Rotten Food, Rotten Thinking
This entry is a copy of a conversation that I have been thoroughly enjoying with one of the members of my Yahoo! group The Moral Spiritual Substrate of Eating. It is recopied here with the written permission of my interlocutor, Michelle:
This one goes like this: "If you're not open to any and all ideas, you're cutting yourself off from truth."
That's like saying if you don't eat everything that's put in front of you, no matter in what quantity, without checking the nutritional value, without checking that it is fresh, without checking that it is perhaps poison, you won't be healthy. :-/
Should we be less discerning about what goes into our consciousness than we are about what goes into our body?
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 malodorous 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
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
Michelle writes:
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?
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 judgment 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 judgment 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 judgment to pass judgment on those who pass judgment. Should enough power to make the world a worse place really be attributed to them?
Doreen
In MoralSpiritualSubstrateOfEating@yahoogroups.com, HelleHathNOFury@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/26/2004 3:40:28 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> MoralSpiritualSubstrateOfEating@yahoogroups.com writes:
>
> --- B"H
>
> > Michelle wrote: There are no objective universals.
There is an inherent contradiction in the above statement, Michelle. Maybe you didn't see it because it glares so.
>
>
We eat some foods that are "rotten." Blue cheese, for example. Fermented
> foods
Bleu cheese and pickled vegetables, while not number one on the health hit parade, are not out and out poison. Eggs become poisonous when they go bad. Your nose knows.
Michelle, in another post you wrote that every individual is unique. That just about nullifies the meaning of 'unique'. If every being is unique then none can be said to be unique. Existence is not an all or none proposition. Each individual is a blend of that which is unique to that individual and that which is general to that individual's species, and to all of existence. The vast majority of individuals are specimens, not a species unto themselves, wholly unique in every way and unlike any other individual in existence unless in some extenuating circumstances. When we say that something or someone is unique it means that given the expected variances that might occur among individuals of that species that particular individual is off the graph in some way, not in all. A person with say, an IQ of 200 is uniquely intelligent while s/he may be of average height, etc.
> 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.
No; there was a time in my life when my motto was: I'll try anything at least once and I used to collect experiences.
The result of collecting experiences was that I learned to discern what was worthwhile and what was not and could eventually spot which was which before actually partaking in the experience. I learned, much to my surprise, that the "old wisdom" has a lot going for it and that there really is common sense. However, I learned it at a high personal price. Had I listened to those who knew the tried and true I could have saved myself from doing a lot of things that are still impacting on me negatively to this day. The price I paid for my right to make my own mistakes was very, very high in some cases. As the old saying goes: The wise don't get into the situations that the shrewd know how to extricate themselves from.
> 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.
Again, value systems are not wholly unique. People do not each invent the wheel when adopting a value system. They build on that which has come before and they adopt a lot from their surroundings. Fact: I've read and heard many people saying exactly what you're writing. Actually, I think I remember saying about the same thing.
> A lot of money is being generated by that generalized confusion, and
> it is being cultivated and perpetuated by financial concerns. >>
Oh? How so?
Advertising. Censorship.
> 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?
Yes; drinking is a relative concept to some extent. This example is a good one. No one can drink down a quart of hard liquor in a short period of time and still function properly. Then the fuzzies come in: Some people can handle a pint. Some people get into trouble after having even one drink. Do you see? A mixture of universals and individual cases.
I'm reminded of a joke I made up. There is someone on a message board who refers to fuzzy logic quite often. He calls a particular type of fuzzy logic a "fuzzy bottom". A "Fuzzy Bottom" sounds like it ought to be the name of a cocktail made with a shot of peach flavored schnapps and a shot of one's favorite plonk. If you have it straight up it's a "Fuzzy Bottoms Up". If you have it on the rocks it's a "Fuzzy Rock Bottom".
-------------------------------------
Continuation of the Discussion:
Doreen: There is an inherent contradiction in the above statement, Michelle.
Maybe you didn't see it because it glares so.
Michelle: Explain. No objective universals..........there is nothing objective.
Nothing.
Doreen: Bleu cheese and pickeled vegetables, while not number one on the
health hit parade, are not out and out poison. Eggs become poisonous
when they go bad.
Michelle: Blue cheese would be poison to some people. Peanuts are poison to some people. Eggs, apparently, are not poison to some people even when bad. Everyone is different, and the human body is an amazing thing; also very individual.
Doreen: Michelle, in another post you wrote that every individual is unique.
That just about nullifies the meaning of 'unique'. If every being is
unique then none can be said to be unique. Existence is not an all or
none proposition.
Michelle: Everyone is unique. This does not nullify the meaning. It means you can't group people accurately in many ways. People like to try.it's the way our minds are organized, but it leads to a lot of problems.
Doreen: The result of collecting experiences was that I learned to discern
what was worthwhile and what was not and could eventually spot which
was which before actually partaking in the experience.
Michelle: Worthwhile to YOU.Not to anyone else.
Doreen: I learned, much to my surprise, that the "old wisdom" has a lot going for it and that there really is common sense. However, I learned it at a high
personal price. Had I listened to those who knew the tried and true
I could have saved myself from doing a lot of things that are still
impacting on me negatively to this day.
Michelle: And you would have done so at the price of many tings that made you who you are today. We have to live our own lives.
Doreen: Again, value systems are not wholly unique. People do not each invent
the wheel when adopting a value system. They build on that which has
come before and they adopt a lot from their surroundings. Fact: I've
read and heard many people saying exactly what you're writing.
Actually, I think I remember saying about the same thing.
Michelle: They are culturally determined. Mob mentality. Groupthink. That doesn't mean they are 'right."
Doreen: Advertising. Censorship. (In response to her question as to how I think people's opinions are shaped and manipulated in society).
Michelle: That's why one has to form one's own judgments. And one needsa access to all information, not just that which supports his or her view, in order to make any sort of meaningfyl assessment.
Doreen: Yes; drinking is a relative concept to some extent. This example is a
good one. No one can drink down a quart of hard liquor in a short
period of time and still function properly. Then the fuzzies come in:
Some people can handle a pint. Some people get into trouble after
having even one drink. Do you see? A mixture of universals and
individual cases.
Michelle: When I said I don't drink, I mean never. You said you don't drink to speak of. That means you do.
Anyway, I respectfully disagree with you on many points. Can you respect my
view as well?
-----------------------------
Continuation:
Doreen: There is an inherent contradiction in the above statement,
Michelle. Maybe you didn't see it because it glares so.
Michelle: Explain. No objective universals..........there is nothing
objective.
Nothing.
Doreen: It is positing an objective universal to say that there are no
objective universals. There, now we have one. Are there more?
Furthermore, even if objective universals only exist in the realm of
illusion they have the reality of existing in the world of illusion.
Michelle: Everyone is different, and the human body is an amazing thing; also very individual.
Doreen: Yes; but not completely individual. Again, a mix of universals and
particulars. For instance: by definition every aerobic organism needs
oxygen. We are aerobic organisms. Ergo, we all need oxygen.
Objective Universal. Simple syllogistic logic.
Michelle: Everyone is unique. This does not nullify the meaning. It means you
can't group people accurately in many ways. People like to try.it's the
way our minds are organized, but it leads to a lot of problems.
Doreen: Wholly unique? Nope. Everyone is unique in some ways and quite common in others. However, I agree with you that people do categorize willy
nilly in order to be able to deal with their emotions. The fact that
this is true should not serve as reason to "throw out the baby with
the bathwater" and posit that everyone is unique and that a whole lot
of Boolean algebra isn't occuring in nature amongst individuals. The
reality you are describing is very atomic, categorical, absolute,
inhabited by very discrete beings. My world is messier and less
easily defined, but it's very touchy-feely and allows for the
comeraderie that can only come from identification with another's
being because we share in that being.
Michelle: And you would have done so at the price of many tings that made you who you are today. We have to live our own lives.
Doreen: I suspect I could have emerged an interesting person and a bit better
off in other ways too had I balanced doing my own thing and heeding
the advice of older and wiser people better than I did.
Michelle:They are culturally determined. Mob mentality. Groupthink. That
doesn't mean they are 'right."
Doreen: No need to try to convince me on this one. If I'm prejudiced it's in
the direction of assuming that the mobsters and groupthinkers are
generally wrong.
Doreen: Advertising. Censorship.
Michelle: That's why one has to form one's own judgments. And one needsa
access to all information, not just that which supports his or her view, in order
to make any sort of meaningfyl assessment.
Doreen: Yes, I agree. The problem with pseudo-democracies, though, is that
they present their citizens with about 5 or 6 state-sanctioned modes
of thought. This provides the illusion of having choshen one's own
way of thinking, when in fact it is nothing more than having chosen
to be one of the types that the gummint knows how to deal with.
Michelle: Anyway, I respectfully disagree with you on many points. Can you
respect my > view as well?
Doreen: Actually, I kinda like you.
-----------------------------
Response
Doreen: There was one interchange between us that I overlooked responding to, Michelle. I'd like to treat it at this juncture. It was thus one:
Doreen: The result of collecting experiences was that I learned to discern what was worthwhile and what was not and could eventually spot which
was which before actually partaking in the experience.
Michelle: Worthwhile to YOU.Not to anyone else.
Doreen: This type of thinking makes for a very lonely world. Deep associations are bonded together by shared experiences and shared values. In fact, I would venture to say that the strong bonds in relationships are the shared values and shared basic moral proclivities and structures. We cannot trust or share ourselves with those who invalidate what we find worthwhile or whose value system offends us or seems petty to us. Over the long haul, it is with the people who share our basic ideas of what is worthwhile and what is not that we can enter into the deepest communion and form the longest-lasting relationships. Of course, it is the differences that provide the interest and the spice in relationships - the spice, not the entree.
I am enjoying this interchange with someone who thinks so very differently than I. There are rational bases to what you contend, Michelle, and there is certainly a measure of truth in what you say. I ask myself though: What if that were the prevailing way of thinking? The answer I see is that every individual would be an island, so essentially different from every other being in its utter uniqueness that there would be no common ground for communion.
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel
posted by Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat @ 4:41 PM
<< Home