Constitutional Renewal Bill Responses / Hegel - "Spirit"
I took part in the Constitutional Renewal Bill and have just come across the DLP published responses (all 92 of them): Really good read, I was not expecting "dung heap" as a Constitutional Renewal topic but there you go that's democracy or perhaps a need for it!
(Click Here) 92 Comments
Government New Year Resolution perhaps should be "democracy" and sorting out the judiciary mess since at least 1997. Nevermind the word "change", try "improve"!
I have also had an occasion recently to take a look at "Spirit" in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy and from there to read the reference to the German Philosopher "Hegel" which I find most interesting because he is to some degree in concurrence with my own philosophical(jurisprudential thought) and I find him true and accurate on several issues in alignment with my own knowledge, understandings and belief - I have neither studied Hegel outside this reference source. His reference to "Mind" is, I am sure is the same as my use of my understanding of the word "Good", ie if you were to read Hegel and switch the word Mind to Good you would be reading both of our understandings - to a degree. However, where I differ is that I do not believe "mind" (with a small m as in the body) is one and the same with the spirit" ie that is to say Hegel is correct that there is an essence of being which is the same in all humankind and that all humankind is linked in the Mind, ie he uses "Mind" and I use "Good" - I separate mind (body) and spirit. My "reasoning" is that our "spirit" is our essence of being and that it is always programmed good from the moment of conception to death. That the essence of being is tapped into a life source called good and it is not monastic but collective - we are all "essentially good" in humankind. (I am also aware Catholicism also promotes as a universal given that no matter how bad someone is they cannot eradicate good as a Christian discipline which ties in "spirit" with religion and theology for those of you who perceive the world via the religious which I don't). However, where I perceive I differ is that the mind (body) is not the source or link to the spirit or essence of being. My argument is that "mind as in body" can choose to do bad or good as an intellectual issue. My understanding is that "nature" of humankind is good and that good recognises good and that good recognises bad and recoils - for example, if you accidentally bump into someone - out pops the word "sorry" automatically, if you say something harsh to someone who does not deserve it, your conscience pricks and you think "perhaps I should not have said that" - then you choose whether you allow the reactive upset to exist or whether you extinguish it by apologising because it was harsh and the person did not deserve it, etc. Because we always know when we have done something we should not have done - we have conscience and it somehow automatically notifies us when we are "not good". Therefore "nature" and our essence of being our spirit is progressive when we follow good and destructive or disruptive when we don't follow good or nature. But because we have the ability to override our conscience, my understanding is that the spirit MUST therefore always be good and pure as a source and essence of being and that our mind (body) is therefore disparate in form and in function. To go further, an idea or ideas cannot be switched off (they are one way, you cannot send it back), they keep coming and therefore must be part of our essence of being, inherent to spirit. However, a thought can be telepathically transferred but does so via mind (body) but maybe perceived by people to be an idea when in reality it is a "thought" - there is a material distinction between idea and thought. Thought therefore follows that it is independent of spirit but that it may capably align with it, ie nature. If it can be tested, it would be interesting to see if all ideas are "good" and/or if all "thoughts" are good or bad. This perhaps is progressive for jurisprudence which also covers criminology. "Thinking" in criminal matters is important because only "conspiracy" theories are inchoate criminal offences where two minds "thinking" without "acting/doing" are necessary to fulfil the crime where there is an offence but there is no need to actually do or act towards the offence in a more than merely preparatory way. People can think criminally but never actually go beyond the thought and therefore cannot commit a crime (thought crime)!! Thinking a bad thought is therefore not the same as having a bad idea - and sometimes when we have a problem and come up with a solution /idea everyone goes thats a bad idea because - there ideas are better! But I doubt it would ever be possible to prosecute an "idea" if it derived from the spirit via Hegal and my understanding of our philosophy/jurisprudence. Also ideas can be triggered - if you give someone a problem for instance - most people will come up with a solution howsoever difficult based on some comprehension of the issue and will certainly say I don't know, I don't understand if the problem is too complex as a solution ie natural response.
For example or perhaps by way of experiment: if you took 100 people involved in the Israeli side of the current conflict and 100 people involved in the Palestinian side of the current conflict existant since Christmas - would it be possible for 200 solutions or for 100 same solutions or 50 same solutions or 1 same solution to surface and what could they/it possibly be. Put 200 global people in another room who are not Israeli/Palestine people and give them the same problem and what would their solution(s) be to the current Israeli/Palestine conflict. The word "interesting" is what I am thinking. Make it diverse - 5-7 year olds, 21-30 year olds, 50 years, 70-80 seniors and half and half male / female as groups.
Taking you right back up to the top of the page - the Government asked via various outlets for people engaged in those outlets to make suggestions towards the Constitutional Renewal Bill here in the UK - 92 comments were received (many by me (my outlet restricted suggestions to x words hence there appears to be typos/abbreviations to enable my ideas to fit) and people who I do not know and I have no idea whether they know me. You can see how my mind has worked.
Relevance to Hegel and Me - if the spirit (essence of being) is collective [and everyone is tapped into "good" which is pure] would such an experiment be capable of being proved - by 1st January, by my birthday 28th January, by the end of the month of January! [Problem requiring a solution - can you assist - there is a comments box (which is modified) below if you like].
Discuss
(Click Here) 92 Comments
Government New Year Resolution perhaps should be "democracy" and sorting out the judiciary mess since at least 1997. Nevermind the word "change", try "improve"!
I have also had an occasion recently to take a look at "Spirit" in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy and from there to read the reference to the German Philosopher "Hegel" which I find most interesting because he is to some degree in concurrence with my own philosophical(jurisprudential thought) and I find him true and accurate on several issues in alignment with my own knowledge, understandings and belief - I have neither studied Hegel outside this reference source. His reference to "Mind" is, I am sure is the same as my use of my understanding of the word "Good", ie if you were to read Hegel and switch the word Mind to Good you would be reading both of our understandings - to a degree. However, where I differ is that I do not believe "mind" (with a small m as in the body) is one and the same with the spirit" ie that is to say Hegel is correct that there is an essence of being which is the same in all humankind and that all humankind is linked in the Mind, ie he uses "Mind" and I use "Good" - I separate mind (body) and spirit. My "reasoning" is that our "spirit" is our essence of being and that it is always programmed good from the moment of conception to death. That the essence of being is tapped into a life source called good and it is not monastic but collective - we are all "essentially good" in humankind. (I am also aware Catholicism also promotes as a universal given that no matter how bad someone is they cannot eradicate good as a Christian discipline which ties in "spirit" with religion and theology for those of you who perceive the world via the religious which I don't). However, where I perceive I differ is that the mind (body) is not the source or link to the spirit or essence of being. My argument is that "mind as in body" can choose to do bad or good as an intellectual issue. My understanding is that "nature" of humankind is good and that good recognises good and that good recognises bad and recoils - for example, if you accidentally bump into someone - out pops the word "sorry" automatically, if you say something harsh to someone who does not deserve it, your conscience pricks and you think "perhaps I should not have said that" - then you choose whether you allow the reactive upset to exist or whether you extinguish it by apologising because it was harsh and the person did not deserve it, etc. Because we always know when we have done something we should not have done - we have conscience and it somehow automatically notifies us when we are "not good". Therefore "nature" and our essence of being our spirit is progressive when we follow good and destructive or disruptive when we don't follow good or nature. But because we have the ability to override our conscience, my understanding is that the spirit MUST therefore always be good and pure as a source and essence of being and that our mind (body) is therefore disparate in form and in function. To go further, an idea or ideas cannot be switched off (they are one way, you cannot send it back), they keep coming and therefore must be part of our essence of being, inherent to spirit. However, a thought can be telepathically transferred but does so via mind (body) but maybe perceived by people to be an idea when in reality it is a "thought" - there is a material distinction between idea and thought. Thought therefore follows that it is independent of spirit but that it may capably align with it, ie nature. If it can be tested, it would be interesting to see if all ideas are "good" and/or if all "thoughts" are good or bad. This perhaps is progressive for jurisprudence which also covers criminology. "Thinking" in criminal matters is important because only "conspiracy" theories are inchoate criminal offences where two minds "thinking" without "acting/doing" are necessary to fulfil the crime where there is an offence but there is no need to actually do or act towards the offence in a more than merely preparatory way. People can think criminally but never actually go beyond the thought and therefore cannot commit a crime (thought crime)!! Thinking a bad thought is therefore not the same as having a bad idea - and sometimes when we have a problem and come up with a solution /idea everyone goes thats a bad idea because - there ideas are better! But I doubt it would ever be possible to prosecute an "idea" if it derived from the spirit via Hegal and my understanding of our philosophy/jurisprudence. Also ideas can be triggered - if you give someone a problem for instance - most people will come up with a solution howsoever difficult based on some comprehension of the issue and will certainly say I don't know, I don't understand if the problem is too complex as a solution ie natural response.
For example or perhaps by way of experiment: if you took 100 people involved in the Israeli side of the current conflict and 100 people involved in the Palestinian side of the current conflict existant since Christmas - would it be possible for 200 solutions or for 100 same solutions or 50 same solutions or 1 same solution to surface and what could they/it possibly be. Put 200 global people in another room who are not Israeli/Palestine people and give them the same problem and what would their solution(s) be to the current Israeli/Palestine conflict. The word "interesting" is what I am thinking. Make it diverse - 5-7 year olds, 21-30 year olds, 50 years, 70-80 seniors and half and half male / female as groups.
Taking you right back up to the top of the page - the Government asked via various outlets for people engaged in those outlets to make suggestions towards the Constitutional Renewal Bill here in the UK - 92 comments were received (many by me (my outlet restricted suggestions to x words hence there appears to be typos/abbreviations to enable my ideas to fit) and people who I do not know and I have no idea whether they know me. You can see how my mind has worked.
Relevance to Hegel and Me - if the spirit (essence of being) is collective [and everyone is tapped into "good" which is pure] would such an experiment be capable of being proved - by 1st January, by my birthday 28th January, by the end of the month of January! [Problem requiring a solution - can you assist - there is a comments box (which is modified) below if you like].
Discuss
posted by Lesley McDade at 8:02 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home