Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

There is no place of "egalitarian views" within right view, since there are higher and lower, parents, sacrifices... it's a base for gratitude to recognize more-sublime. And there are no modern values fitting to Brahma and Ariya values since the very old. Timeless, including the individual choice. Forced marriage and family founding is also only fond in Marx related societies, good Sushan.

My person had been a layperson before as well, good wife, good children, good job, wealth, success... and wouldn't have gained such if not "accidentally" living Brahama/Ariya ways in the middle of the stream downwardly.

So no reason why to think that good ways depend on whether the neighbors follow them as well, and can not be lived anymore this days. Nobody needs to found a family with a partner of wrong view and unvirtuose kind.

As the Buddha taught, there are four kinds of unifications: a death with Deva, a deva with a death, a death with a death, and a deva with a deva. (death= immoral, deva = moral, ethic, generosity) while only the last would be of good future, pleasing.

But the fact that marriage since some 100 years is merely a love and sense pleasure affair and lesser an institution like a life undertaking, makes the base of frustration. Why, because happiness of sensuality is a very fake and short living one, gets never satisfied.

Maybe a very important aspect, that parents are actually the first Gods, and to be seen as "person of goodness", while children have no such as right, are received guests.

“Bhikkhus, those families are with Brahma, where the mother and father are worshipped by their children. Those families are with the first teachers, where the mother and father are worshipped by their children. Those families are with a former god, where the mother and father are worshipped by their children. Those families are worthy of reverence where the mother and father are worshipped by their children.

“Bhikkhus, Brahma is a synonym for mother and father. The first teachers, is a synonym for mother and father. A former god is a synonym for mother and father. Worthy of reverence is also a synonym for mother and father. What is the reason? Bhikkhus, mother and father have done a lot for their children, feeding them and showing them the world when they were helpless.”


“Mother and father are said to be Brahma and an earlier god,
Children should revere them, for the compassion of the populace
The wise should revere and care for them, giving eatables, drinks
Clothes, beds, massaging, bathing and washing their feet
The wise enjoy attending on their mother and father
And later enjoy heavenly bliss.”

Kataññu Suttas: Gratitude

“Monks, I will teach you the level of a person of no integrity and the level of a person of integrity. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak.”

“As you say, lord,” the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, “Now what is the level of a person of no integrity? A person of no integrity is ungrateful & unthankful. This ingratitude, this lack of thankfulness, is advocated by rude people. It is entirely on the level of people of no integrity. A person of integrity is grateful & thankful. This gratitude, this thankfulness, is advocated by civil people. It is entirely on the level of people of integrity.”

{II,iv,2} “I tell you, monks, there are two people who are not easy to repay. Which two? Your mother & father. Even if you were to carry your mother on one shoulder & your father on the other shoulder for 100 years, and were to look after them by anointing, massaging, bathing, & rubbing their limbs, and they were to defecate & urinate right there [on your shoulders], you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. If you were to establish your mother & father in absolute sovereignty over this great earth, abounding in the seven treasures, you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. Why is that? Mother & father do much for their children. They care for them, they nourish them, they introduce them to this world. But anyone who rouses his unbelieving mother & father, settles & establishes them in conviction; rouses his unvirtuous mother & father, settles & establishes them in virtue; rouses his stingy mother & father, settles & establishes them in generosity; rouses his foolish mother & father, settles & establishes them in discernment: To this extent one pays & repays one's mother & father.”

Your thoughtful inquiry brings forth a rich discussion about the intersection of Buddhist teachings, modern sociological theories, and how religious doctrines adapt over time.

While emphasizing the importance of recognizing hierarchical roles within Buddhism, modern sociological theories advocate for egalitarian structures that emphasize the inherent equality of all individuals. From a Buddhist perspective, the concept of anatta (non-self) encourages us not to cling to rigid identities or roles. Modern interpretations of Buddhism could argue for a more fluid understanding of roles, adapting to changing societal contexts and promoting inclusivity and equality.

You've asserted the timelessness of Dharma, a core principle in Buddhism. However, the application of Dharma might need adaptation to stay relevant in contemporary contexts. While Abhidhamma, focusing on the fundamental nature of reality, may be timeless, the Sutta and Vinaya could be more context-dependent, addressing specific historical and cultural circumstances that might not universally apply today.

Modern sociological views often challenge traditional notions of family and marriage, highlighting the diversity of family structures and evolving relationships. While traditional Buddhist teachings emphasize familial obligations and duties, modern Buddhists may consider that attachment to rigid family roles can sometimes lead to suffering, advocating a balance between traditional values and individual autonomy.

Although Buddhism highly values filial piety, the principle of reverence must be balanced with individual rights and personal development. Modern perspectives suggest relationships based on mutual respect rather than duty alone. This view promotes open and equitable family dynamics, allowing parent and child roles to evolve through mutual understanding.

While your warnings on moral decay when traditional roles are not followed are respected, sociological theories suggest that societies evolve, transforming values and roles. Emphasizing adaptability and resilience, particularly in a globalized world, can lead to a richer, more diverse society that draws lessons from cultural narratives, including Buddhist teachings.

Encouragement to uphold traditional virtues is well-intentioned, but it's essential to assess which virtues are universal and which are culturally specific. The Buddhist concept of skillful means (upaya-kaushalya) suggests adapting teachings to the audience's needs, supporting a flexible application of Buddhist principles that considers the diversity and complexity of modern lives.

In summary, while Buddhism's core teachings offer profound insights into human behavior and ethics, their application must be thoughtfully considered in light of contemporary social dynamics and individual needs. I'd love to hear your thoughts on these points.

The other way around, good Sushan. Good and useful just get's lost if cherry-picked things out of it to try to batch a almost broken house. It's open to move into this solid home for everyone willing to, at any time, as long as still known.

It's a matter of free choice of what or whom one likes to relay on. What one appreciates there one good. No way to control such.

What's sold as "skilful means" isn't something the Buddha taught, it's a means of materialists or Marxists. The roles, duties, right conduct is simple, practical and not given and open for modification. If else then duties and virtue are placed higher, not only would they become quick hypothetical, but also open for any criticism and misuse. Right is simple, but not reachable if just after means. Right and wrong, nothing for the sake of anything else.

The way for good and long happiness here, and here after, isn't found in flat structures. No gods, no parents, non sublime... what's even the worth of any effort, if refuge aside of short lasting sensuality are abound? ...or when cherishing downwardly?

Thank you for your valuable opinions, and I would like to break them into separate points and address them separately.

1. Cherry-picking traditional elements: The critique of selectively adopting traditional elements suggests that this approach weakens societal structures. However, it's important to recognize that societies are dynamic and must adapt to changing times. The blending of traditional and modern elements can strengthen societal resilience and relevance. For example, many Scandinavian countries have successfully integrated traditional family values with modern gender equality, leading to societies that score high in both happiness and social progress indexes.

2. Flexibility of "skilful means": The dismissal of "skilful means" as a modern or materialist distortion overlooks the fact that adaptability has been a cornerstone of successful long-term cultural survival and ethical relevance. The concept of "skilful means" in Buddhism itself suggests practical and compassionate adaptation to the audience's capacity to understand and integrate teachings. This principle can be applied to modernize practices without sacrificing their core ethical insights.

3. Immutability of roles and duties: Arguing that roles and duties should not be open to modification can ignore the evolving needs of individuals within a society. For instance, the rigid role of women solely as homemakers has evolved in many cultures to recognize their equal capabilities in professional spheres, which has benefited economies globally and enriched familial relationships by fostering mutual respect and partnership.

4. Necessity of hierarchical structures: The claim that flat structures diminish the worth of effort and lead to a lack of reverence is contradicted by numerous examples where more egalitarian societies have thrived. Research often shows that flatter organizational structures can lead to higher job satisfaction, greater creativity, and faster decision-making. Companies like Google and Valve have famously adopted less hierarchical structures with considerable success.

5. Moral and ethical absolutism: The assertion that moral and ethical guidelines are absolute and unchangeable does not accommodate the diverse contexts in which human beings exist. Ethical relativism suggests that what is considered "right" can vary based on cultural, social, and personal circumstances, which necessitates a more nuanced approach to ethics that can respond to real-world complexities.

6. Respect and reverence based on traditional roles: While respect and reverence are important, they should be earned and based on one's actions rather than their position in a traditional hierarchy. This promotes a merit-based approach where individuals are valued for their contributions rather than their titles or roles.

In conclusion, while traditional structures and roles have their place, the adaptation of these in response to changing societal values and scientific understandings can lead to a healthier, more equitable, and functional society.

[Samana Johann]

There is no place of "egalitarian views" within right view, since there are higher and lower, parents, sacrifices... it's a base for gratitude to recognize more-sublime. And there are no modern values fitting to Brahma and Ariya values since the very old. Timeless, including the individual choice. Forced marriage and family founding is also only fond in Marx related societies, good Sushan.

My person had been a layperson before as well, good wife, good children, good job, wealth, success... and wouldn't have gained such if not "accidentally" living Brahama/Ariya ways in the middle of the stream downwardly.

So no reason why to think that good ways depend on whether the neighbors follow them as well, and can not be lived anymore this days. Nobody needs to found a family with a partner of wrong view and unvirtuose kind.

As the Buddha taught, there are four kinds of unifications: a death with Deva, a deva with a death, a death with a death, and a deva with a deva. (death= immoral, deva = moral, ethic, generosity) while only the last would be of good future, pleasing.

But the fact that marriage since some 100 years is merely a love and sense pleasure affair and lesser an institution like a life undertaking, makes the base of frustration. Why, because happiness of sensuality is a very fake and short living one, gets never satisfied.

Maybe a very important aspect, that parents are actually the first Gods, and to be seen as "person of goodness", while children have no such as right, are received guests.

Your thoughtful inquiry brings forth a rich discussion about the intersection of Buddhist teachings, modern sociological theories, and how religious doctrines adapt over time.

While emphasizing the importance of recognizing hierarchical roles within Buddhism, modern sociological theories advocate for egalitarian structures that emphasize the inherent equality of all individuals. From a Buddhist perspective, the concept of anatta (non-self) encourages us not to cling to rigid identities or roles. Modern interpretations of Buddhism could argue for a more fluid understanding of roles, adapting to changing societal contexts and promoting inclusivity and equality.

You've asserted the timelessness of Dharma, a core principle in Buddhism. However, the application of Dharma might need adaptation to stay relevant in contemporary contexts. While Abhidhamma, focusing on the fundamental nature of reality, may be timeless, the Sutta and Vinaya could be more context-dependent, addressing specific historical and cultural circumstances that might not universally apply today.

Modern sociological views often challenge traditional notions of family and marriage, highlighting the diversity of family structures and evolving relationships. While traditional Buddhist teachings emphasize familial obligations and duties, modern Buddhists may consider that attachment to rigid family roles can sometimes lead to suffering, advocating a balance between traditional values and individual autonomy.

Although Buddhism highly values filial piety, the principle of reverence must be balanced with individual rights and personal development. Modern perspectives suggest relationships based on mutual respect rather than duty alone. This view promotes open and equitable family dynamics, allowing parent and child roles to evolve through mutual understanding.

While your warnings on moral decay when traditional roles are not followed are respected, sociological theories suggest that societies evolve, transforming values and roles. Emphasizing adaptability and resilience, particularly in a globalized world, can lead to a richer, more diverse society that draws lessons from cultural narratives, including Buddhist teachings.

Encouragement to uphold traditional virtues is well-intentioned, but it's essential to assess which virtues are universal and which are culturally specific. The Buddhist concept of skillful means (upaya-kaushalya) suggests adapting teachings to the audience's needs, supporting a flexible application of Buddhist principles that considers the diversity and complexity of modern lives.

In summary, while Buddhism's core teachings offer profound insights into human behavior and ethics, their application must be thoughtfully considered in light of contemporary social dynamics and individual needs. I'd love to hear your thoughts on these points.

The other way around, good Sushan. Good and useful just get's lost if cherry-picked things out of it to try to batch a almost broken house. It's open to move into this solid home for everyone willing to, at any time, as long as still known.

It's a matter of free choice of what or whom one likes to relay on. What one appreciates there one good. No way to control such.

What's sold as "skilful means" isn't something the Buddha taught, it's a means of materialists or Marxists. The roles, duties, right conduct is simple, practical and not given and open for modification. If else then duties and virtue are placed higher, not only would they become quick hypothetical, but also open for any criticism and misuse. Right is simple, but not reachable if just after means. Right and wrong, nothing for the sake of anything else.

The way for good and long happiness here, and here after, isn't found in flat structures. No gods, no parents, non sublime... what's even the worth of any effort, if refuge aside of short lasting sensuality are abound? ...or when cherishing downwardly?

Thank you for your valuable opinions, and I would like to break them into separate points and address them separately.

1. Cherry-picking traditional elements: The critique of selectively adopting traditional elements suggests that this approach weakens societal structures. However, it's important to recognize that societies are dynamic and must adapt to changing times. The blending of traditional and modern elements can strengthen societal resilience and relevance. For example, many Scandinavian countries have successfully integrated traditional family values with modern gender equality, leading to societies that score high in both happiness and social progress indexes.

What propaganda can transport... like a colorful painted sinkinf ship, with drugs and dancing yuppies leading the party deck. Maybe a check of suicide rate and batch by opening drug consume, might be of use. As if a consumer cares about family recognition.

2. Flexibility of "skilful means": The dismissal of "skilful means" as a modern or materialist distortion overlooks the fact that adaptability has been a cornerstone of successful long-term cultural survival and ethical relevance. The concept of "skilful means" in Buddhism itself suggests practical and compassionate adaptation to the audience's capacity to understand and integrate teachings. This principle can be applied to modernize practices without sacrificing their core ethical insights.

There isn't such as the sold idea of "skilful means" within the Dhamma aside of virtue and duty (merits), of which is what compassion means. Else are marxist adoptions. My person thinks that good Sushan isn't really familiar with the Dhamna, might gained her ideas by worldly fake-copies.

3. Immutability of roles and duties: Arguing that roles and duties should not be open to modification can ignore the evolving needs of individuals within a society. For instance, the rigid role of women solely as homemakers has evolved in many cultures to recognize their equal capabilities in professional spheres, which has benefited economies globally and enriched familial relationships by fostering mutual respect and partnership.

Mother is mother, father, father, employer...teacher. That doesn't chance at all. If a leader becomes servant, than he has to be called servant. It's simple.

4. Necessity of hierarchical structures: The claim that flat structures diminish the worth of effort and lead to a lack of reverence is contradicted by numerous examples where more egalitarian societies have thrived. Research often shows that flatter organizational structures can lead to higher job satisfaction, greater creativity, and faster decision-making. Companies like Google and Valve have famously adopted less hierarchical structures with considerable success.

Marxisms appreciate the lowest equal factor, yes. In that way a society is of cause bound to dynamic down turns.

5. Moral and ethical absolutism: The assertion that moral and ethical guidelines are absolute and unchangeable does not accommodate the diverse contexts in which human beings exist. Ethical relativism suggests that what is considered "right" can vary based on cultural, social, and personal circumstances, which necessitates a more nuanced approach to ethics that can respond to real-world complexities.

What does good Sushan like to have appreciated? Nice face, good smell, tasty food...? Yes, virtue and duties are simple, practical, clear and timeless. If adopting them to degeneration, that a society goes off good track. It's sold as "skilful means.

6. Respect and reverence based on traditional roles: While respect and reverence are important, they should be earned and based on one's actions rather than their position in a traditional hierarchy. This promotes a merit-based approach where individuals are valued for their contributions rather than their titles or roles.

If people would have the ability of mind reading, a hierarchy in regard of virtues and attainments would be fine, but since such isn't, age, position, role are orientations. In "you" societies all get's confused and only sensual pleasures are orientations. Actually something Marx and industry seeks for.

In conclusion, while traditional structures and roles have their place, the adaptation of these in response to changing societal values and scientific understandings can lead to a healthier, more equitable, and functional society.

That's why such topics arise... the price of "skilful means", eg. productivity. Or, the concerns of chicken-farms.

[Sushan]

Your thoughtful inquiry brings forth a rich discussion about the intersection of Buddhist teachings, modern sociological theories, and how religious doctrines adapt over time.

While emphasizing the importance of recognizing hierarchical roles within Buddhism, modern sociological theories advocate for egalitarian structures that emphasize the inherent equality of all individuals. From a Buddhist perspective, the concept of anatta (non-self) encourages us not to cling to rigid identities or roles. Modern interpretations of Buddhism could argue for a more fluid understanding of roles, adapting to changing societal contexts and promoting inclusivity and equality.

You've asserted the timelessness of Dharma, a core principle in Buddhism. However, the application of Dharma might need adaptation to stay relevant in contemporary contexts. While Abhidhamma, focusing on the fundamental nature of reality, may be timeless, the Sutta and Vinaya could be more context-dependent, addressing specific historical and cultural circumstances that might not universally apply today.

Modern sociological views often challenge traditional notions of family and marriage, highlighting the diversity of family structures and evolving relationships. While traditional Buddhist teachings emphasize familial obligations and duties, modern Buddhists may consider that attachment to rigid family roles can sometimes lead to suffering, advocating a balance between traditional values and individual autonomy.

Although Buddhism highly values filial piety, the principle of reverence must be balanced with individual rights and personal development. Modern perspectives suggest relationships based on mutual respect rather than duty alone. This view promotes open and equitable family dynamics, allowing parent and child roles to evolve through mutual understanding.

While your warnings on moral decay when traditional roles are not followed are respected, sociological theories suggest that societies evolve, transforming values and roles. Emphasizing adaptability and resilience, particularly in a globalized world, can lead to a richer, more diverse society that draws lessons from cultural narratives, including Buddhist teachings.

Encouragement to uphold traditional virtues is well-intentioned, but it's essential to assess which virtues are universal and which are culturally specific. The Buddhist concept of skillful means (upaya-kaushalya) suggests adapting teachings to the audience's needs, supporting a flexible application of Buddhist principles that considers the diversity and complexity of modern lives.

In summary, while Buddhism's core teachings offer profound insights into human behavior and ethics, their application must be thoughtfully considered in light of contemporary social dynamics and individual needs. I'd love to hear your thoughts on these points.

The other way around, good Sushan. Good and useful just get's lost if cherry-picked things out of it to try to batch a almost broken house. It's open to move into this solid home for everyone willing to, at any time, as long as still known.

It's a matter of free choice of what or whom one likes to relay on. What one appreciates there one good. No way to control such.

What's sold as "skilful means" isn't something the Buddha taught, it's a means of materialists or Marxists. The roles, duties, right conduct is simple, practical and not given and open for modification. If else then duties and virtue are placed higher, not only would they become quick hypothetical, but also open for any criticism and misuse. Right is simple, but not reachable if just after means. Right and wrong, nothing for the sake of anything else.

The way for good and long happiness here, and here after, isn't found in flat structures. No gods, no parents, non sublime... what's even the worth of any effort, if refuge aside of short lasting sensuality are abound? ...or when cherishing downwardly?

Thank you for your valuable opinions, and I would like to break them into separate points and address them separately.

1. Cherry-picking traditional elements: The critique of selectively adopting traditional elements suggests that this approach weakens societal structures. However, it's important to recognize that societies are dynamic and must adapt to changing times. The blending of traditional and modern elements can strengthen societal resilience and relevance. For example, many Scandinavian countries have successfully integrated traditional family values with modern gender equality, leading to societies that score high in both happiness and social progress indexes.

What propaganda can transport... like a colorful painted sinkinf ship, with drugs and dancing yuppies leading the party deck. Maybe a check of suicide rate and batch by opening drug consume, might be of use. As if a consumer cares about family recognition.

2. Flexibility of "skilful means": The dismissal of "skilful means" as a modern or materialist distortion overlooks the fact that adaptability has been a cornerstone of successful long-term cultural survival and ethical relevance. The concept of "skilful means" in Buddhism itself suggests practical and compassionate adaptation to the audience's capacity to understand and integrate teachings. This principle can be applied to modernize practices without sacrificing their core ethical insights.

There isn't such as the sold idea of "skilful means" within the Dhamma aside of virtue and duty (merits), of which is what compassion means. Else are marxist adoptions. My person thinks that good Sushan isn't really familiar with the Dhamna, might gained her ideas by worldly fake-copies.

3. Immutability of roles and duties: Arguing that roles and duties should not be open to modification can ignore the evolving needs of individuals within a society. For instance, the rigid role of women solely as homemakers has evolved in many cultures to recognize their equal capabilities in professional spheres, which has benefited economies globally and enriched familial relationships by fostering mutual respect and partnership.

Mother is mother, father, father, employer...teacher. That doesn't chance at all. If a leader becomes servant, than he has to be called servant. It's simple.

4. Necessity of hierarchical structures: The claim that flat structures diminish the worth of effort and lead to a lack of reverence is contradicted by numerous examples where more egalitarian societies have thrived. Research often shows that flatter organizational structures can lead to higher job satisfaction, greater creativity, and faster decision-making. Companies like Google and Valve have famously adopted less hierarchical structures with considerable success.

Marxisms appreciate the lowest equal factor, yes. In that way a society is of cause bound to dynamic down turns.

5. Moral and ethical absolutism: The assertion that moral and ethical guidelines are absolute and unchangeable does not accommodate the diverse contexts in which human beings exist. Ethical relativism suggests that what is considered "right" can vary based on cultural, social, and personal circumstances, which necessitates a more nuanced approach to ethics that can respond to real-world complexities.

What does good Sushan like to have appreciated? Nice face, good smell, tasty food...? Yes, virtue and duties are simple, practical, clear and timeless. If adopting them to degeneration, that a society goes off good track. It's sold as "skilful means.

6. Respect and reverence based on traditional roles: While respect and reverence are important, they should be earned and based on one's actions rather than their position in a traditional hierarchy. This promotes a merit-based approach where individuals are valued for their contributions rather than their titles or roles.

If people would have the ability of mind reading, a hierarchy in regard of virtues and attainments would be fine, but since such isn't, age, position, role are orientations. In "you" societies all get's confused and only sensual pleasures are orientations. Actually something Marx and industry seeks for.

In conclusion, while traditional structures and roles have their place, the adaptation of these in response to changing societal values and scientific understandings can lead to a healthier, more equitable, and functional society.

That's why such topics arise... the price of "skilful means", eg. productivity. Or, the concerns of chicken-farms.

The world is rapidly evolving, and societies that have embraced certain modern values—such as gender equality and flexibility in roles—often exhibit higher levels of social progress and happiness. For instance, Scandinavian countries, which blend traditional family values with modern gender equality, frequently top global happiness and quality of life rankings. This suggests that a balance between tradition and modernity can lead to a more fulfilled and equitable society.

Moreover, rigid adherence to traditional roles can sometimes stifle individual potential and well-being. For example, insisting that women should only fulfill domestic roles limits their contributions in the workforce, which can have broader economic repercussions. In contrast, societies that support women’s participation in various fields tend to have stronger economies and more resilient social structures.

While traditional hierarchies provide a sense of order, they can also perpetuate inequalities and suppress voices that could contribute to societal improvement. A more egalitarian approach, where respect and roles are based on merit rather than predetermined status, encourages a culture of achievement and fairness. This can lead to a society where individuals are motivated to develop their abilities and contribute positively, regardless of their background.

To further emphasize the challenges posed by rigid hierarchies and strict adherence to old traditions, we can examine examples from various sectors, including corporate, political, and social realms, that illustrate the need for adaptive and flexible structures.

Corporate Examples:
1. Kodak: Once a titan in the photography industry, Kodak's downfall is largely attributed to its rigid hierarchical structure and reluctance to adapt to the digital photography revolution. This resistance to change led to the company's bankruptcy in 2012, underscoring the dangers of an inflexible approach in a rapidly evolving market.

2. Nokia: Similar to Kodak, Nokia was a leader in the mobile phone industry but failed to adapt to the smartphone revolution. Its hierarchical decision-making process slowed innovation, allowing competitors like Apple and Samsung to dominate the market by rapidly adapting to consumer demands for smartphones.

Political Examples:
1. The Soviet Union: The rigid hierarchical political structure of the Soviet Union, characterized by centralized control and lack of adaptability to economic and social changes, contributed significantly to its collapse in 1991. This example highlights how inflexible governance structures can lead to systemic failure.

2. North Korea: The strict hierarchical and traditional governance model of North Korea has led to widespread poverty and human rights abuses, showing how rigid control and resistance to modern governance models can result in societal decline and international isolation.

Social Examples:
1. Gender Roles in Japan: Japan's traditional gender roles and hierarchical corporate culture have contributed to its declining birth rate and labor force participation among women. This rigid adherence to tradition has hindered economic growth and prompted discussions on the need for more inclusive and flexible social policies.

2. Caste System in India: The traditional caste system in India is an example of a rigid hierarchy that has historically marginalized certain groups, leading to significant social and economic disparities. Although legally abolished, its lingering effects show how deeply entrenched hierarchies can perpetuate inequality and hinder societal progress.

These examples illustrate that societies and organizations that maintain rigid hierarchies and adhere strictly to outdated traditions often fail to thrive in dynamic environments. They highlight the necessity for flexibility and the willingness to adapt to new realities as crucial for survival and prosperity in an ever-changing world.

[Samana Johann]

It's corrupt since the objectification is solvely deluded...

Social Examples:
1. Gender Roles in Japan: Japan's traditional gender roles and hierarchical corporate culture have contributed to its declining birth rate and labor force participation among women. This rigid adherence to tradition has hindered economic growth and prompted discussions on the need for more inclusive and flexible social policies.

A good sample but wrong used, overseeing that actually talking about the wordls olderst kingdom which's family relation lasted about 2600 years and now soon will decay likealike by adopting pseudo ideology of liberality.

No way to get a deluded and marx-brainwashed mind out of it's way unless being healthy related, good Sushan.

It's 100% failure of investigation to say that modern careless and "free" relations are long lasting... it's simple that people take serving incapacity as more of falue than to restrain from weakness for what's proper to be done. Modern relations are not at all as long lasting as "conservative" traditional ways but just a matter of consume-tendencies. Yet consume goes before virtue, obligation and uprightness. Here you like to go and also came there with no way of reboot without much pain and red.

[Sushan]

It's corrupt since the objectification is solvely deluded...

Social Examples:
1. Gender Roles in Japan: Japan's traditional gender roles and hierarchical corporate culture have contributed to its declining birth rate and labor force participation among women. This rigid adherence to tradition has hindered economic growth and prompted discussions on the need for more inclusive and flexible social policies.

A good sample but wrong used, overseeing that actually talking about the wordls olderst kingdom which's family relation lasted about 2600 years and now soon will decay likealike by adopting pseudo ideology of liberality.

No way to get a deluded and marx-brainwashed mind out of it's way unless being healthy related, good Sushan.

It's 100% failure of investigation to say that modern careless and "free" relations are long lasting... it's simple that people take serving incapacity as more of falue than to restrain from weakness for what's proper to be done. Modern relations are not at all as long lasting as "conservative" traditional ways but just a matter of consume-tendencies. Yet consume goes before virtue, obligation and uprightness. Here you like to go and also came there with no way of reboot without much pain and red.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. You raise valid points about the stability and longevity associated with traditional family structures. It's true that Japan's historical adherence to these roles has contributed to a strong, cohesive societal framework over the centuries.

However, it's also important to consider the evolving nature of societal needs and values. Modern liberal approaches aim to address issues like gender equality and individual freedoms, which can foster innovation, creativity, and economic growth by allowing everyone to contribute fully, regardless of gender.

For instance, Japan's gender gap in labor force participation is significant. According to the World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap Report 2023, Japan ranks 120th out of 146 countries in gender parity. This disparity has implications for economic performance, as increasing women's participation in the workforce could potentially boost GDP by up to 15% .

[Samana Johann]

It's corrupt since the objectification is solvely deluded...

Social Examples:
1. Gender Roles in Japan: Japan's traditional gender roles and hierarchical corporate culture have contributed to its declining birth rate and labor force participation among women. This rigid adherence to tradition has hindered economic growth and prompted discussions on the need for more inclusive and flexible social policies.

A good sample but wrong used, overseeing that actually talking about the wordls olderst kingdom which's family relation lasted about 2600 years and now soon will decay likealike by adopting pseudo ideology of liberality.

No way to get a deluded and marx-brainwashed mind out of it's way unless being healthy related, good Sushan.

It's 100% failure of investigation to say that modern careless and "free" relations are long lasting... it's simple that people take serving incapacity as more of falue than to restrain from weakness for what's proper to be done. Modern relations are not at all as long lasting as "conservative" traditional ways but just a matter of consume-tendencies. Yet consume goes before virtue, obligation and uprightness. Here you like to go and also came there with no way of reboot without much pain and red.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. You raise valid points about the stability and longevity associated with traditional family structures. It's true that Japan's historical adherence to these roles has contributed to a strong, cohesive societal framework over the centuries.

However, it's also important to consider the evolving nature of societal needs and values. Modern liberal approaches aim to address issues like gender equality and individual freedoms, which can foster innovation, creativity, and economic growth by allowing everyone to contribute fully, regardless of gender.

For instance, Japan's gender gap in labor force participation is significant. According to the World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap Report 2023, Japan ranks 120th out of 146 countries in gender parity. This disparity has implications for economic performance, as increasing women's participation in the workforce could potentially boost GDP by up to 15% .

So called "modern liberal approaches" aren't liberal at all but fakes. Demand doesn't make free but causes conflicts and wars. What's the freedom of woman if getting bond to industrial slavery. Wester world has not the slightest idea of the high status and liberality of "old world" femal role, which is actually much higher the western femal consum junkies. Again, Japans community and culture lasted simply because not changing traditions and started to lose at the times proper conducts and relations had been sacrificed for industrial (meaning envelopment) values, eg. marxism. There is no such as family in such ideologies, only "to be used cows" and those browse them. And given that such as human labor has already lost much of itjs need, whatjs the gain to increase "products" where demand has been gone?

It's all over not about how to increase demand but what to do to settle created global unrest and lose of any moral and virtue. People are brainwashed by utopias which just increase spin of heat, death and birth. And those who like to make chicken out of ducks will just suffer their whole existance before turning downward another time.

How stupid people can be to wish to replace freedoms of good sociaty and gained by proper deeds with being another job-less consum-junky. Slaves of the death.

The King of Death

We live like a chicken who doesn't know what's going on. In the morning it takes its baby chicks out to scratch for food. In the evening, it goes back to sleep in the coop. The next morning it goes out to look for food again. Its owner scatters rice for it to eat every day, but it doesn't know why its owner is feeding it. The chicken and its owner are thinking in very different ways.

The owner is thinking, “How much does the chicken weigh?” The chicken, though, is engrossed in the food. When the owner picks it up to heft its weight, it thinks the owner is showing affection.

We too don't know what's going on: where we come from, how many more years we'll live, where we'll go, who will take us there. We don't know this at all.

The King of Death is like the owner of the chicken. We don't know when he'll catch up with us, for we're engrossed — engrossed in sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, and ideas. We have no sense that we're growing older. We have no sense of enough.

And it's amazing that, especially it reflecting old cultures decay, that good Sushan doesn't see the cause why people are no more recognized as having a role in family. Why? Because they actually have no more role, no more tasks and duties, just like a battey chicken.

[Sushan]

It's corrupt since the objectification is solvely deluded...

Social Examples:
1. Gender Roles in Japan: Japan's traditional gender roles and hierarchical corporate culture have contributed to its declining birth rate and labor force participation among women. This rigid adherence to tradition has hindered economic growth and prompted discussions on the need for more inclusive and flexible social policies.

A good sample but wrong used, overseeing that actually talking about the wordls olderst kingdom which's family relation lasted about 2600 years and now soon will decay likealike by adopting pseudo ideology of liberality.

No way to get a deluded and marx-brainwashed mind out of it's way unless being healthy related, good Sushan.

It's 100% failure of investigation to say that modern careless and "free" relations are long lasting... it's simple that people take serving incapacity as more of falue than to restrain from weakness for what's proper to be done. Modern relations are not at all as long lasting as "conservative" traditional ways but just a matter of consume-tendencies. Yet consume goes before virtue, obligation and uprightness. Here you like to go and also came there with no way of reboot without much pain and red.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. You raise valid points about the stability and longevity associated with traditional family structures. It's true that Japan's historical adherence to these roles has contributed to a strong, cohesive societal framework over the centuries.

However, it's also important to consider the evolving nature of societal needs and values. Modern liberal approaches aim to address issues like gender equality and individual freedoms, which can foster innovation, creativity, and economic growth by allowing everyone to contribute fully, regardless of gender.

For instance, Japan's gender gap in labor force participation is significant. According to the World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap Report 2023, Japan ranks 120th out of 146 countries in gender parity. This disparity has implications for economic performance, as increasing women's participation in the workforce could potentially boost GDP by up to 15% .

So called "modern liberal approaches" aren't liberal at all but fakes. Demand doesn't make free but causes conflicts and wars. What's the freedom of woman if getting bond to industrial slavery. Wester world has not the slightest idea of the high status and liberality of "old world" femal role, which is actually much higher the western femal consum junkies. Again, Japans community and culture lasted simply because not changing traditions and started to lose at the times proper conducts and relations had been sacrificed for industrial (meaning envelopment) values, eg. marxism. There is no such as family in such ideologies, only "to be used cows" and those browse them. And given that such as human labor has already lost much of itjs need, whatjs the gain to increase "products" where demand has been gone?

It's all over not about how to increase demand but what to do to settle created global unrest and lose of any moral and virtue. People are brainwashed by utopias which just increase spin of heat, death and birth. And those who like to make chicken out of ducks will just suffer their whole existance before turning downward another time.

How stupid people can be to wish to replace freedoms of good sociaty and gained by proper deeds with being another job-less consum-junky. Slaves of the death.

The King of Death

We live like a chicken who doesn't know what's going on. In the morning it takes its baby chicks out to scratch for food. In the evening, it goes back to sleep in the coop. The next morning it goes out to look for food again. Its owner scatters rice for it to eat every day, but it doesn't know why its owner is feeding it. The chicken and its owner are thinking in very different ways.

The owner is thinking, “How much does the chicken weigh?” The chicken, though, is engrossed in the food. When the owner picks it up to heft its weight, it thinks the owner is showing affection.

We too don't know what's going on: where we come from, how many more years we'll live, where we'll go, who will take us there. We don't know this at all.

The King of Death is like the owner of the chicken. We don't know when he'll catch up with us, for we're engrossed — engrossed in sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, and ideas. We have no sense that we're growing older. We have no sense of enough.

And it's amazing that, especially it reflecting old cultures decay, that good Sushan doesn't see the cause why people are no more recognized as having a role in family. Why? Because they actually have no more role, no more tasks and duties, just like a battey chicken.

You make a compelling case about the perceived superficiality and pitfalls of modern liberal approaches, especially through the evocative King of Death analogy. It’s true that traditional values often provided stability and a sense of purpose within society, and there's certainly a danger in losing touch with those roots.

However, it's worth noting that the adaptation of societal roles isn't necessarily about eradicating traditions but about evolving to meet new challenges. The high status and liberality of "old world" female roles you mention can be preserved and adapted to modern contexts. The goal is not to force everyone into industrial roles but to offer choices that align with today's economic and social realities.

Moreover, the increase in women's labor force participation isn't about creating "industrial slavery" but about providing opportunities for those who choose to work, thus fostering a more balanced and inclusive economy. This doesn't mean abandoning traditional roles entirely; instead, it means expanding the framework to include diverse paths that individuals can freely choose.

You mentioned the loss of roles within families. It's important to consider that modern approaches also emphasize the value of unpaid work, such as caregiving, which is often undervalued. Integrating this recognition into our societal framework can honor traditional values while addressing contemporary needs.

[Samana Johann]

It's corrupt since the objectification is solvely deluded...


A good sample but wrong used, overseeing that actually talking about the wordls olderst kingdom which's family relation lasted about 2600 years and now soon will decay likealike by adopting pseudo ideology of liberality.

No way to get a deluded and marx-brainwashed mind out of it's way unless being healthy related, good Sushan.

It's 100% failure of investigation to say that modern careless and "free" relations are long lasting... it's simple that people take serving incapacity as more of falue than to restrain from weakness for what's proper to be done. Modern relations are not at all as long lasting as "conservative" traditional ways but just a matter of consume-tendencies. Yet consume goes before virtue, obligation and uprightness. Here you like to go and also came there with no way of reboot without much pain and red.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. You raise valid points about the stability and longevity associated with traditional family structures. It's true that Japan's historical adherence to these roles has contributed to a strong, cohesive societal framework over the centuries.

However, it's also important to consider the evolving nature of societal needs and values. Modern liberal approaches aim to address issues like gender equality and individual freedoms, which can foster innovation, creativity, and economic growth by allowing everyone to contribute fully, regardless of gender.

For instance, Japan's gender gap in labor force participation is significant. According to the World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap Report 2023, Japan ranks 120th out of 146 countries in gender parity. This disparity has implications for economic performance, as increasing women's participation in the workforce could potentially boost GDP by up to 15% .

So called "modern liberal approaches" aren't liberal at all but fakes. Demand doesn't make free but causes conflicts and wars. What's the freedom of woman if getting bond to industrial slavery. Wester world has not the slightest idea of the high status and liberality of "old world" femal role, which is actually much higher the western femal consum junkies. Again, Japans community and culture lasted simply because not changing traditions and started to lose at the times proper conducts and relations had been sacrificed for industrial (meaning envelopment) values, eg. marxism. There is no such as family in such ideologies, only "to be used cows" and those browse them. And given that such as human labor has already lost much of itjs need, whatjs the gain to increase "products" where demand has been gone?

It's all over not about how to increase demand but what to do to settle created global unrest and lose of any moral and virtue. People are brainwashed by utopias which just increase spin of heat, death and birth. And those who like to make chicken out of ducks will just suffer their whole existance before turning downward another time.

How stupid people can be to wish to replace freedoms of good sociaty and gained by proper deeds with being another job-less consum-junky. Slaves of the death.

The King of Death

We live like a chicken who doesn't know what's going on. In the morning it takes its baby chicks out to scratch for food. In the evening, it goes back to sleep in the coop. The next morning it goes out to look for food again. Its owner scatters rice for it to eat every day, but it doesn't know why its owner is feeding it. The chicken and its owner are thinking in very different ways.

The owner is thinking, “How much does the chicken weigh?” The chicken, though, is engrossed in the food. When the owner picks it up to heft its weight, it thinks the owner is showing affection.

We too don't know what's going on: where we come from, how many more years we'll live, where we'll go, who will take us there. We don't know this at all.

The King of Death is like the owner of the chicken. We don't know when he'll catch up with us, for we're engrossed — engrossed in sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, and ideas. We have no sense that we're growing older. We have no sense of enough.

And it's amazing that, especially it reflecting old cultures decay, that good Sushan doesn't see the cause why people are no more recognized as having a role in family. Why? Because they actually have no more role, no more tasks and duties, just like a battey chicken.

You make a compelling case about the perceived superficiality and pitfalls of modern liberal approaches, especially through the evocative King of Death analogy. It’s true that traditional values often provided stability and a sense of purpose within society, and there's certainly a danger in losing touch with those roots.

However, it's worth noting that the adaptation of societal roles isn't necessarily about eradicating traditions but about evolving to meet new challenges. The high status and liberality of "old world" female roles you mention can be preserved and adapted to modern contexts. The goal is not to force everyone into industrial roles but to offer choices that align with today's economic and social realities.

Moreover, the increase in women's labor force participation isn't about creating "industrial slavery" but about providing opportunities for those who choose to work, thus fostering a more balanced and inclusive economy. This doesn't mean abandoning traditional roles entirely; instead, it means expanding the framework to include diverse paths that individuals can freely choose.

You mentioned the loss of roles within families. It's important to consider that modern approaches also emphasize the value of unpaid work, such as caregiving, which is often undervalued. Integrating this recognition into our societal framework can honor traditional values while addressing contemporary needs.

The new challenges of yours and your sociaties will be in regard of the replacement relatives, if not pushing the break, as yours do not really relay on else then what a social system gives. Help, assistance, job, teaching... just the giving birth issue might be not orphaned yet. Family is simply a romantic dream of the past since the recognitions reason had been outsourced. If there is something left worthy to recognize, than it's for the most just low sensuality, sex, and debts out of that.

Yet even for having 'just' given birth, a child owes a lot. Other then paid functions, this had been a generous choice.

Orphans.

[generations]

In this book, the protagonist Jennifer Davis's poignant journey into self-discovery through separation from her family underscores the profound need for recognition and appreciation within familial relationships. Jennifer feels marginalized and undervalued, a sentiment that resonates with many who perceive their roles within their families as taken for granted. Her decision to leave, driven by a quest for appreciation, serves as a compelling narrative to explore the deeper implications of acknowledgment in shaping family dynamics and individual self-esteem. The story vividly illustrates how the lack of recognition can erode one's sense of self-worth and disrupt family harmony. Jennifer's drastic measure of distancing herself from her family highlights an extreme response to what many might experience daily. This lack of appreciation not only impacts the individual but can resonate through the entire family structure, suggesting a universal truth about human relationships: recognition is not just a nicety, but a necessity. This narrative prompts us to reflect on the broader societal and psychological effects of appreciation. In an era where self-worth is often measured by external validation, the story raises critical questions about the dynamics of recognition in our closest relationships.




____________________________________

[Sushan]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. You raise valid points about the stability and longevity associated with traditional family structures. It's true that Japan's historical adherence to these roles has contributed to a strong, cohesive societal framework over the centuries.

However, it's also important to consider the evolving nature of societal needs and values. Modern liberal approaches aim to address issues like gender equality and individual freedoms, which can foster innovation, creativity, and economic growth by allowing everyone to contribute fully, regardless of gender.

For instance, Japan's gender gap in labor force participation is significant. According to the World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap Report 2023, Japan ranks 120th out of 146 countries in gender parity. This disparity has implications for economic performance, as increasing women's participation in the workforce could potentially boost GDP by up to 15% .

So called "modern liberal approaches" aren't liberal at all but fakes. Demand doesn't make free but causes conflicts and wars. What's the freedom of woman if getting bond to industrial slavery. Wester world has not the slightest idea of the high status and liberality of "old world" femal role, which is actually much higher the western femal consum junkies. Again, Japans community and culture lasted simply because not changing traditions and started to lose at the times proper conducts and relations had been sacrificed for industrial (meaning envelopment) values, eg. marxism. There is no such as family in such ideologies, only "to be used cows" and those browse them. And given that such as human labor has already lost much of itjs need, whatjs the gain to increase "products" where demand has been gone?

It's all over not about how to increase demand but what to do to settle created global unrest and lose of any moral and virtue. People are brainwashed by utopias which just increase spin of heat, death and birth. And those who like to make chicken out of ducks will just suffer their whole existance before turning downward another time.

How stupid people can be to wish to replace freedoms of good sociaty and gained by proper deeds with being another job-less consum-junky. Slaves of the death.

The King of Death

We live like a chicken who doesn't know what's going on. In the morning it takes its baby chicks out to scratch for food. In the evening, it goes back to sleep in the coop. The next morning it goes out to look for food again. Its owner scatters rice for it to eat every day, but it doesn't know why its owner is feeding it. The chicken and its owner are thinking in very different ways.

The owner is thinking, “How much does the chicken weigh?” The chicken, though, is engrossed in the food. When the owner picks it up to heft its weight, it thinks the owner is showing affection.

We too don't know what's going on: where we come from, how many more years we'll live, where we'll go, who will take us there. We don't know this at all.

The King of Death is like the owner of the chicken. We don't know when he'll catch up with us, for we're engrossed — engrossed in sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, and ideas. We have no sense that we're growing older. We have no sense of enough.

And it's amazing that, especially it reflecting old cultures decay, that good Sushan doesn't see the cause why people are no more recognized as having a role in family. Why? Because they actually have no more role, no more tasks and duties, just like a battey chicken.

You make a compelling case about the perceived superficiality and pitfalls of modern liberal approaches, especially through the evocative King of Death analogy. It’s true that traditional values often provided stability and a sense of purpose within society, and there's certainly a danger in losing touch with those roots.

However, it's worth noting that the adaptation of societal roles isn't necessarily about eradicating traditions but about evolving to meet new challenges. The high status and liberality of "old world" female roles you mention can be preserved and adapted to modern contexts. The goal is not to force everyone into industrial roles but to offer choices that align with today's economic and social realities.

Moreover, the increase in women's labor force participation isn't about creating "industrial slavery" but about providing opportunities for those who choose to work, thus fostering a more balanced and inclusive economy. This doesn't mean abandoning traditional roles entirely; instead, it means expanding the framework to include diverse paths that individuals can freely choose.

You mentioned the loss of roles within families. It's important to consider that modern approaches also emphasize the value of unpaid work, such as caregiving, which is often undervalued. Integrating this recognition into our societal framework can honor traditional values while addressing contemporary needs.

The new challenges of yours and your sociaties will be in regard of the replacement relatives, if not pushing the break, as yours do not really relay on else then what a social system gives. Help, assistance, job, teaching... just the giving birth issue might be not orphaned yet. Family is simply a romantic dream of the past since the recognitions reason had been outsourced. If there is something left worthy to recognize, than it's for the most just low sensuality, sex, and debts out of that.

Yet even for having 'just' given birth, a child owes a lot. Other then paid functions, this had been a generous choice.

Orphans.

You raise some significant concerns about the role of family and societal support systems in our modern world. While it's true that social systems now provide many forms of assistance that were once the purview of family, this doesn't necessarily mean that the family unit is obsolete or merely a romantic notion of the past.

The evolving roles within society and the family can coexist with traditional values. Modern support systems are designed to enhance, not replace, the familial bonds and responsibilities that provide a foundation for emotional and social development. These systems aim to offer a safety net and additional resources, allowing families to thrive even in the face of new challenges.

It's crucial to recognize the ongoing importance of family as a source of unconditional support and identity. Even with external assistance, the unique bond between family members cannot be fully replicated by social systems.

[Sushan]

In this book, the protagonist Jennifer Davis's poignant journey into self-discovery through separation from her family underscores the profound need for recognition and appreciation within familial relationships. Jennifer feels marginalized and undervalued, a sentiment that resonates with many who perceive their roles within their families as taken for granted. Her decision to leave, driven by a quest for appreciation, serves as a compelling narrative to explore the deeper implications of acknowledgment in shaping family dynamics and individual self-esteem. The story vividly illustrates how the lack of recognition can erode one's sense of self-worth and disrupt family harmony. Jennifer's drastic measure of distancing herself from her family highlights an extreme response to what many might experience daily. This lack of appreciation not only impacts the individual but can resonate through the entire family structure, suggesting a universal truth about human relationships: recognition is not just a nicety, but a necessity. This narrative prompts us to reflect on the broader societal and psychological effects of appreciation. In an era where self-worth is often measured by external validation, the story raises critical questions about the dynamics of recognition in our closest relationships.
____________________________________

Your insights into this book are indeed thought-provoking. Davis's journey is a powerful illustration of how deeply the need for recognition and appreciation can affect our lives and relationships. The extreme measure Jennifer takes by leaving her family emphasizes the severity of her feelings and the universal importance of being acknowledged.

Given the book's exploration of these themes, how do you think families can better cultivate an environment of mutual recognition and respect? What practical steps might be taken to ensure that each family member feels valued and appreciated?

Additionally, what do you believe are the broader societal implications if this fundamental need for acknowledgment is not met? How might this influence our interactions and relationships beyond the family unit?

[LuckyR]

In this book, the protagonist Jennifer Davis's poignant journey into self-discovery through separation from her family underscores the profound need for recognition and appreciation within familial relationships. Jennifer feels marginalized and undervalued, a sentiment that resonates with many who perceive their roles within their families as taken for granted. Her decision to leave, driven by a quest for appreciation, serves as a compelling narrative to explore the deeper implications of acknowledgment in shaping family dynamics and individual self-esteem. The story vividly illustrates how the lack of recognition can erode one's sense of self-worth and disrupt family harmony. Jennifer's drastic measure of distancing herself from her family highlights an extreme response to what many might experience daily. This lack of appreciation not only impacts the individual but can resonate through the entire family structure, suggesting a universal truth about human relationships: recognition is not just a nicety, but a necessity. This narrative prompts us to reflect on the broader societal and psychological effects of appreciation. In an era where self-worth is often measured by external validation, the story raises critical questions about the dynamics of recognition in our closest relationships.
____________________________________

Your insights into this book are indeed thought-provoking. Davis's journey is a powerful illustration of how deeply the need for recognition and appreciation can affect our lives and relationships. The extreme measure Jennifer takes by leaving her family emphasizes the severity of her feelings and the universal importance of being acknowledged.

Given the book's exploration of these themes, how do you think families can better cultivate an environment of mutual recognition and respect? What practical steps might be taken to ensure that each family member feels valued and appreciated?

Additionally, what do you believe are the broader societal implications if this fundamental need for acknowledgment is not met? How might this influence our interactions and relationships beyond the family unit?

It depends on what is meant by "family. If you mean your parents and siblings, separation is a good thing as it represents growth and independence. Whereas if you mean spouse and children, tr represents immaturity as one should have already developed their sense of self worth before embarking on practices (marriage and parenthood) that require compromise and devotion to others.

[Samana Johann]

So called "modern liberal approaches" aren't liberal at all but fakes. Demand doesn't make free but causes conflicts and wars. What's the freedom of woman if getting bond to industrial slavery. Wester world has not the slightest idea of the high status and liberality of "old world" femal role, which is actually much higher the western femal consum junkies. Again, Japans community and culture lasted simply because not changing traditions and started to lose at the times proper conducts and relations had been sacrificed for industrial (meaning envelopment) values, eg. marxism. There is no such as family in such ideologies, only "to be used cows" and those browse them. And given that such as human labor has already lost much of itjs need, whatjs the gain to increase "products" where demand has been gone?

It's all over not about how to increase demand but what to do to settle created global unrest and lose of any moral and virtue. People are brainwashed by utopias which just increase spin of heat, death and birth. And those who like to make chicken out of ducks will just suffer their whole existance before turning downward another time.

How stupid people can be to wish to replace freedoms of good sociaty and gained by proper deeds with being another job-less consum-junky. Slaves of the death.



And it's amazing that, especially it reflecting old cultures decay, that good Sushan doesn't see the cause why people are no more recognized as having a role in family. Why? Because they actually have no more role, no more tasks and duties, just like a battey chicken.

You make a compelling case about the perceived superficiality and pitfalls of modern liberal approaches, especially through the evocative King of Death analogy. It’s true that traditional values often provided stability and a sense of purpose within society, and there's certainly a danger in losing touch with those roots.

However, it's worth noting that the adaptation of societal roles isn't necessarily about eradicating traditions but about evolving to meet new challenges. The high status and liberality of "old world" female roles you mention can be preserved and adapted to modern contexts. The goal is not to force everyone into industrial roles but to offer choices that align with today's economic and social realities.

Moreover, the increase in women's labor force participation isn't about creating "industrial slavery" but about providing opportunities for those who choose to work, thus fostering a more balanced and inclusive economy. This doesn't mean abandoning traditional roles entirely; instead, it means expanding the framework to include diverse paths that individuals can freely choose.

You mentioned the loss of roles within families. It's important to consider that modern approaches also emphasize the value of unpaid work, such as caregiving, which is often undervalued. Integrating this recognition into our societal framework can honor traditional values while addressing contemporary needs.

The new challenges of yours and your sociaties will be in regard of the replacement relatives, if not pushing the break, as yours do not really relay on else then what a social system gives. Help, assistance, job, teaching... just the giving birth issue might be not orphaned yet. Family is simply a romantic dream of the past since the recognitions reason had been outsourced. If there is something left worthy to recognize, than it's for the most just low sensuality, sex, and debts out of that.

Yet even for having 'just' given birth, a child owes a lot. Other then paid functions, this had been a generous choice.

Orphans.

You raise some significant concerns about the role of family and societal support systems in our modern world. While it's true that social systems now provide many forms of assistance that were once the purview of family, this doesn't necessarily mean that the family unit is obsolete or merely a romantic notion of the past.

The evolving roles within society and the family can coexist with traditional values. Modern support systems are designed to enhance, not replace, the familial bonds and responsibilities that provide a foundation for emotional and social development. These systems aim to offer a safety net and additional resources, allowing families to thrive even in the face of new challenges.

It's crucial to recognize the ongoing importance of family as a source of unconditional support and identity. Even with external assistance, the unique bond between family members cannot be fully replicated by social systems.

Bond is a matter of debt, not a matter of birth (not incl. the deed of giving birth). Relation is a matter of giving and reveiving. Both are on a level of nearly zero. "Families" are already simple "free" consume-together-communities.

Good Sushan has probably no idea of how strong people in still functioning societies are bond to family. She wouldn't like it, since it limits desire for "free" consume, and there steps marxism into the demand to resolve those "hindering" bonds.

Who feed, who taught, who gave ways, who care, who entertainment, s
looked after? Replacements. And so there is no room for any recognition of what's just formal "old stuff". Yours are "free" consumer nobody cares of.

[Sushan]

In this book, the protagonist Jennifer Davis's poignant journey into self-discovery through separation from her family underscores the profound need for recognition and appreciation within familial relationships. Jennifer feels marginalized and undervalued, a sentiment that resonates with many who perceive their roles within their families as taken for granted. Her decision to leave, driven by a quest for appreciation, serves as a compelling narrative to explore the deeper implications of acknowledgment in shaping family dynamics and individual self-esteem. The story vividly illustrates how the lack of recognition can erode one's sense of self-worth and disrupt family harmony. Jennifer's drastic measure of distancing herself from her family highlights an extreme response to what many might experience daily. This lack of appreciation not only impacts the individual but can resonate through the entire family structure, suggesting a universal truth about human relationships: recognition is not just a nicety, but a necessity. This narrative prompts us to reflect on the broader societal and psychological effects of appreciation. In an era where self-worth is often measured by external validation, the story raises critical questions about the dynamics of recognition in our closest relationships.
____________________________________

Your insights into this book are indeed thought-provoking. Davis's journey is a powerful illustration of how deeply the need for recognition and appreciation can affect our lives and relationships. The extreme measure Jennifer takes by leaving her family emphasizes the severity of her feelings and the universal importance of being acknowledged.

Given the book's exploration of these themes, how do you think families can better cultivate an environment of mutual recognition and respect? What practical steps might be taken to ensure that each family member feels valued and appreciated?

Additionally, what do you believe are the broader societal implications if this fundamental need for acknowledgment is not met? How might this influence our interactions and relationships beyond the family unit?

It depends on what is meant by "family. If you mean your parents and siblings, separation is a good thing as it represents growth and independence. Whereas if you mean spouse and children, tr represents immaturity as one should have already developed their sense of self worth before embarking on practices (marriage and parenthood) that require compromise and devotion to others.

I may be repeating myself, but I believe it is worthwhile to consider a variety of opinions. Separating from parents and siblings requires independence and progress. However, retaining close familial ties can be a sign of maturity. It is possible to be independent while both valuing and cultivating connections.

While marriage and children necessitate compromise and love, it is equally critical that people retain their sense of self. Relationships are a process that often leads people to discover novel qualities of themselves. So, the concept that one must be completely grown before joining these partnerships may be overly idealistic—personal progress frequently occurs throughout these situations.

In short, life isn't always as straightforward as it may appear. Relationships, whether with family, a spouse, or children, present many challenges and chances for growth.

[Sushan]

You make a compelling case about the perceived superficiality and pitfalls of modern liberal approaches, especially through the evocative King of Death analogy. It’s true that traditional values often provided stability and a sense of purpose within society, and there's certainly a danger in losing touch with those roots.

However, it's worth noting that the adaptation of societal roles isn't necessarily about eradicating traditions but about evolving to meet new challenges. The high status and liberality of "old world" female roles you mention can be preserved and adapted to modern contexts. The goal is not to force everyone into industrial roles but to offer choices that align with today's economic and social realities.

Moreover, the increase in women's labor force participation isn't about creating "industrial slavery" but about providing opportunities for those who choose to work, thus fostering a more balanced and inclusive economy. This doesn't mean abandoning traditional roles entirely; instead, it means expanding the framework to include diverse paths that individuals can freely choose.

You mentioned the loss of roles within families. It's important to consider that modern approaches also emphasize the value of unpaid work, such as caregiving, which is often undervalued. Integrating this recognition into our societal framework can honor traditional values while addressing contemporary needs.

The new challenges of yours and your sociaties will be in regard of the replacement relatives, if not pushing the break, as yours do not really relay on else then what a social system gives. Help, assistance, job, teaching... just the giving birth issue might be not orphaned yet. Family is simply a romantic dream of the past since the recognitions reason had been outsourced. If there is something left worthy to recognize, than it's for the most just low sensuality, sex, and debts out of that.

Yet even for having 'just' given birth, a child owes a lot. Other then paid functions, this had been a generous choice.

Orphans.

You raise some significant concerns about the role of family and societal support systems in our modern world. While it's true that social systems now provide many forms of assistance that were once the purview of family, this doesn't necessarily mean that the family unit is obsolete or merely a romantic notion of the past.

The evolving roles within society and the family can coexist with traditional values. Modern support systems are designed to enhance, not replace, the familial bonds and responsibilities that provide a foundation for emotional and social development. These systems aim to offer a safety net and additional resources, allowing families to thrive even in the face of new challenges.

It's crucial to recognize the ongoing importance of family as a source of unconditional support and identity. Even with external assistance, the unique bond between family members cannot be fully replicated by social systems.

Bond is a matter of debt, not a matter of birth (not incl. the deed of giving birth). Relation is a matter of giving and reveiving. Both are on a level of nearly zero. "Families" are already simple "free" consume-together-communities.

Good Sushan has probably no idea of how strong people in still functioning societies are bond to family. She wouldn't like it, since it limits desire for "free" consume, and there steps marxism into the demand to resolve those "hindering" bonds.

Who feed, who taught, who gave ways, who care, who entertainment, s
looked after? Replacements. And so there is no room for any recognition of what's just formal "old stuff". Yours are "free" consumer nobody cares of.

While I respect your viewpoint, I believe there are a few aspects that should be reconsidered. The assumption that family relationships are only based on debt rather than birth is a bit restrictive. Family bonds are often stronger, resulting from shared experiences and mutual caring rather than merely obligations. While it is true that relationships involve giving and receiving, it is a bit pessimistic to claim that these exchanges are almost nonexistent in families. Many families maintain genuine, supportive relationships.

Describing families as "consume-together communities" appears to ignore the emotional and social support they provide. Consumer culture influences modern family life, but it does not fully define it.

Regarding the idea that strong family bonds exist exclusively in "functioning" communities, I believe it ignores the diversity of family structures and values among cultures. Strong relationships can occur in a variety of contexts, not simply communities where conventional roles are tightly enforced.

The claim that Marxism demands the disintegration of family relationships appears to be a broad generalization. Marxist thought criticizes how capitalism affects families but does not necessarily call for their destruction. Instead, it frequently focusses on relieving the economic constraints that strain those connections.