| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Freedom, Responsibility, Initiative--Transcript

Page history last edited by Angela 9 years, 11 months ago

Hi all!  I've run it through spell check, but still feel free to make corrections where needed.

 

Participants: Angela, Nicholas, Gen, Chian-wen, Ram, Zona, Jane, Luke, Adele

 

 

What do you believe is the basic nature of a human being?  Or, list five adjectives to describe the core nature of a human being?

 

Curiosity, sense of purpose, sense of community, maximize happiness,

What's a sense of purpose?

Feeling like you're doing something

Because of something?

Well, to contribute, to help other people, or even yourself, to have a goal.

Instinctive, self- interested, nearsighted, bellicose, acquisitive.

Bellicose = they fight

Acquisitive = like to have things.

Fear, survival, reproduction, love, curiosity, desire?

I'm not sure desire exists on its own, or if it comes about as a result of the other attributes.

Direct, thirsty, happy-oriented, emotional, selfish

What does thirsty mean?

Craving things, 

Desire!

Is that an adjective?

Doesn't matter

Self-interested, striving, experimental, love to follow existing patterns, lazy

 

How do you feel about the opinions expressed around the group just now? Positive? Satisfied? Worried? Depressed?

Humans suck.   In smaller numbers, they have less of these negative attributes, like in desiring things, because that comes form other people having stuff and they don't.   Or being selfish.

So it gets worse in numbers?

I also think that, if we’re talking about human nature, we have to talk about change over time.  Human nature now /= human nature in the past.

Worried

Hurt

You feel hurt?

They create hurt?  Originally they're not bad, but they hurt people so they become bad.  There's nothing wrong with these things, selfish, emotional nearsighted, there's nothing wrong with it, but when it hurts other people, then it's not good, and then human being suck

I feel sad about that, that people are saying that humans suck.

I get a strange sense of we're being pessimistic, and cynical, but Nicholas seems to seem more optimistic about us as a community.

For me, I see two words, chaos and progress.   Because all those things resulted in us being here today, which I count as progress, but it's chaotic because of good and bad stuff happening.  So it's unpredictable, really

I like the word unpredictable.

 

Do you think that your basic attitude about human nature would or would not affect the kind of community you could form?

Yes 6

Abstain 1

 

Freedom is…

When there's choices in front of you, you can choose whatever you want. That's freedom

That sounds good to me

Immediately I want to say, who gives you the choices.  If I’m presented with choices, I'm not free

I agree with Zona, I think our definition of freedom is in a framework, and that freedom defines what freedom is

I agree with, I just want to say the part I agree with Chianwen on s the choice part

You understand me.

It's not the choice-choice.

You cannot expand your freedom to other people, you're in some… you create your choice.  So you can choose

So it's like the service trade agreement…let me think a sec

Because we were not given the choice, basically.  That is why people are protesting.  We are not given the choice.   Limited knowledge of what will happen equals no choice

You have to create the choice  in front of you, if you have a lot to choose, you have this freedom, but it's not about doing whatever you want.  The freedom is not like what people said, that you can do whatever you want.   

So it's not contingent.

It's the right to choose the things that you want

You're free to choose what you want, but not free to do whatever freedom

You can do whatever you want, as long as you don't limit and destroy others freedoms

My rights end where yours begin.

Everyone things our freedom is to make the president step down, but that' s chaotic. 

Personally we have the right, but systemically we don't have the right.

So this is important to distinguish

To me it's important,

What do you mean, can't do everything you want

I could smack you right now, but that wouldn’t be good

So it's about the impact on other people

So I could go drink, I could hit people, these are kinds of freedom

I sense a frustration here

What's it about

Political freedom?

 

Negative freedom and positive freedom

Reminds me of slavery, MLK was saying they're not free because they didn't have the resources, platforms to pursue life liberty and happiness.  They were not free to do that.  Or poverty, people who are poor not free, because they are not free to do a lot of things, even if in a democratic society

 

 

Which kind of freedom is more appealing to you?  Does either kind give you a sense of unease? 

I’m confused, is freedom of speech positive or negative

Positive 2

Bit of both?

I feel like everything is a bit of both. 

Like there's a lack of limitations, I'm free to articulate my thoughts, but also because I have the resources, that's why I'm speaking English now.

 

Which kind of freedom is easier to realise?  

Negative?

Why?

As long as people don't stop you, you have the right.  But positive, even if people don’t' stop you, you still have to do something, then you have the right.

So you're saying that positive freedom relates to initiative.

So I would tie this with the protests as well.  One of my issues with it, from a general standpoint, I feel like they're going for a negative freedom, they don't want something, but what DO they want is not clear.  When you topple one thing, how do you make the other parts happen.  This has to happen collaboratively, you still have to work with the existing government, you can't reproduce the entire economy, that' my concern overall, how do we build some positive freedom.

Seconded.

 

How would you describe 'responsibility'?  What does 'taking responsibility' mean?  What does it mean to 'have responsibilities'?

 

What people expect you to do, the thing people expect you to do.

Who expects you?

Society, other people?

Are we talking about a sense of responsibility?

Because responsibility can also be personal

But in Taiwan it tends not to be that way

If you are well-mannered enough then you know you have your own responsibilities that's the sense of responsibility then

Sense of responsibility, or responsibility

Expectation

It's the opposite side of freedom, it's your impact on people around you, on yourself, the impact of your actions.  Do you have a sense of, are you aware of your impact, or creating more positive vs. Negative impact.   Freedom is more about thinking what you want to do.  What can I do

I think freedom is something you're given, and responsibility is something you give, if I'm going to simplify

Mm!

Oo!

Responsibility is social duty

With yourself, but you don't have to for yourself, but socially yes.

Then I’m confused between responsibility and obligation.

What is the difference?

They're very similar

Very different

Obligation is like something in law, if we we use the term in sociology.

It's not just law, it's social, society

But you can have personal sense of responsibility a personal set of values.  Maybe you believe it's everyone personal responsibility to make a living, I don’t' know, your responsibility as a human being.  Obligation is more imposed upon, 

It's not chosen? Obligation?

It's like a moral sense

Like mandatory military service, or 12 year mandatory education

That's an obligation! In Chinese

Yes.

Obligation to society

So it depends on social values.

Is recycling a responsibility,  or obligation?

Depends if you internalise, or agree with it.

 

 

Could we call obligations civic responsibilities?

In Taiwan Chinese, yes.

It's more like obligation, in Taiwan, because we have law, you get fined if you don't etc.

But do we have obligation or responsibility to take care of parents?

Responsibility.   Because if you don't no one will say you’re wrong, or fine you.

But there will be social opprobrium

 

 

In our current society, what are the civic responsibilities of an adult human being?

 

To not kill somebody without state permission.

You could apply a few more things to 'without state permission'

Like what?

Take money from bank account, put under house arrest, kidnapping

Kidnapping

Who's allowed to take you out of your house and take you away?  The state

So basically the state can do anything, if they have permission

So that's not a democracy then

Good point!

You can kill yourself,  if you succeed, 

If you fail, you can be reprimanded

Annihilation is allowed, to remove yourself

Can you live outside the state?

You need resources.

If we're framing the discussion on the book, within the book, there's the negative space of death, death is an escape, death is metaphorical as in going someplace else..   I think without that option, the positive doesn't have the contour,

I think this is outside of the purview

Death is  part of life, and if we're talking about responsibilities, end of life issues are involved.  Also reproduction, not just making life, but ending life, because the life cycle includes death

You mean like abortion then> 

Like death through old age

How's that reproduction

If you give life, there's an end line to life

Reproduction is not just biological and social, most of us receive social goods from our parents, is that property, and conditioning, and we receive the material goods before we die.

I want to mention something i've observed, in Asia, and Taiwan, when we talk about responsibility, civically, it's relationship based, even in terms of government. And the whole concept of rule of law is a western thing.  Fundamentally, it's a task-based thing, some cultures are task based, and some are relationship based, and task based emphasise agreements and law, in order to work better together, like how after the revolution in the US, they decided to have a set of agreements to abide by.   They decided this was the best way to create a society.  Your civic responsibility is to abide by these laws, and they're the ultimate.

But in Asia, it doesn't arise naturally.  There's always an emperor, one force, some strongman to bring order, and it's about relationships, it's about relationships with your immediate people.  Like the protestors, you have a sense of responsibility to whoever is your group, it might not even be the group inside the same country.  That's why you can have, like nepotism, maybe both parties think they're doing something for the country, but they're also doing something for the group they care about, that they owe something to.   It's more about relationship, not about getting together and follow the law.

In Asia, you say it's more about relationships.  But in Singapore, there's a counter example, everyone playing from the same book.  So I'm wondering, Singaporeans, majority is from a Chinese background, is it to do with traditional value systems coming in and being overrided by western system? Or maybe there was a vacuum?

It's and example of a strong man, actually.  

 

Rule of law is present, relationship values are present

Some groups tend to tilt towards more 

 

This wouldn't be allowed in the us?

Is it against the law, to occupy the floor of congress?  

Are you just saying US has better police state?

 

If we're talking law vs. Relational, there's no federal law saying ordinary citizens cannot occupy congress.  But parliamentary procedures probably have rules about who cannot do what.   But if Pelosi or someone backed them, then relational principles would take over.  

 

Ching li fa  情理法   emotions, rationality, law

Fa li ching  法理情but in US it's law, rationality, emotions

 

 

What is taking initiative?

To start

To create

For yourself and or for other

It's from yourself, it's you want to do things

It's to dare to disrupt, if you work in a Taiwanese company, you know what I mean.  How dare you! We have been running like this for years!

 

"You must take initiative!"

"Do this or not, the choice is yours!"

"This will only happen if YOU make it happen!"

Self contradictory!  You're being forced to take initiative!

They're saying you have a responsibility to take initiative

I feel inspired.  If sb said that I’d be inspired and encourage

D

I'd feel they're being a bully.

Derida talked about aporia.  Be free!  Using an imperative, if I follow that order I'm not free, but I don't I’m not free

I'm curious, I want to hear more, about the 'must'

Well, why must I, what circumstances must I do one thing or another if I’m free. It's emotional coercion to take one way or another.   

I feel like it's pressing that I do it, the second one gives me an out.

The second sentence is neutral, first and third are not

I feel this is reality, that's all.  In certain situations.  I mean, if you don’t feel bad about the situation.  If they're complaining, right/  if they weren't compliment, they're being a bully.  But if' they’re complaining and miserable, then it' slike, hey, this is reality, situation's not going to change!  Meaning even if you wanna blame everyone, it's not gonna change, depends on the context 

 

 

How is the ability to take initiative important to society?   

How could it threaten social structure?

 

It could threaten social structure, but it's what causes innovation?

It's about possibility

It's the only way problems get solved

Through initiative?

I was going to say, if you have a good idea.  If other people don't then you have to run with it.  That's how initiative creates innovation

I don't think it's the 'only' way.

If you take initiative, then you won't blame other people because you're self satisfied.

I could blame other people for not doing something,

But I understand what you mean.  If you take initiative, you're taking responsibility for the problem

Maybe other people can't blame you for staying stuck in the problem

 

 

 

How could it threaten social structure?

 

So this is a commentary on how societies view human nature.  If you're fundamentally afraid of human initiative, people should be obedient, passive, conforming

You're afraid of human initiative, the people in power are afraid of  human initiative, of people disagreeing, it means chaos to places like china.

I also think it's not just disrupting the state but also the privilege.

That's right!

If you look at china's history, that too much initiative created chaos.

Someone said that people in the west are more quality than quality of people in china

So full of shit

It's funny how we're so into democracy, but we don't even know what it means

 

What is the criteria for trust?

What needs to be present for you to trust someone

You need to understand their language.  Like academics talk to each other ad infinitum but we rarely understand each other.

Culture literacy.  Not just understanding the language is enough.

You know they’re gonna do what they say they’re' gonna do.

They'll follow through.

Fun and laughter.

So you'd be friends with the joker sorry, sarcastic

That's not on the list!

So if someone's serious you won't trust them.

I think it's like, if you can kid around you can play around.  Playfulness! 

Humor

Because you can push them.  My kind of  humor is about teasing, and you know you can push them in different ways…initiative.

Wait what?

Teasing sets up a rapport which is about pushing each others' boundaries.  Fi I want to live based on trust, there has to be an element of initiative there, and initiative is based on pushing

On pushing each others buttons?

Boundaries!!

I thin it's relevant, when you want to do the becoming roast.

 

If she trusts someone, it doesn't matter what other people think

No the opposite

She will listen to other  people's opinion, and their evaluation, and then decided if she trusted that person. 

So other people are her reference point.

 

Humor is so culture based, so that's interesting, if that's the basis for trust, then you can only reach that level of rapport with sb who shares the same culture.

'A' basis.

But that's why there's the men's club in the corporate power club.  They're not necessarily trying to exclude women, but they just feel more comfortable. 

I think it's groups based on gender, but also on other criteria.

Identity, that's a good one.  Trust is about whether you identify with this group of people.  You're from Taiwan, you must be good person

Identity is from shared experience

If we have done something together, we can trust each other.

But you may not have even done something together, but separately experienced similar things

Accumulated cultural experience.

Culture is a shorthanded shared experience.

Even if you didn't come from the same cultures, but you have the experience of being cross cultural,

The shared experience of crossing cultures.

 

There's another kind of trust, like family, blood relations, constructed relations that are so-called 'natural'

Involuntary authentic community

Totally agree with that explanation of family.

I trust my mom, but I wouldn't trust her with my red envelope

Self-consistent, I trust them to be the way they are,

Trust people to be predictable, or unpredictable

'You don't trust me'  = do you like me, or think I'm not a nice person, or trust me to do certain things

But expectation levels are high and you don't live up to that, don't trust, so you don't trust me because didn't live up to a standard I didn't even know about?  Basis of trust is about what they say, you start from trusting everyone until they prove not to be trustworthy.    

But then there's a contradiction here

But I'm not expecting them to fuck up

But there's an expectation for them to reach.  It's a judgment call about whether that is high or low.   Otherwise, why would it be broken, willfully at least

Can we add that trust is a shorthand for other qualities, 

Like what?

Like, liking someone, or thinking they’re' a good person. 

If you like them, you'd trust them.

No it's different.  You can love someone, but if they don't reach your expectations, then you can't trust them, like infidelity.

 

Is responsibility a central tenet of living in community?

Is responsibility a central tenet of real freedom?

Yes to both

But in authentic community, you don't need responsibility

No, you only have responsibility for what you say you agree to do, it's not imposed by somebody else.

 

Some people would disagree, but I wouldn't

 

Is responsibility a central tenet of living in community?

I need an example.

I have a responsibility not to hit people?

But why is it a responsibility?  It's a restriction, actually

But it's assuming valuing other people.   It's an awareness of your impact on other people, so yeah, you're self-restricting, in order to not have a negative on other people

It sounds like hitting people is a natural impulse

Ok, verbally abusing people!  What responsibility do you have to not unleash that

I wonder if you could talk about negative and positive responsibility

So, if we agree to be in a discussion group together, and 9 out of 10 don't talk there is no discussion. 

[laughter]

No kidding that's what happens in classes

 

It's not responsibility, but individuality that's the central tenet.  Each person has the freedom to be themselves, but they also have a sense of being responsible for the others, but the responsibility is not the central tenet. Fi the individual is not central we lose what each of us want.

I was gonna say, I thin it's the balance between responsibility and freedom.  Can't have just one of the other.

In 2018, I'm going to say to you, "Jane, you were gonna say…"

I don't want to put words in your mouth Angela, but it seems that for you community means keeping an archive.

Well, I believe that for an individual to understand themselves, they have to understand their history, the story up till now of themselves.   And the same is true for community.  If you know how the community formed, and how we got here, then it's easier to have a fuller understanding of what the community is about now.   Or just in practical terms, sometimes I get to the end of a discussion and go, 'wow, how did we get here' and I wanna see how it developed.  keeping a transcript is the best way I know.   

 

What's the point of talking about [past genocide, past atrocities]? Why do we need to talk about the problems in the past?
As far as I know, the best way to begin healing from trauma is for people to tell their stories.  if they're silenced, the wounds fester. 

Also abusers have an interest in saying 'that's not important any more, we have to move on'

Countries post WWII that have faced up to authoritarian past have made changes in constitution, in how they operate, those that didn't, didn't evolve.

It's connecting with the heart that brings a community together, so if you don't face up to these heart issues, there's always going to be a rift, there's no trust.

So the whole point of having discussions about history, is about trust, 

So if they don't happen, only the abuser can move on.

Heart, open feeling, these things create trust.

And you archiving, is more than an observation about you. If we want the decision to stick to something as a community, we might forget, so we need the record of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.