Monday, April 26, 2004

B"H

Michelle wrote: PS. The world would be a better place if people would mind their own
> business and let other people mind theirs.
> Michelle

This is partly true. There are matters that are strictly personal and do not impinge on the welfare of anyone else.

Your tats and my having painted my bathroom shades of purple are examples of that. Someone may not like the aesthetics of it and cluck their tongues at it. That is empty judgement and a waste of a good tongue that could be put to much better use :0)

I had a dear friend where I once worked who didn't get a well deserved promotion, although it was generally acknowledged that she was the best in the office at what she did, because she wore ankle-length folksy skirts. Her attire was not thought professional enough and she didn't get the promo - to the detriment of the office as well as her family's income. That's bullshit and passing judgement based on nothing.

However, there are matters that do impinge on the welfare of others. One of them is widespread alcohol addiction. The nice people from M.A.D.D. can most likely support this position better than I.

One might also argue that it is a value judgement to pass judgement on those who pass judgement. Should enough power to make the world a worse place really be attributed to them?

Doreen

I have to disagree. It's a bit different than eating. It's more like
considering all the food in front of you, THEN deciding (what you agree with )
what
to eat.
You may miss out on something if you don't at least consider the entire
buffet spread first....and sometimes trying something new turns out to be a
wonderful experience.
Michelle

B"H

It's kind of like rotten eggs, actually. If one isn't wise enough to
stay away from them from the very first whiff one may become one of
those people who develop a penchant for them, even as they poison the
body (burying eggs for some inordinate amount of time until they turn
utterly black and malodourous is considered a delicacy in the some
cultures).

Once a penchant for the unhealthy and unwholesome has been developed
all ability to discern between the salubrious and the insalubrious is
not only muddled, but often reversed. The wise keep away from that
which will harm them, even as it tempts them with errant charms, very
first experience.

Doreen

Maybe it is a delicacy, and our judgment is keeping us from experiencing it.
Michelle

B"H

Rotten eggs a delicacy? I don't doubt it. That is merely a matter of
taste and, more, convention.

It doesn't really matter what a food might taste like (although I'm
sure rotten eggs taste putrid for the simple reason that they are);
if the food doesn't nourish, and even harms, the body it is not wise
to eat it.

Caviar, an example more familiar to us, is loaded with salt and is
probably the food highest in cholesterol on the planet. Who cares if
it's considered a delicacy according to some baseless social
conventions defined by persons whose wisdom has not been
demonstrated? It's poison. Why is it an "acquired taste"? Because
the body's first healthy reaction to it is - "Ugh. Get this away from
me!" Only those who bow to social pressure and the desire to
*appear* gourmet force their bodies to eat it until their bodies give
up and begin to accept it. Then, at later stages of surrender, their
bodies become accustomed, then addicted, to the poison and they begin
to crave it. The very same process happens with drinking liquor. We
may be certain that spiritual/moral debaucherie and physical
pathology have set in when that which was once abhorrent and
repellent when the organism was pristine and healthy becomes so
desirable as to be an obsession, although it brings nothing but harm.

The wise way to go in eating, as in living, is requiring that that
which we eat and do fulfills the following requirements: It good to
us and good for us and it strengthens us to be of service.

The rest are meaningless and vacuous sensational thrills that weigh
the Soul and body down with confusion and dead weight.

P.S. Almost anything can be convincingly argued for with sophistry.
Often the wise way to go is not as easily argued for rationally.
That is not because wisdom is irrational; but rather because it is
super-rational.

Doreen

B"H

Rotten eggs a delicacy? I don't doubt it. That is merely a matter of
taste and, more, convention.

It doesn't really matter what a food might taste like (although I'm
sure rotten eggs taste putrid for the simple reason that they are);
if the food doesn't nourish, and even harms, the body it is not wise
to eat it.

Caviar, an example more familiar to us, is loaded with salt and is
probably the food highest in cholesterol on the planet. Who cares if
it's considered a delicacy according to some baseless social
conventions defined by persons whose wisdom has not been
demonstrated? It's poison. Why is it an "acquired taste"? Because
the body's first healthy reaction to it is - "Ugh. Get this away from
me!" Only those who bow to social pressure and the desire to
*appear* gourmet force their bodies to eat it until their bodies give
up and begin to accept it. Then, at later stages of surrender, their
bodies become accustomed, then addicted, to the poison and they begin
to crave it. The very same process happens with drinking liquor. We
may be certain that spiritual/moral debaucherie and physical
pathology have set in when that which was once abhorrent and
repellent when the organism was pristine and healthy becomes so
desirable as to be an obsession, although it brings nothing but harm.

The wise way to go in eating, as in living, is requiring that that
which we eat and do fulfills the following requirements: It good to
us and good for us and it strengthens us to be of service.

The rest are meaningless and vacuous sensational thrills that weigh
the Soul and body down with confusion and dead weight.

P.S. Almost anything can be convincingly argued for with sophistry.
Often the wise way to go is not as easily argued for rationally.
That is not because wisdom is irrational; but rather because it is
super-rational.

Doreen

B"H

Though it is true that there are particulars that impact on
individuals in different ways, there are also universals. It
behooves us to be able to discern between two.

Wheat is an excellent example. While it can be very healthy to some,
it is unhealthy to others. That's quite true.

Rotten food, in contradistinction, is unhealthy to all, in all
places, in all societies, in all times. This is an example of a
universal law. It is generally applicable.

One of the cliche, and boringggg mantra-like, social pressure
mechanisms used today is "I bet you're not absolutely perfect either!"

Another is: "You don't have every single fact. Therefore, you can't
make any kind of determination whatsoever."

Last, and perhaps least on the convincing hit parade, is: "Who are
you to say that...? It's arrogant to claim that you are privy to
knowledge that others don't have." There is certainly a good measure
of self-assuredness in being confident of one's basic values. It is
not hubris to be aware that one is in possession of basic common
sense. The confusion of self-assurance with hubris is meant as a
social control mechanism to keep people confused about a lot of
things. I just never bent under that pressure.

Few people today have a highly developed ability to discern: between
the salubrious and the insalubrious, between wisdom and sophistry,
between the particular and the universal, between self-assurance and
hubris. These were once matters of common sense. Today it is rare
indeed to find a person in possession of this faculty of
understanding, basic though it is.

A lot of money is being generated by that generalized confusion, and
it is being cultivated and perpetuated by financial concerns.

Michelle said: "I don't drink, so that doesn't apply to me."

Neither do I drink, to speak of. I should hope that we concern
ourselves with matters that impact on society as a whole, not just on
matters of immediately personal relevance.

Doreen

B"H

Though it is true that there are particulars that impact on
individuals in different ways, there are also universals. It
behooves us to be able to discern between two.>>
There are no objective universals.


Rotten food, in contradistinction, is unhealthy to all, in all
places, in all societies, in all times. This is an example of a
universal law. It is generally applicable.>>
Generally, NOT universally.
We eat some foods that are "rotten." Blue cheese, for example. Fermented
foods.



One of the cliche, and boringggg mantra-like, social pressure
mechanisms used today is "I bet you're not absolutely perfect either!">>
.and one which I never used, so I"m not sure why you are making the comment
in reference to me.



Another is: "You don't have every single fact. Therefore, you can't
make any kind of determination whatsoever.">>
You don't. Any determination you make is yours. That doesn't mean I have to
adopt it.



Last, and perhaps least on the convincing hit parade, is: "Who are
you to say that...? It's arrogant to claim that you are privy to
knowledge that others don't have." There is certainly a good measure
of self-assuredness in being confident of one's basic values. It is
not hubris to be aware that one is in possession of basic common
sense. The confusion of self-assurance with hubris is meant as a
social control mechanism to keep people confused about a lot of
things. I just never bent under that pressure. >>
I find it quite arrogant, actually. Your values are not the same as everyone
else's. "Basic common sense" is arguable and circumstance and socially
determined. You never bent because you are rigid in your beliefs and refuse to
consider that perhaps there are other ways of processing reality. It is within
your right to be that way. MY point is that by clinging so blindly to your
preconceptions, you are probably missing out on a lot that may be valuable.



Few people today have a highly developed ability to discern: between
the salubrious and the insalubrious, between wisdom and sophistry,
between the particular and the universal, between self-assurance and
hubris. These were once matters of common sense. Today it is rare
indeed to find a person in possession of this faculty of
understanding, basic though it is.>>
These things are largely subjective. Your judgment of "good' and "bad" only
holds water in your own mind. If it is rare, did you ever stop to think maybe
it's you and not everyone else?
OF course it's rare...everyone has a unique set of value judgments that they
use to process the world around them, and it is unlikely that anyone else's
will exactly line up with yours.



A lot of money is being generated by that generalized confusion, and
it is being cultivated and perpetuated by financial concerns. >>
Oh? How so?



Michelle said: "I don't drink, so that doesn't apply to me."

Neither do I drink, to speak of. I should hope that we concern
ourselves with matters that impact on society as a whole, not just on
matters of immediately personal relevance.

Doreen>>
"To speak of"........means you do drink, from where I stand. I never drink.
It's relative. See my point?