reread it multiple times. It is a good read and based upon it it is no wonder I get no where with people and trying to get them to see my point especially conservatives.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

23 Dec 2020, 6:01 pm

cubedemon6073 wrote:
AngelRho, I found a free pdf version of his book. I'm going to probably have to reread it multiple times. It is a good read and based upon it it is no wonder I get no where with people and trying to get them to see my point especially conservatives.

Thanks for the kind words re my music! My comments re Carnegie were that if you want to win friends, the whole technique is based on getting someone to talk about themselves, which you do by asking them about something they are passionate about. All you do after that is just listen.

I think Carnegie has some unfortunate pitfalls. It’s not a philosophical argument you can deconstruct, just an observation of successful people and an attempt to connect the dots. There are tons of self-help books out there that basically say the same thing in more/less sophisticated ways. His way is just, IMO, the most “naive” way. He is very blunt and his Freudian references are priceless. But it’s still a good window into capitalist thinking. It’s not necessarily a conservative or liberal text, but probably does resonate more with conservatives. Some of his ideas are familiar among objectivists, though I think his emphasis on service to others might weaken the objectivist position on individualism. If you follow Carnegie, you have a tireless interest and concern for others. Objectivism doesn’t assume that you HAVE to care about anyone else other than yourself, only that it’s rational that you do and best serves your interests when you connect with others. Carnegie and Rand have a lot in common, but are distinctly different.



goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

23 Dec 2020, 6:37 pm

17 pages and counting to point out the fallacy that choices are not randomized so this whole argument is moot? :? :chin:


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.


cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,958

23 Dec 2020, 7:32 pm

AngelRho wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
AngelRho, I found a free pdf version of his book. I'm going to probably have to reread it multiple times. It is a good read and based upon it it is no wonder I get no where with people and trying to get them to see my point especially conservatives.

Thanks for the kind words re my music! My comments re Carnegie were that if you want to win friends, the whole technique is based on getting someone to talk about themselves, which you do by asking them about something they are passionate about. All you do after that is just listen.

I think Carnegie has some unfortunate pitfalls. It’s not a philosophical argument you can deconstruct, just an observation of successful people and an attempt to connect the dots. There are tons of self-help books out there that basically say the same thing in more/less sophisticated ways. His way is just, IMO, the most “naive” way. He is very blunt and his Freudian references are priceless. But it’s still a good window into capitalist thinking. It’s not necessarily a conservative or liberal text, but probably does resonate more with conservatives. Some of his ideas are familiar among objectivists, though I think his emphasis on service to others might weaken the objectivist position on individualism. If you follow Carnegie, you have a tireless interest and concern for others. Objectivism doesn’t assume that you HAVE to care about anyone else other than yourself, only that it’s rational that you do and best serves your interests when you connect with others. Carnegie and Rand have a lot in common, but are distinctly different.


Carnegie probably does have some pitfalls. I do like his bluntness. He gets right to the point with specific examples and is very straightforward and concrete. None of the whole I must believe in myself crap. It is point for point what one can do.

And, as I read Carnegie's book I'm actually starting to become a fan of what he is saying. And, you have to read the book and not judge it by the title. Quite honestly, I would prefer Carnegie over Rand because of the differences. And, you would seem to prefer Rand more because of the same reasons.

The problem with Rand is what happens if caring about others no longer serves my interests. And, that is why I rather have internal safeguards for myself so I don't go into the realm of the psychopath.

I personally believe in win-win. I want us all to win not just myself winning and others losing. That is one aspect of covey I love. Think Win-Win.

We don't have to agree with each other on everything to respect each other and to appreciate each other's work like your music. Maybe one day when the mood strikes my fancy I will recreate tic-tac-toe with an AI player, put it on github and show it to you all.

I have to say the issue with socialism even though I'm more socialistic in nature is we can't force others into a community style mindset or force people into anything. It doesn't work and other groups like conservatives resent it so much. And, when we do this we lose out on opportunities like with Occupy Wall Street. The LA camp was offered empty office and residential buildings and farm land if they were to decamp. To me that was an offer they should've taken up. They could've done some of the same things there that they wanted without the whole smash the system attitude. Opportunity was there. They screwed it up!

I'm more of a socialist type but I agree with libertarians' on the idea of the non-aggression principle. Oxymoron huh AngelRho?



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,958

23 Dec 2020, 9:53 pm

goldfish21 wrote:
17 pages and counting to point out the fallacy that choices are not randomized so this whole argument is moot? :? :chin:


That's not the argument.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

23 Dec 2020, 11:56 pm

goldfish21 wrote:
17 pages and counting to point out the fallacy that choices are not randomized so this whole argument is moot? :? :chin:


Well judging from title The OP isn't going to take personal responsibility :lol:



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

24 Dec 2020, 12:42 am

Oh, Carnegie has his perfectly blasphemous moments early on, and that’s just how he starts the book. He twists scripture slightly to show that people are selfish and still know to do good things for their children. He links evil with selfishness, which is not what I think Jesus meant.

And here’s why I think Objectivism has Biblical roots. When Jesus formulated reciprocity, He concluded that evil people knew enough to do right by their kids. Who were these evil people? Regular folks. Disabled people. Sick people. Poor people. Women. Children. Anyone the Pharisees couldn’t be bothered to help because it might make them unclean. The religious leaders in the temple were the gatekeepers of all that was good and holy, the very image of everything it meant to be good. If you were not a priest or Levite, you couldn’t possibly be a good person. So I think Carnegie got it wrong about Jesus. I think Jesus was being sarcastic and making fun of hyper religious people by calling His audience evil. The real evil were those who insisted on doing all your thinking for you, grew fat from extorting tax money, and ruled through guilt and fear. I don’t believe Jesus intended to shame His audience or make a point about human depravity. Carnegie, on the other hand, exploits the common 1950’s religious idea that the human soul is born corrupt. While true, Jesus taught more about God’s love and desire that man repent and live free of feelings of guilt. Jesus and Rand both taught this idea that mankind carries a high value. Carnegie is less concerned for this value at first but rather seeks to engage the reader from where ever he is in life.

Carnegie is a much easier read than Rand, but I find more depth with Rand. Carnegie is about helping people become better salesmen. Rand is about making honest intellectuals, and her philosophy has a much broader scope. You can learn a lot from both, and I think of Carnegie as a sort of gateway to Objectivism.



goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

24 Dec 2020, 12:59 am

cubedemon6073 wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
17 pages and counting to point out the fallacy that choices are not randomized so this whole argument is moot? :? :chin:


That's not the argument.


Dude, I read and responded to the op pages ago and pointed out that we don’t randomly reach into jars in the dark when making decisions which colours to select. We have the ability to see and learn and make choices based on information, not randomized probabilities.

So, yeah, that was your argument and I think it was a stupid one that wasn’t worthy of a single page of discussion never mind 17+ pages.

IMO.


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.


cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,958

24 Dec 2020, 4:07 am

goldfish21 wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
17 pages and counting to point out the fallacy that choices are not randomized so this whole argument is moot? :? :chin:


That's not the argument.


Dude, I read and responded to the op pages ago and pointed out that we don’t randomly reach into jars in the dark when making decisions which colours to select. We have the ability to see and learn and make choices based on information, not randomized probabilities.

So, yeah, that was your argument and I think it was a stupid one that wasn’t worthy of a single page of discussion never mind 17+ pages.

IMO.


Either way it goes there is no need to be rude.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,958

24 Dec 2020, 4:10 am

AngelRho wrote:
Oh, Carnegie has his perfectly blasphemous moments early on, and that’s just how he starts the book. He twists scripture slightly to show that people are selfish and still know to do good things for their children. He links evil with selfishness, which is not what I think Jesus meant.

And here’s why I think Objectivism has Biblical roots. When Jesus formulated reciprocity, He concluded that evil people knew enough to do right by their kids. Who were these evil people? Regular folks. Disabled people. Sick people. Poor people. Women. Children. Anyone the Pharisees couldn’t be bothered to help because it might make them unclean. The religious leaders in the temple were the gatekeepers of all that was good and holy, the very image of everything it meant to be good. If you were not a priest or Levite, you couldn’t possibly be a good person. So I think Carnegie got it wrong about Jesus. I think Jesus was being sarcastic and making fun of hyper religious people by calling His audience evil. The real evil were those who insisted on doing all your thinking for you, grew fat from extorting tax money, and ruled through guilt and fear. I don’t believe Jesus intended to shame His audience or make a point about human depravity. Carnegie, on the other hand, exploits the common 1950’s religious idea that the human soul is born corrupt. While true, Jesus taught more about God’s love and desire that man repent and live free of feelings of guilt. Jesus and Rand both taught this idea that mankind carries a high value. Carnegie is less concerned for this value at first but rather seeks to engage the reader from where ever he is in life.

Carnegie is a much easier read than Rand, but I find more depth with Rand. Carnegie is about helping people become better salesmen. Rand is about making honest intellectuals, and her philosophy has a much broader scope. You can learn a lot from both, and I think of Carnegie as a sort of gateway to Objectivism.


I will go with carnegie first.