A "MIS-EDUCATION OF THE MASSES - Do we listen to validate what we already think?"

The comment below is a perception from a viewer who posted it on Sean Hannitys’ blog site regarding a Cspan webcast called GOVERNMENT AND WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION .

The Federalist Society topic was wealth redistribution as a part of a Law Convention seminar. The web commenter's reflections regarding the program seem to illustrate an example (1 example) of a previous conversation I had regarding how people tend to listen for slant toward their own current perspectives and are left to remain there in their attitudes(perception), though they believe themselves "objective." The opportunity to gain a disparate perception is lost.

Viewer of the webcast comment: I just finished viewing the last 45 minutes of this program on CSPAN and the final question and debate section was excellent. I don't remember their names, but a brilliant University of Chicago professor puts several big time slams on a liberal commie Yale professor. Mark Levin fans will appreciate the UofC professor's references to Hume, Locke, Smith, Natural Law etc, Also Forbes was great and SEIU's Andy Stern was a typical double-speaking union boss as you would expect... I don't see how Forbes could bare sitting next to that scum for such a long time!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe there are opportunities for added perspective by listening to those who don’t necessarily agree with say our own perception. For instance, President Barack Obama is illustrating that via his administration's perspective to have conversation with other nations whose perceptions differ from those of his or our own but are based on their own perspectives. I believe his administration's approach is laudable. I do not believe it is an indictment upon intellect or ideology but is rather enlightenment. Education and its application the means in which we are illumined to resolve our differences.

We should learn to question ourselves why we think what we think; how we came to believe what we think; how the decision to think what we think results in the consequences we experience; and finally, whether the results from what we think produced the desired intentioned outcome. If it doesn't, we can change what we think. In order to change what we think, diversity of thought is essential. I believe this was the main reason that the invited speakers were ideologically as disparate as they were. They wanted to "mix-it-up" to see what became of it.

For the general relativity to perspective of the problems facing distribution of wealth, I believe history shows that concentrating wealth amongst a few produces wide-spread discord amongst the many. It retards equal economic opportunity, effectively killing The American Dream since the wealthy tend to keep the wealthy wealthiest. Call it a growing greed mentality. As the middle class is eroded spirally downward, they tend to blame the poor for being poor. To paraphrase Dr. Martin L. King, how can you expect a poor man to pull himself up by his bootstraps when he doesn’t own any boots?

In the second edition of POWERHOUSE HILL™ I addressed perspective patterns determine perception of the reality we experience. The prevailing pattern of perspective of the listening audience was one surrounding law, since this was a “Law Conference.” Law perspective provided the constraining context for the forum – Government and the Redistribution of Wealth. The opportunity presented was the different perspectives – natural law, governmental liberal historical and governmental conservative historical law, financial historical law, and labor historical law.

The television audience, as well as some who were present in the arena, are not necessarily so constrained to listen to differing views but rather are susceptible to listening for validation of what they currently think. Of course, the speakers too are susceptible to the same, as we found out from the Q&A session where debate was very lively and mostly defensive.

I believe for some of the speakers, in their private confines of research, a more open-minder approach will prevail. At least I hope so. When we go through life merely seeking validation through others who may think or see things the same way that we see things, we are not inclined to engage and wrestle with the differing perceptions and the differing perspectives that cause them.; such as – “Whether your viewpoint would be the same if your life condition was one that was substantively and materially less? It seems this wrestling process is the means toward what's noble in us and is what I deem to be Education to us. Everything else seems indoctrinal and unfit for civility. What do you think?

"The test of our progress is not
whether we add more to the abundance
of those who have much;
it is whether we provide enough
for those who have too little."
– Franklin D. Roosevelt
- igman'111309

Other info on Wealth Gap

(1) Across the Great Divide The Wealth Gap Challenges American Ideals - by Molly Lanzarotta

An extreme example of the growth of the wealth gap is found in the wage gap between executives and workers. While the average worker's pay in 2000 was lower than in 1980, adjusting for inflation, CEO pay was 10 times higher. In 1999, CEOs made 458 times as much as production and non-supervisory workers. If minimum wage had risen during the 1990s as rapidly as CEO pay, it would have been $24.13 an hour by 1999 instead of $5.15. Less in the realm of fantasy, if wages had at least kept pace with productivity, which rose 46.5 percent from 1973 to 1998, the median wage would have risen to $17.27 an hour, rather than $11.29, giving $12,438 more a year to full-time workers. So why are we complacent or in denial about what is no longer just a gap between rich and poor, but rather an ever-widening gap between the mega-rich and everyone else?

(1) Across the Great Divide The Wealth Gap Challenges American Ideals - by Molly Lanzarotta
________________________________________

UNCHAIN THE BRAIN

(Photo of a slave collar meant to incarcerate the body)
UNCHAIN THE BRAIN: Your Background Can Create Perspective and Perspective Can Create Patterns in Your Life

Recently I was asked by a respected educator, “what can THE CANDLE GROUP do to address the state of our children today?”

I briefly thought about the question and uttered, “the problem with the youth is the same as the problem with society at large - the patterns of their perspective which formulates their patterns of perception is at fault. Those thought patterns bring them to where they are currently and better thought patterns will take them from where they are to places that will serve them better. Patterns are represented to our mind as images. If we envision negative image patterns, we will end up with negative behavioral patterns. If we envision fearful patterns, those fears will retard us. We must address and commit to change the pathology (pattern) images of their/our perspective as we attempt to educate.”

My answer may have appeared to come from the top of my head, but it hadn’t. For days, I had been meditating on this matter, after learning about the tragedy of the beating death of a young 16 year old student - Derrion Albert. He lost his life to some senseless violence. I'd seen the video of the violence while channel surfing, briefly stopping at CNN News with Rick Sanchez. I saw enough of it once and I have no desire to see it again. I do not wish to be voyeuristic.

As Mr. Sanchez discussed the matter, he seemed preoccupied with the idea of whether to charge the apprehended suspects as adults, as if that would represent a solution to the systemic problem of teen violence.

I’d like to advocate each of us taking on the larger issue of what can be done to address this seeming epidemic in our society and more directly within our community. Where stress and strife are allowed to fertilize, the most vulnerable, which are our youth, will be a most attractive feeding-ground for aberrant behavior. Though I am addressing teen violence, also look at the volatility presently played out in the right-wing of the political arena of our society. It too is one and the same problem which begins with ignorance. We all should announce a third war for Americans; A WAR UPON IGNORANCE.

Of these two groups, and there are many more, one is adults behaving like ill-informed children. The other is children behaving like ill-trained and ill-informed children. Children must first be trained with good habits before they can be informed. As we look around us at society, we see adults that are willing to argue about "the right to life of the unborn," but don’t seem to "care about that life after it is born and the health care problems it faces." I argue for the right to abundant life for the living – Heavenly Life for the Living, as spoken of in James Allen's "The Heavenly Life." We cannot become double-minded in this matter and I'm willing to leave myself open to criticism for saying this. I believe I am fortified and resolved to the task to debate my position. I am taking AIM™ and assuming some responsibility.

This present intended mindset to accept responsibility for the youth in our society in order to address solutions for the endemic problems within it is necessary. I am betting that there are lots of others who feel like I do and are ready to lift their individual and collective voices and take thoughtful actions to redeem our youth. Albert Einstein once said, "we cannot solve tomorrows problems with the same thinking that caused the problem." We need to take fresh "look-sees" to gain fresh perspectives. Often times, this requires new or refreshed leadership with new or refreshed vision-models for construction. Those who have been in the fight for a long time may have grown weary. Perhaps you have a thought-out vision to convey as help and are willing to work for this cause. Convey it and be open to critique. I would rather get this solution right that to "be right" as the solution to this social problem.

My heart is heavy as I empathize with the parents and family of Derrion Albert as I offer prayer for healing. Only God can nurture their hurt. Their loss could have just as likely been our own loss of a child. Just think about the idea of losing your own child to such senselessness. Now we as instruments of God's Grace must reach out to them and support them through this injustice. Derrion’s death must not go in vain so we must punish the guilty and work harder and smarter to redeem the youth who are left and open to the circle of influence of the ill-trained and ill-informed.

So we proceed on to those perpetrators of the violence and those who added kindling to incite the unenlightened; they also are victims of ignorance, still left alive. They are 16, 17, 18, and 19. They live in Anywhere USA. The patterns for their behavior have continually been noted as “at-risk” with attitudes so surely predictable to emulate mankind at his lowest state; unable to help himself except to act-out violently and elicit rage against some other. That behavior stems from perverted perspectives and patterns upon life itself; possibly morphing into nihilist behavior (someone who rejects all theories of morality or religious belief).

“It ain’t what you think that gets you in trouble;
it’s what you think that ain’t so. - unknown

And I, an ordinary and redeemed man who is guided also with a mission for THE CANDLE GROUP, begin first by asking of the Church as the body of Christ to which I am included as a part, to defortify itself from its edifices and release its legions upon the unenlightened youth and bring the hope of the church, Jesus, to them. He is not insurance. In Him there is refuge. In Him there is assurance.

We are really one village all across this world – this nation - inside every community, every haven urban and suburban – every burrow and township – every county and parish – every church, cathedral, synagogue and mosque; we all have one Divine Message of God and that is to Love as in taking heart-felt thoughtful action to apply Love; Love through enlightenment is the simple solution. Yet simple things are the most beneficial and difficult to get across as being helpful to most people.

What we are witnessing in our land is strife with a capital S. Strife is a lack of discord: lack of agreement and harmony. It is evidenced in bitter and heated conflict; sometimes often violent dissension. We know it also as stress, which is tension that can cause a state of mental or emotional strain or suspense.
Faulty perspectives usually begin with our background, where patterns are formulated. When we adopt those patterns in practice, they become our paradigm or the way in which we see the world. The patterns of our perspectives can lead us into and keep us into dark places. The patterns of our perspectives can lead us into and keep us into light places. When we don’t see evidence of light places, we are susceptible to dark places. This is the state of being of these youths who acted senselessly in the emotion of their collective moment.

Not all the youth of today act in this manner and we must take note of that fact. Actually, most of then don’t act in this fashion at all. But because they, like we as youth, are easily influenced and enticed by what is “cool; def; sweet” as defined by others, counter-cultures are ripe to be formed and suck them right up.

Many adults, from these counter-culture are now parents are not exempted from these patterns simply because of age. If we grow up in the counter-culture, - any counter-culture - it can become a governing part of your life. As earlier stated, background creates perspectives where patterns are formulated. In fact, as many educators will attest, we now know these very parents to be as big a source for the problem of reaching the children in order to teach the children. No responsibility is taken for the children.

So what must we in society do as we accept responsibility beyond righteous indignation? We must again take thoughtful and radical action to apply Love and teach others how to love first themselves and then how to love others. We must become change agents and commit to radical changes to enlighten in faith, in education, in philosophy, in religion, and in science. Almost ten years ago with some consternation, we accepted the calling to become an agent for radical change. We started with ARCSINBUSINESS since that was the initial focus and the namesake of our website www.arcsinbusines.com. ARCS means Advocates for Radical ChangeS. Lot's of changes.

But little did we truly know how far our journey would lead beyond business. Sometimes when you begin seeking your Personal Legend, you get lost and find a truly great treasure. That's what happened. We went on to discover and redefine our arc as tiny sparks that can light larger fires of illumination as arcsineducation, arcsinfaith, arcsinphilosophy, arcsinscience, arcsinspirituality, and even arcsinreligion.

ARCS are sparks or fresh energy not ensconced in the past but evolutionary like the trees growing and changing their colors. - New insights toward learning; broader beliefs to apply what we learn through conscience practice; by doing what we truly believe will produce a better belief system and one in which we can have more confidence. Not simply throwing out but learning more about the true power of our belief system. There really isn't anything new under the sun. Just additional ways to look at problems and solutions.

Will you give some thought to what I've just said? Will you spend some time with what was said? Will you pay attention (spend; sacrifice) and think about what was just said, drawing upon your own internal observations about how you currently direct your own attention one subjective thought at a time. This is THE LAW OF ATTRACTION at work within you.
This is how we will reach and teach the youth of today. They want to see results of their belief. To product that, they must understand the processes better than we've shown them in the past. When attention is focused, they will discover more about that subject to which their attention is focused. Their thoughts will formulate around that subject matter. They will begin to attract broader thoughts or more accurately thoughtforms, that conform or match the vibration frequency of their desired intention. The key is where they allow their attention to be placed. Focus is powerful practice. You are the driver of your attention. There are no exceptions to this process.

Energy flows where attention goes. Where is your attention taking you? Is it where you desire to go? If not, redirect your attention to your intention and focus in the new direction. Doesn't this make perfect sense?

THE CANDLE GROUP’S AIM™ program is a series of Personal Development workshops that focus on the thought/attention span and how we use them (thoughtforms) to better our lives. We discuss the following:

THE CANDLE GROUP’S AIM™ program is a series of Personal Development workshops that focus on the conscious thought/attention span model to improve life consequences. During the workshops we do the following:

1. Create awareness to the thought manifestation process. (New knowledge)
2. Identify the information base currently being utilized? (Old Knowledge)
3. Uncover thoughts/beliefs about information being used/offered? (Self-talk)
4. Determine the requirement for the use of the information? (Environment)
5. Discuss how information is processed within the mind? (Attention/Inattention)
6. Determine the habitual pattern at hand. (Desirable/Undesirable outcome)
7. Determine a better alternative habitual pattern. (Desirable outcome)
8. Identify how you will feel with the outcome of the alternative pattern.
9. Focus on the alternative habitual pattern? (Practice)
10. Believe what you practice. (Alternative belief)
11. Do what you practice. (Belief system)
12. Analyze the results (Evaluate)
13. Repeat from step

You can TAKE AIM™ today at one of our CREATE BETTER DAYS WORKSHOPS.
TURN ON, TUNE IN, AND TAKE OFF!

Why does everything have to be so competitive?

“Why does everything have to be so competitive”,
asked a young boy of 14 years to his golf instructor?

The instructor provided an answer that left himself (Instructor)unsettled within his own heart-mind. Introspectively he perceived at the core level of his soul that there was more to the answer than he had provided.



This is a really beautiful question that illumines the intellect of the boy asking the question as well as the instructor seeking to provide an answer . Whether it was innocently asked or whether it seeks answers deeper than surface level, it should be regarded as serious inquiry. The boy should first be congratulated for asking it; he seeks understanding of a far more broad issue about human behavior and the social interactions between them as they exist. We are left with sadness and gladness.


Civilization is greatly influenced by competitions whether between individuals or in social organizations. I’d like to explore the collective abstract nature of the human being as it is busy being human; and how that nature is influenced as it inter-relates with other human beings within the social organization, causing new synthesis and new questions within himself. One of those questions is competitiveness to excel and rise within the stratification of the social organization.

Life itself is all about the raising of questions and not simply about the answers found. No satisfactory answer will end the above question. Every answer will come with yet another question attached to it.

So why then do we need competition as a purpose? Is there indeed a contest taking place when we compete or do we perceive that a contest is taking place, and therein create competition falsely when outside the realm of an actual contest? Are contests necessary? Do they naturally occur when two or more human beings relate to each other, or do they occur within one human being as he seeks to exist? Is it competitiveness when one human seeks food and is forced to compete with non-humans for the food? “This serious question requires serious and deep thought”, I spoke as I laughed at myself seeking answers.

The cognitive contemplation of our own perception of this question seems to be a good starting place. The word contemplation comes from the Latin root templum (from Greek temnein: to cut or divide), and means to separate something from its environment, and to enclose it in a sector. Contemplation is the Latin translation of Greek 'theory' (theoria). The word perception is the process of attaining awareness or understanding of sensory information. It is a representation of what is perceived. It is a basic component in the formation of a concept.

What is the nature of competition in a contest or perceived contest?

It can be supposed in the direct sense of the initial question, that the arena for the competition will become a lead for us to consider. Confined to the bound parameters of the stated purpose for a contest, should lead us to the obvious answer of who is best at a particular moment in time. Yet we know future competitions are forth-coming. It seems merely a precursor; a derivative of the earliest nature of mankind’s instinct to survive. Who is fittest to live, morphed now as who is fittest to win; a pathology (disease) or phobia (disorder) that has become normalcy in our society today?

In abstraction, there can only be disparate competition when there is but one individual competing with another classification. There then is no need of comparison; only the knowledge of the accomplishment. Competitiveness appears to gain aberrant psyche-sociological relevance within the realm of like beings relating to each other (s) for dominance, subjugation, or reward in knowing.

Sociology is defined here as the study of society, human social interaction, and the rules and processes that bind and separate people not only as individuals, but as members of associations, groups, and institutions.

The Latin root for the verb "to compete" is "competere", which means "to seek together" or "to strive together" However, even the general definition stated above is not universally accepted.

Social theorists, most notably Alfie Kohn and cooperativists in general, argue that the traditional definition of competition is too broad and vague. Competition which originates internally and is biologically motivated can and should be defined as either amoral competition or simply the survival instinct, i.e. behavior which is neither good nor bad, but exists to further the survival of an individual or species (for instance hunting), or behavior which is coerced (for instance self-defense). Social Darwinists, however, state that competition is not only moral, but necessary for the survival of the species.

It would seem that to get to the root of competitive nature, one would need to explore the nature of the true self within an individual (inside influenced) and the nature of the egocentric self of an individual (outside influenced); I am what I have; I am what I do; I am what others think of me. This will edge on the age-old existential question of why do I as an individual exist? Can I exist without competing with another to exist?

The contest or competition between individuals is a representation of who is best fit to lead as stratified within the parameters of the contest. It nurtures the ego of the winner and extracts from the ego of the loser (s) who is left with the desire to become a winner and therein is nurtured for future competitiveness in order that others shall think well of him as winner and he then will deserve to think well of himself through proof of competition.

The competition is neither good nor bad. It is a perception of reality. It pushes the envelope of possibility to excel beyond the current level of achievement. It provides drive or motivation that is realized and celebrated when comparing non-disparate (similar or like) things to another. For instance: a race contest between a human and a cheetah could provide celebration only within one class of the participants and would be a non-valid contest, though the winner would certainly be the cheetah.

Now then, we are left with the question of how one looks at himself in existence. Humans cannot exist alone without social interaction with something else. Now slowly ruminate on that for a good while.

Does he (human) really exist except in relation to something else, animate or inanimate? How does he know the truth, excepting in relation to something else? Can one state truth alone without relating to something else? What would be the need of stating truth if he were alone without perception of any one or anything else?

In competition between humans, do humans compete for what is true and therein for the reward of settling it, which is having others have adoration for he who revealed and attained the truth?

I believe an answer to the initial question asked is “that the root nature of competition is a quest for what is true which is a changing thing. But the reward for finding what is true (adulation) is the desire to be loved, where truth is also found. It is a quest for Love.” Its’ absolute answer can only be found when we find ABSOLUTE TRUTH. There we will find ABSOLUTELOVE; Finding also how to love ourselves.

The type of love that is received (adoration and adulation) from a contest will not provide a satisfactory answer to the longing for truth and love, because it does not reach the level of ABSOLUTE TRUTH or HIGHEST TRUTH. AGAPELOVE or GODLYLOVE is LOVE without the need of reciprocity because there is nothing one can do to deserve it. ITISGIVENONLYBYTHECREATOR.

You can stop here if you wish. I believe I’ve supported my answer to the question, which ends with GOD. Or you can journey on with me to a preferred stopping point that deals with the different natures of love.. We are not seeking ending but rather, understanding. Remember, life is about the questions raised; not the answers found; because each answer comes with yet another question..

So what kind of truth/love would need comparison or a contest in order to gain it?

I realize I’m taking the original question much farther than the initial inquiry. That’s the way these types of questions are. So let’s continue to explore the socio-philosophic approach to the question anyway and see where we are led. I’m having fun right now and we can laugh together about the journey later, ok? Let’s see if we can gain some benefit for the additional inquiry – cui bono (who benefits)?

Additional research contextualized for the support the answer just given:

Philosophy ( philo is Greek for love, sophy or sophic relates to the truth or learning) means love of truth or learning. I suppose the philosophic approach is a methodology design to seek the truth of a matter. Methodologies vary.

Philosophy is defined as:
1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.
From Greek (This word philosophy originated in Greece )

To the ancient Greeks we owe our love of wisdom. Or at least the word philosophy, which is the same thing, phil meaning "love" and sophy meaning "wisdom." Combined, the two elements mean both a love of wisdom and a desire for it. In English, philosophy first appears in writing as early as 1340, when it is explained for the benefit of readers unfamiliar with the word as "love of wysdome."

Wisdom is a word native to English, but we had no term for the love of learning or the desire to gain wisdom. Like the rest of the Western world, we learned that from the Greeks.

Greek is one of the great contributors to English, and philosophy a great example of the Greek contribution. Like many other Greek words, it came to us not directly from the Greek but first through Latin and then through French, the two languages that have contributed even more than Greek to the English we know today.

The two parts of philosophy recombine themselves in numerous other words. Phil- is found, for example, in philanthropy, the love of humankind; philharmonic, loving music; philodendron, a plant that loves to hang around trees (dendron being tree); and Philadelphia, or the love of brother or sister. We are so comfortable with Greek that we can use it to make stunt words such as philopatrodomania, or the mania that comes from loving one's homeland, that is, homesickness. Phil with an added e also appears at the end of dozens of words from Greek like bibliophile, a lover of books; ailurophile, a lover of cats; oenophile, a lover of wine; Anglophile, a lover of things English, and Francophile, a lover of things French; and pedophile, one with a (perverted) love of children.

The soph part of philosophy also finds itself in English words, notably sophisticated, full of a certain kind of wisdom; and sophomore, combining the words for "wise" and "foolish" to represent the state of mind of a second-year college student.

It is thanks to the Greeks that we have schools and scholars in the first place; both of those English words are from the Greek. Even today, scholarly fields of study are named in Greek, using the suffix logy from logos meaning "word" or "discourse." The three hundred logys in present-day English include archaeology, discourse about old things; biology, discourse about life; oology, discourse about eggs; neurology, discourse about the nervous system; geology, discourse about the earth; psychology, discourse about the mind; theology, discourse about God; eschatology, discourse about the last days of the world; graphology, discourse about writing; cosmetology, discourse about cosmetics; terminology, discourse about terms; and criminology, demonology, ufology, and sexology, which need no introduction. And then, we have philology, the love of words, of discourse, of learning, the name formerly given to scholarship in language and literature.

English has many other words of Greek origin as well, everything from catalog (1460) to zeal (1382). All told, about 5 percent of the general English vocabulary comes from Greek. Even today, science and technology use elements of Greek and Latin to construct new English words. One hybrid example, is television, which uses tele (meaning "distant") from Greek and vision from Latin.

Like English, Greek is an Indo-European language. It is the sole member of the Hellenic branch. Modern Greek is spoken by about eleven million inhabitants of modern Greece. But it is the classical language, the ancestor of modern Greek, that is the basis for our philosophical borrowings.

Philia: [Greek, from philos, beloved, loving.] Philo means love or liking. In his Rhetoric, Aristotle defines Philo as "wanting for someone what one thinks good, for his sake and not for one's own, and being inclined, so far as one can, to do such things for him" (1380b36–1381a2)

Types of philia

Aristotle divides friendships into three types, based on the motive for forming them: friendships of utility, friendships of pleasure and friendships of the good.
Friendships of utility are relationships formed without regard to the other person at all. Buying merchandise, for example, may require meeting another person but usually needs only a very shallow relationship between the buyer and seller. In modern English, people in such a relationship would not even be called friends, but acquaintances (if they even remembered each other afterwards). The only reason these people are communicating is in order to buy or sell things, which is not a bad thing, but as soon as that motivation is gone, so goes the relationship between the two people unless another motivation is found. Complaints and quarrels generally only arise in this type of friendship.

At the next level, friendships of pleasure are based on pure delight in the company of other people. People who drink together or share a hobby may have such friendships. However, these friends may also part--in this case if they no longer enjoy the shared activity, or can no longer participate in it together.

Friendships of the good are ones where both friends enjoy each other's characters. As long as both friends keep similar characters, the relationship will endure since the motive behind it is care for the friend. This is the highest level of phila, and in modern English might be called true friendship.

"now it is possible for bad people as well [as good] to be friends to each other for pleasure or utility, for decent people to be friends to base people, and for someone with neither character to be a friend to someone with any character. Clearly, however, only good people can be friends to each other because of the other person himself; for bad people find no enjoyment in one another if they get no benefit." (1157a18–21)

Not all bonds of philia involves reciprocity Aristotle notes. Some examples of these might include love of father to son, elder to younger or ruler to subject. Generally though, the bonds of philia are symmetrical.[4]
Self-sufficiency and philia

Aristotle recognizes that there is an apparent conflict between what he says about philia and what he says elsewhere (and what is widely held at the time) about the self-sufficient nature of the fulfilled life:
"it is said that the blessedly happy and self-sufficient people have no need of friends. For they already have [all] the goods, and hence, being self-sufficient, need nothing added." (1169a4–6)

He offers various answers. The first is based on the inherent goodness of acting for and being concerned for others ("the excellent person labours for his friends and for his native country, and will die for them if he must" [1169a19–20]); thus, being a wholly virtuous and fulfilled person necessarily involves having others for whom one is concerned — without them, one's life is incomplete:

"the solitary person's life is hard, since it is not easy for him to be continuously active all by himself; but in relation to others and in their company it is easier." (1170a6–8)

Aristotle's second answer is: "good people's life together allows the cultivation of virtue" (1170a12). Finally, he argues that one's friend is "another oneself", and so the pleasure that the virtuous person gets from his own life is also found in the life of another virtuous person.
"Anyone who is to be happy, then, must have excellent friends" (1170b19).

Altruism and egoism
For Aristotle, in order to feel the highest form of philia for another, one must feel it for oneself; the object of philia is, after all, "another oneself". This alone does not commit Aristotle to egoism, of course. Not only is self-love not incompatible with love of others, but Aristotle is careful to distinguish the sort of self-love that is condemned (ascribed to "those who award the biggest share in money, honours, and bodily pleasures to themselves. For these are the goods desired and eagerly pursued by the many on the assumption that they are best" [1168b17–19]) from that which should be admired (ascribed to one who "is always eager above all to perform just or temperate actions or any other actions in accord with the virtues, and in general always gains for himself what is fine [noble, good]" [1168b25–27]).

In fact:
"the good person must be a self-lover, since he will both help himself and benefit others by performing fine actions. But the vicious person must not love himself, since he will harm both himself and his neighbours by following his base feelings." (1169a12–15)

Aristotle also holds, though, that, as Hughes puts it: "[t]he only ultimately justifiable reason for doing anything is that acting in that way will contribute to a fulfilled life."[5] Thus acts of philia might seem to be essentially egoistic, performed apparently to help others, but in fact intended to increase the agent's happiness. This, however, confuses the nature of the action with its motivation; the good person doesn't perform an action to help a friend because it will give her fulfillment; she performs it in order to help the friend, and in performing it makes both her friend and herself happy. The action is thus good both in itself and for the effect it has on the agent's happiness.[6]

igman’091909
- Altruism is an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest. I do hope my pain to look at this issue will provide some gain to us all. Cui bono?

This is my stopping point, leaving us with much to continue thinking about. All of this could be completely eroneous or as the uninitiated will likely say, bul%$*!

Notes
1. ^ And also sometimes as "love".
2. ^ Hughes, p.168n.
3. ^ Cooper, p.302
4. ^ Happiness: Personhood, Community, Purpose By Pedro Alexis Tabensky, Published by Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2003, ISBN 0754607348, 9780754607342, page 205
5. ^ Hughes, pp 173–174.
6. ^ See Hughes, pp 175–176. For an alternative view, see Kraut, chapter 2.
Sources and further reading
• Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, dual text, with translation by H. Rackham (Harvard University Press, 1934) ISBN 0-674-99081-1
• Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics trans. Terence Irwin (2nd edition; Hackett, 1999) ISBN 0-87220-464-2
• John M. Cooper, "Friendship and the Good" (The Philosophical Review 86, 1977; pp 290–315
• John M. Cooper, "Aristotle on the Forms of Friendship" (The Review of Metaphysics 30, 1976–1977, pp 619–648
References in the article are to a reprint of the preceding two papers, as "Aristotle on Friendship", in Amélie Oksenberg Rorty [ed.], Essays on Aristotle's Ethics (University of California Press, 1980) ISBN 0-520-04041-4
• Gerard J. Hughes, Aristotle on Ethics (Routledge, 2001) ISBN 0-415-22187-0
• Richard Kraut, Aristotle on the Human Good (Princeton University Press, 1989) ISBN 0-691-02071-X
• Alexander Moseley, "Philosophy of Love", The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Do You Listen To Your Thoughts? Take measured reflection upon your Self.

....from the "BROTHER CAN'T YOU HEAR ME" Series

We are not meant to always be under tutelage in life. Rather we are on a personal journey toward truth in determining what is “phat” as in good, great, and awesome; a revelation of the soul revealing truth; not as having to like what I like or see the world as I do or think as I do to define integrous truth. Integrous truth is livable truth for yourself.

Are you aware of yourself as a human being practicing "being human?" Is being human prescribed for you rather than described by you for you? Do you know what you want in life?

To get what you desire, you must know what you desire and filter it from the objective phantasmagoria of choices and plant it into the subjective fertility within your own heartmind. This is a process of LAW that cannot not work.

At some contemplative moment in life, one must examine ones life lived and determine whether it is lived consciously or unconsciously. In this I’m meaning having a reflective positive awareness of being in control of your life, as in a preemptive approach role versus someone ceaslessly telling you how your life should be, which is a reactive role approach.

The process of "free-thinking" requires extreme discipline to seek the true of the self. One must first awaken from the "walk of sleep" that so many travel. LISTEN INSIDE. In becoming aware of one's state of being, we are freeing ourselves to seek our true self as revealed through our "being," and therein discovering our true "being as a human." You are not finding something you are not; rather, you are discovering your true nature and your true self.

At conception, a prescriptive life is readied for each of us by those expecting our birth. As a growing babe, our role at first seems like that of an actor, seeking to gain favor of his audience. We begin by patterning ourselves by the most repetitive patterns we observe. Our attention becomes focused on the most repetitive patterns, such as learning who we see most; mother; then father, and so on. We hear them speaking....say da da...say da da....say da da...and then...da da...did you hear that...he said da da...da da...he said daddy.

Over time, more complex patterns occur; speech habits, food habits, clothing habits, cultural habits, etc. They occur almost "virus-like, as if you have become exposed to something." Pause a moment to give that some focused thought.

Alternatively, a descriptive life offers an active development of who we are and what we’d like to accomplish with our life lease. We formulate the pattern. Even so, there is a longing that we can't seem to explain; it seems to come from inside ourselves; it seems like some internal communication without any form, yet we seem to understand it. It's like an internal vibration or something we can't verbalize. As we are exposed to others, we speak about this communication. Then someone tells you that the source of the communication is God. It is God telling you right from wrong.

It seems like a guidance that is always within ourselves. We don't seem to need ears to hear it. We just feel it. We don't always have the courage to talk about it openly because we feel we will be judged harshly by others. So we begin to resist the monologue communication.

As we grow into adulthood, we discover conversation about God, and we become less and less afraid, and more and more inquisitive. We discover how fearful we have become, listening to others prescribe God's nature to us. Somewhere deep inside us, the prescription does not settle well. There seems to be a sort of conflicting reality that we can't explain. We long to describe it. We want to know more knowledge. We become a blended being of prescription knowledge and description knowledge. We become students of both didactic learning and dialectic learning.

I am suggesting that if you have ever experienced internal communication similar to what I've tried unsuccessfully to adequately describe, then follow your own instincts throught your internal vibe or vibration for yourself by taking a look inside, or better said, take a listen inside ourselves for the silent knowledge source that created you. LISTEN INSIDE.

If you read the Bible, you may have heard this passage referenced - If you hear His Voice, harden not your heart. -Psalm 95:7 and 8. I trust this is a reference to an inaudible, but clearly heard voice communication. The hardening of the heart referene alludes to "not being open or welcoming or fearful." This Voice for God is Holy Spirit speaking to you directly. It is internal guidance communication available to you. I have found IT best heard in humility.

Now this is a different way of looking at life; looking inside for guidance. “When we change the way we look at things,the things we look at do change as in transform or transformation.” What we begin to discover is a transformation of our thinking by revealation through our listening. When we do that, we discover more about our self; not conflicting selves but revealed self. We begin to discover our true nature, which is our true relationship to God. This pathway has been described as a journey on the Light path - out of darkness and into The Light where Truth Stands, awaiting us. Discover It for yourself and describe It for yourself. It awaits you.

Dr. Cornell West wrote “the desired intent [of our journey] is the formation of attention that is inseparable from the self - to inculcate certain habits of critical engagement that should result in the maturation of a soul. Philosophical enlightenment means taking a look to understand how you see the world. It means moving away from the superficial to the substantive; away from the frivolous to the profound."

Paideia: In ancient Greek, the word paideia (παιδεία) means "education" or "instruction." Paideia was the process of educating humans into their true form; the real and genuine human nature.

wisdom justice freedom
Parrhesia: In the classic discipline of rhetoric, parrhesia is a figure of speech described as: to speak candidly or to ask forgiveness for so speaking. The term is borrowed from the Greek παρρησία (πᾶν "all" + ῥῆσις / ῥῆμα "utterance, speech") meaning literally "to speak everything" and by extension "to speak freely," "to speak boldly," or "boldness." It implies not only freedom of speech, but the obligation to speak the truth for the common good, even at personal risk.

Philosophical enlightenment means the recalcitrance of ones own ideologies that are so branded into ones social subconscious that to be made consciously aware of them seems almost an unconscionable act of personal treason. So many of them (ideologies) are pervasive and not created of our own volition; therefore we cannot properly engage them because we are not fully aware of them. Man cannot engage that which he is not aware.

So then if we seek to increase our own awareness and not judge before understanding is gained, then we can eradicate an ideal that doesn’t coexist well with our enlightened, mature state of self-awareness, which is a state of continuous learning. That is a very worthwhile goal indeed.

A scholar is a learned person (especially in the humanities); someone who by long study has gained mastery in one or more disciplines. Scholarship is the body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their claims about the world as valid and trustworthy as possible, and to make them known to the scholarly public. It is the responsibility of a scholar to advance publically what he has found in his private confines or research and scholarship. – John Hope Franklin


History exists in three time frames: the past, the present, and the future, though some say only two; past and present. Yet we write only in the NOW. Start writing a better tomorrow today. THE CANDLE GROUP advocates Transformative Learning which leads to thinking better, seeing better, learning better, living better, and speaking well with personal maturity, both morally and spiritually. Can we truly defend that which we don’t understand? Consider this process of what to do with knowledge:

define it defend it develop it or discard it
But above all else, direct it toward yourself before it is directed toward others.

I tend to write to unveil models which emerges out of me but not created by me; directed to myself for observation and understanding, and then to speak parrhesialy of it. It seems that this very expression in writing and then verbally, exposes me to some seemingly necessary criticism. Somehow, some value is gained in a manner that I can’t adequately explain. Perhaps it’s just the search for truth that can only be reconciled to itself, will we each find Salem/Jerusalem/City of Peace. Perhaps its ineffable and we find it when we find our self purpose.

When I listen to my thoughts, which come as epiphany that I consider to be leading filters, I am likened to a magnetic antenna receiving transmissions from a non-local source, requiring me to choose which thought to focus upon so that the non local source knows how to assist me. I suppose I could consider this as purpose-driven perspective. Regardless, as in any true learning it is asked only that we consider these following filters, [3] as excerpted from an attraction regarding philosophical study, to which I attribute in the footnotes:

Interpret fairly
[The] first responsibility is to develop an accurate reading of the original text; then your criticism can begin. Focus primarily on the adequacy of the arguments which support the stated conclusions. If you disagree, you can look for the weaknesses of that support; if you agree, you can defend it against possible attacks.

Support your thesis
Don't just state your own position; make it the conclusion of a line of
reasoning. Claim only what you can prove (or are, at least, prepared to defend), and support it with evidence and argument. Philosophy is not just a list of true opinions, but the reasoned effort to provide justification.

Consider alternatives
Be sure to explore arguments on all sides of the issue you address. Of
course you will want to emphasize the reasoning that supports your thesis, but it is also important to consider likely objections and to respond with counter-arguments. Be especially careful in your use of examples: the best positive example can only clarify meaning and lend some evidentiary confirmation, but a single counter-example disproves a general claim completely.

How about utilizing an open reading of Plato’s Republic for added perspective. There is much to be learned about our Western Civilization and its stratified developmental views and conflicts regarding the nature of the human being, the nature of justice, and the need of relationship and social order. I suggest this as a useful tool to aid in understanding ideologies as they may exist within us Westerners. EXAMINE THYSELF. A tool can be good and need not be perfect to be useful. There is no way to be perfect but there are a million ways to be good and useful and therein “phat.”

Learn to listen to yourself through your thought. Discover the source of your thinking. Seek internal guidance communication. Make a conscious attempt to share more than simply "your opinion." Opinions can be void of conscious thinking. To become or not to become is the question for your life, and it is best left up to you. This is the alluring nature of scholarship and one of the beneficial objectives of THE CANDLE GROUP, THE EUREKA SOCIETY, and THE POWERHOUSE HILL.

Curiosity doesn’t kill the cat; it makes the cat more aware. - igman’08001009
[1] igman
[2] Dr. Cornell West.
[3] http://www.philosophypages.com/sy.htm#wri – Guide to the Study of Philosophy, ©1996-2002 Garth Kemerling.