Ianua

This is a bit far a field perhaps, but if we attempt to do good acts to combat evil in the world, how much good should we do? I hope that my argument is not too far out for people to follow. If the argument is that we should "do good" in order to combat evil, how much is "enough" and who decides? As an example, If a person donates 10% of his income to charity to feed the hungry, can he then say he has done enough good? What about if he buys an older car, lives in a run down house, doesn't install a hot tub or smart phone and takes all that savings and donates, he could do so much MORE good. Can we fault him because he hasn't done enough? Would you give up your smart phone to help the refugees in Syria? if you would not , are you doing evil? (I don't have a smartphone btw) Part of the difficulty in these discussions is that there is a difference between the "perfect" system we all wish we lived in and the reality of the systems in which we do live.

Looking back at my life, I should not have had a child. I have an ACE of 9. During my growing up years, I had two thoughts either the resolve to not have a child or to not do the things my mother (and previous generations had done). I have a fairly high IQ. I resolved also never to blame myself for being in a physically abusive relationship, if I happened to get into one and also to never allow my daughter to be sexually abused. I was confident that my intelligence would protect me and my offspring from the failings of my upbringing. My reasons for ultimately having a child? My husband and mother wanted one and since I was failing at anything else I was doing (school, job) I figured I could at least produce a child. Women in my family are built for it. At the time I thought that I could protect my child from any potential abuse my mother might inflict and I had confidence in my ability not to abuse my child in the same manner as I had been. I did keep my mother from ever hitting Misty (my mother and daughter are two peas in a pod). I did manage never to physically abuse my daughter, but I was not suited for raising a child and she suffered from my inability to follow thru. We will go to the park today after lunch, but when after lunch comes I am too depressed, tired, anxious insert other excuse to take her, rinse and repeat. She never had chores or bedtimes or punishments. I never set limits, morals, or boundaries. I was trying to give her the perfect upbringing, no anger or brutality. What I gave instead was neglect, not physical but neglect all the same. She adopted my mother's temperament, having no guidance from me. She was the child my mother always wanted, which I could never achieve. I assume they are happy in their relationship. I don't have contact with either one. We have no contact, by her choice and I don't resent it. She is not my property and I am not her responsibility.

What is, is good. Saint Athanasius. I love this forum. How do we live good lives in wicked world. If you have not read it, please look at the quandary presented by LeGuin in her short story " "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" I humbly submit that the world is not wicked. Man can choose to use his free will to do evil, and frequently does. Everyday I wake up and don't kill someone, don't steal something, don't force my will on others thru force. The definition of what is good action or evil action is also problematic. If I feed the hungry, comfort the sick and clothe the naked, am I doing good? What if the greatest happiness for that hungry person is being hungry? If I give narcotics to a drug user, doesn't that make them "happy"? At some point doing good actually devolves into inaction, since any action may increase suffering. If we only "do good" to those that ask for our help, how do we know that helping them is a good thing, and what form should that good deed take? I am reminded of the tale (possibly anecdotal) of the Catholic priest during world war 2 that was asked to choose which prisoners to save. His choice was save some or all would die. He chose not to participate. The result was everyone was killed. Perhaps you might fault the hypothetical priest, but what would you do? Would your choice change if the guard added that you would have to shoot your victims to save the others? Perhaps I am overthinking the OP's question. Perhaps the most diect answer is the correct one. You live and do no violence to others, except perhaps in self defense.

Your query reminds me of the debate of whether light is a particle or a wave. Definitions are essential. Freud was a neurologist by profession and his ideas are legion, but rarely understood. I want to address a few points individually if I may. I will define 3 terms that I plan to use. In Freud's model, the mind is made up of three components, the ego, superego and the id. The ego is you, the real you. It is what directs the body, interacts directly with the world, it may be strong or weak and may have different aspects, kinda like multiple personalities. As you grow, you choose the real you and strengthen that one, integrating all others and absorbing their experiences and memories. This is the normal state of development People with abusive or neglected childhoods may never grow and have a stunted ego or multiple ones (without being DID) The superego is a combination of your parents expectations and societal pressures. It tries to force the ego to behave in certain ways based upon expectations. These influences can be very strong and can cause extreme stress. The id can be viewed as your inner child. It wants, fears, needs but can't act. I usually explain that my id may want to bathe in the blue raspberry jello filled reflecting pool at the Taj Mahal; the super ego pipes up and says DON'T waste your money and WHAT will the neighbors think? With both of them screaming in the background, the ego must try to mediate the demands of both, apply the reality principle and make a choice that quiets all of them. Consciousness: There are different states that a person can achieve that posses their own set of memories. We use this facility when someone does an all night study session on red bull and then drinks it again during the test. Drunks that experience blackouts are not unconscious, just in a different state of awareness and those memories will likely be accessible when he again blacks out. The way the mind stores experiences, especially traumatic ones, can render them inaccessible to the parts of the ego at different states of consciousness. The mind may force us to act irrationally, but it always is logical. By examining why you act, especially in times of stress, you can discover what forces are pushing you to behave in certain ways. This examination leads to a greater awareness of self and allows you a greater ability to understand what moves you. I did not address the main issue of unconscious vs subconscious since I am unsure what the OP means by those terms. Perhaps he would be kind enough to supply his definition.

How do I condense what I am and believe into a post that is intelligible? Telling you that I am a 49F will make you think certain things about me, which may or may not be valid. I have an ACE of 9 and an IQ of 160 (neither of which I expect you to believe, at least at first). I am married, Catholic and a strict constitutionalist. I believe that rational argument and polite congress are essential to any discussion. I hope to have many interesting discussions with people on this forum, even those whose views are different than my own. I believe that engaging in discourse with different opinions and challenging strongly held beliefs (your own) keeps the mind open and active. Standing around with a bunch of people that never challenge your thinking is stagnation. My glass is neither half full or half empty, it is awaiting more bourbon.

The glass has room for more Bourbon.