Satanic Monument In Oklahoma's Statehouse

[brandelynmarie]

yes!  Many of the saints would be classified as stage 5. Mother Teresa for example. 
although development on the order of mind scale is NOT the same thing as moral development.  You can be holy at any stage, and no stage is "better" than any other. A good metaphor is that at stage 2 you can drive an automatic. At stage 3 you can drive an automatic or a stick.  Driving a stick is no better than driving an automatic, but at stage 3 you can do both.

 
Thank you! Considering we have saints ranging from St. Joseph Cupertino to St. Thomas Aquinas, this makes sense. Perhaps they all reached a "stage 5" in moral development then. :)

 

Driving a stick is better. More control, downshift options. Rear-wheel drive with a standard transmission is the height of driving.

Someone once tried to teach me stick shift on the 18th fairway of a golf course (long story!). I drove that work vehicle in 4th gear everywhere I went that summer, including reverse! I love the idea of it, but unfortunately I can't wrap my brain around it. :(

[Winchester]

No one thinks they are their job. The very formulation of the thought "I am an accountant" indicates an understanding of the separation between the self and the tasks one performs, even if one doesn't contemplate the matter. People often aren't able to articulate concepts. It doesn't mean they fail to understand them. People will agree with statements that approximate their reality. People are used to compromise. They have to be, because the world is ultimately made up of me and they. These are distinct entities. They may be very close, but they're not the same.

 

Identifying I and job cancels out the possibility of actually being your job. It's clear that the job is a subset. It's been identified, and although most people will not bother to break the matter down, they apprehend that the tasks they perform belong to the subset 'job', within the larger set of 'I'. 

 

"I am a shrubber." If one considered himself to be shrubber, he would not bother distinguishing himself from others. But everyone identifies himself as "I", although we may decide there are others who also have their own "I", we use two different words. For a reason.They identify the actions that they perform. They simply don't have the leisure time to bother with distinctions that people who spend their lives on their tuchuses. do.

Edited May 3, 2014 by Winchester

[Lilllabettt]

How is that different from any other constitutional system with formal mechanisms for amendment?

 

 

It's not so different.

 

the key difference in the American case is the degree to which the system there was explicitly built around the idea that the law should be able to destroy itself.  Most systems are not built around an idea at all. Most modern constitutional systems are built on ideas like "freedom" or "justice."

 

It's not just a question of amendment. Many constitutional systems emphasize precedent and respect for legal tradition. There is some of that in American judicial thought as well but it is markedly circumscribed.  Amendment is too weak a description for what the American legal system was designed to do.  It was explicitly designed to be internally conflicted and unstable. It came with a giant red self-destruct button built in. 

 

This was a radical idea at the time and in many ways it still is. To this day in America most people want their legal system to be "right" and if you suggest to them that the whole goal of the American legal system is to never arrive at getting it "right," they will practically crap their pants and try to fight you. 

 

People consider that idea an existential threat to them personally -  and that is one important reason very few individuals ever reach stage 5. 

[Lilllabettt]

No one thinks they are their job. The very formulation of the thought "I am an accountant" indicates an understanding of the separation between the self and the tasks one performs, even if one doesn't contemplate the matter. People often aren't able to articulate concepts. It doesn't mean they fail to understand them. People will agree with statements that approximate their reality. People are used to compromise. They have to be, because the world is ultimately made up of me and they. These are distinct entities. They may be very close, but they're not the same.

 

Identifying I and job cancels out the possibility of actually being your job. It's clear that the job is a subset. It's been identified, and although most people will not bother to break the matter down, they apprehend that the tasks they perform belong to the subset 'job', within the larger set of 'I'. 

 

"I am a shrubber." If one considered himself to be shrubber, he would not bother distinguishing himself from others. But everyone identifies himself as "I", although we may decide there are others who also have their own "I", we use two different words. For a reason.They identify the actions that they perform. They simply don't have the leisure time to bother with distinctions that people who spend their lives on their tuchuses. do.

 

 

I  don't mean that people actually equate themselves ontologically with their job. I mean they build their self-concept around their job. Being a teacher, or a nurse, or a soldier, or a mom, or whatever, is an essential part of their identity. 

[Winchester]

Existence of the I is a biological phenomenon. Perceiving arbitrary power as an existential threat is an acknowledgment of reality.

[Winchester]

I  don't mean that people actually equate themselves ontologically with their job. I mean they build their self-concept around their job. Being a teacher, or a nurse, or a soldier, or a mom, or whatever, is an essential part of their identity. 

 

They do in a certain context. This shifts. The I doesn't exist outside of this world, and the self-concept is built around many things. People become absorbed in jobs because they're a massive part of their lives. As their lives grow, there are more parts, perhaps. You would have no I were it not for the world and the things you do, whether they're thought or gross physical actions (seeing as thought is merely physical). Yes, you do build a concept around what you do.

 

People love to classify. They have to. They can't escape classifying. What stage is that?

[Lilllabettt]

you, as an anarchist or whatever, should be on board with this, Winchester.

burn. it. down. burn. it. down. etc. Right? What am I missing. 

 

[Lilllabettt]

 

People love to classify. They have to. They can't escape classifying. What stage is that?

 

 

Actually giving up classifying is a part of stage 5. 

[Winchester]

you, as an anarchist or whatever, should be on board with this, Winchester.

burn. it. down. burn. it. down. etc. Right? What am I missing. 

 

I think the categories are a poor understanding of how people think. They might be a good way to discuss aspects of a person, but people distinguish themselves from their actions quite a bit. "That wasn't me", for instance. They might be right. There's a good case that the continuity of identity is an illusion.

[Winchester]

Actually giving up classifying is a part of stage 5. 

So this is Aquinas talking about God.

 

So it's wrong.

 

 

Classification is inescapable, even if one doesn't put it into words. Stop classifying, stop living. 

[brandelynmarie]

Think of those poor people who commit suicide because of loss...loss of job or a relationship, for example. I'm over simplifying, but on some level they are so identified with this particular job or relationship that that particular loss means they have lost themselves. Of course, there are usually many other factors involved...

[Winchester]

Of course, there are usually many other factors involved...

Yes.

 

So what does that mean?

[Lilllabettt]

So this is Aquinas talking about God.

 

So it's wrong.

 

 

Classification is inescapable, even if one doesn't put it into words. Stop classifying, stop living. 

 

 

Isn't that the guy who thought the Immaculate Conception was a bad theory? 

[PhuturePriest]

Isn't that the guy who thought the Immaculate Conception was a bad theory? 

 

I think after writing the Summa he's allowed to have it wrong once.

[brandelynmarie]

Yes.

So what does that mean?

...one example would be despair over past choices & actions...being unwilling to forgive themselves. What I'm trying to say is that the reasons behind someone commiting suicide can be many, but overidentification with someone or something &the loss of it will definitely contribute to it. My apologies if this is muddled...I'm really tired. Edited May 3, 2014 by brandelynmarie