This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - C a s i n o
« on: March 03, 2012, 03:59:39 PM »
When people stub their toe, they get angry, curse, and through hobbled grimace and gritted teeth, ignore the pain. How much quicker the heal and more pleasant the day, if that poor throbbing toe were held and its pain acknowledged instead.
Then comforted by warm, sympathetic hands till pain eases and ends. After all, no matter the shoe, the speed, or the rocky path pointed, the toe never lets body down.
If small this change in thought does seem, apply that small principle to a larger scale, and note what differences result with change of belief. When the body is sick or diseased, the prescribed policy is to view the disease with winner-loser hostility. Rather than stiffening resolve and muscle and steadying nerve to control pain, rather than declaring all-out war and focusing energy and resources on destroying the invader, flip perspectives instead.
Focus light on body's plight, for it's every bit in need of caress as that stubbed toe once was. Accept the pain, validate its existence. The body system may be confused as to which is friend and which is foe. The body for allowing disease to enter or disease for daring to enter? Wars are always confusing. As peace can follow surrender in war, heal and cure can follow surrender in body disease.
[...] Applying the simple principle further, farther, wider; how far from acceptance and cooperation ever healing is? Both come inextricably bound and wound when love visits. When children stub their toe, they cry out in acknowledgment of pain.
With love in heart and hand, adults comfort and massage their sore wee toe and kiss and cuddle to ease pain.
I wonder if we do not view each other as stubbed toes too-often, and too-readily in life. It seems avoidance is easier than care, anger is faster than understanding, complaint is quicker than compliment, and ignoring common, if not prevalent.
When others hurt, they are generally left to fend for themselves, as stubbed toe often must do. When our children hurt, we hurt too. What's the difference?
Other than pedigree and proximity, nothing.
injunction, these are some great words, but truth-be-told, we're not taught to "acknowledge the pain," (we're actually told to "take it like a man")!
When love visits?! As things are - as you even say it yourself - those visitations are "allowed" for children only, so to speak! I mean, would you expect much tenderness and affection displayed before (let alone after) the, let's say, average sexual relationship? With people going thru hundreds of partners - and with your wife having become like your sister to you - what kind of affection would you expect to show towards your partner? It's more like sex conducted in a militaristic manner, just like you do it in the middle of a mess (all that other stuff you've to do)!
But your idea, of love being an end in itself, is truly great!
manual, could you please expand a bit? Sounds to me really interesting ..
There is no doubt that we do not believe, on a societal level, in "love for love's sake," "love per se" - or as the second poster put it, "love as an end in itself" - in fact, we tend to abuse each other emotionally when engaging in multiple relationships with other people over time, without any amount of affection and emotional exchange in the process. And I would doubt it that we treat children much more differently, in fact, with so many parents having to work 2 jobs and the like!
« on: March 02, 2012, 05:07:22 PM »
Scarcity is not a problem any more nowadays, and yet the dog-eat-dog-world-out-there philosophy is well alive - actually I was looking at another post talking about such.
On January 28, 1986, the space shuttle Challenger exploded seconds after launching. Seven astronauts, including a civilian schoolteacher, perished in a fireball of smoke and flames. The decision had been made to go ahead with the launch despite a near disaster on an earlier Challenger flight and despite strenuous objections and warnings from knowledgeable engineers about the defective O-rings at the joints of the booster rockets. Were key NASA administrators ignorant of the danger or cavalier about the lives of the astronauts? I doubt it.
NASA had already conducted 2-dozen successful launches with essentially the same equipment. With their confidence boosted by previous successes, administrators were oriented toward a "go" decision. Second, NASA officials, like the general public, were caught up in the enthusiasm surrounding the launching of the first civilian (schoolteacher Christa McAuliffe) into space. Further, there were additional, practical reasons for NASA people to be victimized by their own wishful thinking: given NASA's need to secure congressional funding by displaying its efficiency and productivity, with the intense public interest in the "teacher in space" program and its wish to demonstrate its technological capabilities, lift-off was a more desirable decision than delay. Any mention of possible system failure would have suggested a need to spend more money, a conclusion NASA found distasteful in light of its commitment to cost-effectiveness and economy.
Unlike NASA administrators, engineers at Morton Thiokol (the company that manufactured the solid rocket boosters) were not concerned about the political, economic, and public relations implications of a decision on whether or not to launch. All they cared about was whether or not the damn thing would work - and given the subfreezing temperatures at the launch site, they objected strenuously to the launch. But the top execs at Morton were not so fortunate. For them, more was at stake than a successful launch. They were in great conflict. On the one hand, as engineers, they were sensitive to the opinions of their fellow engineers. On the other hand, as execs, they were dependent on NASA for a contract worth approximately $400 million per year. Thus, in part, they tended to identify with the same concerns that NASA administrators did. Robert Lund, Thiokol's vice president for engineering, at first opposed the launch but changed his position after he was advised to "take off his engineering hat and put on one representing management." How did Morton execs such as Lund deal with this conflict? Before their last conference with NASA administrators, they polled Thiokol employees but not the engineers - only other management personnel, who voted to "go" with the launch. Thus, in a conference between NASA officials and Thiokol execs the night before the fateful launch, participants reinforced one another's commitment to proceed.
I can't believe this country would appropriate a h e l l of a lot of money to an agency like NASA! Just imagine if all that money were used to better the lives of people on this planet, or this country, if you like! How much less misery would be?!
It's not that they don't get it, it's because they want the resources to be distributed disproportionately among people, that they go ahead and throw money to the toilet! It would be far too dangerous for the people in power to have the standard of living of the people they oppress raised even a little bit; because the latter would be able to think a bit more as to what it is that keeps them oppressed, poor and hungry! Question the very ideology that keeps the oppressors in power!
Incitatus says the money appropriated to NASA is basically thrown to the trash can (pressing on the alternative social, practical uses of the money) - now to me that means living like an animal, just satisfying the basic needs, without having to sorta figure out where we are, where do we live, where do we come from, and where do we go .. are there any other civilizations like ours (regardless of the fact that may or may not be friendly towards us - with our curiosity having the potential to backfire, par exemple)
I mean, think about it, it's much more comforting to think we know where do we stand, what our planet Earth is, and yes - how small/unimportant compared to the whole of the Universe!
In fact - it is such - that should hopefully cut our egos down to size, for us not to treat each other like one guy were god and the other one just a Dog out there! Makes us understand that we all "belong," share the same characteristics, ultimate fate, and the like!
« on: March 02, 2012, 04:09:56 PM »
Very interesting! Here it is a more complete summary of Bion:
Come follow, follow, follow, follow, follow, follow me!
Whither shall I follow, follow, follow,
Whither shall I follow, follow thee?
To the greenwood, to the greenwood,
To the greenwood, greenwood tree!
In this well-known old song, an English canon composed by John Hilton in 1652, we are encouraged to follow an invisible leader. But before we decide to do so, we ask him "whither shall I follow? Whither shall I follow thee?" The answer sounds tempting: "to the greenwood tree..." So,... off we go!... Or perhaps not?
Bion's Theory of Thinking -- "Container-Contained"
The theory or the "model" at the base of author's reflections is Bion's model "container-contained", also called his "theory of thinking". The relationship between container and contained is central to Bion's thinking seeing it as basic, a ubiquitous pattern of relationships which, as it were, biologically pre-programmed. In other words, it is one of nature's key patterns. It is at one and the same time: the model of conception (penis-in-vagina), gestation (embryo-in-uterus), alimentation (nipple-in-mouth) and elimination (faeces-in-colon).
I highlighted the part of the post I am not sure it's coherent with the rest - anyone cares to explain a bit?
colo, I guess it means that people find it difficult to organize in that-ideal-form-of-social-rule and that not rarely they give consent to be ruled by people who just have the courage to go ahead and lead (rule) others the way they will. It may not be the best/worst way possible, it may be close (enough), but who knows/will ever know?!
Not to mention that old sayin' "Old men start wars and young men fight them!"
« on: March 02, 2012, 02:40:45 PM »
Mother here ... I was like, do I post post this, or is it better not to post it at all ... but then, I thought, I'm gonna post it anyway ... I am aware that talking about two men having a baby sounds crazy and that several posters on this board may ridicule the idea ... now, I don't know if I'm being naive, but science has made possible for us things that 50 years ago we'd think were impossible ... my question is - is this something that scientists are working on and that they are bound to bring to fruition? I have a son who's gay, who very much loves his partner - I know deep down myself he loves children, it's just that he does not go with women. I sometimes 'rave' he might have a biological child with his partner, his boyfriend ... now I wonder, is this just a poor woman's imagination, or something that will come true sooner or later?
Meria, in all due respect, I'm trying to think what is it that you're really thinking?! You say, "it's 'just' that he does not go with women" - I mean, what's that supposed to mean - for this kind of thing, going with women really matters!
Just take a look at the date the electronic article was posted on BBC - more than 10 years ago - doesn't that make you think they're not making their "best efforts" on that?!
spillover - as the other poster advised you, I think you should be more careful and try to maintain the boundaries a lil' bit better - you can't go ahead and try to put people down just like that!
Exactly, 2 young 2, spillover can't even pretend s/he was being friendly to Meria when putting it bluntly and telling her about the whole thing as it is - I mean, we're not living in some kind of ex-communist country where people called themselves "brothers" and "sisters," pretending that they really were such to a certain extent!
In the Western world, people draw strict boundaries between one another - in fact, they are expected to fully rely on themselves psychologically and economically for their own maintenance (be self-sufficient) - with solidarity and like concepts not being too much attended to.
Things function in these societies bureaucratically, based on the laws, drawn and enforced by the governments, the ones that same people elected to govern them.
So they do not, for instance, go and kill their fellow citizen to get even for him having say, raped, their child - they address the issue with the government - take the guy to the courts of law.
The government, on the other hand, has to abide by a set of norms (laws) and not overstep them, abusing the power conferred on it by the people. It can not curtail their citizens' liberties, for instance, overtly or covertly, unless good cause is shown first.
It can not resort to illegal tactics and strategies that by actually being used and reluctantly endorsed by its citizens have the effect of legitimizing them, with the end result being over-accumulation of power, beyond that that was originally intended to be invested, and conferred, by the people onto their government.
And so, the more innocent their victim of persecution, the more afraid people will be - as they too might as well be in the victim's place - with more and more power that governments will be able to steal from the people.
Will you walk me 2 my car, I can see your post has elicited a bit of controversy - I'd have to say that there are safeguards in place that would not allow a certain branch of the government go off the limits and employ "illegal" tactics, as you say, on its citizens - the executive body, would need, for instance, a warrant from a judge (the legislative), which would make the tactic that you talk about, "legal."
The Investment of Power by the People into its own Government, as outlined in the Constitution, works in such a way that there exists a separation of powers between the 3 branches of the government (thus, operating on a system of checks and balances).
James Madison, writing in "The Federalist," No. 47, said, that the accumulation of all powers - legislative, executive, and judiciary - in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, lead to the very definition of tyranny [dictatorship].
There's no doubt about it - the police will have to show you an warrant, for example, to search your house; even for the car, to search your car, they have to have you on record saying you allow them to search it. More lenient requirements are in place when in comes to frisking, as the police may have to do it to make sure you have not any guns on yourself.