Who's Will

In the 12 step scheme of things, we are to bring our will into line with god's will. OK. Now for us atheistic stoics, it is even more difficult. We need to bring our will into line with reality of what happens. All our desires must go, it is total acceptance of those thing not within our control, which is most everything beyond out judgements, opinions, beliefs and the like. We are to will what happens. OK. so other than the verbiage, what is the difference?

The stoic concepts forces us into the present, accepting what is happening about us, but all the while working toward what we would like. We stoics have considered what will be necessary to be in business, the concentration and focus on the job. We know that we will need to adjust our personality to a learned sociopath consideration for others, over-polite to our clients, customers, and cut-through to our employees. We do not have the luxury of being human unless we are in an industry that does not demand performance of it's employees. There are some; the utility businesses, big oil with a true safety first concept, and the like. Most businesses are dollar driven. If you have time to lean, you have time to clean. Yes, we can control our behavior, and our personality. We can become driven.

It the program, we need to learn to let go of things beyond our control. Acceptance is the answer. The stoic say the same things for all thing beyond our control, and that occurs by bringing our will into line with what happens. OK.

Enough. Picture just because.

Worthwhile Read

http://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/stoicismtoday/2015/04/14/features-a-blueprint-for-a-philosophical-cbt/

The merger of philosophy, psychology, ethics, and nature. This sounds like the human subsystem of engineering. We watch what human do, and recognize different behavior population in the mix, but never concern ourselves with the why. We use history to predict the future, and where there is no history, we overlay similar situation and allow for more variation. Sloppy. yes, but do you have a better way? Oh, well, shit happens.

http://thelivingphilosopher.com/2015/04/14/the-stoic-link-to-animal-rights/

Some cannot separate animal rights from vegetarianism. 

On animal rights... most farmers who grow animals provide a general provide the best environment for the animals to grow, often traditional environments. Often sustainable, often near organic, often unprofitable in modern sense, too much work, to little cash, a tough way to live in a modern world. Animal death is quiet and quick; stress toughens meat and devalues the meat.  

Factory farms are profit based, and they provide the environment to make the most money. They start with genetic material, and grow genetic material, to be fed to other genetic material for money. No humanity involved. They do what is necessary to deliver economic eatable products, without regard to animal or human life. 

Now on a separate topic that is totally disconnected with animal rights...

On Veggies...No vegetarian civilization has ever existed. I know that vegetarianism make a philosophical argument but growing and physically working people suffer physically, muscle and frame, when they go veggie, and few last long. I have seen the effects. They cannot grow muscle. Pregnant ladies cannot grow strong fetuses. Some non-working people do last veggie; frequently quoted people are usually authors, non-physical workers, --- all your quotes are from non-working people. Epictetus says animals are there to serve man, and man is here to serve each other. I am not going to gamble with my physical body to support your ideology. What you do is none of my concern. Stoically, I do not care what you do.

Enough

Picture just because:

Does she think she is hidden?

Reading Philosophy

Anyone taking up reading philosophy or studying philosophy could do so for only one of four reasons:

1. To obtain credit for a course or as a pastime, or being told to.
2. To learn something intellectual to teach or pass on to others.
3. To explore and learn, and then adopt parts as a way of life, at least the shiny bits.
4. To adopt as away of life, as a disciple of the total philosophy. 

It is the taking up and living a bit of philosophy that is life changing. Now the big question is what do we want to change?

It this blog, the emphasis on change in regard to overeating and any of those characteristics that drive me (us) to overeat. This is where the stoic philosophies are useful. Some things are up to me, some are not.

 
 The Beaumont RCMP seem to be involved in an anti-drinking capagain. But can you spot the illogical  inference.

Some thing are up to me, some are not. It is illogical to promise something I cannot deliver. I can promise to never drink, or to never drive, but the result of any action I take are not entirely up to me. It is illogical to promise to arrive alive, because after not drinking, and doing the best driving I can do, arriving alive is just not up to me, so it is illogical to promise some that I cannot be assured of arriving. So much for RCMP logic or the logic of SADD, Students Against Destructive Decisions. Students; perhaps they need to take a course in logic and judgements, the foundation of decision making.

The purpose of studying philosophy is learning to improve my judgements, to see the illogic of some of my behaviors and figure out what needs to be changed. I need to figure out what needs to change in my thinking so that the behavior that I seek becomes automatic, as the behavior follows the cognitive change. (REBT)

There in lies the issue. Enough.

Too Challenging

Some discussions are just too challenging to continue. How does one prove a philosophy that works is true?

http://www.laurassoapbox.net/2015/04/do-we-know-enough-about-eating.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LauraCollinsSoapBox+%28Laura%27s+Soap+Box%29

There is no doubt that you are right on this one, prevention is a long way off, and may never be practical. That would require everyone understanding the causes, all the causes and contributing factors. Some of the problem is cultural, and how do we deal with that?

So Fred, I'm not convinced that culture is part of the problem. That's one of the problems about us all discussing this issue is we don't have common ground on things like this.

I operate under the assumption that, like OCD, eating disorder symptoms certainly reflect the culture but aren't caused by the culture. What is your belief?

It is my opinion that the cause is a chain of reasons, no specific order. Some of that chain is species specific or genetic, or likely epicgenetic, some is our philosophy, learned from our culture, society, religion, environment, and some is chemical induced from the foods, minerals, vitamins, we intake or the lack thereof. Philosophy includes our ability to withstand what we perceive as anxiety, boredom, stress, emotions, abuse, etc. Much of this is learned from the culture we live in, including the times. We have no control of this. All we can effect is what we have control or influence over.

Remove any link in the "chain" and the problem goes away. We cannot control only our environment close enough to remove the problem. We need to adapt to our environment, which is where self change or client change become important, and that is all that is practical. There are overlay philosophies that can remove these problems, but we need to be able and willing to learn and practice these philosophies. We need to give up the old personality. We take on a new personality. That is a tall order. It is the collection of personalities around us that makes up culture, along with environment in the widest sense. 

What you describe could be true. I don't know. I don't know of evidence that supports this etiology. So what do we do to come together on "prevention" when we don't agree on causation?
 
The partial list of "causes" is long, and builds up over time. Each partial cause is not enough on it's own to be a problem, but they build up, or pile up on each other to the point that there is a problem. How do we prove that? I am not about to try. To me, it is obvious. Food knowledge is necessary and not sufficient. Food addiction can happen. High glucose is a relaxant and as such is addictive. Eating disorders, compulsions, food cravings, overeating... all exist. Emotions can drive overeating I know from observing behaviors. Some people overeat out of habit. The list goes on. What is the point of struggling to show the way? I will just mind my own business and do my thing with the stoic overlay concepts.

And just because

2011 middle of May, note spider

Enough

PS, April 13, 2015

And then there are times that a blog is just so wrong by holding onto the old myths. We do what we do, and in a few years we all will be gone, and in a few years after that, all that remember us will also be gone.

http://www.laurassoapbox.net/2015/04/trolls-attacks-and-swarming.html

Changing Philosophy, Changing Behavior

Insert picture just because:

Magpie philosophy: pick out the shinny bits. We cannot step in the same river twice. Impermanence.

In this post I go off the reservation. Be aware. Some of this is based on Epictetus.
 

When we change philosophy, thinking, our behavior changes. This is quite well understood in rational emotional behavioral therapy. In cognitive behavioral therapy, the emotions take a back seat. These both depend on coming to understand what we actually think, and change our thinking pattern.

Let do a thought experiment. What would happen if we were to load a new thinking pattern onto ourselves, a hot boot if we were a computer? What would our new thinking pattern be, and how would we do that? We would need to start with some kind of assumed approximate structure of the thinking process, and load one piece at a time, until we reach some end point or run out of new concepts to load.

The object should be something like creating enough behavior change to bring about a end to the problem we are trying to solve. But should we stop there, or keep going until... some thing happens or what.

Live by virtue, start with judgement, prudence, temperance, justice, perseverance, courage, compassion. Judgement, prudence, temperance suggest some kind of wisdom/knowledge foundation, which must be upgradable as we learn more. There is a reason that the Stoics and I put judgement first, for it is reason that must be used every step of the way to sort and evaluate everything. What is up to me, and what is not, must be one of the foundation points. Judgement, to assent to propositions, to withhold judgement or to reject any proposition must be basic. Next is managing desires, aversions and the neutral position, or the zone of comfort. Impulse, toward, apathy, and away provides mobility or at least opinion of direction. This all means that I have control of my emotions, since emotion is build on expectations and delusions, grandiose expectation of how life should be, how things should go, how people should behave and the like. Anger is the emotion of frustration on those desires and expectations. Remover those expectations and anger cannot happen. Replace those expectations with real values and all the passions simply cannot a arise.

What are realistic expectations? Life contains suffering, pain, death, violence, criminal activity, thieves, vandals, free loaders, those who suffer from learned helplessness, the helpless, the reagent of lower forms of life, vice filled people,  and the like along with the good people, the virtuous. In short, expect what happens, aka, no expectations. That must be another foundation point. 

Is that enough for today?     

Just not possible

Picture just because


Compatibility between gay rights and religious freedom is just not possible. No one has the right to force their beliefs on others in a multicultural society. That is the foundation of a true multicultural society. But we are not a true multicultural society, we are some bastardization of Christian culture, and are still in the process of evolution and evolving. Other religions are trying to change our evolution away from logic.  

A true multicultural would allow anything. Islam has a duty to convert everyone to Islam or kill them if they do not want to convert. How can that work in a multicultural society?

Ultimately, the government will make the regulations, and all will need to comply. So it is trending toward equality for all in all things, which cannot work as above. So we have the right to believe anything we want, but not to express it, or to act on our beliefs. Gays have always existed, and are likely some kind of mismatch biologically. Oh well. There are those too who are sexual perverts due to chemistry and or psychological issues. We have colors, which have evolved different epigenetics. They have the right to believe as they do, but the government has the responsibility to regulate their behavior. Pushing their warped beliefs on others should not be permitted. Forcing behaviors on people who do not support a policy will not work either. If everyone has free choice of behavior, those who are opposed to other peoples actions will be at odds. It just does not work.

Canada will need to define a set of behavioral standards, and all those who are unwilling to adhere to those behavioral standards will just have to go elsewhere. Religious freedoms are less important that behavior. The obvious conclusions is that religious beliefs are likely wrong if we take the ultimate purpose of humanity to flourish. That is more evidence that there is no god.

The stoics talked about this in terms of preconceptions are different. We all agree it is right to do right, but we disagree on what is right. We as a society need to get really down to defining our purpose as humanity, and moving beyond historical belief systems. Logic, reason must be the foundation. Once we see that there are some things we control and some that we do not, this puzzle falls apart. It just suddenly starts to go together, piecemeal.  

We have a BC politician who stepped down to better be able to promote his religion and creation. In the science, today, there is no doubt that evolution occurred. We do not have all the details yet, but details are being added ever day. He is just wrong, but he has the right to argue. The fact remains he can believe whatever he wants, even if it does not fit into what we know to be logical today. We do not yet have all the answers.