Yay. I think the only thing we didn't mention here is to ask the person to describe the ring prior to it's return in order to help relieve doubt of ownership.

Why ask?

You already know what you ought do.


Perhaps they wish to know why they feel inclined to go about it whichever way. Perhaps the question is not "what to do" but "why to do it this way or that way"

:gasp:
Did I make a list? Yayyyy haha

Sometimes when people get under our skin it is a reflection of our own insecurities.

Particularly we see this pattern in the relationships that are closest to us where we attempt to make predictions of the other person's intent, even though we may not have the facts, but have merely projected our understandings of their intentions based on our history with them and our understandings of ourselves...

But... There are times when people do outlandish and destructive things of their own warrant, and not as a projection of anyone else's insecurities but their own.

I experienced the latter first hand a while ago.

We were at the bar waiting for the fight to start and I struck up conversation with a hoodrat. (he called himself that) At first he seemed civilized and intelligent, and I was fond of him and his wife's company, but somewhere during his third jack and coke he changed. It was clear in his mind that he was still incarcerated, and still in the slums of Houston.

He started to do things with the obvious intentions of instigation. He stole people's chairs as they got up to use the restroom (even though the people were still clearly intending on coming back to them) and gave them to his wife and my mother as if to say "It doesn't matter how these people feel, your family should be comfortable, and you should be willing to fight people in exchange for that at any cost and at any time." He also left his hat on the table in front of me and clearly gave me the responsibility of making sure it didn't fall, he moved people out of his line of sight from the television by intimidation (when he easily could have just shifted his body to account for his line of sight) and he became violent and aggressive towards people for no reason - even yelling in their faces intensely. He backed into me (obviously intentionally) and stepped on my foot, and then turned and said "Sorry bro I didn't mean to back into you" as if to say "I totally meant to do that, but you won't do anything about it because you don't want to fight me."

This man did everything he could to let everyone around him know that he would fight any of them if they disrespected him, and he did so by being disrespectful. I tried to reason with him, and I feel like I got through to him a little by explaining to him that he is a free man and no longer in prison, and that these types of actions will ultimately make his life more difficult.

I cannot relate to a person like this, and I cannot blame myself for being upset that he exists, because this was not a reflection of me. This was all him.

This is a small scale replica of our destructive nature that tells humanity that peace comes from intimidation, and I just do not agree.

My emotional response was to be intrigued, but my intellect has found no value in the discussion.

:joke:

I just want to point out that besides our ability to form language, we also have the capacity to manipulate every physical thing that we can touch. We manipulate them not only slightly, but vastly, and turn the molecules from one form into a completely different form. Animals have the capacity to manipulate matter, but they do not generally manipulate everything that they find, and they do not manipulate it to the degree that allows for such a vast difference from one state to the next.

In other words we are the only species that builds cars and planes and trains and boats and rubber ducks.

Nice!

Okay, agreed.
Could we say that these two statements are the same?
"Nothing is the absence of anything."
"Nothing is the absence of everything."

And if not, what is the distinction?

In my opinion you are obligated to equal the exchange otherwise it's theft.

And granting the entire nation and it's infrastructure to any group other than the group who currently retains it would be near impossible. This is why we compromise by alloting the representatives of that ancestry a "leg up" in opportunity.

Now I'm not even saying that affirmative action is the end of balancing the exchange, but it is an example of an attempt to.

Affirmative action is inconvenient to the majority and convenient to the minority.

So in other words it is inconvenient, but the majority has a responsibility to the minority that it has created.

"I did! I sent you a text message, left a message on your phone, and sent you an email. I tried to call you about three days later, but your phone went to the answering service. So, I eventually decided just to keep the ring." I would shrug, express sympathy, but no regrets. I was reasonable in my attempt to make contact and to wait a period before I considered the matter closed.

This doesn't equalize the exchange.
At this point you still have acquired energy (work,money) without giving the same amount of energy (work, money) back to them.

At this point there are too many Americans, and we can't all leave in order to allow the Natives to start from scratch because it is a near impossible move to make. However amends of this magnitude have to come with comprimise. Reverting back to square one is too complicated in this regards to justify it's possibility as a route of action, so instead of giving them the entire country, the country allots them afirmative action.

Should we give North America back to the Indians?

It's a good question. I interpreted it as "Should the next generation be responsible for the previous generation's mistakes?"
And I would say yes, we are under obligation to amend the circumstance because if it was stolen it was taken without consent, and thus removes the opportunity that the object, in this case America, possesses from one society and gives it to another by force instead of an equal exchange.

Ha :smile:

In other words I would say
"Finders keepers, unless you find the loser."
And also I would say
"Exhausting your ability to find the loser is a respectful responsibility."
And
"Keeping the posibility of the loser rediscovering the object is a respectful responsibility."

Unless the loser tells you to keep it.

....or at least we assume that they did.

Again, once it's out of your hands the negativity revolving it is no longer your responsibility.

I would say it is not convenient to contact the previous holder in the first place, but that it is still necessary in terms of honesty to do so.
Consider if ten years away, you wear the ring and someone says "hey, that ring belongs to my grandmother." They give you precise details that would lead you to conclude that they are being factual. Do you give it to them, or do you say "well I'm sorry, but I've already had it for 10 years, so it is mine."

Of course this probability is rare, but the possibility remains, and so does your responsibility of returning it to the family that *did* obtain the ring by means of contract, because they sacrificed their energy (work, money) to acquire it fairly and you have not.

I think it's important to oppose illogical arguments, especially the ones destructive for people and within that, when you see that a win in an argument is more than just personal gain and instead is a statement of importance beyond yourself, that's not something you can or should move on from.


I whole heartedly agree. We do not have the power to control society, but we do have the powers of influence and inspiration, and it is our duty as human beings to work towards correcting what we feel is an imbalance in the equation of humanity. One of humanities best attributes is our ability to learn, and so we must.

Lol. ✌

If it is important enough to you, then you won't give up. Leaving the discussion when it becomes hostile gives each party the ability to reflect, and you can continue the discussion at another time with said reflection in mind.

If it isn't important to you, you will move on.

"I think what you mean is that, once one does the right thing (inquiring), one is then only obligated insofar as her conscience dictates"


Yes. Kind of and...

" If the person doesn't respond (you can ensure emails are opened at the recipient's end) after 72 hours, I would say my obligation to do the right thing has been completed; the ring becomes my rightful property"

No. If the other person does not reply it could be for a number of reasons, and at that point only your guardianship of the ring is your role, not your ownership of the ring. The possibility of a reply remains, and regardless of how much time passes, the ring does not belong to you because you did not exchange for it under contract.

The essential question is... how do we communicate across different levels of intellect without it becoming a question of status based on intellect or knowledge?


By replying with objective and unemotional perspective that the other person can understand.

Sure. Unpleasant, contradictory, etcetera. This does not mean that:

A: All of it's concepts of virtue are not beneficial for society.

Or that

B: Virtue is not successful.

Or that

C: Utilizing it's concepts of virtue will leave you crucified.

It is up to the individual to deduce the concepts of any theory, concept, or religion that are beneficial for our (humanity, and the self's) current state of existence, and for our future state of existence.

For example: Thou shall not kill.
It's obvious how this concept can lend insight into coexistence and the longevity of the species.

Forgive me for referencing murder twice, as I am simultaneously in a discussion with a psychopath about the consequences of it for himself and humanity. Touchy place to be.

Aren't you all just selfishly concerned with distancing, and personal assertions of righteousness?


I am concerned with unity, and humanities assertions of righteousness.

Not what separates us that we can't agree on, but what we can agree on that will guide us to our next stage of evolution, and what can further our ability to coexist without destroying one another and planet Earth.

Personally, I find it difficult to call crucifixion success


This is under the assumption that everyone who is virtuous will be crucified. I disagree that this is the case. Many virtuous people are praised as positive examples of morality as opposed to being crucified for doing so. Have you not commited murder? Good job. You receive the right to remain a part of society. Etc.

"Competition stifles innovation"
Competing with someone to the degree that one is willing to hide information that has been gathered from another person who is also working towards the same goal limits the amount of information that each person is capable of evaluating, and thus limits their ability to produce their desired results.

"Collaboration strengthens contemplation."
Collaborating with another person with transparency of the information being processed by two minds yeilds more information available for the two minds to evaluate, and thus strengthens their ability to produce their desired result.

In other words, "Two minds are better than one."

You burn your hand on the stove. Yes the feeling is unpleasant, you may curse it in emotion, and you may initially find no value in the experience, but the lesson you learn is valuable. Don't touch the stove.

You have an affair and cheat on your spouse. During the act you may find beautiful and pleasant emotional value. After evaluation you may learn that it's value is less than equivalent to it's destructive potential.

Those are examples of times when thoughts essentially "over ride" the initial emotional value that one might place on a given circumstance.

It is a recipe for virtue, not for success.


I would say that this depends on the individual's intentions, and on their definition of success.

Could we not say that virtue is successful?

Yes I mean to convey your second quote as the actual definition. I used too many words to announce that I was making a definition. My appologies. And thank you for simplifying.

"but what's the point?"


Perhaps try to pick a point that you are deeply concerned with in regards to how it effects humanity or the planet in general, and then seek to find a solution to the equation.
Or perhaps try to pick a point that you are deeply concerned with in regards to how it effects you or a loved one, and then seek to find a solution to the equation.

Tldr: It is up to you to pick a point.

Yes true. "Within" is why I named an art piece, and I defined "experience" as the concept of what is being portrayed within the piece.

"What would make an experience metaphysical then, as opposed to simply an experience?"



The laws of physics.

Correct! Contacting the last people who were responsible for the box and it's contents becomes the current box holder's obligation in order to hopefully return the ring to it's owner.

There are multiple possibilities here in regards to who actually owns the ring, how it got there, and whether or not the person you contact in regards to it will tell you the truth.

But! The person who has found the ring has a choice to make about whether to be honest about an unusual situation to the previous representative of the box. Once the current holder has been honest, their responsibility to their fellow human has been met, and any deceit after the fact is not their responsibility.

There are many benefits to honesty. Karma is not dogmatic in my opinion, but rather reference to the cause and effect of maintaining civility in society.

The reward for achieving a goal first can be a driving factor for the individual to work diligently, but so too can be the comradary of collaboration.

The risk is when two collaborate, and one takes the credit. This happens very often as well and is the story of many wealth giants.

I just feel like when people compete to achieve the same goal first, they keep one another from sharing the concepts that are retained by the opposition's experiments.

The Persistence of Memory, by Dali.

Really any piece of art that questions the nature of reality is concerned with ontology in my opinion.

Can the experience be measured using the laws of physics? If so, it is of nature. If not, it is of abstraction.

competition — Bitter Crank

Competition stifles innovation. Collaboration strengthens contemplation.



It sounds pretty, but if someone could break down that first sentence a little bit I would be grateful. It feels like it is not completely correct.

I do not have the training, but I know that I am a deep thinker. Do I qualify? Perhaps the word theorist will better fit, considering lack of academic studies in academic institutions.

Yes. The debate is to whether or not a metaphysical experience is validated as fact or fiction.