Re: Re: Absolutist Theories

[Guest guest]

Oh .

You've got the same name as my eldest daughter. I just had to mention. She's 26 and studies to be a social anthropologist, which I rather wanted to be myself. But when she is doing it, it kind of relaxes me. I just had to make this digression!

But what I really wanted to direct your attention to was the proverb "Confusion is the Mother of Knowledge".

Actually I think knowledge is above logic, but is suppressed by the forced necessity of representing itself in logical terms.

Bjørn.

P.S.

I really don't know Ken's theory.

Could you describe it for me?

Re: Absolutist Theories

Hi Bjorn,> > But the basic question of causes can be reduced to this:> "Is behavior determined or not?"> > I think it is, but there are two rules.> > 1. All behavior is determined on the individual basis.> > 2. The rules for every individual can not be applied as a general rule/law.> > Hope this can clarify your dispute ;-).He, he, he, he! I wondered if anyone would call me on that aspect of it - the paradox of absolutism vs relativism. If I say I am a "relativist," I am an "absolutist."However, I do think that, relatively speaking, Ken's theories are absolutist.See you,

[Guest guest]

Oh .

You've got the same name as my eldest daughter. I just had to mention. She's 26 and studies to be a social anthropologist, which I rather wanted to be myself. But when she is doing it, it kind of relaxes me. I just had to make this digression!

But what I really wanted to direct your attention to was the proverb "Confusion is the Mother of Knowledge".

Actually I think knowledge is above logic, but is suppressed by the forced necessity of representing itself in logical terms.

Bjørn.

P.S.

I really don't know Ken's theory.

Could you describe it for me?

Re: Absolutist Theories

Hi Bjorn,> > But the basic question of causes can be reduced to this:> "Is behavior determined or not?"> > I think it is, but there are two rules.> > 1. All behavior is determined on the individual basis.> > 2. The rules for every individual can not be applied as a general rule/law.> > Hope this can clarify your dispute ;-).He, he, he, he! I wondered if anyone would call me on that aspect of it - the paradox of absolutism vs relativism. If I say I am a "relativist," I am an "absolutist."However, I do think that, relatively speaking, Ken's theories are absolutist.See you,

[Guest guest]

Oh .

You've got the same name as my eldest daughter. I just had to mention. She's 26 and studies to be a social anthropologist, which I rather wanted to be myself. But when she is doing it, it kind of relaxes me. I just had to make this digression!

But what I really wanted to direct your attention to was the proverb "Confusion is the Mother of Knowledge".

Actually I think knowledge is above logic, but is suppressed by the forced necessity of representing itself in logical terms.

Bjørn.

P.S.

I really don't know Ken's theory.

Could you describe it for me?

Re: Absolutist Theories

Hi Bjorn,> > But the basic question of causes can be reduced to this:> "Is behavior determined or not?"> > I think it is, but there are two rules.> > 1. All behavior is determined on the individual basis.> > 2. The rules for every individual can not be applied as a general rule/law.> > Hope this can clarify your dispute ;-).He, he, he, he! I wondered if anyone would call me on that aspect of it - the paradox of absolutism vs relativism. If I say I am a "relativist," I am an "absolutist."However, I do think that, relatively speaking, Ken's theories are absolutist.See you,

[Guest guest]

I concur with your intimation that parents are often seen as the cause of

everything. I am a psychiatric nurse in addiction services and I too am tired

of constant reference to family of origin stuff. It's all a bit tired and

trite if you ask me.

Just thought I'ld let you know.

[Guest guest]

I concur with your intimation that parents are often seen as the cause of

everything. I am a psychiatric nurse in addiction services and I too am tired

of constant reference to family of origin stuff. It's all a bit tired and

trite if you ask me.

Just thought I'ld let you know.

[Guest guest]

I concur with your intimation that parents are often seen as the cause of

everything. I am a psychiatric nurse in addiction services and I too am tired

of constant reference to family of origin stuff. It's all a bit tired and

trite if you ask me.

Just thought I'ld let you know.

[Guest guest]

Dear .

You said about Ken's theories:

"I think Ken believes that all severe alcohol abusers were abused or traumatized as young children. He wrote a book called "The Real AA" that debunks the "alcoholism as disease" theory and is a critical analysis of the AA group experience. I agree with nearly everything else in the book except the analysis of why adults drink, which I believe is impossible to determine with any type of accuracy. I objected to the emphasis on early childhood primarily because of my experiences parenting young children and feel that the examples he gives do not prove his point (and I'm tired of hearing that parents are the cause of every negative in the world, so do have a stake in it). ;^)Quite possibly Ken sees his theory differently than this. We have been arguing about it for the last week, but I am ready to give up and move onto something else.Thanks for responding!"

Actually I think this discussion is very interesting and important, but the answers are not easy fetched, why I think armed positions are counterproductive for recognition.

Here are my thougts on the subject.

First of all. The cultural aspect cannot be unerestimated.

In a cultural sense all infants, no matter of race, could be considered "tabula rasa"'s. The genes determining the color of the skin are for example only four, and the genetic similiarity between a right wing WASP could easily be more alike that of a person from Rwanda than from a person within his own breed. The number of genes of the human race is only twice the number of genes in the banany fly. And then the flower (Danish translation) "Easter Lilly" has more than the double of human genes.

The main conclusion among experts after finishing "The Human Genome Project" is that genes have a lower explanatory value than thought before. In their conclusions

they explicit mention "Alcoholism" as an example of what genes can not explain.

This means that every child on earth is completely innocent and without guilt born into a cultur and a social context.

It is my conviction that the experiences through the first 5 to 6 years moulds the child decisively in more respects than we are able to mention.

In that sense, of course, childhood experiences in a broad sense are very important.

From this of course follows that a specific behavior cannot result in specific consequences.

For example.

There is difference in consequence between being beated as a child in Denmark, USA, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Italy and Borneo.

In USA and Denmark it is statistically attached to "Alcoholism", but not in Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

In Turkey physical punishment is a part of the cultural codex, and alcohol is strictly forbidden in Saudi Arabia.

But within what we could could call Westerns countries, childhood experiences seems to have a tremendous effect on outcomes concerning alcohol and drug problems.

Therefore there is no facit list, but every single person must have to be understood differently. Culture and experience.

Best

Bjørn

[Guest guest]

Dear .

You said about Ken's theories:

"I think Ken believes that all severe alcohol abusers were abused or traumatized as young children. He wrote a book called "The Real AA" that debunks the "alcoholism as disease" theory and is a critical analysis of the AA group experience. I agree with nearly everything else in the book except the analysis of why adults drink, which I believe is impossible to determine with any type of accuracy. I objected to the emphasis on early childhood primarily because of my experiences parenting young children and feel that the examples he gives do not prove his point (and I'm tired of hearing that parents are the cause of every negative in the world, so do have a stake in it). ;^)Quite possibly Ken sees his theory differently than this. We have been arguing about it for the last week, but I am ready to give up and move onto something else.Thanks for responding!"

Actually I think this discussion is very interesting and important, but the answers are not easy fetched, why I think armed positions are counterproductive for recognition.

Here are my thougts on the subject.

First of all. The cultural aspect cannot be unerestimated.

In a cultural sense all infants, no matter of race, could be considered "tabula rasa"'s. The genes determining the color of the skin are for example only four, and the genetic similiarity between a right wing WASP could easily be more alike that of a person from Rwanda than from a person within his own breed. The number of genes of the human race is only twice the number of genes in the banany fly. And then the flower (Danish translation) "Easter Lilly" has more than the double of human genes.

The main conclusion among experts after finishing "The Human Genome Project" is that genes have a lower explanatory value than thought before. In their conclusions

they explicit mention "Alcoholism" as an example of what genes can not explain.

This means that every child on earth is completely innocent and without guilt born into a cultur and a social context.

It is my conviction that the experiences through the first 5 to 6 years moulds the child decisively in more respects than we are able to mention.

In that sense, of course, childhood experiences in a broad sense are very important.

From this of course follows that a specific behavior cannot result in specific consequences.

For example.

There is difference in consequence between being beated as a child in Denmark, USA, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Italy and Borneo.

In USA and Denmark it is statistically attached to "Alcoholism", but not in Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

In Turkey physical punishment is a part of the cultural codex, and alcohol is strictly forbidden in Saudi Arabia.

But within what we could could call Westerns countries, childhood experiences seems to have a tremendous effect on outcomes concerning alcohol and drug problems.

Therefore there is no facit list, but every single person must have to be understood differently. Culture and experience.

Best

Bjørn