Re: Taxpayer Standing for Lawsuits

[Guest guest]

Kayleighs:

I apologize if I missed your point. I agree with some of your response,

particularly that the alcoholism of AA is not one of those situations in

which people are unable to take responsibility and make choices. I can't

really speak to the IQ issue. Back when I had my copy of the DSM, I don't

believe low IQ or retardation were considered mental illness or disease in

the same sense as alcoholism or bi-polar disorder. But other mental

conditions as you mentioned concern me. Obviously, there are some people who

are pretty wacked out compared with the rest of society. I don't want to

address them right now. There are also a lot of other people, perhaps only

slightly off kilter, who get diagnosed with various mental illnesses and

then go on to identify themselves solely with those illnesses ( much in the

same way that AA encourages people to do with alcoholism) and learn to think

they have lost the ability to choose any other way than to be " sick " . And it

is not unheard of for mental health professionals to categorize individuals

as schizophrenic, bi-polar, or depressed just because it's the " latest

thing " or because they cannot find any other disorder to specify for the

patient, or because the pharmaceutical companies have a new drug to push.

I'm not saying that happens all the time, but it is pretty scary for it to

be as prevalent as it is. Just look at how many kids are apparently ADD

these days. For many of these unfortunate individuals, I think a solid

psycho-babble deprogramming session is in order and that promoting

self-reliance, responsibility, and choice are positive things to encourage.

Thanks for the response,

Joan

Re: Taxpayer Standing for Lawsuits

> You misunderstand my point. Sometimes bad things happen to good

> people, and certainly, they are responsible for playing the hand they

> are dealt. The same is true if they get a terrific hand.

>

> I happen to believe that some people are more capable of assuming

> responsibility than others. There are conditions that prevent people

> from making sensible choices. AA advocates have long insisted that

> " alcoholism " is one of those conditions, and I have little sympathy

> for that viewpoint. But some people have very low IQ's, and can't

> make choices as capably as people with higher IQ's. Equally, some

> people have mental conditions that impair their judgment. That is my

> belief.

>

>

> > >

> > > Hi Kayleighs,

> > >

> > > > As Donne said, " No man is an island. " And for my money,

> that

> > > > means not only economically, but also psychologically. That's

> what

> > > > ticks me off about people like you and Szasz and Schaler. The

> > > > assertion that every individual is responsible for everything

> that

> > > > happens to him, that he has made a " choice, " is, in effect, to

> say,

> > > > " Who, me? No, not me, just him. He made a choice. "

> > >

> > > I'm not going to jump into the whole mental health debate, but I

> do

> > > like this point you've made here.

> > >

> > > I do believe that people can and do make choices. More choices

> than

> > > determinists, like AA, would have us believe. But we don't make

> them

> > > in a vacuum. All around us is our culture, our families, our

> friends,

> > > our past experiences, our health, and on and on. Options may not

> be

> > > obvious, especially if we are in pain or if the options we are

> seeking

> > > are hidden by others.

> > >

> > > The idea that everything that happens to us is our choice is just

> as

> > > flawed and uncompassionate as the idea that everything that

> happens to

> > > us is " God's will for us. "

> > >

> > > See you,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Kayleighs:

I apologize if I missed your point. I agree with some of your response,

particularly that the alcoholism of AA is not one of those situations in

which people are unable to take responsibility and make choices. I can't

really speak to the IQ issue. Back when I had my copy of the DSM, I don't

believe low IQ or retardation were considered mental illness or disease in

the same sense as alcoholism or bi-polar disorder. But other mental

conditions as you mentioned concern me. Obviously, there are some people who

are pretty wacked out compared with the rest of society. I don't want to

address them right now. There are also a lot of other people, perhaps only

slightly off kilter, who get diagnosed with various mental illnesses and

then go on to identify themselves solely with those illnesses ( much in the

same way that AA encourages people to do with alcoholism) and learn to think

they have lost the ability to choose any other way than to be " sick " . And it

is not unheard of for mental health professionals to categorize individuals

as schizophrenic, bi-polar, or depressed just because it's the " latest

thing " or because they cannot find any other disorder to specify for the

patient, or because the pharmaceutical companies have a new drug to push.

I'm not saying that happens all the time, but it is pretty scary for it to

be as prevalent as it is. Just look at how many kids are apparently ADD

these days. For many of these unfortunate individuals, I think a solid

psycho-babble deprogramming session is in order and that promoting

self-reliance, responsibility, and choice are positive things to encourage.

Thanks for the response,

Joan

Re: Taxpayer Standing for Lawsuits

> You misunderstand my point. Sometimes bad things happen to good

> people, and certainly, they are responsible for playing the hand they

> are dealt. The same is true if they get a terrific hand.

>

> I happen to believe that some people are more capable of assuming

> responsibility than others. There are conditions that prevent people

> from making sensible choices. AA advocates have long insisted that

> " alcoholism " is one of those conditions, and I have little sympathy

> for that viewpoint. But some people have very low IQ's, and can't

> make choices as capably as people with higher IQ's. Equally, some

> people have mental conditions that impair their judgment. That is my

> belief.

>

>

> > >

> > > Hi Kayleighs,

> > >

> > > > As Donne said, " No man is an island. " And for my money,

> that

> > > > means not only economically, but also psychologically. That's

> what

> > > > ticks me off about people like you and Szasz and Schaler. The

> > > > assertion that every individual is responsible for everything

> that

> > > > happens to him, that he has made a " choice, " is, in effect, to

> say,

> > > > " Who, me? No, not me, just him. He made a choice. "

> > >

> > > I'm not going to jump into the whole mental health debate, but I

> do

> > > like this point you've made here.

> > >

> > > I do believe that people can and do make choices. More choices

> than

> > > determinists, like AA, would have us believe. But we don't make

> them

> > > in a vacuum. All around us is our culture, our families, our

> friends,

> > > our past experiences, our health, and on and on. Options may not

> be

> > > obvious, especially if we are in pain or if the options we are

> seeking

> > > are hidden by others.

> > >

> > > The idea that everything that happens to us is our choice is just

> as

> > > flawed and uncompassionate as the idea that everything that

> happens to

> > > us is " God's will for us. "

> > >

> > > See you,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

kayleighs@... wrote:

<snip>

I would be interested to know why Mr. Meier picked

those particular 12

mandates, many of which have always been covered under my health

insurance, and I'm also curious to know how you believe a person who

is depressed (leaving alcohol and drug addiction out of it) should

get

help if insurance won't pay. As far as funding AA, I am dead

set

against it, but I don't consider it medical treatment in any way shape

or form. I certainly hope no one ever funds Scientology without

doing

their homework.

Actually, as this article ( Narconon.

Another Scientology scam by L.Ron Hubbard. ) clearly points out, Scientology

has been successful in the past at getting government funding and accreditation

for over two decades. Government bureaucracies are notorious for

not doing their homework.

I would rather pay more to ensure that mammography

is covered under

health insurance than, for example, paying more for increased police

power because the feds have conditioned highway funding on lowering

the BAL that triggers automatic guilt under DWI statutes from .1 to

..08. The cost/benefit analysis there produces benefits so minimal,

I

believe, that it's ridiculous.

In the end, it is not worth arguing about. I have an idea about

what

I consider medically necessary coverage, which is probably largely

culturally determined and with which you have every right to disagree.

Peace,

[Guest guest]

kayleighs@... wrote:

<snip>

I would be interested to know why Mr. Meier picked

those particular 12

mandates, many of which have always been covered under my health

insurance, and I'm also curious to know how you believe a person who

is depressed (leaving alcohol and drug addiction out of it) should

get

help if insurance won't pay. As far as funding AA, I am dead

set

against it, but I don't consider it medical treatment in any way shape

or form. I certainly hope no one ever funds Scientology without

doing

their homework.

Actually, as this article ( Narconon.

Another Scientology scam by L.Ron Hubbard. ) clearly points out, Scientology

has been successful in the past at getting government funding and accreditation

for over two decades. Government bureaucracies are notorious for

not doing their homework.

I would rather pay more to ensure that mammography

is covered under

health insurance than, for example, paying more for increased police

power because the feds have conditioned highway funding on lowering

the BAL that triggers automatic guilt under DWI statutes from .1 to

..08. The cost/benefit analysis there produces benefits so minimal,

I

believe, that it's ridiculous.

In the end, it is not worth arguing about. I have an idea about

what

I consider medically necessary coverage, which is probably largely

culturally determined and with which you have every right to disagree.

Peace,

[Guest guest]

kayleighs@... wrote:

<snip>

I would be interested to know why Mr. Meier picked

those particular 12

mandates, many of which have always been covered under my health

insurance, and I'm also curious to know how you believe a person who

is depressed (leaving alcohol and drug addiction out of it) should

get

help if insurance won't pay. As far as funding AA, I am dead

set

against it, but I don't consider it medical treatment in any way shape

or form. I certainly hope no one ever funds Scientology without

doing

their homework.

Actually, as this article ( Narconon.

Another Scientology scam by L.Ron Hubbard. ) clearly points out, Scientology

has been successful in the past at getting government funding and accreditation

for over two decades. Government bureaucracies are notorious for

not doing their homework.

I would rather pay more to ensure that mammography

is covered under

health insurance than, for example, paying more for increased police

power because the feds have conditioned highway funding on lowering

the BAL that triggers automatic guilt under DWI statutes from .1 to

..08. The cost/benefit analysis there produces benefits so minimal,

I

believe, that it's ridiculous.

In the end, it is not worth arguing about. I have an idea about

what

I consider medically necessary coverage, which is probably largely

culturally determined and with which you have every right to disagree.

Peace,

[Guest guest]

ahicks@... wrote:

>

>

> Hi Kayleighs,

>

> > As Donne said, " No man is an island. " And for my money, that

> > means not only economically, but also psychologically. That's what

> > ticks me off about people like you and Szasz and Schaler. The

> > assertion that every individual is responsible for everything that

> > happens to him, that he has made a " choice, " is, in effect, to say,

> > " Who, me? No, not me, just him. He made a choice. "

>

> I'm not going to jump into the whole mental health debate, but I do

> like this point you've made here.

>

> I do believe that people can and do make choices. More choices than

> determinists, like AA, would have us believe. But we don't make them

> in a vacuum. All around us is our culture, our families, our friends,

> our past experiences, our health, and on and on. Options may not be

> obvious, especially if we are in pain or if the options we are seeking

> are hidden by others.

>

> The idea that everything that happens to us is our choice is just as

> flawed and uncompassionate as the idea that everything that happens to

> us is " God's will for us. "

>

> See you,

>

>

Would it be fair to say, while we are 100% responsible for our choices, we

are not completely responsible for how well informed those choices are? I would

also agree with you, in that someone who died of congenital heart failure surly

did not " choose " to die. Whether people " choose " to be depressed/sad seems to

entail far more complex questions concerning the relationship between our

cognitive processes and our emotional state. While I make decisions that

clearly lead to feelings of many kinds, this does not rule out other

uncontrollable processes effecting my emotional state. If I make choices which

lead to my experiencing sadness without awareness of the eventual consequences,

have I " chosen " sadness?

In " Broca's Brain " , Carl Sagen speculates about the development of human

intelligence. It seems that the ability to make cognitive choices developed

well after the ability to experience emotional states. This might suggest that

emotions are not simply a matter of choice. OTOH, the ability to change our

emotional state by choosing to interpret outside stimulus differently, argues

for emotion as a choice. Interesting topic with great ramifications for those

dealing with emotional compulsions to use substances self destructively.

Peace,

[Guest guest]

ahicks@... wrote:

>

>

> Hi Kayleighs,

>

> > As Donne said, " No man is an island. " And for my money, that

> > means not only economically, but also psychologically. That's what

> > ticks me off about people like you and Szasz and Schaler. The

> > assertion that every individual is responsible for everything that

> > happens to him, that he has made a " choice, " is, in effect, to say,

> > " Who, me? No, not me, just him. He made a choice. "

>

> I'm not going to jump into the whole mental health debate, but I do

> like this point you've made here.

>

> I do believe that people can and do make choices. More choices than

> determinists, like AA, would have us believe. But we don't make them

> in a vacuum. All around us is our culture, our families, our friends,

> our past experiences, our health, and on and on. Options may not be

> obvious, especially if we are in pain or if the options we are seeking

> are hidden by others.

>

> The idea that everything that happens to us is our choice is just as

> flawed and uncompassionate as the idea that everything that happens to

> us is " God's will for us. "

>

> See you,

>

>

Would it be fair to say, while we are 100% responsible for our choices, we

are not completely responsible for how well informed those choices are? I would

also agree with you, in that someone who died of congenital heart failure surly

did not " choose " to die. Whether people " choose " to be depressed/sad seems to

entail far more complex questions concerning the relationship between our

cognitive processes and our emotional state. While I make decisions that

clearly lead to feelings of many kinds, this does not rule out other

uncontrollable processes effecting my emotional state. If I make choices which

lead to my experiencing sadness without awareness of the eventual consequences,

have I " chosen " sadness?

In " Broca's Brain " , Carl Sagen speculates about the development of human

intelligence. It seems that the ability to make cognitive choices developed

well after the ability to experience emotional states. This might suggest that

emotions are not simply a matter of choice. OTOH, the ability to change our

emotional state by choosing to interpret outside stimulus differently, argues

for emotion as a choice. Interesting topic with great ramifications for those

dealing with emotional compulsions to use substances self destructively.

Peace,

[Guest guest]

ahicks@... wrote:

>

>

> Hi Kayleighs,

>

> > As Donne said, " No man is an island. " And for my money, that

> > means not only economically, but also psychologically. That's what

> > ticks me off about people like you and Szasz and Schaler. The

> > assertion that every individual is responsible for everything that

> > happens to him, that he has made a " choice, " is, in effect, to say,

> > " Who, me? No, not me, just him. He made a choice. "

>

> I'm not going to jump into the whole mental health debate, but I do

> like this point you've made here.

>

> I do believe that people can and do make choices. More choices than

> determinists, like AA, would have us believe. But we don't make them

> in a vacuum. All around us is our culture, our families, our friends,

> our past experiences, our health, and on and on. Options may not be

> obvious, especially if we are in pain or if the options we are seeking

> are hidden by others.

>

> The idea that everything that happens to us is our choice is just as

> flawed and uncompassionate as the idea that everything that happens to

> us is " God's will for us. "

>

> See you,

>

>

Would it be fair to say, while we are 100% responsible for our choices, we

are not completely responsible for how well informed those choices are? I would

also agree with you, in that someone who died of congenital heart failure surly

did not " choose " to die. Whether people " choose " to be depressed/sad seems to

entail far more complex questions concerning the relationship between our

cognitive processes and our emotional state. While I make decisions that

clearly lead to feelings of many kinds, this does not rule out other

uncontrollable processes effecting my emotional state. If I make choices which

lead to my experiencing sadness without awareness of the eventual consequences,

have I " chosen " sadness?

In " Broca's Brain " , Carl Sagen speculates about the development of human

intelligence. It seems that the ability to make cognitive choices developed

well after the ability to experience emotional states. This might suggest that

emotions are not simply a matter of choice. OTOH, the ability to change our

emotional state by choosing to interpret outside stimulus differently, argues

for emotion as a choice. Interesting topic with great ramifications for those

dealing with emotional compulsions to use substances self destructively.

Peace,

[Guest guest]

Grimes wrote:

> I think you're both way off. Insurance companies exist to make a profit,

period. They don't produce anything. Instead, they suck money out of the

economy. We could get along fine without them. If it were up to me, I'd force

them either to start making something or to go out of business. Health care

would cost less in total if there were no insurance companies. People would

choose the health care they could afford and providers would not stay in

business long if they charged more than what people were willing to pay.

So what happens to those who cannot afford adequate health care, in

particular children? That society is more than just a group of individuals

bound together by economic ties is of course an arbitrary philosophy which you

needn't agree with. Is it not, however, true that your vision of laissez faire

health care delivery will inevitably leave some people without access to good

health care? After all many boat manufacturers stay in business despite the

fact that not everyone can afford a boat.

> What exactly is wrong with fee-for-service health care?

Nothing intrinsically, fee for service health care can exist within a

multitude of delivery schemes.

Peace,

[Guest guest]

Grimes wrote:

> I think you're both way off. Insurance companies exist to make a profit,

period. They don't produce anything. Instead, they suck money out of the

economy. We could get along fine without them. If it were up to me, I'd force

them either to start making something or to go out of business. Health care

would cost less in total if there were no insurance companies. People would

choose the health care they could afford and providers would not stay in

business long if they charged more than what people were willing to pay.

So what happens to those who cannot afford adequate health care, in

particular children? That society is more than just a group of individuals

bound together by economic ties is of course an arbitrary philosophy which you

needn't agree with. Is it not, however, true that your vision of laissez faire

health care delivery will inevitably leave some people without access to good

health care? After all many boat manufacturers stay in business despite the

fact that not everyone can afford a boat.

> What exactly is wrong with fee-for-service health care?

Nothing intrinsically, fee for service health care can exist within a

multitude of delivery schemes.

Peace,

[Guest guest]

Grimes wrote:

> I think you're both way off. Insurance companies exist to make a profit,

period. They don't produce anything. Instead, they suck money out of the

economy. We could get along fine without them. If it were up to me, I'd force

them either to start making something or to go out of business. Health care

would cost less in total if there were no insurance companies. People would

choose the health care they could afford and providers would not stay in

business long if they charged more than what people were willing to pay.

So what happens to those who cannot afford adequate health care, in

particular children? That society is more than just a group of individuals

bound together by economic ties is of course an arbitrary philosophy which you

needn't agree with. Is it not, however, true that your vision of laissez faire

health care delivery will inevitably leave some people without access to good

health care? After all many boat manufacturers stay in business despite the

fact that not everyone can afford a boat.

> What exactly is wrong with fee-for-service health care?

Nothing intrinsically, fee for service health care can exist within a

multitude of delivery schemes.

Peace,

[Guest guest]

Joan Meredith wrote:

> Choice and responsibility have become central to my self esteem. When I

> began to see myself as the author of my life, I reaped wonderful benefits. I

> got to believe in myself. I got a sense of myself existing apart from others

> that allowed me to enjoy being alone. I got to appreciate both positive and

> negative choices I had made because they were mine- a part of who I am. If I

> could give that gift to someone else, it would be the most compassionate act

> of my life.

>

> Joan

Well said. XA enjoins people to give their will and their life over to the

care of God, an act of " humility " I find dehumanizing. When I first encountered

the 12 step faith healing movement I did not understand how people so desperate

for a change in their lives could embrace such a position of powerlessness.

After some time of involvement I came to understand the extreme lack of self

esteem XA inculcated as a means subordinating individuals to the " Group " . While

many arrived in the " rooms " with existing low self esteem, XA's dogmatic denial

of personal choice and responsibility ensures an almost complete loss of ego

among it's members.

Without choice and responsibility, we have no ego. Without the dignity of

ego, we are lost in a fog of " group think " .

Peace,

[Guest guest]

Joan Meredith wrote:

> Choice and responsibility have become central to my self esteem. When I

> began to see myself as the author of my life, I reaped wonderful benefits. I

> got to believe in myself. I got a sense of myself existing apart from others

> that allowed me to enjoy being alone. I got to appreciate both positive and

> negative choices I had made because they were mine- a part of who I am. If I

> could give that gift to someone else, it would be the most compassionate act

> of my life.

>

> Joan

Well said. XA enjoins people to give their will and their life over to the

care of God, an act of " humility " I find dehumanizing. When I first encountered

the 12 step faith healing movement I did not understand how people so desperate

for a change in their lives could embrace such a position of powerlessness.

After some time of involvement I came to understand the extreme lack of self

esteem XA inculcated as a means subordinating individuals to the " Group " . While

many arrived in the " rooms " with existing low self esteem, XA's dogmatic denial

of personal choice and responsibility ensures an almost complete loss of ego

among it's members.

Without choice and responsibility, we have no ego. Without the dignity of

ego, we are lost in a fog of " group think " .

Peace,

[Guest guest]

ahicks@... wrote:

<snip>

> I think the Schaler/Szasz point of view is at the opposite extreme

> from the AA point of view. I'm more likely to make a home on a bit of

> middle ground, a bit closer to Schaler than Bill W. Schaler believes

> all your actions and choices are governed by your will. I don't go as

> far as that.

Would it not be fair to say, " that all your actions and choices are governed

by your will, but your available choices are not entirely within your control " ?

Peace,

[Guest guest]

ahicks@... wrote:

<snip>

> I think the Schaler/Szasz point of view is at the opposite extreme

> from the AA point of view. I'm more likely to make a home on a bit of

> middle ground, a bit closer to Schaler than Bill W. Schaler believes

> all your actions and choices are governed by your will. I don't go as

> far as that.

Would it not be fair to say, " that all your actions and choices are governed

by your will, but your available choices are not entirely within your control " ?

Peace,

[Guest guest]

ahicks@... wrote:

<snip>

> I think the Schaler/Szasz point of view is at the opposite extreme

> from the AA point of view. I'm more likely to make a home on a bit of

> middle ground, a bit closer to Schaler than Bill W. Schaler believes

> all your actions and choices are governed by your will. I don't go as

> far as that.

Would it not be fair to say, " that all your actions and choices are governed

by your will, but your available choices are not entirely within your control " ?

Peace,

[Guest guest]

>

> <snip>

>

> > I think the Schaler/Szasz point of view is at the opposite extreme

> > from the AA point of view. I'm more likely to make a home on a

bit of

> > middle ground, a bit closer to Schaler than Bill W. Schaler

believes

> > all your actions and choices are governed by your will. I don't

go as

> > far as that.

>

> Would it not be fair to say, " that all your actions and choices

are governed

> by your will, but your available choices are not entirely within

your control " ?

>

> Peace,

>

I really like it, . I need to think about it some more and see

how it plays out in various situations.

See you,

[Guest guest]

>

> <snip>

>

> > I think the Schaler/Szasz point of view is at the opposite extreme

> > from the AA point of view. I'm more likely to make a home on a

bit of

> > middle ground, a bit closer to Schaler than Bill W. Schaler

believes

> > all your actions and choices are governed by your will. I don't

go as

> > far as that.

>

> Would it not be fair to say, " that all your actions and choices

are governed

> by your will, but your available choices are not entirely within

your control " ?

>

> Peace,

>

I really like it, . I need to think about it some more and see

how it plays out in various situations.

See you,

[Guest guest]

>

> <snip>

>

> > I think the Schaler/Szasz point of view is at the opposite extreme

> > from the AA point of view. I'm more likely to make a home on a

bit of

> > middle ground, a bit closer to Schaler than Bill W. Schaler

believes

> > all your actions and choices are governed by your will. I don't

go as

> > far as that.

>

> Would it not be fair to say, " that all your actions and choices

are governed

> by your will, but your available choices are not entirely within

your control " ?

>

> Peace,

>

I really like it, . I need to think about it some more and see

how it plays out in various situations.

See you,

[Guest guest]

> >

> > Hi Kayleighs,

> >

> > > As Donne said, " No man is an island. " And for my money,

that

> > > means not only economically, but also psychologically. That's

what

> > > ticks me off about people like you and Szasz and Schaler. The

> > > assertion that every individual is responsible for everything

that

> > > happens to him, that he has made a " choice, " is, in effect, to

say,

> > > " Who, me? No, not me, just him. He made a choice. "

> >

> > I'm not going to jump into the whole mental health debate, but I

do

> > like this point you've made here.

> >

> > I do believe that people can and do make choices. More choices

than

> > determinists, like AA, would have us believe. But we don't make

them

> > in a vacuum. All around us is our culture, our families, our

friends,

> > our past experiences, our health, and on and on. Options may not

be

> > obvious, especially if we are in pain or if the options we are

seeking

> > are hidden by others.

> >

> > The idea that everything that happens to us is our choice is just

as

> > flawed and uncompassionate as the idea that everything that

happens to

> > us is " God's will for us. "

> >

> > See you,

> >

> >

>

> Would it be fair to say, while we are 100% responsible for our

choices, we

> are not completely responsible for how well informed those choices

are? I would

> also agree with you, in that someone who died of congenital heart

failure surly

> did not " choose " to die. Whether people " choose " to be

depressed/sad seems to

> entail far more complex questions concerning the relationship

between our

> cognitive processes and our emotional state. While I make decisions

that

> clearly lead to feelings of many kinds, this does not rule out other

> uncontrollable processes effecting my emotional state. If I make

choices which

> lead to my experiencing sadness without awareness of the eventual

consequences,

> have I " chosen " sadness?

> In " Broca's Brain " , Carl Sagen speculates about the development

of human

> intelligence. It seems that the ability to make cognitive choices

developed

> well after the ability to experience emotional states. This might

suggest that

> emotions are not simply a matter of choice. OTOH, the ability to

change our

> emotional state by choosing to interpret outside stimulus

differently, argues

> for emotion as a choice. Interesting topic with great ramifications

for those

> dealing with emotional compulsions to use substances self

destructively.

>

> Peace,

>

Hi ,

I think we are hot on the trail of some understanding here, or at

least asking the right questions. If the following seems rambling,

its just because I'm trying to work it out a little....

Years ago I read a book about optimism. What interested me about it

was that pessimists were more often " right " about a situation. They

seemed to be more reality based. Optimists OTOH were frequently wrong

in their projections, but were able to keep making the attempt that

eventually proved fruitful. Optimists experienced the negative event

emotionally differently than the pessimists did. A failure was more

likely to spur another attempt for the optimists, whereas the

pessimist would stop doing the action.

I have been able to change my outlook on things from being mostly

pessimistic to mostly optimistic. I have been successful at changing

the way I perceived certain things in a very conscious way. I did

have help doing this. It was learned. It is like a personal resource

I have that I can call on to help me. (As a parent, I'd be dead meat

without it.)

Emotions are very powerful and they are NOW. One thing they always

said in TX was that people learn to stuff their emotions so they don't

find expression and this is one thing leading to the bottle. I think

this can be true, but I also think that some people over-express

emotions and cause themselves to feel even worse.

Anger certainly gets a bad rep in TX and AA. But where would we be

without it? Maybe having the ability to put your rational thought in

harness with your emotional response is some type of answer. Your

thoughts on this?

I guess where this is leading me is to the idea of teaching, and that

there are thinking skills that can be quantified and taught, that the

person will then have as tools in making decisions. Where and how is

another matter! I don't believe AA helps much in this regard as they

discourage analytical thought and the abstinence achieved there comes

from outside of the participant (or at least this is what they are

taught).

See you,

[Guest guest]

I cannot agree with this formulation. There are plenty of people who,

if fully informed (if that is even possible) would be unable to

evaluate that information to foresee consequences.

I think, too, that any woman who has raised a child would have to say

that the ability to experience emotion comes long before the ability

to make cognitive decisions. What the interplay between the two may

be after the second ability develops is murkier. It should not be

forgotten, either, that even very intelligent and well-informed

children are not able to assess the consequences of what they may do.

This is considered to be part of the reason that teenagers commit

suicide -- they know that death is forever, but they can't really

conceptualize that.

We should consider a matter of national shame that most of the people

on our death rows have below average IQ's, and many of those will

never be able to reason beyond a child of a certain age. Equally, we

should be ashamed of how we are treating our children who are

conceived of as having committed criminal acts. It is far from clear

that these children are capable of forming the intent to commit a

criminal act.

>

> Would it be fair to say, while we are 100% responsible for our

choices, we

> are not completely responsible for how well informed those choices

are? I would

> also agree with you, in that someone who died of congenital heart

failure surly

> did not " choose " to die. Whether people " choose " to be

depressed/sad seems to

> entail far more complex questions concerning the relationship

between our

> cognitive processes and our emotional state. While I make decisions

that

> clearly lead to feelings of many kinds, this does not rule out other

> uncontrollable processes effecting my emotional state. If I make

choices which

> lead to my experiencing sadness without awareness of the eventual

consequences,

> have I " chosen " sadness?

> In " Broca's Brain " , Carl Sagen speculates about the development

of human

> intelligence. It seems that the ability to make cognitive choices

developed

> well after the ability to experience emotional states. This might

suggest that

> emotions are not simply a matter of choice. OTOH, the ability to

change our

> emotional state by choosing to interpret outside stimulus

differently, argues

> for emotion as a choice. Interesting topic with great ramifications

for those

> dealing with emotional compulsions to use substances self

destructively.

>

> Peace,

>

[Guest guest]

I cannot agree with this formulation. There are plenty of people who,

if fully informed (if that is even possible) would be unable to

evaluate that information to foresee consequences.

I think, too, that any woman who has raised a child would have to say

that the ability to experience emotion comes long before the ability

to make cognitive decisions. What the interplay between the two may

be after the second ability develops is murkier. It should not be

forgotten, either, that even very intelligent and well-informed

children are not able to assess the consequences of what they may do.

This is considered to be part of the reason that teenagers commit

suicide -- they know that death is forever, but they can't really

conceptualize that.

We should consider a matter of national shame that most of the people

on our death rows have below average IQ's, and many of those will

never be able to reason beyond a child of a certain age. Equally, we

should be ashamed of how we are treating our children who are

conceived of as having committed criminal acts. It is far from clear

that these children are capable of forming the intent to commit a

criminal act.

>

> Would it be fair to say, while we are 100% responsible for our

choices, we

> are not completely responsible for how well informed those choices

are? I would

> also agree with you, in that someone who died of congenital heart

failure surly

> did not " choose " to die. Whether people " choose " to be

depressed/sad seems to

> entail far more complex questions concerning the relationship

between our

> cognitive processes and our emotional state. While I make decisions

that

> clearly lead to feelings of many kinds, this does not rule out other

> uncontrollable processes effecting my emotional state. If I make

choices which

> lead to my experiencing sadness without awareness of the eventual

consequences,

> have I " chosen " sadness?

> In " Broca's Brain " , Carl Sagen speculates about the development

of human

> intelligence. It seems that the ability to make cognitive choices

developed

> well after the ability to experience emotional states. This might

suggest that

> emotions are not simply a matter of choice. OTOH, the ability to

change our

> emotional state by choosing to interpret outside stimulus

differently, argues

> for emotion as a choice. Interesting topic with great ramifications

for those

> dealing with emotional compulsions to use substances self

destructively.

>

> Peace,

>

[Guest guest]

,

I really liked your response to . Didn't find it rambling at all, but

very insightful. This is a lot of what I mean by choice and responsibility.

It sounds like at some point you made a decision to seek out ways to become

more optimistic. Even if you had help, it was you who saw the importance in

moving away from pessimism and took on the challenge, the responsibility, of

learning to change the way you think. I have been able to do so as well, and

like you have gained some valuable, if not essential, skills. But you are

right, too, in saying

" where and how is a different matter " . How is one to pass it along?

Joan

> I think we are hot on the trail of some understanding here, or at

> least asking the right questions. If the following seems rambling,

> its just because I'm trying to work it out a little....

>

> Years ago I read a book about optimism. What interested me about it

> was that pessimists were more often " right " about a situation. They

> seemed to be more reality based. Optimists OTOH were frequently wrong

> in their projections, but were able to keep making the attempt that

> eventually proved fruitful. Optimists experienced the negative event

> emotionally differently than the pessimists did. A failure was more

> likely to spur another attempt for the optimists, whereas the

> pessimist would stop doing the action.

>

> I have been able to change my outlook on things from being mostly

> pessimistic to mostly optimistic. I have been successful at changing

> the way I perceived certain things in a very conscious way. I did

> have help doing this. It was learned. It is like a personal resource

> I have that I can call on to help me. (As a parent, I'd be dead meat

> without it.)

>

> Emotions are very powerful and they are NOW. One thing they always

> said in TX was that people learn to stuff their emotions so they don't

> find expression and this is one thing leading to the bottle. I think

> this can be true, but I also think that some people over-express

> emotions and cause themselves to feel even worse.

>

> Anger certainly gets a bad rep in TX and AA. But where would we be

> without it? Maybe having the ability to put your rational thought in

> harness with your emotional response is some type of answer. Your

> thoughts on this?

>

> I guess where this is leading me is to the idea of teaching, and that

> there are thinking skills that can be quantified and taught, that the

> person will then have as tools in making decisions. Where and how is

> another matter! I don't believe AA helps much in this regard as they

> discourage analytical thought and the abstinence achieved there comes

> from outside of the participant (or at least this is what they are

> taught).

>

> See you,

>

>

Re: Taxpayer Standing for Lawsuits

[Guest guest]

,

I really liked your response to . Didn't find it rambling at all, but

very insightful. This is a lot of what I mean by choice and responsibility.

It sounds like at some point you made a decision to seek out ways to become

more optimistic. Even if you had help, it was you who saw the importance in

moving away from pessimism and took on the challenge, the responsibility, of

learning to change the way you think. I have been able to do so as well, and

like you have gained some valuable, if not essential, skills. But you are

right, too, in saying

" where and how is a different matter " . How is one to pass it along?

Joan

> I think we are hot on the trail of some understanding here, or at

> least asking the right questions. If the following seems rambling,

> its just because I'm trying to work it out a little....

>

> Years ago I read a book about optimism. What interested me about it

> was that pessimists were more often " right " about a situation. They

> seemed to be more reality based. Optimists OTOH were frequently wrong

> in their projections, but were able to keep making the attempt that

> eventually proved fruitful. Optimists experienced the negative event

> emotionally differently than the pessimists did. A failure was more

> likely to spur another attempt for the optimists, whereas the

> pessimist would stop doing the action.

>

> I have been able to change my outlook on things from being mostly

> pessimistic to mostly optimistic. I have been successful at changing

> the way I perceived certain things in a very conscious way. I did

> have help doing this. It was learned. It is like a personal resource

> I have that I can call on to help me. (As a parent, I'd be dead meat

> without it.)

>

> Emotions are very powerful and they are NOW. One thing they always

> said in TX was that people learn to stuff their emotions so they don't

> find expression and this is one thing leading to the bottle. I think

> this can be true, but I also think that some people over-express

> emotions and cause themselves to feel even worse.

>

> Anger certainly gets a bad rep in TX and AA. But where would we be

> without it? Maybe having the ability to put your rational thought in

> harness with your emotional response is some type of answer. Your

> thoughts on this?

>

> I guess where this is leading me is to the idea of teaching, and that

> there are thinking skills that can be quantified and taught, that the

> person will then have as tools in making decisions. Where and how is

> another matter! I don't believe AA helps much in this regard as they

> discourage analytical thought and the abstinence achieved there comes

> from outside of the participant (or at least this is what they are

> taught).

>

> See you,

>

>

Re: Taxpayer Standing for Lawsuits

[Guest guest]

,

I really liked your response to . Didn't find it rambling at all, but

very insightful. This is a lot of what I mean by choice and responsibility.

It sounds like at some point you made a decision to seek out ways to become

more optimistic. Even if you had help, it was you who saw the importance in

moving away from pessimism and took on the challenge, the responsibility, of

learning to change the way you think. I have been able to do so as well, and

like you have gained some valuable, if not essential, skills. But you are

right, too, in saying

" where and how is a different matter " . How is one to pass it along?

Joan

> I think we are hot on the trail of some understanding here, or at

> least asking the right questions. If the following seems rambling,

> its just because I'm trying to work it out a little....

>

> Years ago I read a book about optimism. What interested me about it

> was that pessimists were more often " right " about a situation. They

> seemed to be more reality based. Optimists OTOH were frequently wrong

> in their projections, but were able to keep making the attempt that

> eventually proved fruitful. Optimists experienced the negative event

> emotionally differently than the pessimists did. A failure was more

> likely to spur another attempt for the optimists, whereas the

> pessimist would stop doing the action.

>

> I have been able to change my outlook on things from being mostly

> pessimistic to mostly optimistic. I have been successful at changing

> the way I perceived certain things in a very conscious way. I did

> have help doing this. It was learned. It is like a personal resource

> I have that I can call on to help me. (As a parent, I'd be dead meat

> without it.)

>

> Emotions are very powerful and they are NOW. One thing they always

> said in TX was that people learn to stuff their emotions so they don't

> find expression and this is one thing leading to the bottle. I think

> this can be true, but I also think that some people over-express

> emotions and cause themselves to feel even worse.

>

> Anger certainly gets a bad rep in TX and AA. But where would we be

> without it? Maybe having the ability to put your rational thought in

> harness with your emotional response is some type of answer. Your

> thoughts on this?

>

> I guess where this is leading me is to the idea of teaching, and that

> there are thinking skills that can be quantified and taught, that the

> person will then have as tools in making decisions. Where and how is

> another matter! I don't believe AA helps much in this regard as they

> discourage analytical thought and the abstinence achieved there comes

> from outside of the participant (or at least this is what they are

> taught).

>

> See you,

>

>

Re: Taxpayer Standing for Lawsuits