<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate
> > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"
> > <shempmcgurk@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <sparaig@>
> > wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > > > > Wasn't that a heavy duty unstressing thing?
> > > > >
> > > > > No, apparently it was an unwanted pass at an underling
> > > > > employee. It's called sexual harrassment.
> > > >
> > > > Not mutually exclusive, of course. O-J said it was
> > > > unstressing. He also said unstressing was no excuse.
> > >
> > > It probably is an excuse, a phony one, if you are not in heavy
> > > long term rounding.
> >
> > Maybe I didn't make myself clear, or maybe you
> > didn't read what he wrote. He said it was *not*
> > an excuse, i.e., he was not excusing the bad
> > behavior on the grounds that he was unstressing.
> >
> > There's a difference between an excuse and an
> > explanation. If you want to claim it was a phony
> > explanation, fine. But phony or not, he was not
> > using the explanation as an excuse.
>
> While I get your point, I would argue that in this case, excuse and
> explanation overlap a bit.
Sure, an explanation can be used as an excuse.
Why did he bring unstressing up? Was he
> implying that he was unstressing, but still had 100% control of his
> actions and takes 100% responsibility for them?
Well, that gets into the whole issue of the nature
of free will. I don't think this case needs to be
that complicated. Let's say for the sake of argument
that he could have chosen to restrain himself.
Perhaps he's saying it was more difficult to make
that choice because of the unstressing, but he still
could have made it if he had exerted the extra
effort, and he takes responsibility for not having
made it.
> If so, why mention unstressing.Its irrelevant if one is claiming the
> above.
Maybe, but it's only human, just as was his failure
to restrain himself. Does he have to be 100% perfect?
> The purpose in mentioning unstressing, IMO, is to garner sympathy,
> and to implicitly make the case that he did not have 100% control
> of his actions and thus cannot take 100% responsibility for them.
> To me he is weaving the implicit arguement that, "I was
> unstressing. I only had PARTIAL control of my actions and thus
> can only takes partial responsibility for them. Unstessing IS a
> reality. Have pity on me. I am a VICTIM of unstressing."
Sure. But you can take responsibility for allowing
yourself to be a victim of unstressing, in the sense of
not making the extra effort to restrain yourself from
doing something bad and stupid and then having to take
the consequences.
> But the deeper reason I think its a phony explanation, as stated in
> an adjacent post, heavy unstressing is most usually a phenomenon of
> heavy rounding. He was not heavily rounding as far as I can see.
Oh, for pete's sake, unstressing can happen at any
time, whether you're rounding or not. It's more likely
to happen during heavy rounding, but any given meditation
session, during rounding or not, can wake up an elephant.
I hold no particular brief for O-J; he may be a
thoroughgoing cad for all I know. But the issue of
taking responsibility is interesting in the abstract.
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
SPONSORED LINKS
| Religion and spirituality | Maharishi mahesh yogi |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
