lkwdblds
Crusader
Re:
FoTi, your assumption is correct. I'm taking it as a given that one is not aware of how things are going to turn out before the incident occurs. After all, we are talking about playing the games of life. If one knew 100% how something was going to turn out beforehand, that would be a no game condition. No analysis or "post mortem" study would ever have to be made. If something ended up broken, the person would not have misgivings because he/she intended it to end up that way beforehand.
I am making one important distinction. On some topics, one can be "in the know" partially. In this type of scenario, a person may try something and see what happens. If things start to go sour, the person will try mid course corrections.
An example of the above comes frequently in managing a business. The person introduces a new product or ad campaign or somesuch, not really knowing if it will catch on. He observes how it goes and adjusts his business accordingly.
This is not the type of example which I was addressing in my quoted post. In that post I was looking at examples where my knowing or knowledge was so low that I did not even realize that I was in the game being played.
An example of that would be being a child of 5 and not even being aware that one's being a family member carried some responsibility with it. In those halcyon childhood days, the 5 year old seems to be loved by nearly everybody he/she comes in contact with. The parents love the child, as do the grandparents, all the other relatives and friends who come to visit, etc. The 5 year just gets the idea that everyone loves him and that he does not have to do anything in return to merit that love.
I am saying is that if something goes wrong in a 5 year old's family life and years later the 5year old justifies his claim that he was not responsible by asserting that he was too young to know anything, then that 5 year old ,who is now grown, up would do better to look deeper and take some responsibility for his part in what went wrong rather than just justify it by stating that he was to young to know or do anything.
Lakey
FoTi, your assumption is correct. I'm taking it as a given that one is not aware of how things are going to turn out before the incident occurs. After all, we are talking about playing the games of life. If one knew 100% how something was going to turn out beforehand, that would be a no game condition. No analysis or "post mortem" study would ever have to be made. If something ended up broken, the person would not have misgivings because he/she intended it to end up that way beforehand.
I am making one important distinction. On some topics, one can be "in the know" partially. In this type of scenario, a person may try something and see what happens. If things start to go sour, the person will try mid course corrections.
An example of the above comes frequently in managing a business. The person introduces a new product or ad campaign or somesuch, not really knowing if it will catch on. He observes how it goes and adjusts his business accordingly.
This is not the type of example which I was addressing in my quoted post. In that post I was looking at examples where my knowing or knowledge was so low that I did not even realize that I was in the game being played.
An example of that would be being a child of 5 and not even being aware that one's being a family member carried some responsibility with it. In those halcyon childhood days, the 5 year old seems to be loved by nearly everybody he/she comes in contact with. The parents love the child, as do the grandparents, all the other relatives and friends who come to visit, etc. The 5 year just gets the idea that everyone loves him and that he does not have to do anything in return to merit that love.
I am saying is that if something goes wrong in a 5 year old's family life and years later the 5year old justifies his claim that he was not responsible by asserting that he was too young to know anything, then that 5 year old ,who is now grown, up would do better to look deeper and take some responsibility for his part in what went wrong rather than just justify it by stating that he was to young to know or do anything.
Lakey
Last edited:
I think I'm done with this conversation.
Rather like Voltaire's Child's old avatar with the oyster shell nestled on that lovely err, umm, torso.
