Disqus - Latest Comments for Ogethics

Re: Critical Remarks from a Listener — an Opportunity

Ogethics — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:27:38 -0000

What makes this criticism builds something constructive is the motives and intentions of our hearts. At a time when the world is facing a questionable future, I feel a momento (memento mori) to move to other level of consciousness. That kind of earthy, reality-based mystery is not interesting any more for people like me. Once you leave everything in this world to follow and become as Christ, the very down to earth stuff makes no relevance anymore, but entertain many anyway.

Re: Context and Viewpoints for the Pope’s Latest Encyclical

Ogethics — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 20:04:44 -0000

Bless you Charlie for your realistic and timeless “God first, and all else will be given to you” command. This is a radical lifestyle always. Today, it is an ultimatum for humanity: God or what? It seems we can not talk about social justice, virtue, truth, good intentions, and ethics, if we have not the willingness to “walk the talk.” Hence, many blessings for Richardfolker, who addressed the point that charity starts at home of every individual, organization, and community, specially the religious organizations who command the leadership of loving each other in a way we can share food and water, belongings, money, and time on this earth.

We are not making nearly enough on methods for defeating human suffering, poverty, and misbehavior due to our extremely poor commitment with the Lord.

It starts (1) with many unbelievers who have the right and free will to dismiss a God who does not take care about humanity because does not exist for them; thus, they undertook the mission of taking care about themselves in their own, and some of them take care about others also. For many of them, there is not a thing as salvation. To live to them is to die anyway.

(2) We find many believers - in many kinds of religious settings - who believe in a supreme being in a way that make them survive mediocrity between faith and reality. Sometimes regularly, they pray to overcome the throes of depression, uncertainty, and bad times, with the support of their faith and their jobs in a basis of “yes we believe, but we need to eat first and make sure about our survival necessity.”

The final (3) group, the radical people who believe like Charlie and I the craziness of ignoring the priority of this world, making God the most important in our lives who will provide everything in addition - if we believe with all our heart, mind, and soul - are those who are talking and walking the word of God in a way that creates a method of survival highly controversial, risky, and out of touch of “reality.”

I don’t know about you Charlie, but I left everything: job, family, friends, country, and decided to follow 24/7 our God Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace and savior definitely.

Re: SOF Observed - Rossini’s “Meow!” by “The Little Singers of Paris”...

Ogethics — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 17:40:28 -0000

This is a subtle Jesus Christ's fascination! It is an animal magnetism in our poor human lives. The hypnotic and irresistible attraction of the Lord in our days today is strangely making his presence for those who are ready to see, hear, and feel spiritually.

Re: SOF Observed - SoundSeen: Chris Farrell Puts Neuroeconomics and...

Ogethics — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:19:04 -0000

“The oxytocin influence is "a remarkable finding," says neuroscientist Antonio Damasio of the University of Iowa College of Medicine in Iowa City in an editorial published with the new report. Damasio had previously argued that the hormone acts somewhat as a love potion. ‘It adds trust to the mix, for there is no love without trust,’ he says. Worries may arise that crowds of people will be sprayed with oxytocin at political rallies or other events to induce trust in speakers, Damasio notes. However, he proposes that slick marketing strategies for political and other products probably already trigger oxytocin release in many consumers (flatrock.org).”

Re: SOF Observed - SoundSeen: Chris Farrell Puts Neuroeconomics and...

Ogethics — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:31:32 -0000

Ethics must not be a choice between unpleasant alternatives. Ethics must be right within the perspective of being human. No dilemmas. Ethics does not depend on any situation, but ethical dilemmas depend on the circumstances.

That is why we are living in an ethically complex, grim, and relentless world which needs a vision of utopia to instill in its inhabitants a belief in ethical schemes for idealistic or utopian people; visionary schemes for producing perfection in human conditions and limitations. We are not perfect due to our human nature. What some people ignore is that when we do the right thing we are extending our human limits and expanding consciousness to the way of perfection even though it is impossible.

Everyone knows perfectly well that our own efforts are never going to bring us anywhere near perfection. On the other hand, we must realize from the outset that the goal towards which ethics is beginning to guide us is absolute perfection or utopia.

No power in the whole universe -- except us ourselves -- can prevent ethics from taking us to that goal. We do not need to do the impossible; we just need to obey the ethical law inside us once it is discovered.

Re: SOF Observed - SoundSeen: Chris Farrell Puts Neuroeconomics and...

Ogethics — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 14:23:42 -0000

“The human mind has enormous ability to adapt to what a subsequent generation would come to refer to as "stress” and also a powerful homeostatic capacity” (Allyn and Adele Rickett, 2008).

Neuroeconomics and cleansing together sound to me like “brainwashing.” How do we put our trust and life’s dignity in a “moral molecule”? Even though the human evolution is correlated between science and faith, the assimilation of our survival is both intrinsic and extrinsic. The human inclination towards moral behavior is intrinsic motivation. Yes, it starts in the human limitation of the brain: 5, 10, 15%?

Markets are human creations, and human creations are created by human evolution to the high of a human term: God. If god is a human creation, it dwells in the brain or DNA. Motivation then is like food or protein for the brain.

“Come on! Ogethics. You are almost being homeless. Come down to the real world: what can be the motivation for you, without money and nothing to eat? Don’t even think to say trust or dignity!” Well. “Of course it is food and water.” Common sense logic in most people can say that, but I am not sure that happens in me yet.

Am I connected with God? Or just ready to be disconnected from the G concept, and live in a vegetative existence, without the G-brain imagination? Could I develop a state of paroxysm and feel nothing when obligated to crossing that physical limit beyond my control?

How these homeless people can survive in the middle of such as stress and ignominy?

Is it possible that I can make the unknown connection in my brain, and find some motivation to live without food and water for 6 perhaps 10 days, and not allow it to kill my faith, my ethics, my God? A sacrifice? Negligent suicide?

I do not know. It threats to be cruel, crazy, ridiculous, and around the corner.

Re: SOF Observed - SoundSeen: Chris Farrell Puts Neuroeconomics and...

Ogethics — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:18:36 -0000

Well. “Are you going to teach us how we ought to live our lives?” No, not at all. This is a personal reflection. I am going to listen to you, thinking about what you say, and make any final judgment. Of course, I recognize we are all mortal humans. Every individual has already made a faith commitment to believe what he thinks is the spiritual life or the thought that is supposed to direct her life. Survival is the main ethical way that instills human ethical values. It indeed shows the individual’s intentions and state of heart and mind in the moment of the action. It comes from within.

"Do you do anything to get food?" The question has less to do with questions of right or wrong than with question of survival. How we respond to life events is what determines the moral content of our acts. Unless we know by empathy the moral content of others’ actions and the full range of circumstances, we cannot judge the ethical reality. If we are not ready to connect with others to some extent and see the impact of our human relationships, then we are limiting our means to discriminate between right and wrong.

Often we find a big gap between the real world and our vision of one ethical world. The troubled atmosphere we breathe in the planet today does not require a specific example to conclude the world is declining. Ethics is an eclectic model to overcome the chaos of judgment implied in every crisis. However, if we just mention the 2008 global economic turndown, it indeed pushes the ethical age to the forefront. "Does the free market corrode moral character?" No. It corroborates what ethics means: human dynamics and relationships; nevertheless, ethics generally connotes doing the right thing. Hence, unethical behavior destroys our trust and dignity.

Re: SOF Observed - SoundSeen: Chris Farrell Puts Neuroeconomics and...

Ogethics — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:00:27 -0000

Yes Anna, because words make not sense to ethical values, but actions. Living together. Do you want to live with me and trade with you what I said? It is the only way to know if they make sense to you. Knowing about each other is indeed sharing our thoughts and routine.

We are not living together in this world today. It is not how we are doing in our jobs or lives today: something is wrong, and that is in us. We don't really care about ourselves: do you really care about me? That is the best way to take care about you. But all that “nonsense words” start first in an ethical egotism inside you and inside me. From that point, we will trade each other our ethical natural values.

Even though I am a very nice educated ethical person, I do not have a job, health insurance, friend, family, or where to go after last 15 days from today. I will lose my apartment, my few belongings, my credit, and maybe 2 or 3 hours of sleep. But I have my trust untouchable, my happiness, my freedom, my peace, and the reality that my life is thankfully supporting them, and supporting you, whether or not you want.

Re: SOF Observed - SoundSeen: Chris Farrell Puts Neuroeconomics and...

Ogethics — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:28:18 -0000

The current financial chaos in the world has created a figure of speech in which opposite or contradictory ideas are combined: “moral market, the science of trust, neuroeconomics, behavioral economics, business ethics,” and others.

Knowing beforehand this is a human behavior to understand what is going on with the economy mainly - not only with words but with actions – we have to make a decision for the well being of humanity and my own.

Living differently in this approach to the global crisis does not require understanding of the contradictory terms. They sound interesting; but, they are not making any real contribution to the change we are advocated now. Changing terms to overcome bad times is like changing religions to search something it must be always unchangeable: Trust.

When is enough enough? How much we trust? Who knows how much human damage is being wrought? No clue for people who are supported for a job, family, health, government, or any other extrinsic structure. It is in the middle of failure and catastrophe when trust is real; it is only in the throes of depression when people trust in them or in their medication; only with the harassment of enemies, when we go to that existential emptiness to love or destroy them. In the midnight or deep darkness we know who is who.

Recycling our words to keep this world running, giving to the brain the responsibility of something that is indeed not common sense, deploying material energy, businesses, and people to the illusion we are creating efficiency, is confirming we have a boner. Trading ethical values: trust, dignity, compassion, happiness, freedom, peace, and well being is the only way to transcend a body that only eats food for the brain.

Re: SOF Observed - Liberty as Inner Work Trent Gilliss, online...

Ogethics — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 18:08:16 -0000

Without consensus there is not democracy. Even an inner consensus is not freedom at all. The problem arises when my freedom interferes with the freedom of others; we should then curtail it to the benefit of all: that means sacrifice.

Re: Alzheimer's, Memory, Being

Ogethics — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:01:40 -0000

The "taking care of a stranger" feeling is one of the most rewarding lesson of dealing with Alzheimer's in our families. Even though it is one of the most difficult lessons of this human experience, "forgetting" what we knew about our significant ones, and accepting that they are not only our father or our mother, but also an ordinary human being that needs help and affection. That is the extraordinary connection we do through this learning. Paid givers do that because they have that responsibility, and many of them really care about others. No matter if others see us in this mission of helping others (family members or strangers), our solidarity with the needy (in terms of care) is a spiritual enlightenment to cope with the darkness of the disease.

Re: Alzheimer's, Memory, Being

Ogethics — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:36:05 -0000

Take the good memories living with your mom with you, and release the others thankfully. You are not alone. "Someone" is taking care of you whether or not you develop Alzheimer's disease, whether or not you realize it or not.

Re: Alzheimer's, Memory, Being

Ogethics — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 23:43:36 -0000

Also, in the deepest darkness of this malady, there is a crack for spiritual enlightenment -- not only for the caregivers, but also for the patients.

My father suffered Alzheimer's for 20 years. We lived all the stages of the disease. Our great lesson our father left us was FORGIVE and FORGET. We knew we could forgive, but forget? It seems the lesson for humanity too, now, according to the increasing statistics of people living with Alzheimer.

Illnesses always make a lesson in our lives. They are a path to learn. If we only give the possibility of spiritual enlightenment during these times . . .

My father forgot everything. But, everytime he passed a mirror, he used to greet himself raising his hand; after that gesture, he always went to us to ask the same question: "Who is that nice gentleman in the other room? Everytime I go there, he is greeting me with a smile."

Of course, after we coped with the reality of "loosing" him in life, we laughed and understood that
-- in spite of his alienation -- he was the man we knew he was; and better yet, we realized he was seeing himself in the same way.

Even though he forgot even himself, he never forgot to go to make a prayer close to a picture of the virgen Mary in his strong catholic background he grew up.

(Nice remembering you father, and sharing it with others. Thanks for the lesson).

Re: "There’s a New Power in America – Atheism"

Ogethics — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:52:42 -0000

If we have a way of looking at the atheism as a new power that does not believe in religion, our future is open, expanding, and beautiful.

It is prepousterous to afirm that God does not exist. It is very realistic and understandable to say that the god of all major religions in the world does not exist. That kind of entity has made any sense in the history of humanity. Understanding how contradictory explanations of reality of god can simultaneously be true, is what makes the inter-religious dialogue today an ethical evolution to find our identiity in the entity of the real and only one God. This ways of searching God is what makes our human relationships dynamic and creates history.

A dialogue that continues searching the truth of loving each other, and finding our human dignity, against the creation of a human god that ignores the magnitude of suffering in the world.

If God really is a god that exists, we need to prove it through loving each other as this God is supposed to love us - under any circunstance or condition.

Re: "There’s a New Power in America – Atheism"

Ogethics — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:23:35 -0000

Ethics is not the same as "common sense," science, or democracy where a majority of people may reason it is the right thing, supported with reliable statistics. For example, with some people who believe that "God is not the center of the universe," Ogethics will discuss with them how ethical that belief is.

We all know the dilemma about religion: How to know who is right and who is wrong? Who is the real God? Does one religion have the only truth? How ethical is our relationship with others and with ourselves -- in silence -- respecting our own belief of God? Will we kill in that name? Will we separate from our family, friends, or others because they don't believe in God? Could we change our minds for the welfare of humanity even if it disturbs our own belief or disrupts our education?

Because, what I am sensing in this complex world is a belief of an unethical God that favors ones and punishes others depending on their own religion. God is a huge dilemma in the world, even when many believe God exists in their religion and is "on their side." No consensus exists about that super powerful entity. Where is the global guide or leadership that reflects God with a fundamental agreement in all major religions? This is a question for everyone included the atheists. Can the atheism lead us to find our entity?

Re: "There’s a New Power in America – Atheism"

Ogethics — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:29:36 -0000

Atheism: A Matter of Religion.

A person who believes that there is no God is an atheist. Whether or not God exist is a matter of religion. Does religion really matter in our modern world? We know every individual has already made a faith commitment to believe what he thinks is the spiritual life or the thought that is supposed to direct her life. Thus, religion must absorb and explain the new fact of modernity: ethical evolution.

The human resource of finding identity and God is an ongoing ethical issue that does not change with our changeable morals and beliefs. Atheism is part of this search. Actually, it may create more resonance with what we don't know and open a fresh dialogue about faith and human ethical relationships.

Ethics is the moderator today. The religious and "non-religious" groups must overcome bad (toxic, fundamental) things of their beliefs with good disposition, understanding, and future. In the end, in the free market place of religion, ideas, ethics, and meaning, the ultimate human resource is God - whether we believe it or not - because it believe in us. Don't you believe in yourself?

Re: Depression and Me

Ogethics — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:55:49 -0000

Please, do not avoid the medication if you think you need it. What we should avoid is the "feeling" that we can't get any spiritual enlightenment in the middle of a crisis of depression.

The cruel meaning of taking prescribed anti-depresants for some people is that we are out of any spiritual reality. Nothing far from the truth - in my opinion: when we are in the throes of depression, we are having spiritual growth and envolvement even though we don't realize that in the moment of desperation. Our character makes a decision: to go with or without medication. Both are equally significant in our moral or spiritual connection. Both ways create a person's ability to experience and enjoy life.

Clinical depression is caused by a chemical imbalance, not a spiritual failure. Thus, taking medication is not a sign of weakness, lack of spiritual enligtenment, or avoiding problems. It is a sign of humanness that shows qualities as rationality or fallibility: a human act.

Medication, prayer, counseling, and meditation can have an amazing effect in our different kind of situations or changes in life. Only you can make the decision that is right for you.

Re: Depression and Me

Ogethics — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 21:49:41 -0000

Let there be light (Gen 1: 3).

A lack of spirituality in the darkest moments of our existence enervates our character to the levels of skepticism. The effort to overcome that point of disbelief and desperation is inhumane and cruel, and most of the cases require medication. Be gentle with yourself. I believe in human greatness in spite of our atrocities.

Re: Depression and Me

Ogethics — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:31:34 -0000

And being able to find comfort anywhere in the "visible" makes the connection to the invisible force or spiritual enlightenment. It is simple, and you don't need religion (of course it helps) or permission (understanding) for that. It is there waiting for your permission to heal your life. It does not matter whether or not you like the sun to depend on your energy levels. It is there anyway (the sun comes everyday for depressed and not depressed people). If you are alive, you get its benefits anyway too. The risk is evident when you try to avoid the sun (death in life): darkness and weakness. Also, it can burn you if you expose to it like if you were in a lunatic fringe. Moderation is the key when we are walking on trouble waters.

Re: Depression and Me

Ogethics — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:43:16 -0000

It seems the term "spiritual enlightenment" needs a definition. Spiritual terms: love, faith, belief, hope, or any kind of human virtue: responsibility, discipline, understanding, perseverance, silence, happiness, freedom . . . have meaning of our lives.

"Speaking of Faith" is focus on religion as: faith, ideas, ethics, and meaning. What it really matters is when those terms interact dynamically with our human relationships - like the direction of the program is successfully achieving: that is enlightenment.

Knowing that you, Cindy, found a great hope and resonated with the words of Krista is a hope to me too, because that is spiritual enlightenment. A hope that one day you two, and more people who don't find spirital enlightenment in the moment of darkness and desperartion, could see its "light" at the end of the tunnel. A hope that we may believe we understand the term (spiritual enlightenment) as an invisible force which is always flowing energetically, offering healing, learning, peace, with such as impetus, that it includes also the spirit of skepticism in our thought.

Re: Depression and Me

Ogethics — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:19:55 -0000

O Julia, thanks for your kind words directed to "Krista", but spreaded to everyone who may read them. I guarantee that your depression is far away for relapse. You are free now! and I am so glad to welcome you in this blog.

Other important "light" of the "syndrome" of our host in her introduction to the subject of "depression" was: "But I will stress here — as much for myself as for anyone reading — that we are not in a place to find spiritual enlightenment when we are in the throes of this illness." This was the main motivator to me to make a connection and help about the topic.

Not seeing gain in a pain is what brings to desperation. This kind of depressive vision needs to be addresed with understanding and patience. Understand that Krista approached the topic with her inner self. It biased the benefits of spiritual enlightment in the middle of the "chaos and darkness" that indeed exist for many people who have cope with depression. Actually, spiritual enlightment ultimately determines the way to overcome depression. Undertand, also, that Krista could intend to separate herself to the mision of her business "speaking of faith".

Re: Depression and Me

Ogethics — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 13:29:09 -0000

LIBERTY

1. Free Attitude and Responsibility

Human beings are not yet prepared for the responsibilities of freedom in an age of complex technology and interdependence, because the immense majority of us are slaves to ourselves, technology, progress, and liberalities such as money, sex, material things and comfort in a world that exchange education, life orientation, and the power within us for living the moment, profits orientation, and the desire for those material power.

We lost the connection with our liberty through many examples of the human attitude throughout history, and our lack of responsibility within ourselves telling us that once we were liberated from slavery we become libertine many years ago. A clear and contemporary example exists in ghettos areas where the youth living there are perceived to have liberty now, but where a big segment of these young people have created three ways of follow rules living in their society: 1. Die. 2. Go to jail. 3. Be a drug dealer; and we can generalize this attitude with this human nature to all races because of the overall strong desire for monetary rewards instead of a worthy ethical liberated self. We must try again and again to make a new connection with that term called freedom by showing ethical responsibility.

Too much light can blur our vision if we are not protected or prepared to receive it, where education is the key, discovering in all senses our capabilities and dreams, letting us move to profound truths in our human landscape, making those dreams true, and keeping them alive between generations.

Re: SOF Observed

Ogethics — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 21:15:52 -0000

LIBERTY

2. Freedom to Choose or Free Will

Once we decide to accept liberty with ethical responsibility and free attitude, when we expected less, help comes to guide us from within. A multiple of serendipity facts appear and disappear in our life showing the way through doubt, the understanding in the confusion, the light in the darkness, and that feasible reality throughout many kinds of symbols which mean that we are not alone anymore, we are all one spirit connected to survive for eternity, if we want to accept it.

This is my eulogy to human beings.

We are a dynamic immortal spirit which is connected with the future throughout our human resources such as intellect, imagination, sensitivity, and free will; hence, we need a different vision of this world that expresses our real motivation to prosper and live in a state of satisfaction and sincerity that permits collaboration and help among one another. We are not going to the destruction or any other kind of catastrophic general breakdown of civilization; to the contrary, we are going to the expanding future that is better. There are no eternal cycles of repetition over and over in the same level or same phenomena named stagnation. No, we are supposed to continue with this ongoing process of being humans towards its end, which is an eternal journey to discover plenitude and transcendence without limit.

“We cannot solve the problems of the world from the same level of consciousness that created them” (Albert Einstein)

Re: Depression and Me

Ogethics — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 21:00:27 -0000

LIBERTY

3. Satisfaction of Needs. The Theory “G”

I decided to be happy in my life on earth. This is a malicious attack against troubles, problems, and difficulties everyone has sometime, or always, because life is a bunch of problems to resolve through that unknown device known as the brain, which is a problem solving human tool. Obviously, to avoid feeling depressed, stressed, worried, fearful, unhappy, negative, whatever, I just decided to be the opposite. My motivation is the unknown level of the human brain that I have named Theory G, and it is connected with my heart. I have no idea what God is about, but I am living in a state of bliss, and peace opening miracles like doors and windows, liberating a positive force that mysteriously intermingle, and otherwise fight it out. I know it is hard to explain. In other words, it is giving without receiving. The theory “G” of motivation has its reality only in my imagination, and it is that part of my heart that thinks and gets the visions right, the dreams that come true, without more than the pleasure to be myself in my own reality.

Re: SOF Observed

Ogethics — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 09:40:14 -0000

In my opinion, the main part of any "sacred" book's interpretation is the silent meaning that all scriptures offer to us. We are supposed to follow our hearts: my heart says to listen to others and treasure it in meditation.

I decided to go to the churches, mosques, synagogues, and worship places to listen what they belief, think, and live what they practice, as an ongoing process to teach ethics in trans-religious settings. The dialogue is already open with the Christian community (Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Mormon, and non-denominational, by now). The project is focus on the ethical evolution of religion, under the assumption that ethics leads to God.

Although I believe we teach ethics with actions rather than with words, my first inclination is to decline to teach ethics. “Declining to teach is itself a very effective way of teaching” (Budziszewski, 2003). Moral education (ethics) confronts us about what we know (natural law), even though not everyone obeys that knowledge. “Ethics does not inform us moral truths to do; but it motivates us to behave. Ethics is our conscience. It is therefore teacher, judge, and motivator” (Budziszewski, 2003). Thus, ethics makes its own case in this proposal.

After all, my intention to teach sounds like a contradiction to avoid the pretension that I know better what everyone knows. “Are you going to teach us how we ought to live our lives?” No, not at all. This is a personal reflection. I am going to listen to you, thinking about what you say, and make any final judgment.

I just learned this week that the final judgment I read in the book of Revelation in the Biblical scriptures is already between us: Depression. Are you, people, ready to deal with that?