Ethics: Benefit and Harm

[A human Being]

Originally Posted by Gem

It is empty of content and devoid of explanation - that's what I mean vacuous.

I made it clear I don't want to be the subject of conversation, and I will make sure one way or the other.


If people think these have content, why not elaborate? If there is something substantial then simply say what it is.

I don't need to tell you that language has its uses but also its limitations, and there are simply some things that can't be expressed in words. All we can do is point to the truth with language, but if you don't or can't see that to which is being pointed, that's your issue. We can talk until we're blue in the face, but we're not going to arrive at the truth; at some point the talking has to stop.

And with that, I'm out, I won't engage with you any further. I know you aren't going to budge an inch, Gem, and I have no intention of wasting my breath.

[naturesflow]

Originally Posted by A human Being

He didn't say that, though, did he? He didn't qualify his remarks by saying 'this is a vacuous statement to me,' he simply said 'this is a vacuous statement,' full stop. My point about Gem is that he doesn't seem to question his own perception of things, and what his perception may say about him, he appears to me to be very close-minded.







I don't understand what you're saying in the last sentence (for a start it was Gem that said 'don't make it about me,' not me), nor the rest of what you said, perhaps you could clarify?

AS someone who self reflects through things I might want to say about others, I learn that most of all this drops away in me when I do and then I realize it was just about me and my own seeing and my own mind wanting to see something for myself.

So do you self reflect on yourself in all this your conveying?

Or do you close your mind and point in this way that you doing here?

[naturesflow]

Originally Posted by Gem

It is empty of content and devoid of explanation - that's what I mean vacuous.

I made it clear I don't want to be the subject of conversation, and I will make sure one way or the other.


If people think these have content, why not elaborate? If there is something substantial then simply say what it is.

I notice that you have this affect on those who want you to bend and twist the way they want you too. Then I often notice how they give up and leave the conversation when they don't get what they need in this way? I find it interesting that you of all people who seem very clear to me, create this issue of others believing you don't budge or bend and that you are wasting their breath.. Then I wonder where all that no budge, no bend and wasted breath comes from that creates all this?

anyway this song I am listening to right now fits..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFY4...vTxt3b&index=5

[Gem]

Originally Posted by naturesflow

Why cant it be that way for another who experiences it as such and says as it is for them?

It isn't 'the way it is for me'. These really are one liners that explain nothing at all.

As an example why am I reading all this and not seeing power dynamics and oppression yet you are?

Who is the one seeing all this?

I mean I know you said, "don't make it about me" but really what if those words coming out of your mouth are for you?

I said I don't want to be the topic subject and I don't have to justify that. If people are genuinely interested, they would inquire. If people inquire I might speak of myself (but I'm not particularly interesting).

If your truly listening are you going to honour yourself in this way and speak accordingly, or are you going to say what others expect you to say and be?

Who's mind is made up?

Who is the one not hearing?

Who is the one dismissing?

Of course to me it is plain as day. But it is not about me to see all this is it?

I know it wasn't directed at moi, but I was curious more than anything in my noticing to ask.

Ok we need to get back into the ethics, and away from who is doing what, because the last thing I want is a bunch of personal subjects being pushed into subject positions.

The reason I don't accept empty one liners is because everyone hears these things all the time anyway. I want to attract people to deeper level conversation in which people draw meaning from the complicated ethical dilemmas they've been through.

If this becomes about Gem (though I can assure you that it will not), or we assume the words said indicate the personal qualities of the speaker, we enter into a ethical issue where people are not afforded the right dignity to speak of themselves if they wish, and worse, people speaking of others who do not wish to be spoken of. It's also not right to incite people into speaking of themselves by pushing them into personally defensive positions.

We do not have to like what people say and I do not like unsubstantial quips, and I say so frankly, but this is NOT an assertion about any speaker.

The last thing we need is to pretend to be nice. I'm sure we're nice enough anyway. I mean this is me being nice. By all means challenge what I say and I will either concede as I did when Serrao pointed out I may have misinterpreted the monk, or I'll try to explain in a more understandable way. And if I say these 'spiritual sounding statements are devoid of meaningful content (and they are) then elaborate so that if there is actually content there, then at least it's somewhat visible and demonstrates at least a modicum of insight.

[naturesflow]

Originally Posted by Gem

It isn't 'the way it is for me'. These really are one liners that explain nothing at all.

Only you know the way it is for you.

I said I don't want to be the topic subject and I don't have to justify that. If people are genuinely interested, they would inquire. If people inquire I might speak of myself (but I'm not particularly interesting).

Which is why when your name was brought up again I put it back to human being to reflect on aware you mentioned this. I wasn't going there again. No way..

Ok we need to get back into the ethics, and away from who is doing what, because the last thing I want is a bunch of personal subjects being pushed into subject positions.

Good move.

The reason I don't accept empty one liners is because everyone hears these things all the time anyway. I want to attract people to deeper level conversation in which people draw meaning from the complicated ethical dilemmas they've been through.

I get it.

If this becomes about Gem (though I can assure you that it will not), or we assume the words said indicate the personal qualities of the speaker, we enter into a ethical issue where people are not afforded the right dignity to speak of themselves if they wish, and worse, people speaking of others who do not wish to be spoken of. It's also not right to incite people into speaking of themselves by pushing them into personally defensive positions.

We do not have to like what people say and I do not like unsubstantial quips, and I say so frankly, but this is NOT an assertion about any speaker.

The last thing we need is to pretend to be nice. I'm sure we're nice enough anyway. I mean this is me being nice. By all means challenge what I say and I will either concede as I did when Serrao pointed out I may have misinterpreted the monk, or I'll try to explain in a more understandable way. And if I say these 'spiritual sounding statements are devoid of meaningful content (and they are) then elaborate so that if there is actually content there, then at least it's somewhat visible and demonstrates at least a modicum of insight.

I corrected your devoin and put it as devoid, cos it was glaring at me in the face when I quoted it.. Hope you don't mind, it helps me with my spelling when I do this..

[A human Being]

Originally Posted by naturesflow

AS someone who self reflects through things I might want to say about others, I learn that most of all this drops away in me when I do and then I realize it was just about me and my own seeing and my own mind wanting to see something for myself.

So do you self reflect on yourself in all this your conveying?

Or do you close your mind and point in this way that you doing here?

Yes, naturesflow, I do, I consider self-awareness to be of the utmost importance.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by A human Being

I don't need to tell you that language has its uses but also its limitations, and there are simply some things that can't be expressed in words. All we can do is point to the truth with language,

I have heard this same thing several times, hundreds of times, and therefore I can tell it's parroting of the spiritual linguistic genre.

but if you don't or can't see that to which is being pointed, that's your issue.

I'll let that one go, but the next time I'll become assertive about it,

We can talk until we're blue in the face, but we're not going to arrive at the truth; at some point the talking has to stop.

I'm not selling the truth. When floatsy suggested something was the truth, I responded to his post by saying I have to listen to people tell me about the meanings that they makes out of the circumstances in their lives in ordered to know the truth, and that brings up nuanced relationship conditions that are conducive to cultivating mutual trust. In this context that truth isn't arrived at per-se, but operational through honesty promoting trust. This was to indicate that ethics are grounded in real life, involving the materiality of benefit and harm, as well as actual human virtues such as honesty and trust. I wanted to point out these real dimensions because people were insisting that ethics is 'just a study of morals'.

And with that, I'm out, I won't engage with you any further. I know you aren't going to budge an inch, Gem, and I have no intention of wasting my breath.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by naturesflow

Only you know the way it is for you.

I recognise the actual absence of content. If anyone would elaborate, that would contain at least a modicum of substance.

Good move.

I get it.

I corrected your devoin and put it as devoid, cos it was glaring at me in the face when I quoted it.. Hope you don't mind, it helps me with my spelling when I do this..

OK thanks , I might go back and correct my post too.

[naturesflow]

Originally Posted by A human Being

Yes, naturesflow, I do, I consider self-awareness to be of the utmost importance.

Ok. I do too.

[Adrienne]

Originally Posted by Gem

Ok we need to get back into the ethics, and away from who is doing what, because the last thing I want is a bunch of personal subjects being pushed into subject positions.

The reason I don't accept empty one liners is because everyone hears these things all the time anyway. I want to attract people to deeper level conversation in which people draw meaning from the complicated ethical dilemmas they've been through.

If this becomes about Gem (though I can assure you that it will not), or we assume the words said indicate the personal qualities of the speaker, we enter into a ethical issue where people are not afforded the right dignity to speak of themselves if they wish, and worse, people speaking of others who do not wish to be spoken of. It's also not right to incite people into speaking of themselves by pushing them into personally defensive positions.

We do not have to like what people say and I do not like unsubstantial quips, and I say so frankly, but this is NOT an assertion about any speaker.

The last thing we need is to pretend to be nice. I'm sure we're nice enough anyway. I mean this is me being nice. By all means challenge what I say and I will either concede as I did when Serrao pointed out I may have misinterpreted the monk, or I'll try to explain in a more understandable way. And if I say these 'spiritual sounding statements are devoid of meaningful content (and they are) then elaborate so that if there is actually content there, then at least it's somewhat visible and demonstrates at least a modicum of insight.

................