Tag: philosophy

What is Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation?

Published on April 1, 2026

What is Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation?

That was in the text but not the title of some [there’s a whole lot of mandatory refresher and update style review, testing, demonstrating, and proving] of this year’s annual employee training.

[Be warned: you’re gonna have to pretend you know how to read code to follow the rest of this. If you don’t or simply don’t want to, you’ll need to rely on #ArtificalIntelligence #AI to help you out. Of course, chances are that AI was manifested, conceived, created, implemented, and made come to life, by someone like me. Someone who’s worked in IT for 45 years. LOL. ]

I work at a great [or really trying very hard to be] hospital, where like everyone in healthcare,

[single person, unit, organization, committee, subcommittee, focus group, lobbyist, corporation, initiating, defining, acquiring, executing, monitoring, and closing [see how cleverly I got the #PMI #PMBOK knowledge areas in there? Made you want to either look it up or salute, didn’t it? 🙂 plus all those other governing, regulating, overseeing, and simply interfering but not non-governing bodies [because the bottom line is, we work in #bodies. Vertical and horizontal. In so many shades on that spectrum it really is mind-blowing!]]]

I am exposed to and must make decisions and actions about

[in one way or another, to some end or another, for the purposes of covering my butt and being an exemplary employee, healthcare worker, caregiver, clinical team, administrator, organization or to be a good person, family member, religionist, neighbor, citizen, community, city, county [township, kirk, borough, parish, diocese, and any other damned subregional name you can think of. Go nuts here. You can entertain yourself (but probably not TOO many others – remember, it’s just who’s in your box and immediately adjacent at your share window that can see or hear you well enough to consider being entertained) for HOURS on this one.]

these three topics:

[you may not remember at this point because we’ve gone full stream of conscious by know and like anything else, each moment is only here when it’s here after all. The past and the future only exist in the now, which only lives in our minds long enough to die. It is our minds, after all. And everything else. ESPECIALLY the stuff you try to keep swept up under the rug. #ItWillAllComeToLightOrItAintLightEnoughYet]

Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation.

But here’s the thought.

[after what seems to be an interminably long and protracted but likely completely unnecessary to conveying the point introduction, some of which might have been greatly changed by avoiding all the #ActiveCase #IOweMyOnlineLifeToTheElementsOfStyle. 😉 🙂 :D]

How you define each of those terms describes the society you want to live in.

That’s one part of that society, world, planet, universe, cosmos.

The other?

How much of each of those together or separately you’ll accept, tolerate, or condone.

[#ThinkingFaceEmoji]

Of course, to REALLY be #LiberalFriendly, it must also be subcategorized. Aristotle style, of course. Where would we be as an advanced technological and philosophy power on this earth without at least SOME Aristitotalian real-world application?

So, how you stand on EACH one defines your political agenda, i.e., what particular kind of liberal you are.

[Conservatives, you don’t have to take this test. You’re all the same, really. Anti-Liberal. Sadly, that makes you the victim in all this, in everything. Because the real truth is, NOTHING is inevitable. Absolutely fucking nothing. There is no eternity, no “after”, no up in the sky pristine alpine white (of course, paradise WOULD be white, right OMG STFU). You get a “bye” this round. See you in the championships #HoopDreams #SoLongAsMyTeamWins #TeamSpirit #GoTeam #NoTimeForLosers #WinningIsntTheBestThingItsTheOnlyThing.]

No exceptions. If you don’t tick all the boxes, you won’t vote alike. Not even on the same Democrat. Or to save a Democrat. Or to register as a Democrat. Or even LIKE a Democrat. Or an Independent. Green, Socialist, Communist, #SomethingElse, #NothingElse, #AmIAloneOutHere, #WhatIsMyFlavorAnyway. Or something, that’s for sure.

[So here we go]

Abuse: Drug, domestic, spousal, child, and animal, to start.

[Remember, you must rate them least to most important. Can’t pigeonhole you without that information. Next, on to]

Neglect: Personal, spousal, child, malicious, unintentional.

[Remember, these are all about accepting, acknowledging, understanding, condoning, observing, participating, and/or facilitating. Don’t worry, we’ll get to the Exploitation part later. Of course, how you accept that decision on my part ALSO helps define how and what kind of liberal you really are. Good so far? And finally…]

Exploitation

Personal, sexual [consensual and/or not], child [but also young adult, adult, elderly, etc.], race [or ethnicity], accident, intentional

[again, see how important your intentions are? If you think about it, it’s not really WHY you did something that matters. Because that’s the true benchmark, right? It don’t really matter what the law says. You gonna do something you think is right whether it actually IS right or not, ain’t ya? Damned right. Every time. And only YOU make that decision. Every single FREAKING time. Of course, MOST of the time you get lucky, because what the current [fleeting like everything else only temporary and probably not as stable as it looks] culture and “nation” you were pushed out into feels strongly enough about to adjudicate on, you’ve been carefully and ever so cautiously but firmly educated, indoctrinated, spoon fed, and weaned on. THAT’s your mother’s milk, ain’t it? And like everybody REALLY knows, there is no way to get that in a formula. For better or worse. #BreastFedIsBestFed 🙂 and also + , ]

malicious, profitable, pleasurable, etc.

[It gets darker, sicker, and more twisted the further you slip down THAT rabbit hole.]

So: you take your ratings from all of those, and it gives you a rating from 1 to 100. Now, THAT is a useful number. There’s probably a way to tie that to all KINDS of metrics to figure out what kind of person you are.

[person, leader, boss, gender, personality, intelligence, guppy, partner, child, parent, adult, sibling, co-worker, friend, lover, henchperson, lackey, employee, zodiac sign, religious nut, liberal, my heavens THIS could go on forever. No wonder we can’t seem to get control of politics in this country!!!! OMG IRL WTF #TheUglyTruthAintIt]

Anyway, your number. That gives you coordinates on the game board. Think of it like that, and you’ll still manage to retain some hope of winning. Of course, that’s an illusion and seriously only fleetingly temporary at best, and if you’re lucky, you’ll remember some of the best parts. Most people don’t get as lucky as the lottery commission would like you to believe. Any gambler could tell you the odds are in the house’s favor. Or there wouldn’t be a house. #RememberYouAintTheHouseYoureJustLivingInIt #ItAintAGambleIfYouKnowYoureGonnaLose 😉

That NUMBER puts you in the right #LiberalBox. Remember, there’s really only ONE #ConservativeBox [just anti-liberal, remember], but you’ve got a lot of choices.

[Actually you don’t have a choice. your number dictates where you’re going to go. Of course, you CAN change that number, but then you have to take the above test ALL over again. And whose got that kind of time, right? How about…]

There are a lot of possible end points. And that number tells you exactly which one is yours. Then you find out who is IN the box with you [it’s usually pretty damned lonely], whose boxes are NEXT to yours, and whose are next to THEIRS? It’s turtles, all the way down, isn’t it?

ANYHOW. Your box determines who you can and are willing to talk to, agree with to a degree, cooperate with, compete with, tolerate, stand, deal with, antagonize, bully, belittle, jeopardize, marginalize, and #AllThoseIZEGuys.

So how’s the view? What’s on the idiot box? How’s your world looking [either in, around, out, or beyond]? What books are on your shelves? That’s kind of way to #VennDiagram us to figure out where we connect, if at all. These

Books

[and the medium by which they are transmitted, be that oral, chiseled, scratched, printed, scripted, typed, voice-generated, completely computer-generated (there’s that #AI again) are the way ideas pass between brains that insist on thinking of themselves as individuals. Clumsy, for sure, but #YouWorkWithWhatYouGot, right? So the books]

that you and I both draw from (either from direct experience or via somebody else telling you what’s in the book [like sadly MOST religions] and especially the #BooksWeOwn are critical to determining whether you and I are gonna share anything more than a brief, fleeting, single moment in time.

And so we imagine, define, join, celebrate, reinforce, perpetuate, indoctrinate, educate and promulgate, our own special #PoliticalParty. As if that organization bereft like every other single other thing in the universe, is horribly #impermanent, #outsidetime, #transitory, #mortal, and otherwise #NowAndOneTimeOnly.

That’s why the world is the way it is.

How you define abuse, neglect, and exploitation. And why. And what that does to either you or anyone else. Ever. Permanently. Insofar as #NothingIsReallyPermanentOrInEvitable. Right?

Now back to your regularly scheduled program #AlreadyInProgess. See, it took MUCH longer than #TwoAndTwo to get through this. But it was worth it, right?

[Next episode will probably be about Worth, Value and Saving :)]

Accept what you think is love and make sure to give it back. Don’t settle for anything else, less, more, other. #NoSubstitutions #MustBePresentToWin #WereInThisTogether #AbsolutelyCompletelyIrreversiblySoYouMightAsWellBeWillinglyInterdependent.

Peace (don’t get me started) out.

[April Fool’s LOL]

#SomeStuffIsReallyImportantToTalkAbout #Resist #NoKings #NoKingsCrownsOrNobility #ChangeTheBe #MakeTheRightChoiceForAChange

01 APR 2026

Leave a Comment

A Boost for Sarah Bakewell

Published on August 13, 2025

Paperback Humanists

I’m now reading my third book from Sarah Bakewell. The first two (on Montaigne and the Existentialists, respectively) were really quite good, and provided writing prompts for months 🙂 #SarahBakewell #Humanism #BookSky #Writing #Philosophy

Leave a Comment

Absolute Nonsense

Published on June 4, 2025

Today’s Krishnamurti-inspired question: is evil the ultimate result or end-game of a gradual reduction in good, or is evil the ultimate result of a gradual reduction in evil, the end being a state in which good or evil is absolutely and only itself, being absolutely absent from the other?

Are they in fact (or perhaps only in perception) just two ends of the same stick, or two separate conditions from which neither can ever arise? If that’s the case, since most believe that something cannot come from nothing, i.e., unless there is a causeless cause somewhere, whether divine or otherwise pre-existing, where are the seeds of either found in the first place?

Is the answer that neither exists in the absolute? Or is the question, “Is there really an absolute at all?”

If that’s the case, since nothing that is not absolute can possibly ever recognize or understand the absolute, does any absolute – like perfect, ever, never, always, omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, etc. – actually exist anywhere outside our limited, non-absolute minds? Just because we want to believe in something larger, grander, more permanent, or at least slightly more purposeful and directed than our own miserable, small, petty, useless, and mostly very mundane existence, doesn’t make it so.

If there IS an absolute, whether it exists only in our minds or not, isn’t choosing one end of the stick versus the other always the wrong choice?

And how would you know, unless you know? And if you know, how could it be absolute?

04 Jun 2025

Leave a Comment

A Walk In The Rain

Published on April 19, 2025

Well, into every life a little rain must fall, and the careful man learns to keep himself dry.

Another great line from The Bat (1959) starring Vincent Price and Agnes Morehead – two paragons of the styles of performance they each represented. Whatever that means to you. They’re both very watchable, to me. And ever since I learned that Agnes played Orson Welles’ love interest and confidante Margot Lane during his stint as radio’s The Shadow, I’ve liked her even more. Vincent? Well, he loved art and wine. But I often wondered why he bothered wearing disguises in any of his movies. He was usually the only really tall person in his films. So who could that masked villain be? It isn’t gonna be the little guy. But I digress – as always.

Back to the quote – and in this movie, it’s the chauffeur who gets the best lines. I would extend this a little further: rain is going to fall, but it’s not always in your best interest to hide under your umbrella. As the Sufi saying goes, “Never name the well from which you will not drink.” In the desert, a drop of hot sweat can seem like a cold drink.

The trick is when the rain does fall, to find a use for the water. And make sure it’s appropriately distributed. Is that some kind of socialist ideal? Not at all. No more than public highways, law enforcement, armed services, or health and welfare safety nets.

The other thing about rain is it’s not the same everywhere. Altitude, latitude, and distance from large bodies of water affect climate, seasons change the receptivity to precipitation, and that’s even before you toss in the human factors like lack of green-space, overpopulation, inappropriate ground cover, non-native species, loss of topsoil, carbon emissions, and chemical imbalance.

An inch of rain in one place is a deluge in another. So keeping dry, if that’s what you need to do, is not always so simple. But it’s an important job, particularly if you’re not just looking after yourself. It deserves a bit of study, practice, and consistent application.

Because it’s not always sunshine and rainbows, is it?

19 APR 2025

Leave a Comment

Philosophy Useless? Or What We Consider Philosophy?

Published on March 8, 2017

“When the main reason why people do x is so that someone else can evaluate their ability to do x, it seems to me that something has gone wrong.”

Seems to me that part of the problem with philosophy (and those who make it, especially for a living) is that no one, except perhaps a few practical crackpots and conspiracy theorists, seems to acknowledge or admit there is connection between this basic flaw in how philosophies are presented and evaluated and the way that flaw presents itself across a spectrum of other life activities – in the evaluation of experts by non-experts, in the insistence that celebrity makes for better theories, etc.

On Philosophy’s Uselessness to Society

Leave a Comment

Cut the Crap: descort

Published on February 24, 2017

You seek for “truth”:
for the origin of being,
the thing in itself,
but either don’t look hard
enough,
or waste time looking
in the wrong spot.

It’s right here:
the meaning is no recipe,
it is not the history of a dish
to be rehashed at leisure
to impress special friends.

What a double-edged sword
is imagination!

The way you classify a thing
in theory doesn’t change its lifestyle;
it makes no difference,
one way or the other,
what you choose to call it
when you think it’s out of the room.

To imagine that a thing exists
because we think of it,
and blinks away to nothingness
once it slips our minds
imposes a two-dimensional framework
on the world
wherein our consciousness
is the only proof of life.

You see the dog on your lap.
You see the ant at your foot.

How stupid is that supposition?

24 FEB 2017

Leave a Comment

Science v Philosophy

Published on January 30, 2017

I assume that one of the underlying purposes of psychoanalysis, of psychiatric treatment, is to get to a point where further psychoanalysis is unnecessary, that the neuroses in the patient have been identified, assessed, treated, and successfully mitigated or eliminated. In other words, the goal of therapy is to stop the need for therapy. To no longer be a recovering neurotic, so to speak, but instead to be a non-neurotic.

As someone who eight years ago stopped smoking cigarettes, I can relate. But for me, the key to quitting was to stop referring to myself as a ex-smoker, as a “recovering nicotine addict”. The only way I could stop, cold turkey, and never think of picking up another cigarette was to think of myself as a non-smoker. A non-smoker would never need a cigarette, whereas an ex-smoker might be tempted to fall back in the habit, you see.

There are a lot of atheists and agnostics out there who might, if you asked them to think on it, consider themselves “recovering” Christians. There certainly are a lot of neo-pagans who do so; and I suspect that a great many Westerners who have drifted to Eastern or other “exotic” spiritual paths consider themselves struggling and in recovery from their Western cultural roots. Even modern Satanists are either simply anti-Christians, or in the LaVey tradition, mere worshippers of Self as God. Likewise, those pagans who see an ideal world of myriad gods and goddesses, with temples on every corner are trying to replace their childhood Christianity with the illusion of something different. The Greeks, at some point, had it right, when they made their gods just a little more than human, and by doing, elevated man as the ultimate ideal – but they muddled it up with “divine” intention as well. As Richard Dawkins says in “The Magic of Reality” the wonders of science are diverse, fascinating, and “magical” enough, without interjecting some kind of supernatural into them.

I was raised non-religious, by an engineer and a biologist. One might suppose our holy trinity was Charles Darwin, Isaac Newton, and Henry Ford. I was exposed to religion, but never took part except voluntarily and as an absolute outsider/non-believer. In my late teens, I spent a lot of time looking for spiritual paths that seemed to tie the whole together; had I been born 20 or 30 years later, the ideas of quantum science and chaos might have drawn me deeply into the sciences. As it was, at least in my high school view, each of the sciences (i.e., physics, chemistry, biology) seemed their own separate fiefdoms, each requiring the share language of mathematics to progress to any degree. And mathematics, perhaps because of my father’s aptitude for it, was something that did not directly arouse my interest. I did better in geometry than algebra, if only because it seemed so much less abstract – although later in life, abstraction became quite a fascination for me.

As a result, I was never exposed to the idea that we are all “star-stuff”, that me and every other thing in the universe was in fact a product of the same source material. But maybe during the 1980s that idea was not yet so prevalent as it is today, and the need to try to connect everything through a single omnipresent divinity was more likely the idea. I don’t know.

It makes so much sense to me now, of course, except I still don’t grasp all the mathematics. They say that musicians often use math as a hobby, and that mathematicians use music in the same way, both having an affinity for what on the surface seems a diametrically opposed discipline. But they are ultimately both math, of course – music is horizontal and vertical intervals; matter and wave moving through time. It is physics; the only science subject I successfully navigated in high school.

Philosophy, they say, is supposed to the the science that imagines, and then verifies (although the methods for verification here are somewhat nebulous) the truth of that imagining, a single underlying (or overarching, or connecting, or unifying) principle that connects all knowledge (and by that is meant scientific knowledge from both the “hard” and “soft” sciences). What I wonder is if there has been any serious current collaboration between philosophers (a great many of whom were originally mathematicians, or in their early stages, “natural” philosophers, who contemplated the nature of the physical world around them and in the process, invented the other sciences) and scientists (e.g., physicists, biologists, chemists) to more deeply and completely understand our world and our place in it – particularly given recent advances in science toward unified theories of existence.

One great obstacle in that cooperation seems to be philosophy’s current focus on the theoretical for its own sake, to prove or make points with or against another philosopher, not to advance humanity’s knowledge, but to smugly poke holes in the net we’re all using to catch that knowledge, without really repairing it and making it more useful. I see “theorizing”, like theoretical physics which seems to advance theories as a way of proceeding to practical demonstration of that theory’s usefulness, in a more positive, forward-seeking way. That could just be my perception, of course. I recently quipped that philosophers primarily seemed interested in diluting, diffusing, deconstructing, or discrediting the work of other philosophers. Of course, we all stand on the shoulders of giants, and behind true science is always the idea of finding and correcting the flaw in a predecessor’s proof so as to go beyond it – perhaps in a completely different and unexpected direction.

But I wonder, of those scientists and philosophers who may be working together right now – how many of them are “recovering” Christians, or Hindus, or Buddhists? How many still try to reconcile the idea of Divine intervention with the seemingly obvious natural magic that is reality? How many still fight against the urge to defer to an unseen entity as the prime mover?

Can one trace, as Huxley did in The Perennial Philosophy, the journey on the road to find out, where a set of single underlying, non-supernatural principles is universally (i.e., across many earth cultures) understood to be the basis of human reality, without relying like Huxley on non-scientific input from faith-based mystics, gurus and saints?

Inquiring, skeptical minds wanna know.

30 JAN 2017

Leave a Comment