Path: rambo.bobo.net!xs4all!xs4all!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!newspeer1.nac.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news-peer-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!207.155.183.80.MISMATCH!global-news-master From: inFormer@informer.org (Rev Dennis Erlich) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: "Shattered" minds Date: 25 Nov 1998 09:50:42 PST Organization: inFormer Ministry [a 501(c)3 non-profit, religious organization] "... in service of cult victims and their families." Lines: 94 Message-ID: <365d4320.3860925@news.concentric.net> References: <73fpgc$jqk@enews1.newsguy.com> <73g60i$gkq$1@nnrp03.primenet.com> <73gr9d$sd6@enews3.newsguy.com> Reply-To: informer@informer.org NNTP-Posting-Host: ts041d45.lax-ca.concentric.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 X-No-Archive: yes Xref: rambo.bobo.net alt.religion.scientology:147586 "Rebecca Hartong" : James J. Lippard wrote in message <73g60i$gkq$1@nnrp03.primenet.com>... >>And >>it's a commonly held axiom in ethics that "ought implies can"--you can't >>be held responsible for something which it is impossible for you to >>control. rebecca >Sure, and I did keep that in mind when I used the word responsible. BUT! >If *you*--the big you--are the totality of all your conscious and >unconscious mental processes, then *you*--that same big you--do have control >over all your own thoughts and feelings. But it's not really control one naturally possesses. It has to be drilled and exercised at difficult times to become an acquired control, doesn't it? >>Yes, we can. But that is usually an extended process--we can't completely >>reprogram ourselves at will. (Not with present technology, anyway.) Hubbard's empire is built on selling itself as just that tek. >We >>have to exert significant effort to change deeply ingrained habits that we >>have accumulated over years of time. > >Yes, but that we *can* make these changes does imply control, doesn't it? And conversely any outside agency that slowly and steadily makes changes in our minds, is controlling our thoughts. Wow. I never realized! >>In both the legal and philosophical arenas, it is common to distinguish >>between what's correct/true, what's reasonable to believe (or do), and >>(sometimes) what is negligent/irresponsible/unjustified to believe (or >>do). The same categories can be applied to our habits and >>unconscious-yet-modifiable processes. > >The can be applied, certainly, but the reason I originally wrote >"Ultimately, we're all responsible..." was because I was going for the very >highest level of causation. I think I may have dropped the word >"ultimately" a few times since that original statement and that hasn't >helped me clarify my meaning. At the "very highest levels of causation" I thought the Laws of Nature regulate our behavior. >>>And one more thing... the word "responsibility" carries so much moral >>>baggage. I didn't mean it in that way, but there it is. It might have >come >>>closer to what I really meant if I had written "we cause all our own >>>thoughts and feelings"... Hmm...but that doesn't sound quite right, >either. >> >>Sounds wrong to me. Some of our thoughts and feelings are produced via >>old evolved biological pathways that we have no conscious or unconscious >>control over and couldn't change if we wanted to Yes. There is a bit of hardwired behavior in humans. Especially when they herd. >Which thoughts and feelings do you have in mind here? Up to and including lots of thoughts and feelings. Elrong's idea was that they all could be re-routed. The basic feelings of familial love, loyalty, compassion, sympathy; human empathy of all types, could be replaced with his twisted pseudo-scientific rationality (make that certainty) about The True Nature of the Human Soul. Yours and mine. > (except in some >>trans-human future where body modification is rather more drastic than >>what it is today). Some (e.g., perception) is mostly the result of >>nearly-direct external stimulation and it doesn't make sense to assign an >>internal cause. > >I'm not sure that I'd call perception a thought or feeling. >It's...well...perception. Thought, one of our cognitive processes, and >feelings, our emotions, are different. Maybe you're thinking of some of the >hormonal influences on emotion? What else do you think influences emotion? Rev Dennis Erlich * * the inFormer * *