Humanism on my mind

[marjoram_blues]

I have edited OP to warn would-be readers that there is only a small section about 'Humanism'.
Of course that might change but I doubt it...

[ken]

I have edited OP to warn would-be readers that there is only a small section about 'Humanism'.
Of course that might change but I doubt it...

What is it exactly that you want to talk about regards 'humanism'?

[marjoram_blues]

I have edited OP to warn would-be readers that there is only a small section about 'Humanism'.
Of course that might change but I doubt it...

What is it exactly that you want to talk about regards 'humanism'?

My OP gives some insight. There is no 'exactly'.

Thanks for contribution.

[Dontaskme]

Humanism.

You're born, then you have a little nondual period where you haven't a care in the world and the world is your sandbox where you play all day and hate being called in for your tea, and then you go to that teaching prison until you are old enough to fend for yourself as a grown up, then you get a job, and every morning, you get up at the same time, have a piss and a poo and a shower, then maybe shovel in some toast on the way to your car or the bus, then you come home and eat again, then you have a bit of fun relaxing me time doing some hobby or creative thing or entertain yourself watching stupid mind numbing television programmes, then you go to bed, then you lay awake all night worrying about nothing, then you fall asleep just as it's time to get up again and you do the same thing you did yesterday all over again. You do this until you retire, and when you retire you entertain your selves to your hearts content, and then you begin to get things going wrong with your health where you start to go blind and deaf, and have aches and pains, and you basically feel like death warmed up on most days and then you die.


.

[Belinda]

Ken wrote:

what is it exactly that I am doing that makes me look like an arrogant twit?

When I explained to you about language codes I did so having studied sociolinguistics as an undergraduate. I did not expect you to accept my explanation as for you I am only a name on a website. I did however provide a respectable link. You belittled the idea of language codes with no alternative explanation. The lack of an alternative explanation, or even a contrary hypothesis, illustrated arrogant twithood.

[marjoram_blues]

Humanism.

You're born, then you have a little nondual period where you haven't a care in the world and the world is your sandbox where you play all day and hate being called in for your tea, and then you go to that teaching prison until you are old enough to fend for yourself as a grown up, then you get a job, and every morning, you get up at the same time, have a piss and a poo and a shower, then maybe shovel in some toast on the way to your car or the bus, then you come home and eat again, then you have a bit of fun relaxing me time doing some hobby or creative thing or entertain yourself watching stupid mind numbing television programmes, then you go to bed, then you lay awake all night worrying about nothing, then you fall asleep just as it's time to get up again and you do the same thing you did yesterday all over again. You do this until you retire, and when you retire you entertain your selves to your hearts content, and then you begin to get things going wrong with your health where you start to go blind and deaf, and have aches and pains, and you basically feel like death warmed up on most days and then you die.

.

I was born. I lived. I died.

One of the reasons I'm checking out Humanism is so that I can organise a funeral which better reflects my life view. Of course, it won't really matter a jot because I will be dead.
I'd quite like no fuss. Just burn, collect the ashes and scatter in nature.

I thank Belinda who wrote in another thread that your view is described in philosophy as Idealism.

[ken]

Ken wrote:

what is it exactly that I am doing that makes me look like an arrogant twit?

When I explained to you about language codes I did so having studied sociolinguistics as an undergraduate. I did not expect you to accept my explanation as for you I am only a name on a website. I did however provide a respectable link. You belittled the idea of language codes with no alternative explanation. The lack of an alternative explanation, or even a contrary hypothesis, illustrated arrogant twithood.

WHAT?

I NEVER belittled the idea of language codes at all. In fact I am pretty sure that I have NEVER belittled any thing whatsoever, including any person, in this forum ever. If I have, then I have NEVER intended to do so, and I apologize.

This is what you wrote; - and then My reply;

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:38 am There are in actual fact two distinct ways to talk to each other. These are called language codes. One sort of group uses one code for the most part and the other sort of group for the most part uses the other code.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/ ... icted-code

Ken wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:56 pm Just another set of made up groups in order to try and divide human beings even further. This time with the so called "language codes" people use, they are trying to put one group of people over another group of people, and then people will dispute which group is better.

I seriously can NOT see how you came to the conclusions that you have here. I know that I am slow and all, but can you please help Me understand how what I wrote brought you to coming to the conclusion;
1. That I, did not accept that you were an undergraduate in some course.
2. That I, belittled the idea of language codes.
3. That I, would need to give an alternative explanation.
4. That I, would need to give a contrary hypothesis.

More or less all I said was this is just another example of human beings doing more of this compartmentalizing of themselves, by further forming more or newer groups of people. This time forming one group of people who use one form of language code, and, another group of people who use another form of language. This I thought was another good example of what I was just actually speaking about, where human beings are continually forming smaller and smaller separate and divisive groups of themselves, and then putting separated labels onto each of these newly formed smaller groups of people, which only causes more division among themselves.

I honestly am viewing what you and I wrote from a completely different perspective from what are viewing, and seeing.

[ken]

Humanism.

You're born, then you have a little nondual period where you haven't a care in the world and the world is your sandbox where you play all day and hate being called in for your tea, and then you go to that teaching prison until you are old enough to fend for yourself as a grown up, then you get a job, and every morning, you get up at the same time, have a piss and a poo and a shower, then maybe shovel in some toast on the way to your car or the bus, then you come home and eat again, then you have a bit of fun relaxing me time doing some hobby or creative thing or entertain yourself watching stupid mind numbing television programmes, then you go to bed, then you lay awake all night worrying about nothing, then you fall asleep just as it's time to get up again and you do the same thing you did yesterday all over again. You do this until you retire, and when you retire you entertain your selves to your hearts content, and then you begin to get things going wrong with your health where you start to go blind and deaf, and have aches and pains, and you basically feel like death warmed up on most days and then you die.


.

I can never keep up with you dontaskme.

One post you will write, "You can't actually die", but the next you write, "and then you die".

[FlashDangerpants]

One of the reasons I'm checking out Humanism is so that I can organise a funeral which better reflects my life view. Of course, it won't really matter a jot because I will be dead.
I'd quite like no fuss. Just burn, collect the ashes and scatter in nature.

I want to be loaded on a giant catapult in Dover, and then have my bloated corpse hurled naked at the French. Dousing me in salad dressing and setting me alight first is optional.

[Belinda]

Marjoram, here is a story about a Humanist funeral.

Many years ago I thought I ought to do my bit, and conduct Humanist funerals. An avowed atheist man with no money, a complete stranger to me, had died and had been granted a funeral by the local authority, and there was I as a student of the Humanist officiant at his funeral, sitting at the back of the crematorium chapel while the dead man's three friends sat at the front. It was to the Humanist officiant's credit that when at the last moment the dead man's friends requested we sing 'The Old Rugged Cross'he peacefully announced the hymn at the appropriate juncture. As for me the whole affair was too emotionally harrowing, I was crying , and so I had to give up my plans to become a Humanist officiant.

[marjoram_blues]

Marjoram, here is a story about a Humanist funeral.

Many years ago I thought I ought to do my bit, and conduct Humanist funerals. An avowed atheist man with no money, a complete stranger to me, had died and had been granted a funeral by the local authority, and there was I as a student of the Humanist officiant at his funeral, sitting at the back of the crematorium chapel while the dead man's three friends sat at the front. It was to the Humanist officiant's credit that when at the last moment the dead man's friends requested we sing 'The Old Rugged Cross'he peacefully announced the hymn at the appropriate juncture. As for me the whole affair was too emotionally harrowing, I was crying , and so I had to give up my plans to become a Humanist officiant.

Belinda, thanks for this - I can imagine the scenario all too well. I too have considered that being a Humanist officiant would be to offer a wonderful service at a time of great difficulty for those grieving.
'The Old Rugged Cross' sets me off every time, given its associated memories with grandad and religious upbringing.
Sometimes, I think that even with my changed views and desire to have them reflected in any service - a hymn would not be out of order. And perhaps, the funeral service should just as equally be for those attending, particularly if my parents had survived me.

I'd actually prefer for there to be no-one present when I am cast into the flames. And for any family and friends to do their own thing, wherever - the drinks are on me

[marjoram_blues]

One of the reasons I'm checking out Humanism is so that I can organise a funeral which better reflects my life view. Of course, it won't really matter a jot because I will be dead.
I'd quite like no fuss. Just burn, collect the ashes and scatter in nature.

I want to be loaded on a giant catapult in Dover, and then have my bloated corpse hurled naked at the French. Dousing me in salad dressing and setting me alight first is optional.

I'm sure your family and friends would be happy to oblige. No problem !

[Belinda]

Ken wrote:

Ken wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:56 pm Just another set of made up groups in order to try and divide human beings even further. This time with the so called "language codes" people use, they are trying to put one group of people over another group of people, and then people will dispute which group is better.

I seriously can NOT see how you came to the conclusions that you have here. I know that I am slow and all, but can you please help Me understand how what I wrote brought you to coming to the conclusion;
1. That I, did not accept that you were an undergraduate in some course.
2. That I, belittled the idea of language codes.
3. That I, would need to give an alternative explanation.
4. That I, would need to give a contrary hypothesis.

1. I only meant to explain that I had thought a lot about language codes and the theory matters to me.

2. I can't explain how what you wrote seems to indicate to me that you underestimate a very useful idea.

3. and 4. I think that you either did not read the link I posted or did not understand the theory. I would have accepted either of those explanations in lieu of a longer critique.

In fact, the theory of linguistic codes applies equally to all other sub-groups such as religions, ethnicities, work places, professions, or leisure activities.There is no problem about the author of the theory "trying to put one group of people over another group of people" , because the author is simply describing language stylistics and how they apply to everybodies' agendas. There are social occasions when one or the other code is appropriate, and the occasion can slide from one to the other without any formal agreement. You can read this happening here on the forum. Harbal for instance is very killed at the miscalled 'restricted code', which besides humour also includes poetry, and expressions of personal feelings.

[ken]

Ken wrote:

Ken wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:56 pm Just another set of made up groups in order to try and divide human beings even further. This time with the so called "language codes" people use, they are trying to put one group of people over another group of people, and then people will dispute which group is better.

I seriously can NOT see how you came to the conclusions that you have here. I know that I am slow and all, but can you please help Me understand how what I wrote brought you to coming to the conclusion;
1. That I, did not accept that you were an undergraduate in some course.
2. That I, belittled the idea of language codes.
3. That I, would need to give an alternative explanation.
4. That I, would need to give a contrary hypothesis.

1. I only meant to explain that I had thought a lot about language codes and the theory matters to me.

I NEVER said any thing at all, either way, in regards to this.

The easiest to explain what you mean is just to say what you mean, like you have done here. Accusing Me of things, which by the way were completely untrue, will NOT help you in any way whatsoever to explain that you had thought a lot about language codes and that the theory matters to you.

2. I can't explain how what you wrote seems to indicate to me that you underestimate a very useful idea.

That might be because I NEVER did underestimate that idea at all.

For some reason, which you would be the only one that truly knows, you reached a conclusion from nothing.

3. and 4. I think that you either did not read the link I posted or did not understand the theory. I would have accepted either of those explanations in lieu of a longer critique.

BUT I NEVER critiqued any thing at all regarding this theory.

I just said this article is another, good, example of forming more labeled separate groups, of people, which is what I was talking about at the time.

In fact, the theory of linguistic codes applies equally to all other sub-groups such as religions, ethnicities, work places, professions, or leisure activities.

Noted, and also previously recognized, when reading parts of the article.

There is no problem about the author of the theory "trying to put one group of people over another group of people" , because the author is simply describing language stylistics and how they apply to everybodies' agendas.

Noted, again also previously recognized, when reading parts of the article.

Also, I NEVER even thought, let alone said, there was any problem with any one nor any problem anywhere here.

There are social occasions when one or the other code is appropriate, and the occasion can slide from one to the other without any formal agreement.

Noted, and again previously recognized, when reading parts of the article.

You can read this happening here on the forum.

Noted, and already noticed after reading parts of that link.

Harbal for instance is very killed at the miscalled 'restricted code', which besides humour also includes poetry, and expressions of personal feelings.

Noted, and already noticed.

[Belinda]

Sorry of course I meant skilled