("Shoot" the breeders; “LOVE” the mothers!)
How about trying to define a “mother”?
First, we should talk about the difference between a “breeder” and a “mother”.
A “breeder” is a female who has a litter. It could be a litter of one or five or six. A “breeder” is a producer of offspring. There is no sense of responsibility, or care, or nurturing, or of plans or preparations for a future. A “breeder” is just a “baby producer”.
Ah, then, what’s a “mother”?
A “mother” is a producer of offspring with love and responsibility!
It’s the words “love and responsibility” that makes the difference!
But what a difference!!
Let’s explore some of the considerations included in this “responsibility”:
a. “Responsible” for what? What’s being “responsible”? It could mean that the person has undertaken a personal commitment to see that some things are accomplished. At least, accomplished to the best of their abilities. That they will undertake to use their constant concern to “accomplish”.
b. ‘Accomplish” what? One can only hope that the person has been motivated to discover what is worthwhile to “accomplish”. …. that their idea of “what to accomplish” has a defined, understandable meaning and has a reasonable social purpose.
c. “A reasonable social purpose”!!! What’s that supposed to mean? According to whom? Well now you see the real problem!!
d. The difference between a “breeder” and a true “mother” is, to a large degree, in the eye of the beholder! The selection of what is a “reasonable social purpose” will lie in the “society” that is being considered …. the morals and values of that “society” … and to the personal judgements involved in the term “reasonable!!
Do we want “litters” or do we want “families”?
The consequences are enormous!!!
Is it worthwhile in “your society”, in “your personal judgement” as to what “reasonable” is”, to discuss this subject. You bet it is! …… “What’s the successful alternative?”
The future of the “offspring” is in question.
The future of “societies” are in question.
Is there a larger question?
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Family - #401 - #07 – What’s the meaning of “Discipline”? (vs. Fear!)
What do we mean by “disciplining a child”?
Do you “spoil” a child if he/she has no “discipline”?
When the Military has “discipline” does it mean the same thing?
When you have a mathematics problem that requires a “disciplined approach”, is that the same thing?
Well, then, what do you mean?
For instance:
How can you keep saying “There’s not enough “discipline” in the schools today”. What’s that supposed to mean? There’s no rules to follow? There’s no punishment allowed! What are you trying to say?
Most of the emotional outbursts come when there is a “mutual misunderstanding” about what’s being talked about.
So what’s the answer … “What’s a successful alternative?”
A good start would be to see if the speaker knew more precisely what he was going to say “before’ he said it.
a) Are there rules? What rules? Whose rules? .. the student’s, certain students’, the faculty…. everybody?
b) Who interprets the rules? Who judges the “following” of the rules?
c) Who or what determines the punishment for the specific "breaking of the rules"?
d) Is the “process of judging” so complex that no rules are possible?
e) If there are no rules, can you have an education process? If no rules, explain the issues. What should people expect?
So, if this were meant as a “school definition of discipline”, everyone would know what was being talked about and exactly what the problems were.
If you had a “disciplined approach “ to a complex mathematics problem the “explainer” might wish to list what he meant by a “disciplined approach”
For example:
a) Figures should be written in an orderly and readable manner.
b) Conclusions must be based on a written theorem or hypotheses that includes the proof of that hypothesis before it is used a part of the conclusion.
c) There must be an Index Page showing the path that is going to be undertaken to arrive at the conclusion.
d) etc., etc.
So, it generally comes down to the simple proposition that many of these words are merely labels for a group of ideas that are similar but NOT the same. To use these words effectively, you must try to explain, in detail, what you are including in the general term you are using. We used the term “discipline”. We must explain the context or the environment in which we are going to use the term. Then we must break this context down into ever smaller parts and try to say what each part is and what it is not. We must “define”.
We cannot have a useful or effective conversation unless we mutually agree on what we’re going to include in our “definition”.
We simply cannot say “We must have more discipline in our schools” and go on to the next subject. We have just raised the emotions if not the interest in a “generality” and have left it twisting in the wind! It is a cause of emotion, distrust, and controversy; and is, at the same time, “useless”!!!
We need “discipline” in the military; but, as long as we don’t know what that really, specifically means; we are merely creating noise and confusion.
Many words are just general labels that require “breaking down into specifics” and must be defined in order to be used effectively and “mutually understandably”.
“Is there a successful alternative?”
P.S. ….What about “a show of force”!!!
What’s this supposed to mean? Do you strike someone who is breaking the law. Do you shoot if you are threatened? Or, do you assemble two blocks away and “show a force” and do nothing?
Sure there are a lot of ways to think about this. But do you physically exert a force to stop a crime; even if this may lead to more violence? Or, do you say that a “little, reasonably inexpensive criminal action” is more desirable than the possibilities of a much larger “litigious conflagration”?
How does the “little, inexpensive victim” protect himself; or, is this the price you pay for protecting against the “larger conflagration”?
Does this encourage the individual to change his behavior (i.e. Don’t go out at night …. Don’t go near large crowds….Don’t travel in certain places, etc.) or I’ll have to protect myself so I can be free to move about since I can’t expect the public authority (which I pay to support) to protect me.
Who is supposed to make a “definitive” statement? Who is supposed to be accountable?
Failing to answer these questions in a clear, mutually defined and understood way will lead to individual solutions. This is a sure path to “anarchy”. Then what?
Do you “spoil” a child if he/she has no “discipline”?
When the Military has “discipline” does it mean the same thing?
When you have a mathematics problem that requires a “disciplined approach”, is that the same thing?
Well, then, what do you mean?
For instance:
How can you keep saying “There’s not enough “discipline” in the schools today”. What’s that supposed to mean? There’s no rules to follow? There’s no punishment allowed! What are you trying to say?
Most of the emotional outbursts come when there is a “mutual misunderstanding” about what’s being talked about.
So what’s the answer … “What’s a successful alternative?”
A good start would be to see if the speaker knew more precisely what he was going to say “before’ he said it.
a) Are there rules? What rules? Whose rules? .. the student’s, certain students’, the faculty…. everybody?
b) Who interprets the rules? Who judges the “following” of the rules?
c) Who or what determines the punishment for the specific "breaking of the rules"?
d) Is the “process of judging” so complex that no rules are possible?
e) If there are no rules, can you have an education process? If no rules, explain the issues. What should people expect?
So, if this were meant as a “school definition of discipline”, everyone would know what was being talked about and exactly what the problems were.
If you had a “disciplined approach “ to a complex mathematics problem the “explainer” might wish to list what he meant by a “disciplined approach”
For example:
a) Figures should be written in an orderly and readable manner.
b) Conclusions must be based on a written theorem or hypotheses that includes the proof of that hypothesis before it is used a part of the conclusion.
c) There must be an Index Page showing the path that is going to be undertaken to arrive at the conclusion.
d) etc., etc.
So, it generally comes down to the simple proposition that many of these words are merely labels for a group of ideas that are similar but NOT the same. To use these words effectively, you must try to explain, in detail, what you are including in the general term you are using. We used the term “discipline”. We must explain the context or the environment in which we are going to use the term. Then we must break this context down into ever smaller parts and try to say what each part is and what it is not. We must “define”.
We cannot have a useful or effective conversation unless we mutually agree on what we’re going to include in our “definition”.
We simply cannot say “We must have more discipline in our schools” and go on to the next subject. We have just raised the emotions if not the interest in a “generality” and have left it twisting in the wind! It is a cause of emotion, distrust, and controversy; and is, at the same time, “useless”!!!
We need “discipline” in the military; but, as long as we don’t know what that really, specifically means; we are merely creating noise and confusion.
Many words are just general labels that require “breaking down into specifics” and must be defined in order to be used effectively and “mutually understandably”.
“Is there a successful alternative?”
P.S. ….What about “a show of force”!!!
What’s this supposed to mean? Do you strike someone who is breaking the law. Do you shoot if you are threatened? Or, do you assemble two blocks away and “show a force” and do nothing?
Sure there are a lot of ways to think about this. But do you physically exert a force to stop a crime; even if this may lead to more violence? Or, do you say that a “little, reasonably inexpensive criminal action” is more desirable than the possibilities of a much larger “litigious conflagration”?
How does the “little, inexpensive victim” protect himself; or, is this the price you pay for protecting against the “larger conflagration”?
Does this encourage the individual to change his behavior (i.e. Don’t go out at night …. Don’t go near large crowds….Don’t travel in certain places, etc.) or I’ll have to protect myself so I can be free to move about since I can’t expect the public authority (which I pay to support) to protect me.
Who is supposed to make a “definitive” statement? Who is supposed to be accountable?
Failing to answer these questions in a clear, mutually defined and understood way will lead to individual solutions. This is a sure path to “anarchy”. Then what?
Monday, January 28, 2008
Government - #101 - #65 - Is Hillary a terrorist?....Should George Bush get the death penalty?
After all, Hillary does threaten the “terrorists”!
After all, George Bush does send people to war!.... (This can result in some deaths.)
Have we gone “crazy”?
Are we, as Americans, trying to “Constitution” everyone? Are we trying to put all things and all people under a law? Have we lost our common sense?
Listen to the media, the T.V. pundits, the politicians, the talk shows….. Have we lost our common sense?
Are there people who want everyone to blame?
Isn’t anything “special”, “out of the ordinary”?
The present world conditions require a rethinking of ideas. Some are suitable, some are no longer useful.
These conditions require a different dialogue, even if some are only “temporary”. If the dialogue remains the same as the “old one”, we can never try to solve our “new” problems.
We chose so-called “leaders” to give us solutions. Are they up to the job?
What with the bickering between “parties” and the “old” dialogues, no new approaches seem possible. The “Conservatives” and the “Liberals”, between the “Right” and the “Left”, and between the “Democrats” and the “Republicans” nothing seems to be happening.
Is it the lack of the right type of rhetoric from the various “bully pulpits”? People can’t understand what’s going on. Even the enemies are confused!
To solve the problems of National economics, No child left behind and Health care are insignificant compared to National Security. Without a Nation there is no Economy, Education or Health care!
The people don’t seem aware of this!
Is Hillary a terrorist?.....Should George Bush get the death penalty?
After all, George Bush does send people to war!.... (This can result in some deaths.)
Have we gone “crazy”?
Are we, as Americans, trying to “Constitution” everyone? Are we trying to put all things and all people under a law? Have we lost our common sense?
Listen to the media, the T.V. pundits, the politicians, the talk shows….. Have we lost our common sense?
Are there people who want everyone to blame?
Isn’t anything “special”, “out of the ordinary”?
The present world conditions require a rethinking of ideas. Some are suitable, some are no longer useful.
These conditions require a different dialogue, even if some are only “temporary”. If the dialogue remains the same as the “old one”, we can never try to solve our “new” problems.
We chose so-called “leaders” to give us solutions. Are they up to the job?
What with the bickering between “parties” and the “old” dialogues, no new approaches seem possible. The “Conservatives” and the “Liberals”, between the “Right” and the “Left”, and between the “Democrats” and the “Republicans” nothing seems to be happening.
Is it the lack of the right type of rhetoric from the various “bully pulpits”? People can’t understand what’s going on. Even the enemies are confused!
To solve the problems of National economics, No child left behind and Health care are insignificant compared to National Security. Without a Nation there is no Economy, Education or Health care!
The people don’t seem aware of this!
Is Hillary a terrorist?.....Should George Bush get the death penalty?
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Definition - #301 - #20 - Everyone is different
Each person has his “logic”. What is “logical” to one person may not be “logical” to another!
Each person has his “reason”. What is “reasonable” to one person may not be “reasonable” to another!
Each person has his “ideas of what is “right”. What is “right” to one person may not be “right” to another!
So how do you live with this?
You merely accept the fact that people have different ways to view the same thing.
If you once figure this “disparity” thing out, then you can live forever with this “disparity”.
This “disparity” is your key to a quiet stomach!
No longer will you be frustrated at not being able to “do” something about “this disparity”!
When you consider to whom you wish to exchange views, make sure the other person (or group) is “capable” or even “wants to” exchange views.
What’s the use of giving your ideas to a party that does not wish to hear your views but merely wishes to “argue”. It’s a total waste of time!
To “exchange” incorporates the idea that “they” will consider. They may even question your ideas. They are at least trying to find out what you have to say. They are at least trying to “understand” your point of view.
You, on the other hand, are not trying to get your views accepted, just “considered”.
You value their questions. You try to understand their “understanding” of what you are attempting to communicate. In the same process, they may wish to communicate their “point of view. You, also, must be able to question and attempt to “understand” their “points of view”. But “to argue”, to attempt to force a change in the other’s “point of view” is useless.
If the “other party” or “you, yourself” changes a “point of view”, it is a result of hearing, of considering, and evaluating new information. Nothing more!!! It is not because you are “forced”, not because you are forced, it is because you “choose” to accept new information!
Remember, EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT!
What IS a waste of time, a “stomach ache”; is to try to have a useful communication with a party that does not want to hear anything but it’s own point of view!! …..Ugh!!!
Try to choose a party that is capable of, or, desirous of an “exchange” of views.
“Eliminate” those that just wish to “argue” or just wish to state their present opinions!
Don’t bother to try the impossible!!
Use your efforts in a more useful way!
Try to eliminate “stomach aches”!
You’ll LIVE BETTER!!!
(By the way, this is NOT “opting out”! This is not hiding from “so-called reality”. This is just “choosing better”.)
(Also, if you don’t know to whom you are about to try to communicate, you are at fault!
You deserve the inevitable “stomach ache”!!)
Each person has his “reason”. What is “reasonable” to one person may not be “reasonable” to another!
Each person has his “ideas of what is “right”. What is “right” to one person may not be “right” to another!
So how do you live with this?
You merely accept the fact that people have different ways to view the same thing.
If you once figure this “disparity” thing out, then you can live forever with this “disparity”.
This “disparity” is your key to a quiet stomach!
No longer will you be frustrated at not being able to “do” something about “this disparity”!
When you consider to whom you wish to exchange views, make sure the other person (or group) is “capable” or even “wants to” exchange views.
What’s the use of giving your ideas to a party that does not wish to hear your views but merely wishes to “argue”. It’s a total waste of time!
To “exchange” incorporates the idea that “they” will consider. They may even question your ideas. They are at least trying to find out what you have to say. They are at least trying to “understand” your point of view.
You, on the other hand, are not trying to get your views accepted, just “considered”.
You value their questions. You try to understand their “understanding” of what you are attempting to communicate. In the same process, they may wish to communicate their “point of view. You, also, must be able to question and attempt to “understand” their “points of view”. But “to argue”, to attempt to force a change in the other’s “point of view” is useless.
If the “other party” or “you, yourself” changes a “point of view”, it is a result of hearing, of considering, and evaluating new information. Nothing more!!! It is not because you are “forced”, not because you are forced, it is because you “choose” to accept new information!
Remember, EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT!
What IS a waste of time, a “stomach ache”; is to try to have a useful communication with a party that does not want to hear anything but it’s own point of view!! …..Ugh!!!
Try to choose a party that is capable of, or, desirous of an “exchange” of views.
“Eliminate” those that just wish to “argue” or just wish to state their present opinions!
Don’t bother to try the impossible!!
Use your efforts in a more useful way!
Try to eliminate “stomach aches”!
You’ll LIVE BETTER!!!
(By the way, this is NOT “opting out”! This is not hiding from “so-called reality”. This is just “choosing better”.)
(Also, if you don’t know to whom you are about to try to communicate, you are at fault!
You deserve the inevitable “stomach ache”!!)
Monday, January 21, 2008
Definition - #301 - #57 - Rich man, Poor man.... and..."In between man"
There are at least three ways to look at different “material” human circumstances.
Let’s look at each of these three……
First “the Rich man”….
He wants to look for his future. He wants to “better” his material life, his social standing, his “material” security. He is not seeking “just a job”, “just a paycheck”. He wants to know whether this is a key to his future, his future financial and material well being. He knows he can’t count on anybody but himself for his future. He is a self-starter, a self-motivator, an “entrepreneur”. He has his own ideas about how things “ought to be”!
He has his own ideas of how “society” ought to work. In fact, since his “future” is potentially tied up to “his” society, He has his own opinions as to what “society” should be emphasizing, his own ideas as to what “society” should be attempting.
Are you “He”?
Secondly, “the Poor man”….
He wants to be “secure” in his present life. He wants to be “assured”…. by someone or something! He just wants a job…. a job that keeps him “secure”. He wants and needs a “paycheck”. He is never concerned about his future (it will “take care of itself’). Today is the important moment. The “I want now” is a symbol of his existence. He doesn’t care much from where his “wishes and wants” come. He just “wants”. It is of little concern “how he gets what he wants”, he just “wants”. He gets an immediate headache when asked “How is this possible?”. In fact he might get “defensive” or simply change the subject. He relies on someone else or something else to satisfy his immediate “wants or wishes”. He is definitely NOT a self-starter. He definitely relies on “someone or something” else as the provider.
He has his own ideas of how “society” ought to work. In fact, since his “future” is potentially tied up to “his” society, He has his own opinions as to what “society” should be emphasizing, his own ideas as to what “society” should be attempting.
Thirdly, the “In between man”…..
“Somehow it will all work out!”
“Let me alone, I’m already too busy; besides I can’t do anything about it!!”
“I’ll just “go along”!
“The “future” is too complicated. I do the best I can do!”
He has no particular ideas or opinions. He just wants to “go along”. He also gets a “headache” when asked about alternatives to what’s going on, or a better direction to take. In fact he might get “defensive” or simply change the subject. (Sound familiar?)
He might also strongly state his opinion….(reasoned or not). He is a “mixture”!
He has his own ideas of how “society” ought to work. In fact, since his “future” is potentially tied up to “his” society, He has his own opinions as to what “society” should be emphasizing, his own ideas as to what “society” should be attempting.
Are you “He”?
Well now what?… What do you do?
One simple thought, before anything else, is to acknowledge that there are at least three ways to look at everything!!! Three ways to derive opinions… three ways to seek directions…. three ways to seek “wishes and wants”….. at least three ways to make choices!!!!
How about “asking” yourself (OR others) first, which way they see themselves. This will determine, to a large degree, whether to continue the discussion or not!
Then ask “yourself”, “What do I want to get out of this discussion?” The answer may also determine whether or not to continue. Suppose I wish to know more about how the attitude of a “Poor person” works. What are his desires? Why isn’t he interested in the “How is this to be accomplished?”. It may NOT be your desire to influence this person’s (or group’s) ideas but to merely find out what they think the answers might be. It would certainly change your approach to the discussion!! Once you acknowledge that there are many ways to look at an idea, you can better absorb the answers you get.
If, by chance, you are looking to seek an analysis of your own present ideas, the discussion would also change its direction. If you failed to “first” attempt to evaluate the other side’s point of view, you may not get the analysis you are seeking. If you do, indeed, acknowledge the other parties’ previous stance, you can more meaningfully absorb the analysis of your own present points of view. Be careful!!! The “first” step is most important!!!
If, by chance, you are seeking to influence another’s point of view, “first” try to establish where they are coming from! Then you have a point of reference to start from! Influencing is a tricky business. It can rely on the other’s willingness, the other’s intellectual and emotional capacity! The warning sign “Is this possible? Am I about to enter a “no entry” zone? ”.
Just to try an example…..
The question of “someone’s future” has come up.
First… Do I even want to discuss this matter?
Second ….Do I wish to affect the outcome or do I just wish to be a “listener”?
Third …What is my opinion of the other person’s capacity to think, reason or even absorb my conversation?
Fourth ….Do I even want to spend the time and effort to even think about all these questions?
Then , and only then, after reviewing my own questions, can I react to the question.
Now, suppose I want to react and “influence”? ….. Now what?
Suppose I think that I can successfully exchange ideas?
Suppose I think I want to “influence” another. What do I do next?
Do I approach from a “Rich man’s” point of view, a “Poor man’s” point of view; or do I approach from an “In between man’s” point of view?
Do I discuss these alternatives in the beginning? Do I accept the “other’s” choice even if I feel that my influences will be jeopardized? …. I already have a “dilemma”!
Let’s say that I feel the “other’s” choice is not what “they” can understand. …. I, again, have a “dilemma”!
At this point I think that I better discuss “this” issue before I proceed.
Let’s assume we have a successful and understandable “mutual” discussion and I proceed.
I want the “other” to define what they think the word “future” means to them! I want their input. I want to understand their understanding of their concerns. Then and only then, can I begin to meaningfully address their concerns.
I think that more can be accomplished if good questions are asked, rather than giving statements of opinions. The questions can be formed in such a way that they lead to obvious conclusion by the “other”. When the appropriate time comes, I can make statements as to what “I” believe and why. This seems to reduce the normal “resistance” to an “I’m telling you …” versus an “I personally think…”.
Remember, I am trying to successfully “influence”……(Not change you!!)....
The “other” has to make the change!
Let’s look at each of these three……
First “the Rich man”….
He wants to look for his future. He wants to “better” his material life, his social standing, his “material” security. He is not seeking “just a job”, “just a paycheck”. He wants to know whether this is a key to his future, his future financial and material well being. He knows he can’t count on anybody but himself for his future. He is a self-starter, a self-motivator, an “entrepreneur”. He has his own ideas about how things “ought to be”!
He has his own ideas of how “society” ought to work. In fact, since his “future” is potentially tied up to “his” society, He has his own opinions as to what “society” should be emphasizing, his own ideas as to what “society” should be attempting.
Are you “He”?
Secondly, “the Poor man”….
He wants to be “secure” in his present life. He wants to be “assured”…. by someone or something! He just wants a job…. a job that keeps him “secure”. He wants and needs a “paycheck”. He is never concerned about his future (it will “take care of itself’). Today is the important moment. The “I want now” is a symbol of his existence. He doesn’t care much from where his “wishes and wants” come. He just “wants”. It is of little concern “how he gets what he wants”, he just “wants”. He gets an immediate headache when asked “How is this possible?”. In fact he might get “defensive” or simply change the subject. He relies on someone else or something else to satisfy his immediate “wants or wishes”. He is definitely NOT a self-starter. He definitely relies on “someone or something” else as the provider.
He has his own ideas of how “society” ought to work. In fact, since his “future” is potentially tied up to “his” society, He has his own opinions as to what “society” should be emphasizing, his own ideas as to what “society” should be attempting.
Thirdly, the “In between man”…..
“Somehow it will all work out!”
“Let me alone, I’m already too busy; besides I can’t do anything about it!!”
“I’ll just “go along”!
“The “future” is too complicated. I do the best I can do!”
He has no particular ideas or opinions. He just wants to “go along”. He also gets a “headache” when asked about alternatives to what’s going on, or a better direction to take. In fact he might get “defensive” or simply change the subject. (Sound familiar?)
He might also strongly state his opinion….(reasoned or not). He is a “mixture”!
He has his own ideas of how “society” ought to work. In fact, since his “future” is potentially tied up to “his” society, He has his own opinions as to what “society” should be emphasizing, his own ideas as to what “society” should be attempting.
Are you “He”?
Well now what?… What do you do?
One simple thought, before anything else, is to acknowledge that there are at least three ways to look at everything!!! Three ways to derive opinions… three ways to seek directions…. three ways to seek “wishes and wants”….. at least three ways to make choices!!!!
How about “asking” yourself (OR others) first, which way they see themselves. This will determine, to a large degree, whether to continue the discussion or not!
Then ask “yourself”, “What do I want to get out of this discussion?” The answer may also determine whether or not to continue. Suppose I wish to know more about how the attitude of a “Poor person” works. What are his desires? Why isn’t he interested in the “How is this to be accomplished?”. It may NOT be your desire to influence this person’s (or group’s) ideas but to merely find out what they think the answers might be. It would certainly change your approach to the discussion!! Once you acknowledge that there are many ways to look at an idea, you can better absorb the answers you get.
If, by chance, you are looking to seek an analysis of your own present ideas, the discussion would also change its direction. If you failed to “first” attempt to evaluate the other side’s point of view, you may not get the analysis you are seeking. If you do, indeed, acknowledge the other parties’ previous stance, you can more meaningfully absorb the analysis of your own present points of view. Be careful!!! The “first” step is most important!!!
If, by chance, you are seeking to influence another’s point of view, “first” try to establish where they are coming from! Then you have a point of reference to start from! Influencing is a tricky business. It can rely on the other’s willingness, the other’s intellectual and emotional capacity! The warning sign “Is this possible? Am I about to enter a “no entry” zone? ”.
Just to try an example…..
The question of “someone’s future” has come up.
First… Do I even want to discuss this matter?
Second ….Do I wish to affect the outcome or do I just wish to be a “listener”?
Third …What is my opinion of the other person’s capacity to think, reason or even absorb my conversation?
Fourth ….Do I even want to spend the time and effort to even think about all these questions?
Then , and only then, after reviewing my own questions, can I react to the question.
Now, suppose I want to react and “influence”? ….. Now what?
Suppose I think that I can successfully exchange ideas?
Suppose I think I want to “influence” another. What do I do next?
Do I approach from a “Rich man’s” point of view, a “Poor man’s” point of view; or do I approach from an “In between man’s” point of view?
Do I discuss these alternatives in the beginning? Do I accept the “other’s” choice even if I feel that my influences will be jeopardized? …. I already have a “dilemma”!
Let’s say that I feel the “other’s” choice is not what “they” can understand. …. I, again, have a “dilemma”!
At this point I think that I better discuss “this” issue before I proceed.
Let’s assume we have a successful and understandable “mutual” discussion and I proceed.
I want the “other” to define what they think the word “future” means to them! I want their input. I want to understand their understanding of their concerns. Then and only then, can I begin to meaningfully address their concerns.
I think that more can be accomplished if good questions are asked, rather than giving statements of opinions. The questions can be formed in such a way that they lead to obvious conclusion by the “other”. When the appropriate time comes, I can make statements as to what “I” believe and why. This seems to reduce the normal “resistance” to an “I’m telling you …” versus an “I personally think…”.
Remember, I am trying to successfully “influence”……(Not change you!!)....
The “other” has to make the change!
Friday, January 18, 2008
Definition - #301 - #18 - What’s in your personal “reservoir”?
(What “material things” are in your “reservoir”?)
(What “values” are in your “reservoir”?
(What “ideas” are in your “reservoir”?)
Everyone has some kind of “reservoir”.
You expect certain things in life.
You are disappointed if you don’t see a way to get certain things …. those things in your “reservoir”!
Does everyone have the same “reservoir”?
It seems that each generation has its own “reservoir” of things it expects, things it accepts, things it thinks are already there.
Each generation doesn’t want to know about another generation! “Don’t talk to me about walking 3 miles to school in the wintertime”; “Growing a garden or no food to eat!”; The “depression”!; No peace in the world; The “holocaust”; Nazis; the “Japs” and Pearl Harbor!; The embarrassment of divorce!…. This was “long ago”!
What was it like with no wireless phones, no cell phones, with no instant communication, with no war, no homeland security threats? …… But don’t tell us your “old” stories!
What does one generation do to communicate what it already went through? Can one generation learn something from a different generation? …. If nobody wants to listen, what then?
Will a generation have to go through the same mistakes, the same horrors that another generation has already gone through!
It seems as though the older generations can offer nothing. It has the experience. It has lived through the rough times and it somehow managed to survive. It has its own culture, its own values, it even has its own code of ethics.
What about the new generation?
It has cell phones…There goes privacy and quiet, a regard for someone else’s space.
It has computers .... both for instant information and games. Which do you think its being used for?
It has instant communication… both for emergencies and social chit-chat. Which do you think it’s being used for?
Has business changed because everyone is instantly available? Has “Email” changed the success of business? Or, do we have just more communication?
Sure, some of you use these “discoveries” to a most useful purpose; but how about the majority?
Has this “new” generation opened up a pandora’s box? Do they know what they’re paying for the use of these new “discoveries”? Has anyone checked? Is anyone willing to try, and risk the scorn of the mass media and the general public?
Perhaps you just open the “box” and “deal” with whatever happens….. It certainly is a way!
What about “futures” in each generation?
In the 1930’s the depression made “futures” look bleak. There was no money, no jobs, little opportunity. No “future”! That generation had to pull itself out of one heck of hole! How did it do that? What can be learned from these events? But if one generation can’t talk to another, what then?
In the 1940’s we had a world wide political crisis. We went to war. If war is such a terrible thing, why did we go? If we can’t discuss the issues, the threats of the “what ifs”, the security of the oceans, the weapons of mass destruction and why the decision was made; then the generations have nothing to learn from one another. I guess the fact that we did, indeed, survive and could offer a “future” is lost on another generation.
In the 1960’s we had a generation that was “against”. It had nothing constructive to offer, just escape or criticism. It did have an isolated few that discovered the computer, the technical revolution, etc. but in general, we didn’t seem to try to discover the meaning of things. We did a wonderful job finding ways to avoid issues, avoid making the hard decisions. The “future” wasn’t so important.
In the 80’s we began to feel a stomach ache. War was in limbo. We were confused. Our Government wasn’t so “straight arrow” with us. We were drifting, rudderless. The future was a dim idea … necessary but dim.
In the 90’s and up until now, we seemed faced with huge problems …. no answers, but huge problems. There’s another possible war or two. The world seems to be breaking up into parts. Leaders seem to be apart from their masses. Countries seem to have at least two agendas. One is from the government spokesmen and the other are the so-called spokesman of the “people’. Even that observation seems strained. Police and state security have monitored public response. Mob violence either religious or ethnic seem the order of the day.
Is there anything to be learned from how we survived our earlier traumas?
Can one generation even talk to the other?
Have we entered a new generation … a generation of frustration, hopelessness, avoidance?
Can one generation even talk to the other?
Is all we have to say dictated by the mob, the government leaders, or the press and the media?
Where can logic and reason be heard? Will anyone talk “straight”? Does everyone have an “agenda”?
Exactly, where is our “future”?
Is the American “pie” big enough to support every one? Where does the “pie” come from? If hard work and planning created the “pie”, how long can it exist for people and institutions that only take pieces of “pie” and don’t add to the “pie”? Where is the “future”?
Other generations have the experience of “no food”, “no job”, hardships, global destruction. Is there nothing to be learned from those who have already experienced the hardships of a “dim” future?
Can this generation continue to exist on the “pie” that was already in existence before it came into being? Is their future the size of the “pie”? Does their future end when the “pie” is no longer big enough?
NOTHING will change until the new generation asks itself “Where’s my future?”
There will be no need to ask this question until the “pie” begins to run out!
As long as this new generation feels it can “avoid” the consequences, there’s no need for change!
I hope “they” have time to “work things out”!
I hope they know how ,or can find out how “to work things out”!
Unless there’s a monumental change in attitudes, the “experienced generation” will merely “drop out”. (except in cases where they have paid their dues and have a vested interest in maintaining a level of security for the remaining time they have left on this earth!) What “successful alternative” have they?
(What “values” are in your “reservoir”?
(What “ideas” are in your “reservoir”?)
Everyone has some kind of “reservoir”.
You expect certain things in life.
You are disappointed if you don’t see a way to get certain things …. those things in your “reservoir”!
Does everyone have the same “reservoir”?
It seems that each generation has its own “reservoir” of things it expects, things it accepts, things it thinks are already there.
Each generation doesn’t want to know about another generation! “Don’t talk to me about walking 3 miles to school in the wintertime”; “Growing a garden or no food to eat!”; The “depression”!; No peace in the world; The “holocaust”; Nazis; the “Japs” and Pearl Harbor!; The embarrassment of divorce!…. This was “long ago”!
What was it like with no wireless phones, no cell phones, with no instant communication, with no war, no homeland security threats? …… But don’t tell us your “old” stories!
What does one generation do to communicate what it already went through? Can one generation learn something from a different generation? …. If nobody wants to listen, what then?
Will a generation have to go through the same mistakes, the same horrors that another generation has already gone through!
It seems as though the older generations can offer nothing. It has the experience. It has lived through the rough times and it somehow managed to survive. It has its own culture, its own values, it even has its own code of ethics.
What about the new generation?
It has cell phones…There goes privacy and quiet, a regard for someone else’s space.
It has computers .... both for instant information and games. Which do you think its being used for?
It has instant communication… both for emergencies and social chit-chat. Which do you think it’s being used for?
Has business changed because everyone is instantly available? Has “Email” changed the success of business? Or, do we have just more communication?
Sure, some of you use these “discoveries” to a most useful purpose; but how about the majority?
Has this “new” generation opened up a pandora’s box? Do they know what they’re paying for the use of these new “discoveries”? Has anyone checked? Is anyone willing to try, and risk the scorn of the mass media and the general public?
Perhaps you just open the “box” and “deal” with whatever happens….. It certainly is a way!
What about “futures” in each generation?
In the 1930’s the depression made “futures” look bleak. There was no money, no jobs, little opportunity. No “future”! That generation had to pull itself out of one heck of hole! How did it do that? What can be learned from these events? But if one generation can’t talk to another, what then?
In the 1940’s we had a world wide political crisis. We went to war. If war is such a terrible thing, why did we go? If we can’t discuss the issues, the threats of the “what ifs”, the security of the oceans, the weapons of mass destruction and why the decision was made; then the generations have nothing to learn from one another. I guess the fact that we did, indeed, survive and could offer a “future” is lost on another generation.
In the 1960’s we had a generation that was “against”. It had nothing constructive to offer, just escape or criticism. It did have an isolated few that discovered the computer, the technical revolution, etc. but in general, we didn’t seem to try to discover the meaning of things. We did a wonderful job finding ways to avoid issues, avoid making the hard decisions. The “future” wasn’t so important.
In the 80’s we began to feel a stomach ache. War was in limbo. We were confused. Our Government wasn’t so “straight arrow” with us. We were drifting, rudderless. The future was a dim idea … necessary but dim.
In the 90’s and up until now, we seemed faced with huge problems …. no answers, but huge problems. There’s another possible war or two. The world seems to be breaking up into parts. Leaders seem to be apart from their masses. Countries seem to have at least two agendas. One is from the government spokesmen and the other are the so-called spokesman of the “people’. Even that observation seems strained. Police and state security have monitored public response. Mob violence either religious or ethnic seem the order of the day.
Is there anything to be learned from how we survived our earlier traumas?
Can one generation even talk to the other?
Have we entered a new generation … a generation of frustration, hopelessness, avoidance?
Can one generation even talk to the other?
Is all we have to say dictated by the mob, the government leaders, or the press and the media?
Where can logic and reason be heard? Will anyone talk “straight”? Does everyone have an “agenda”?
Exactly, where is our “future”?
Is the American “pie” big enough to support every one? Where does the “pie” come from? If hard work and planning created the “pie”, how long can it exist for people and institutions that only take pieces of “pie” and don’t add to the “pie”? Where is the “future”?
Other generations have the experience of “no food”, “no job”, hardships, global destruction. Is there nothing to be learned from those who have already experienced the hardships of a “dim” future?
Can this generation continue to exist on the “pie” that was already in existence before it came into being? Is their future the size of the “pie”? Does their future end when the “pie” is no longer big enough?
NOTHING will change until the new generation asks itself “Where’s my future?”
There will be no need to ask this question until the “pie” begins to run out!
As long as this new generation feels it can “avoid” the consequences, there’s no need for change!
I hope “they” have time to “work things out”!
I hope they know how ,or can find out how “to work things out”!
Unless there’s a monumental change in attitudes, the “experienced generation” will merely “drop out”. (except in cases where they have paid their dues and have a vested interest in maintaining a level of security for the remaining time they have left on this earth!) What “successful alternative” have they?
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Definition - #301 - #17 - On “avoiding” any conclusions!
Is America just another “ENRON”? …. (Not necessarily “illegal … just immoral!)
Is the American style “Democracy” just a “myth”?
In a search for a “world without any mistakes”, are we turning out to be just simply “hopeless”?
Can we “commute” everything because we may not be perfect in our present and future judgements?
Can we justify killing (war) because someone may be killed by a “mistake”?
Can we render any kind of judgment because someone at sometime can find a possible error?
If we assume there might be an error or a “possible” error in our conclusions at some time; aren’t we better to avoid all conclusions …all judgments?
This logic suggests:
Abandon the “legal system”! There might be a “future” error in judgment!
Abandon our government! They might make an error in policy!
Abandon “family values”! There might be a “reconsideration” of values!
This logic also suggests:
Act only if you find a “smoking gun”!
Act only if your enemy acts first!
Act only if you find yourself already in trouble!
BUT!! ….. The problem persists:
Who is to be the judge if it is, indeed, a “smoking gun”?
Who is to be the judge if the enemy, indeed, “acted first”?
Who is to be the judge if you are, indeed, “in trouble”?
Who will make that “judgment”? After all, you might find, in the future, an error was made!
So, you relied on an “earnings report”! You relied on a “price times earnings” estimate!
Who made the initial report? …What is “earnings”? … How can anyone predict “the future earnings”?
Who will make that “judgment”? After all, you might find, in the future, an error was made!
So you believe in “democracy”!
What exactly is it? … Can you be “free” not to defend your country?… Can you be “free” to run a red light?
Who will make that “judgement”? After all, you might find, in the future, an error was made!
All of a sudden a scientific “DNA” conclusion is not necessarily correct.
All of a sudden an “on the scene”, visual identification cannot necessarily be reliable evidence.
All of a sudden there are seven various degrees of murder.
Is it any wonder that the few “thinking” Americans simply throw up their hands in frustration when confronted by the argument … “After all, you might find, in the future, an error was made!”
Is it any wonder that the few “thinking” Americans have “gone to the sidelines”?
Is it any wonder that the few “thinking” Americans have chosen to “just survive and not get involved”?
What is the answer to… “After all, you might find, in the future, an error was made!”
Have we, at last, found a refuge to “personal responsibility”?
Have we, at last, found a refuge to “making judgements of any kind”?
Have we, at last, found a refuge to “ being involved”?
Really! …. Who decides?
But, is this really a “successful refuge”?
How long can it last?
Is this a “refuge” against what?
Is there a “successful alternative”?
Is all that currently exists in the U.S. of A. a mistake? …. Will we find a “future error”, a “miscalculation in policy?”
Who benefits from a course of “no judgments, no conclusions, no evaluations”?
Is a lack of “personal responsibility” an answer?
Is the fear of “future error” to be the “wave of the future”?
Does the “commutation” of past wrongs improve things?
Is “reasonable doubt” the cry of the future?
Who benefits from “dropping out”?
All generations now believe they have a “future”. This, of course, is a common “illusion”.
Until the “younger generation” (20 to 30) realize they have no future, there will be no change!
Our economy, (which was already created), cannot withstand the supports now being required of it…. i.e. “supports” for “unfettered and illegal immigration” and acts of worldwide terrorism.
Our Government, (which was already created), cannot withstand the pressures now being required of it….i.e. government social welfare programs, and a government medical program and “open” borders.
These policies, (which already exist), cannot withstand the “supports and pressures” now being required of them.
Politics, the Government as a body in business for itself, the current illegal immigration, the “open borders”, the so-called tensions and acts of worldwide “terrorism” can no longer continue to escalate if we wish to have a viable “future”. A “future” as we know it…..
Individual freedom in our society nourishes the current opportunities available to American society.
We now have a land of reasonably, unfettered opportunity. Opportunity to live a more material life, a more prosperous existence, a life more distant from hunger, shelter, and safety. A life of more freedom, more freedom to express oneself, more freedom to practice one’s own religious preference …. just more personal freedom!
It is NOT a matter of being totally “free”, it is a matter of being “more free”!
Can we “afford” a few mistakes in order that the majority can continue; or, are we to seek perfection (whatever that is!) at the cost of destroying what we now have?
Who can condone “mistakes”?
Indeed, why not seek perfection, peace and bliss?
On the other hand, who will be “responsible” for the cost (or souls) while we seek this perfection?
Will social change endanger the current balance between the responsibility of the individual and the responsibilities of society?
Who makes this change, and “why”?
If you won’t be responsible, who should be; while you seek a perfect peace or perfection?
Isn’t this simply a question of “who will be responsible” in the meantime?
We know what we have now; and, its limitations. Who knows what a “future” course will bring?
Are “you” going to be “responsible” for the unknown cost?
Maybe this is the answer to those who are against “war”; those who think our present justice system is unfair and unreliable; those who think our present American lifestyle is immoral and unfairly uses too many of the world’s resources.
***************************************************************************
NOTE: …. “Dilemmas and Comments!”
I. -This all goes back to a previous essay entitled “What is American”?
A recent N.Y. Times article noted that more than half the people living in Glendale, California are foreign immigrants. Some subway lines in New York City travel through neighborhoods where more than 40 different languages are commonly spoken.
Does legally living in America, as an American citizen, yield an “identifiable lifestyle”?
The American lifestyle may now be both “ethereal” and “immoral”. It may also be “unidentifiable”!
…..(It certainly is open to question!)
II. – America uses a disproportionate amount of the world’s resources compared with every other nation. The “American Century” addressed this point. Mr. Evans reports that while Americans use more resources per person than any other country; they also produce 25 times more goods and services than the next productive country. Mr. Evans would have us believe that Americans may be entitled to their higher consumption because their productivity more than compensates for it. American consumers make more and better use of resources than any other country. You may take this one step further and say that if Americans didn’t consume and produce as much as they do; the world, as a whole, would have a much lower standard of material living. …..(It certainly is open to question!)
III. – The justice system has many critical opponents. The President appoints the Supreme Court judges. Hence the “justice system” is based on politics. If your politics don’t fit the prevailing political power, you automatically become a critic of the justice system and , according to you, with good reason!…. (It certainly is open to question!)
Is the American style “Democracy” just a “myth”?
In a search for a “world without any mistakes”, are we turning out to be just simply “hopeless”?
Can we “commute” everything because we may not be perfect in our present and future judgements?
Can we justify killing (war) because someone may be killed by a “mistake”?
Can we render any kind of judgment because someone at sometime can find a possible error?
If we assume there might be an error or a “possible” error in our conclusions at some time; aren’t we better to avoid all conclusions …all judgments?
This logic suggests:
Abandon the “legal system”! There might be a “future” error in judgment!
Abandon our government! They might make an error in policy!
Abandon “family values”! There might be a “reconsideration” of values!
This logic also suggests:
Act only if you find a “smoking gun”!
Act only if your enemy acts first!
Act only if you find yourself already in trouble!
BUT!! ….. The problem persists:
Who is to be the judge if it is, indeed, a “smoking gun”?
Who is to be the judge if the enemy, indeed, “acted first”?
Who is to be the judge if you are, indeed, “in trouble”?
Who will make that “judgment”? After all, you might find, in the future, an error was made!
So, you relied on an “earnings report”! You relied on a “price times earnings” estimate!
Who made the initial report? …What is “earnings”? … How can anyone predict “the future earnings”?
Who will make that “judgment”? After all, you might find, in the future, an error was made!
So you believe in “democracy”!
What exactly is it? … Can you be “free” not to defend your country?… Can you be “free” to run a red light?
Who will make that “judgement”? After all, you might find, in the future, an error was made!
All of a sudden a scientific “DNA” conclusion is not necessarily correct.
All of a sudden an “on the scene”, visual identification cannot necessarily be reliable evidence.
All of a sudden there are seven various degrees of murder.
Is it any wonder that the few “thinking” Americans simply throw up their hands in frustration when confronted by the argument … “After all, you might find, in the future, an error was made!”
Is it any wonder that the few “thinking” Americans have “gone to the sidelines”?
Is it any wonder that the few “thinking” Americans have chosen to “just survive and not get involved”?
What is the answer to… “After all, you might find, in the future, an error was made!”
Have we, at last, found a refuge to “personal responsibility”?
Have we, at last, found a refuge to “making judgements of any kind”?
Have we, at last, found a refuge to “ being involved”?
Really! …. Who decides?
But, is this really a “successful refuge”?
How long can it last?
Is this a “refuge” against what?
Is there a “successful alternative”?
Is all that currently exists in the U.S. of A. a mistake? …. Will we find a “future error”, a “miscalculation in policy?”
Who benefits from a course of “no judgments, no conclusions, no evaluations”?
Is a lack of “personal responsibility” an answer?
Is the fear of “future error” to be the “wave of the future”?
Does the “commutation” of past wrongs improve things?
Is “reasonable doubt” the cry of the future?
Who benefits from “dropping out”?
All generations now believe they have a “future”. This, of course, is a common “illusion”.
Until the “younger generation” (20 to 30) realize they have no future, there will be no change!
Our economy, (which was already created), cannot withstand the supports now being required of it…. i.e. “supports” for “unfettered and illegal immigration” and acts of worldwide terrorism.
Our Government, (which was already created), cannot withstand the pressures now being required of it….i.e. government social welfare programs, and a government medical program and “open” borders.
These policies, (which already exist), cannot withstand the “supports and pressures” now being required of them.
Politics, the Government as a body in business for itself, the current illegal immigration, the “open borders”, the so-called tensions and acts of worldwide “terrorism” can no longer continue to escalate if we wish to have a viable “future”. A “future” as we know it…..
Individual freedom in our society nourishes the current opportunities available to American society.
We now have a land of reasonably, unfettered opportunity. Opportunity to live a more material life, a more prosperous existence, a life more distant from hunger, shelter, and safety. A life of more freedom, more freedom to express oneself, more freedom to practice one’s own religious preference …. just more personal freedom!
It is NOT a matter of being totally “free”, it is a matter of being “more free”!
Can we “afford” a few mistakes in order that the majority can continue; or, are we to seek perfection (whatever that is!) at the cost of destroying what we now have?
Who can condone “mistakes”?
Indeed, why not seek perfection, peace and bliss?
On the other hand, who will be “responsible” for the cost (or souls) while we seek this perfection?
Will social change endanger the current balance between the responsibility of the individual and the responsibilities of society?
Who makes this change, and “why”?
If you won’t be responsible, who should be; while you seek a perfect peace or perfection?
Isn’t this simply a question of “who will be responsible” in the meantime?
We know what we have now; and, its limitations. Who knows what a “future” course will bring?
Are “you” going to be “responsible” for the unknown cost?
Maybe this is the answer to those who are against “war”; those who think our present justice system is unfair and unreliable; those who think our present American lifestyle is immoral and unfairly uses too many of the world’s resources.
***************************************************************************
NOTE: …. “Dilemmas and Comments!”
I. -This all goes back to a previous essay entitled “What is American”?
A recent N.Y. Times article noted that more than half the people living in Glendale, California are foreign immigrants. Some subway lines in New York City travel through neighborhoods where more than 40 different languages are commonly spoken.
Does legally living in America, as an American citizen, yield an “identifiable lifestyle”?
The American lifestyle may now be both “ethereal” and “immoral”. It may also be “unidentifiable”!
…..(It certainly is open to question!)
II. – America uses a disproportionate amount of the world’s resources compared with every other nation. The “American Century” addressed this point. Mr. Evans reports that while Americans use more resources per person than any other country; they also produce 25 times more goods and services than the next productive country. Mr. Evans would have us believe that Americans may be entitled to their higher consumption because their productivity more than compensates for it. American consumers make more and better use of resources than any other country. You may take this one step further and say that if Americans didn’t consume and produce as much as they do; the world, as a whole, would have a much lower standard of material living. …..(It certainly is open to question!)
III. – The justice system has many critical opponents. The President appoints the Supreme Court judges. Hence the “justice system” is based on politics. If your politics don’t fit the prevailing political power, you automatically become a critic of the justice system and , according to you, with good reason!…. (It certainly is open to question!)
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Definition - #301 - #16 - Chapt. #16 – “Reading” (BT Copies “Character Counts”)
Reading shouldn't be a passive experience. If you allow yourself to be absorbed in the interaction of the author's thoughts and your reactions it's like a great conversation. I know lots of people think it's a sin to mark up a book; I think it's a waste to leave it untouched.
I reread complex, clever and profound passages several times, I underline them, make notes in the margin, fold back pages, do whatever I can to highlight the parts I found useful or inspirational so I can find them again.
When a passage stimulates thoughts, I immediately write them in the margins or on the blank pages in the front or back of the book. A really good book has me thinking as much as reading and I never read abook in one sitting. When I restart the book I revisit my notes like they were old friends.
Both during and after the book I try to communicate what I've learned or the new ideas generated in conversations, letters and even these commentaries. New insights are a great gift and I think we should share them. I liked Kushner's book so much I bought 30 copies and gave them as gifts.
While writing this piece I realized that the way I approach books also is a decent way to approach life: Live it fully and completely at the time, live it by remembering it and sharing it.
Our character is revealed by how we deal with pressures and temptations. But it's also disclosed by everyday actions, including what we say and do when we think no one is looking and we won't get caught. The way we treat people we think can't help or hurt us, like housekeepers, waiters and secretaries, tells more about our character than how we treat people we think are important. People who are honest, kind and fair only when there is something to gain shouldn't be confused with people of real character who demonstrate these qualities habitually, under all circumstances.
Character is not a fancy coat we put on for show; it's who we really are.
I reread complex, clever and profound passages several times, I underline them, make notes in the margin, fold back pages, do whatever I can to highlight the parts I found useful or inspirational so I can find them again.
When a passage stimulates thoughts, I immediately write them in the margins or on the blank pages in the front or back of the book. A really good book has me thinking as much as reading and I never read abook in one sitting. When I restart the book I revisit my notes like they were old friends.
Both during and after the book I try to communicate what I've learned or the new ideas generated in conversations, letters and even these commentaries. New insights are a great gift and I think we should share them. I liked Kushner's book so much I bought 30 copies and gave them as gifts.
While writing this piece I realized that the way I approach books also is a decent way to approach life: Live it fully and completely at the time, live it by remembering it and sharing it.
Our character is revealed by how we deal with pressures and temptations. But it's also disclosed by everyday actions, including what we say and do when we think no one is looking and we won't get caught. The way we treat people we think can't help or hurt us, like housekeepers, waiters and secretaries, tells more about our character than how we treat people we think are important. People who are honest, kind and fair only when there is something to gain shouldn't be confused with people of real character who demonstrate these qualities habitually, under all circumstances.
Character is not a fancy coat we put on for show; it's who we really are.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Definition - #301 - #15 – How do “I” know what “I’m” talking about?
Have you ever considered that you, yourself, don’t know what you’re talking about?
Do you even know how to go about finding out?
Do you even care??
Isn’t it an interesting question? Isn’t it something that might interest you?
Don’t you think that the answers might make your own life more comfortable? Don’t you think there would be less tension, less apprehension? Do you think you would get more respect? Do you think more people would favor your company ….i.e. have more friends?
Suppose I suggested the simplest way for you to check yourself!!!
How about “listening” to what you, yourself, are saying!! …. Yes!!! As you speak (or think) listen to yourself!
Do you understand what you’re hearing?
Do the thoughts that you hear really reflect what you “meant” to say?
Did you use the words that best communicate your thought?
Are you satisfied with the way “it” came out?
Have you ever even considered this possibility?
Think of all the times you just “reacted”. You didn’t even give yourself time to “consider” much less try to “listen” to yourself. Would you react the same way now? I don’t think so!!!
Never mind the past!!! Can you do a better job NOW???
There’s no shame in saying “Let me start all over again. I don’t think I was as clear as I could be.” It is a mark of respect to your listeners that you want to do better for them; but, it is also a mark of respect to yourself that you are “actively” reconsidering. ….. How bright is that!!!
Do you really care? … That’s a downright ugly question!!! …. Of course you care! …if only you had a way to care!!!
(I hope this, also, is “a successful alternative” for your consideration.)
Do you even know how to go about finding out?
Do you even care??
Isn’t it an interesting question? Isn’t it something that might interest you?
Don’t you think that the answers might make your own life more comfortable? Don’t you think there would be less tension, less apprehension? Do you think you would get more respect? Do you think more people would favor your company ….i.e. have more friends?
Suppose I suggested the simplest way for you to check yourself!!!
How about “listening” to what you, yourself, are saying!! …. Yes!!! As you speak (or think) listen to yourself!
Do you understand what you’re hearing?
Do the thoughts that you hear really reflect what you “meant” to say?
Did you use the words that best communicate your thought?
Are you satisfied with the way “it” came out?
Have you ever even considered this possibility?
Think of all the times you just “reacted”. You didn’t even give yourself time to “consider” much less try to “listen” to yourself. Would you react the same way now? I don’t think so!!!
Never mind the past!!! Can you do a better job NOW???
There’s no shame in saying “Let me start all over again. I don’t think I was as clear as I could be.” It is a mark of respect to your listeners that you want to do better for them; but, it is also a mark of respect to yourself that you are “actively” reconsidering. ….. How bright is that!!!
Do you really care? … That’s a downright ugly question!!! …. Of course you care! …if only you had a way to care!!!
(I hope this, also, is “a successful alternative” for your consideration.)
Monday, January 14, 2008
Government - #101 - #63 - Spare the rod, spoil the future
“How do you get young people interested “in” anything that’s not physical or emotional”?
There are people in the U.S. that are experts in advertising…judging what the public is interested in or what the “public” wants. The most affluent (that spend the most money) is supposed to be the age group between 16 and 32. This is supposed to be the age group that is the most materialistic (that has the most money to spend). Most every commercial outlet wants to be addressing this group.
What is supposed to be the age group that thinks the least, that debates the important issues of today (like: will the U.S. survive in its present form if they are attacked by the revolutionary wing of the Islamists or can we afford to help everyone today to achieve what’s already part of America, etc.) This group, singularly, needs the information to begin to debate or just talk about “the alternatives”.
This is the group which is the loudest. This is the group which “demonstrates”! This is the group with the “least” information on the “What ifs” of society. This is the group that has the least “living” experience. This is the group that more or less has only one agenda. (i.e. abortion, green peace, gender, race, etc.) This is the group that may influence the policies of the U.S.!
With all the “experts” in advertising in the U.S., the media, and the so-called politicians and pundits; one would think there was a successful way to start debates on what is really important. (the economy, employment, family values, etc.) Today we are filled with Brittany, Jackson, O. J. Simpson (Orange Juice), local murders and police chases, etc. What is the way to change the dialogue? Or, is there a way? (from the more physical to the more “intellectual”?)
Could it be that America has changed? It no longer is interested in the plights of the unfortunates in the world. It refuses to identify those that take financial advantage of emergencies and adequately punish them. Instead, it fills the void in people’s lives with the trivia that excites them, the unimportant things that temporarily interest them.
The media gives what the public “wants” or the general public is “interested in”!
Remember: "Spare the rod, spoil the future...."
Is this the best the U.S. has to offer?
How do we influence this “change”?
Do we really want America to survive in its present form?
There are people in the U.S. that are experts in advertising…judging what the public is interested in or what the “public” wants. The most affluent (that spend the most money) is supposed to be the age group between 16 and 32. This is supposed to be the age group that is the most materialistic (that has the most money to spend). Most every commercial outlet wants to be addressing this group.
What is supposed to be the age group that thinks the least, that debates the important issues of today (like: will the U.S. survive in its present form if they are attacked by the revolutionary wing of the Islamists or can we afford to help everyone today to achieve what’s already part of America, etc.) This group, singularly, needs the information to begin to debate or just talk about “the alternatives”.
This is the group which is the loudest. This is the group which “demonstrates”! This is the group with the “least” information on the “What ifs” of society. This is the group that has the least “living” experience. This is the group that more or less has only one agenda. (i.e. abortion, green peace, gender, race, etc.) This is the group that may influence the policies of the U.S.!
With all the “experts” in advertising in the U.S., the media, and the so-called politicians and pundits; one would think there was a successful way to start debates on what is really important. (the economy, employment, family values, etc.) Today we are filled with Brittany, Jackson, O. J. Simpson (Orange Juice), local murders and police chases, etc. What is the way to change the dialogue? Or, is there a way? (from the more physical to the more “intellectual”?)
Could it be that America has changed? It no longer is interested in the plights of the unfortunates in the world. It refuses to identify those that take financial advantage of emergencies and adequately punish them. Instead, it fills the void in people’s lives with the trivia that excites them, the unimportant things that temporarily interest them.
The media gives what the public “wants” or the general public is “interested in”!
Remember: "Spare the rod, spoil the future...."
Is this the best the U.S. has to offer?
How do we influence this “change”?
Do we really want America to survive in its present form?
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Definition - #301 - #14 - What is “good”?
“Good” to whom? … For you? …. For them? … etc.,etc.
“Good” in what circumstances? In this society? … In this country? … In “this” family, or, “that” family?
“Good” meaning what? … Beneficial to everyone? … Beneficial to you? … Beneficial to some?
Can you see what trouble were getting into?
Don’t you think it would be a better idea if you first “defined” what you’re talking about?
Don’t you think you’d better answer the questions first posed ….”What is your definition of “Good”?
Could anything but a “misunderstanding” occur if you don’t “define”?
So, someone says: “This will be “good” for you.” ….. Yeah, but what will it do to the person next to me? If it’s so “good” for me, is it “good” for “everyone” else? … regardless of the circumstances?
This is a great way to start a “misunderstanding”. This is a great way to alienate a family member, or a society or another country! Just “tell ‘em” what’s “good” for them!
Is there another way?
You bet!!
Don’t “TELL” anyone anything! …. SUGGEST!!!!
Try to explain what the “good” is you are proposing. Which persons it applies to and which it doesn’t. Which “group” it is referenced to and why. Try to “define” before you “SUGGEST” a plan.
People do not like being “told”. It’s ok in the military but you are already prepared and trained for that!
If one of the political parties claim that the way to financially improve the present situation is to “give the temporarily disadvantaged the financial means to live through this so-called temporary phase; and the other party says the way to improve the situation is to help create employment so the temporarily disadvantaged can take care of themselves; at least you know which party stands for what. But to say that “payments are good” or “jobs are good” does not explain the alternative ideas behind the “good” suggested. This, of course, leads to confusion and stress. Red flagged words like “general welfare”, “corporate welfare”, “socialist”, “democratic” all get into the confusion. More stress and tension. More division and misunderstanding.
(It may actually make you believe this is done with intent. Divide and conquer!! …. UGH!!!)
You bet there’s another way!!! ….. Explain, define, help us to understand! Don’t “divide and conquer”! …OR, we have to chose better spokesman who have the ability to explain!!!
“Good” in what circumstances? In this society? … In this country? … In “this” family, or, “that” family?
“Good” meaning what? … Beneficial to everyone? … Beneficial to you? … Beneficial to some?
Can you see what trouble were getting into?
Don’t you think it would be a better idea if you first “defined” what you’re talking about?
Don’t you think you’d better answer the questions first posed ….”What is your definition of “Good”?
Could anything but a “misunderstanding” occur if you don’t “define”?
So, someone says: “This will be “good” for you.” ….. Yeah, but what will it do to the person next to me? If it’s so “good” for me, is it “good” for “everyone” else? … regardless of the circumstances?
This is a great way to start a “misunderstanding”. This is a great way to alienate a family member, or a society or another country! Just “tell ‘em” what’s “good” for them!
Is there another way?
You bet!!
Don’t “TELL” anyone anything! …. SUGGEST!!!!
Try to explain what the “good” is you are proposing. Which persons it applies to and which it doesn’t. Which “group” it is referenced to and why. Try to “define” before you “SUGGEST” a plan.
People do not like being “told”. It’s ok in the military but you are already prepared and trained for that!
If one of the political parties claim that the way to financially improve the present situation is to “give the temporarily disadvantaged the financial means to live through this so-called temporary phase; and the other party says the way to improve the situation is to help create employment so the temporarily disadvantaged can take care of themselves; at least you know which party stands for what. But to say that “payments are good” or “jobs are good” does not explain the alternative ideas behind the “good” suggested. This, of course, leads to confusion and stress. Red flagged words like “general welfare”, “corporate welfare”, “socialist”, “democratic” all get into the confusion. More stress and tension. More division and misunderstanding.
(It may actually make you believe this is done with intent. Divide and conquer!! …. UGH!!!)
You bet there’s another way!!! ….. Explain, define, help us to understand! Don’t “divide and conquer”! …OR, we have to chose better spokesman who have the ability to explain!!!
Friday, January 11, 2008
Definition - #301 - #13 – How many ways to build a pyramid?
How many ways are there to build a pyramid? ….. I’d like to talk about “two”!!
You can build a pyramid from the bottom up!!
You can build a pyramid from the top down!!
Most conversations are “trying to focus” on a point of view, an opinion. The speaker “tries” to construct a “verbal pyramid” from the bottom up. He goes from the complicated to the complex. More and more things are built into the pyramid. Soon the complex is “so complex” that the conversation no longer has a focus much less a meaning. (And people even join in!!!) The pyramid gets higher and higher. The conversation gets longer and longer, boring and more boring!!
Time to take a warm bath!!
Is there a “successful alternative”?
Try this!!! Suppose you try to make the conversation simpler. Suppose you start to build your “verbal” pyramid from the “top” down? Suppose you try to go from the complex to the complicated and then go down to the simple, the “mutually defined”? You are going down to the “base”.
You are actually going to the “basic”… the point at which you start, the point to which you will always return.!!
What are we really trying to talk about?
What’s the basic idea you are trying to discuss?
NOT what’s wrong with “it” (whatever “it” is). Not how to fix “it”. Let’s first find out what “it” is!!!
Let’s try to build our “verbal pyramid” from the “top” down; from the complex to the “basics”!!!
Ask for “definitions”. Ask for “basics”. Ask for anything that will help you understand what the speaker is talking about. Then, and only then, can you begin to construct your pyramid of improvements, understandings, and actions. Only then can you have a “useful” conversation.
Can you imagine people throwing their “limited amounts of lifetime energy” into verbal exchanges which have no “mutual” meaning?….. and, getting upset about “it”??
People are talking “at each other” … NOT “with each other”!!!
Time to take another warm bath!!! …… It’s all noise …….It’s all “oral static”!!!
To be a good pyramid builder, all you have to do is ASK!!!
A good, “mutually meaningful” question is often as useful as an answer!
First, be a good “asker”!!! … There’s plenty of time to get more complicated!
You can build a pyramid from the bottom up!!
You can build a pyramid from the top down!!
Most conversations are “trying to focus” on a point of view, an opinion. The speaker “tries” to construct a “verbal pyramid” from the bottom up. He goes from the complicated to the complex. More and more things are built into the pyramid. Soon the complex is “so complex” that the conversation no longer has a focus much less a meaning. (And people even join in!!!) The pyramid gets higher and higher. The conversation gets longer and longer, boring and more boring!!
Time to take a warm bath!!
Is there a “successful alternative”?
Try this!!! Suppose you try to make the conversation simpler. Suppose you start to build your “verbal” pyramid from the “top” down? Suppose you try to go from the complex to the complicated and then go down to the simple, the “mutually defined”? You are going down to the “base”.
You are actually going to the “basic”… the point at which you start, the point to which you will always return.!!
What are we really trying to talk about?
What’s the basic idea you are trying to discuss?
NOT what’s wrong with “it” (whatever “it” is). Not how to fix “it”. Let’s first find out what “it” is!!!
Let’s try to build our “verbal pyramid” from the “top” down; from the complex to the “basics”!!!
Ask for “definitions”. Ask for “basics”. Ask for anything that will help you understand what the speaker is talking about. Then, and only then, can you begin to construct your pyramid of improvements, understandings, and actions. Only then can you have a “useful” conversation.
Can you imagine people throwing their “limited amounts of lifetime energy” into verbal exchanges which have no “mutual” meaning?….. and, getting upset about “it”??
People are talking “at each other” … NOT “with each other”!!!
Time to take another warm bath!!! …… It’s all noise …….It’s all “oral static”!!!
To be a good pyramid builder, all you have to do is ASK!!!
A good, “mutually meaningful” question is often as useful as an answer!
First, be a good “asker”!!! … There’s plenty of time to get more complicated!
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Definition - #301 - #12 – How much energy do I have in a lifetime?
“Suppose I run out of energy?”
First, a story……
Suppose all of your energy were grains of sand and you had them stored in a locked closet on the second floor. You had the key to that closet on your belt. Next to the closet was an open window and below the window sill was a teaspoon, a shovel, and a wheelbarrow.
All I ask is that you know which utensil you are going to use when you unlock the closet door and begin to throw the sand out of the window. Remember, this sand is irreplaceable. It is all the sand you’ll ever have in your lifetime!
Be sure you know how much energy you’re going to throw out the window. Don’t, in haste, grab a shovel when you might have taken a teaspoonful. If you’re going to fill the wheelbarrow, make sure it’s worth it. After all, you can’t replace it.
And sometime, when you’re wise, you might consider whether or not to even open up the closet!
And sometime, when you’re really wiser, you might not even go upstairs!!!
How often have you wasted your energy over something that was really insignificant?
Have you even considered that you have a limited supply of energy in your life?
Have you ever considered that there is something you can do about it?
Have you ever considered using a teaspoon instead of a shovel, or at worst, a wheelbarrow?
What would it take to consider not opening the closet at all, not wasting your energy?
What would it take to consider not even going upstairs?
Wouldn’t your life be easier if you first considered a “successful alternative”?
Wouldn’t your life have more meaning if you considered a limit to your energy?
Wouldn’t your choices be better? Wouldn’t they be more valuable?
Considering a limit to the energy you have in your lifetime will bring more order, more purpose, more value to you, yourself.
“Is there a successful alternative”?
First, a story……
Suppose all of your energy were grains of sand and you had them stored in a locked closet on the second floor. You had the key to that closet on your belt. Next to the closet was an open window and below the window sill was a teaspoon, a shovel, and a wheelbarrow.
All I ask is that you know which utensil you are going to use when you unlock the closet door and begin to throw the sand out of the window. Remember, this sand is irreplaceable. It is all the sand you’ll ever have in your lifetime!
Be sure you know how much energy you’re going to throw out the window. Don’t, in haste, grab a shovel when you might have taken a teaspoonful. If you’re going to fill the wheelbarrow, make sure it’s worth it. After all, you can’t replace it.
And sometime, when you’re wise, you might consider whether or not to even open up the closet!
And sometime, when you’re really wiser, you might not even go upstairs!!!
How often have you wasted your energy over something that was really insignificant?
Have you even considered that you have a limited supply of energy in your life?
Have you ever considered that there is something you can do about it?
Have you ever considered using a teaspoon instead of a shovel, or at worst, a wheelbarrow?
What would it take to consider not opening the closet at all, not wasting your energy?
What would it take to consider not even going upstairs?
Wouldn’t your life be easier if you first considered a “successful alternative”?
Wouldn’t your life have more meaning if you considered a limit to your energy?
Wouldn’t your choices be better? Wouldn’t they be more valuable?
Considering a limit to the energy you have in your lifetime will bring more order, more purpose, more value to you, yourself.
“Is there a successful alternative”?
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Definition - #301 - #11 – The “deficiency flag”, or…. “Do I have to know everything”?
(I can tell if your “deficiency flag” is out of the box and going up the pole …in a milli-second!!!)
Most people, when they don’t know something, feel “deficient”.
When they feel “deficient” they become “insecure”.
When they become “insecure” they usually become aggressive, loud, defensive, tell polish jokes, change the subject or go answer the phone!
It is so apparent that they feel “deficient”.
Their “deficiency flag” is out of the box going up the pole!!
All because they don’t know something……
Suppose somebody gave you a flashlight and pointed to the door of a big closet. You turned the light on and opened the door. You peered in and saw something you would recognize. You saw something that was of no interest to you. You, also, saw something you may know nothing about but was of interest.
In NO case did you recognize everything in the closet. In fact, there were many things that were of “no” interest at all to you!
Did you feel insecure because there were things of NO interest? Did you feel insecure because you didn’t know everything in the closet?
WELL, why in heavens name do you expect to know “everything”?
Why do you need to feel insecure or “deficient” if you have to ask?
Why do you become “defensive”? After all, isn’t it true that after you have defended yourself, the situation remains the same?? What a waste of time and effort!!!
Why should your “deficiency flag” go up the pole when you don’t know something? What’s so terrible about asking a good question? There’s a huge closet out there. No one knows everything!!
Learning how to ask a good, clear, meaningful question is almost the same as getting an answer. In fact, many times a good question brings out a better answer. There is certainly no feeling of insecurity that comes with a good question. You are NOT deficient when you ask!!
Put away the “deficiency flag”!! It’s less baggage for you to carry!!
Most people, when they don’t know something, feel “deficient”.
When they feel “deficient” they become “insecure”.
When they become “insecure” they usually become aggressive, loud, defensive, tell polish jokes, change the subject or go answer the phone!
It is so apparent that they feel “deficient”.
Their “deficiency flag” is out of the box going up the pole!!
All because they don’t know something……
Suppose somebody gave you a flashlight and pointed to the door of a big closet. You turned the light on and opened the door. You peered in and saw something you would recognize. You saw something that was of no interest to you. You, also, saw something you may know nothing about but was of interest.
In NO case did you recognize everything in the closet. In fact, there were many things that were of “no” interest at all to you!
Did you feel insecure because there were things of NO interest? Did you feel insecure because you didn’t know everything in the closet?
WELL, why in heavens name do you expect to know “everything”?
Why do you need to feel insecure or “deficient” if you have to ask?
Why do you become “defensive”? After all, isn’t it true that after you have defended yourself, the situation remains the same?? What a waste of time and effort!!!
Why should your “deficiency flag” go up the pole when you don’t know something? What’s so terrible about asking a good question? There’s a huge closet out there. No one knows everything!!
Learning how to ask a good, clear, meaningful question is almost the same as getting an answer. In fact, many times a good question brings out a better answer. There is certainly no feeling of insecurity that comes with a good question. You are NOT deficient when you ask!!
Put away the “deficiency flag”!! It’s less baggage for you to carry!!
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Personal - #501 - #63 - Will the “moderates” of Islam please come foreword!
If the Moslem religion is exactly the word of God and the Koran is exactly in those dictated words; and ,if the Bible and the experiences of Judaism and Catholicism, et al, remain the experiences of God, there is a huge difference. One is the belief that the exact words of God are in the Koran and Shariah Law is the only way to live, and; the other way to live is to be guided by the experiences of God, as defined by various individuals at various times; conflict is bound to arise. What to do about this conflict?
Some believers are imbued to the point of martyrdom if the Shariah Law is not obeyed by everyone. On the other hand, the freedom to live the way you want (with little restriction) is believed to be the only way. (i.e. the human believes in “freedom”).
What to do?
If there was a portion of Islam that stated publicly that the translation of God’s dictated word in the Koran was open to interpretation “by the Mullahs and those in charge”; there would be room for discussion. Either the people who want “interpretation” are intimidated physically or mentally by the Jhadist element of the party of Islam or there is no room in Islam for “interpretation”. In which case there can be no discussion….take or leave it!
This leaves the question …. What do you do with the Islam religion?
Do you treat the religion as one, or; do you hope that there arises a group of moderates in the Islam religion that are willing to discuss “interpretation”. If you treat Islam as one religion, without compromise, that must kill or convert non-believers as second hand citizens. What would you expect from those non-believers….?
If, on the other hand, you thought there might come a time when the more moderate Islamists might rise up and publicly state that there was room to talk, then , perhaps, the outcome would not seem so precise. “To kill or be killed” seems the only option now!
Who would bet their life on a future of perhaps there might come a time when the “moderates of Islam might come forward?” Who would rely on that person? Who would plan a future on that possibility?
Do we simply wait for the future… or what?
Some believers are imbued to the point of martyrdom if the Shariah Law is not obeyed by everyone. On the other hand, the freedom to live the way you want (with little restriction) is believed to be the only way. (i.e. the human believes in “freedom”).
What to do?
If there was a portion of Islam that stated publicly that the translation of God’s dictated word in the Koran was open to interpretation “by the Mullahs and those in charge”; there would be room for discussion. Either the people who want “interpretation” are intimidated physically or mentally by the Jhadist element of the party of Islam or there is no room in Islam for “interpretation”. In which case there can be no discussion….take or leave it!
This leaves the question …. What do you do with the Islam religion?
Do you treat the religion as one, or; do you hope that there arises a group of moderates in the Islam religion that are willing to discuss “interpretation”. If you treat Islam as one religion, without compromise, that must kill or convert non-believers as second hand citizens. What would you expect from those non-believers….?
If, on the other hand, you thought there might come a time when the more moderate Islamists might rise up and publicly state that there was room to talk, then , perhaps, the outcome would not seem so precise. “To kill or be killed” seems the only option now!
Who would bet their life on a future of perhaps there might come a time when the “moderates of Islam might come forward?” Who would rely on that person? Who would plan a future on that possibility?
Do we simply wait for the future… or what?
Friday, January 4, 2008
Definition - #301 - #55 - "National Indifference"?
What is “National Indifference”?
For a Nation to have scholars who know more and write exactly what “they see and feel”, and to have T.V. programs devoted to what “they see and feel”; and not to move to eradicate these monstrous conditions is a wonder.
What could be a cause of the “National Indifference”?
Could it be that these “listeners” of this readily available information are listeners “only”.
Could it be that these “listeners” are satisfied with “listening” only?
Could it be that these “listeners” are afraid to lose what they already have?
Could it be that these “listeners” don’t know what to do?......whether to take up arms and kill somebody or take-up some group or do something!
Could it be that these “listeners” are confused as to what comes next or what to do as a next step?
Could it be that these “listeners” consider this task too complicated, to complex for any human mind, so they just give up…. “National Indifference”!
Could it be that “National Indifference” is a way to escape responsibility?
Could it be that these “listeners” are a separate group of people and consider themselves separate from other Americans?
Could it be that a solution of “more and better” education for the general public is only a dream of the future?
Could it be that the key is indeed too complex with budgets, politics etc. for the human mind?
In light of the poverty in the world, the poor education, the forcefulness and greed of the dictators of the world, the adverse direction to material progress in many Nations of the world, etc.; all this has no real meaning.
The few who want to “do” something to allieve the obvious pain and suffering in the world ought to just “forget it” and join the others in “National Indifference”! After all, “National Indifference” is a solution!
There is a “leadership” question here. Isn’t “leadership” supposed to answer these questions? Do we have the right to expect “leadership” to give us practical answers to some of these questions? Is the “leadership” we voted for have some of these answers or are they just as powerless as we?
What can we expect?
Is it time for a “General Public’ makeover?
For a Nation to have scholars who know more and write exactly what “they see and feel”, and to have T.V. programs devoted to what “they see and feel”; and not to move to eradicate these monstrous conditions is a wonder.
What could be a cause of the “National Indifference”?
Could it be that these “listeners” of this readily available information are listeners “only”.
Could it be that these “listeners” are satisfied with “listening” only?
Could it be that these “listeners” are afraid to lose what they already have?
Could it be that these “listeners” don’t know what to do?......whether to take up arms and kill somebody or take-up some group or do something!
Could it be that these “listeners” are confused as to what comes next or what to do as a next step?
Could it be that these “listeners” consider this task too complicated, to complex for any human mind, so they just give up…. “National Indifference”!
Could it be that “National Indifference” is a way to escape responsibility?
Could it be that these “listeners” are a separate group of people and consider themselves separate from other Americans?
Could it be that a solution of “more and better” education for the general public is only a dream of the future?
Could it be that the key is indeed too complex with budgets, politics etc. for the human mind?
In light of the poverty in the world, the poor education, the forcefulness and greed of the dictators of the world, the adverse direction to material progress in many Nations of the world, etc.; all this has no real meaning.
The few who want to “do” something to allieve the obvious pain and suffering in the world ought to just “forget it” and join the others in “National Indifference”! After all, “National Indifference” is a solution!
There is a “leadership” question here. Isn’t “leadership” supposed to answer these questions? Do we have the right to expect “leadership” to give us practical answers to some of these questions? Is the “leadership” we voted for have some of these answers or are they just as powerless as we?
What can we expect?
Is it time for a “General Public’ makeover?
Definition - #301 - #56 - The “General Public” makeover!
(What do we have to become before we start “electing and telling” our government what we want?)
The “general public” doesn’t always have the information or the whole story
What does the “general public” have to become?
It has to become knowledgeable as to our policy without giving away this total information to the enemy.
It has to become “educated”; ready to speak one language, ready to understand and obey the existing laws an customs of America.
It has to be able to tell what is propaganda, (put out by whomever), from the facts.
It has to be able to elect representatives who do the bidding of their voters. (…than their parties)
It has to be thoughtful rather than “emotional”.
It has to be “responsible”. (…for its own acts both now and in the future)
It has to be changed from what it is now rather than what has caused America to lose its way.
The “general public” must undergo a complete makeover! Is this a practical solution? Of course NOT!
One half the country wants “our boys home” regardless of the consequences. The Generals who make these decisions disagree. Who do we listen too? And who is responsible for the outcome?
The elected representatives disagree, and the T.V. pundits disagree, and now the Generals disagree.
To whom do we, the “general public, offer our advice to? How do we know what our “collective” advice is? Who do we talk to? Who is the spokesperson?
This is democracy! (…in action)
We want a perfect set of circumstances! If we can’t get it, we used to “compromise”. ... Now “we fight”!
Is it any wonder that America is at its razor’s edge? We can’t seem to have a rational discussion, just an exchange of hardened opinions.
Should the elected officials be changed? Would that do any good?
Would that lead to “rational discussion”? Would that lead to intelligent ”compromises”?
What do we want?
A change in the structure of our Government?
A different form of Government?
The same Government but different players?
Is there a “successful alternative”?
If decent, rational discussion is a “successful Alternative” can we get it?
The “general public” doesn’t always have the information or the whole story
What does the “general public” have to become?
It has to become knowledgeable as to our policy without giving away this total information to the enemy.
It has to become “educated”; ready to speak one language, ready to understand and obey the existing laws an customs of America.
It has to be able to tell what is propaganda, (put out by whomever), from the facts.
It has to be able to elect representatives who do the bidding of their voters. (…than their parties)
It has to be thoughtful rather than “emotional”.
It has to be “responsible”. (…for its own acts both now and in the future)
It has to be changed from what it is now rather than what has caused America to lose its way.
The “general public” must undergo a complete makeover! Is this a practical solution? Of course NOT!
One half the country wants “our boys home” regardless of the consequences. The Generals who make these decisions disagree. Who do we listen too? And who is responsible for the outcome?
The elected representatives disagree, and the T.V. pundits disagree, and now the Generals disagree.
To whom do we, the “general public, offer our advice to? How do we know what our “collective” advice is? Who do we talk to? Who is the spokesperson?
This is democracy! (…in action)
We want a perfect set of circumstances! If we can’t get it, we used to “compromise”. ... Now “we fight”!
Is it any wonder that America is at its razor’s edge? We can’t seem to have a rational discussion, just an exchange of hardened opinions.
Should the elected officials be changed? Would that do any good?
Would that lead to “rational discussion”? Would that lead to intelligent ”compromises”?
What do we want?
A change in the structure of our Government?
A different form of Government?
The same Government but different players?
Is there a “successful alternative”?
If decent, rational discussion is a “successful Alternative” can we get it?
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Government - #101 - #62 - Is it any wonder that America is at its razor's edge.
(What do we have to become before we start “electing and telling” our government what we want?)
The “general public” doesn’t always have the information or the whole story
What does the “general public” have to become?
It has to become knowledgeable as to our policy without giving away this total information to the enemy.
It has to become “educated”; ready to speak one language, ready to understand and obey the existing laws an customs of America.
It has to be able to tell what is propaganda, (put out by whomever), from the facts.
It has to be able to elect representatives who do the bidding of their voters. (…than their parties)
It has to be thoughtful rather than “emotional”.
It has to be “responsible”. (…for its own acts both now and in the future)
It has to be changed from what it is now rather than what has caused America to lose its way.
The “general public” must undergo a complete makeover! Is this a practical solution? Of course NOT!
One half the country wants “our boys home” regardless of the consequences. The Generals who make these decisions disagree. Who do we listen too? And who is responsible for the outcome?
The elected representatives disagree, and the T.V. pundits disagree, and now the Generals disagree.
To whom do we, the “general public, offer our advice to? How do we know what our “collective” advice is? Who do we talk to? Who is the spokesperson?
This is democracy! (…in action)
We want a perfect set of circumstances! If we can’t get it, we used to “compromise”. ... Now “we fight”!
Is it any wonder that America is at its razor’s edge? We can’t seem to have a rational discussion, just an exchange of hardened opinions.
Should the elected officials be changed? Would that do any good?
Would that lead to “rational discussion”? Would that lead to intelligent ”compromises”?
What do we want?
A change in the structure of our Government?
A different form of Government?
The same Government but different players?
Is there a “successful alternative”?
If decent, rational discussion is a “successful Alternative” can we get it?
The “general public” doesn’t always have the information or the whole story
What does the “general public” have to become?
It has to become knowledgeable as to our policy without giving away this total information to the enemy.
It has to become “educated”; ready to speak one language, ready to understand and obey the existing laws an customs of America.
It has to be able to tell what is propaganda, (put out by whomever), from the facts.
It has to be able to elect representatives who do the bidding of their voters. (…than their parties)
It has to be thoughtful rather than “emotional”.
It has to be “responsible”. (…for its own acts both now and in the future)
It has to be changed from what it is now rather than what has caused America to lose its way.
The “general public” must undergo a complete makeover! Is this a practical solution? Of course NOT!
One half the country wants “our boys home” regardless of the consequences. The Generals who make these decisions disagree. Who do we listen too? And who is responsible for the outcome?
The elected representatives disagree, and the T.V. pundits disagree, and now the Generals disagree.
To whom do we, the “general public, offer our advice to? How do we know what our “collective” advice is? Who do we talk to? Who is the spokesperson?
This is democracy! (…in action)
We want a perfect set of circumstances! If we can’t get it, we used to “compromise”. ... Now “we fight”!
Is it any wonder that America is at its razor’s edge? We can’t seem to have a rational discussion, just an exchange of hardened opinions.
Should the elected officials be changed? Would that do any good?
Would that lead to “rational discussion”? Would that lead to intelligent ”compromises”?
What do we want?
A change in the structure of our Government?
A different form of Government?
The same Government but different players?
Is there a “successful alternative”?
If decent, rational discussion is a “successful Alternative” can we get it?
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Definition - #301 - #10 - The “Blender” vs. The “good meal”
Another “story”…..
Suppose you ordered a “great meal” of shrimp cocktail, soup, salad, roast beef, potatoes, green beans, chocolate cake a la mode, and coffee and cognac. And just before they started to serve you, the captain put it all in a “blender” and served you with the resulting “gruel”! It’s the same food!!! What’s your problem???
Well many conversations are like that. They’re all mixed up. The ideas are all served at one time!! One idea is “blended” into another. Generalities and “labels” are “blended” about. No one single thought is pursued to it’s “mutually understood definition”. The rapid personal opinions are followed by more rapid responses. The “meal” is being “blended”!! It truly ends up as “oral static”…i.e. “noise”.
How about a conversation where you make a determined effort to complete one idea at a time? …. Where there is an attempt to find a “mutual definition and understanding BEFORE going to another thought. How about serving the “courses” separately …. Serving one idea at a time.
Many conversations end up being “verbal gruel”!! ….all blended and mixed up … no “mutual” understanding!
You don’t even have the enjoyment of a single idea!!!
“But, I thought we were just having a conversation!” ….
“Oh yeah!! I’d rather be taking a warm bath!!”
What a colossal waste of time!!! … and effort!! …. Who wants “gruel”??
If you are aware of a “blender” type conversation, you can avoid it. If one idea is expressed at a time; and this idea is explored before another comment is added, there is hope of having “a nice meal”!! Your guests will have a nice, full feeling of having engaged in a “gourmet conversation”!
(Are you a “gourmet chef” or a “blender”?)
Suppose you ordered a “great meal” of shrimp cocktail, soup, salad, roast beef, potatoes, green beans, chocolate cake a la mode, and coffee and cognac. And just before they started to serve you, the captain put it all in a “blender” and served you with the resulting “gruel”! It’s the same food!!! What’s your problem???
Well many conversations are like that. They’re all mixed up. The ideas are all served at one time!! One idea is “blended” into another. Generalities and “labels” are “blended” about. No one single thought is pursued to it’s “mutually understood definition”. The rapid personal opinions are followed by more rapid responses. The “meal” is being “blended”!! It truly ends up as “oral static”…i.e. “noise”.
How about a conversation where you make a determined effort to complete one idea at a time? …. Where there is an attempt to find a “mutual definition and understanding BEFORE going to another thought. How about serving the “courses” separately …. Serving one idea at a time.
Many conversations end up being “verbal gruel”!! ….all blended and mixed up … no “mutual” understanding!
You don’t even have the enjoyment of a single idea!!!
“But, I thought we were just having a conversation!” ….
“Oh yeah!! I’d rather be taking a warm bath!!”
What a colossal waste of time!!! … and effort!! …. Who wants “gruel”??
If you are aware of a “blender” type conversation, you can avoid it. If one idea is expressed at a time; and this idea is explored before another comment is added, there is hope of having “a nice meal”!! Your guests will have a nice, full feeling of having engaged in a “gourmet conversation”!
(Are you a “gourmet chef” or a “blender”?)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)