Interesting question, eh?
Before you try to go out and find your “whatever’, don’t you think it would be a good idea and sit down by yourself and find out what you could “give to” a relationship?
What do you think you could “contribute”? What would you be willing to “contribute”? What “wouldn’t” you be willing to do?
Let’s make it more personal! Suppose you’re looking for a “long time” relationship……
What can you bring to the “party”?
Here’s a partial list of what you “want” or, “could bring” for your consideration…..
a. A constancy, an even temperament, a calmness, a sense of sporadic excitement, a volatile personality,
b. Intellectual intelligence; book learning; a profession; an educational background; “street smarts, a keen desire to learn; a “go along “ attitude,
c. A disciplined sense of where and when; a take it or leave it attitude; a “cool” approach to things; a sense of “up and down”, a “couldn’t care less” attitude;
d. A sense of responsibility; a “take it as it is” attitude; I worry; I don’t worry about things; “things will work out”; I plan for things,
e. I want a certain material standard; I don’t care much for material things; I expect to reach certain material goals; I take things as they come;
f. I am a “home” person; I don’t care much about the “home” thing; I want to travel; I’m happy to stay home; I take pride in my home; I’d rather live in an apartment; I like to entertain at home; I’d like to go out; I like to cook; I hate to cook; I expect to clean house, do laundry, etc.; I expect to have “help” to clean, launder, etc.; I expect to “share” household chores with you; I don’t “do” housework;
g. I want a family; I want a family now; I want a family soon; I don’t want a family; I want a large family; a small family; I want to stay home with my family; I don’t want to feel stuck in the house;
h. I want to keep in touch with my family; I don’t care much about keeping in touch with my family; I don’t want to support my family; I want to enjoy “your” family; I will always be polite to “your” family; I think that keeping the families apart, for the most part, is a good idea or, is a bad idea;
i. I’m good with sick people; I can’t stand sick people; I can always take care of sick people;
j. Religion is important to me; … is not important to me. I’ll go along “religiously”. We go separately as far as religion is concerned.
h. I want to be independent financially; I want to keep on working; I want to be a responsible “home” person; I prefer not working in the commercial world;
i. I am a “budget” person; I spend wisely but do not keep a record; I spend when I can afford too; I like shopping; I don’t shop often; I like to spend my own money; “My” money is “our” money; I want separate accounts; I want an allowance; I want my own credit cards so I don’t have to beg for anything; I want to share my spending with you;
j. I am a social person; I like to be around people; I’m more of “loner” type; I like to be active in Society; I have little interest in Society. Society is part of my life.
k. I am an active “sports” person; I don’t care for athletics, I hate watching sports T.V.; I enjoy sports T.V.; I am active in “exercise; I don’t “do” exercise;
l. I am very interested in my personal and clothing appearance; Clothes have little interest for me; I expect to “look good” all the time; I like to be clean and “casual” most of the time; I enjoy massages, and, hair and nail appointments; I only have beauty appointments when I have too;
m. I would like to be included in your business and business affairs; I leave the business affairs to you; I enjoy discussing business and politics and current events; These things don’t interest me; I like to read and write; I do not enjoy reading and writing; I need the “intellectual life”; I’m not particularly interested in the “intellectual life”;
n. I would like to discuss our “physical life”; I don’t think “our physical life” is an appropriate subject; I think our “physical life is important; I do not think our “physical life” is that important;
o. I do not argue; I do not mind a “good” argument; I know the difference between an “argument” and a “discussion”; I can be angry and quickly “forget it”; Anger lasts a long time with me;
p. I am anxious to share ideas with you; I have pretty strong opinions about things; I’m a “positive person; I’m a “ let’s discuss and consider” person;
q. I enjoy “jokes”; I don’t understand “joke humor”; I look for the “funny side” of things; I’m more serious;
r. I like to plan; I take things as they go; I look ahead; I live in the present;
So here’s a beginning list of things to discuss with your “intended”. This could be a guide to let you travel in the direction of “mutual understanding”. This could be a way to get you to decide whether the “trip” will be all that you thought it would be. This could be a guide to an important lifetime “decision”.
Perhaps you could share some of these thoughts and see what happens. Perhaps you have ideas of your own you wish to discuss and share. I hope you can make use of this approach to “mutual understanding” and much success!
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Personal - #501 - #17 - Are you an “Individual” or a “Happy Follower”?
Do you just “light fires” and then sit back?
Do you have a “successful alternative?”
Do you “just go along” and “follow” like sheep in a herd?
An “Individual” has ideas and principles of his own. He has studied alternatives and has chosen “his own” particular way. He has taken advantage of opinions and ideas from others and has blended them into a mix that suits himself. He has his “own” blend.
A “Follower” takes the ideas from another as his own. He has no independent thoughts, but rather, has accepted the thoughts and opinions of another as his ‘own”. He has no point of view except the point of view of his “another”. He does not question the authority or content of his “another”. He makes the information and opinions that he’s given as his “own”…. no questions asked! He is “happy” for others to do his thinking. It is much safer to believe in the doctrine of “another” than to go through the grief and indecision of trying to think things out for himself. He is a “Happy Follower”.
So what’s the problem?
If, by chance, the information and opinions of “another” are NOT correct, are NOT lasting, are NOT satisfactory over the long run… where are you as an individual with no base to fall back on? Just suppose the information upon which you so blindly lean for the basis of your life turns out to be less than satisfactory …. Where do you go? … What do you do?
You have given your life, your very existence, to the thoughts and opinions of “another”. You are without defenses. You have become totally vulnerable. Your only defense will come from the internal challenges you bring to the thoughts on which you so firmly rely. The very idea of a challenge to test your presupposed ideas and content are your only “safety net”. These extreme “challenges” give you intellectual strength. The desire to personally “understand and define” will give you a reason to “rely” on other ideas more.
Mere “acceptance” can only lead to confusion an despair. What “alternatives” will you have if you have not tried to “understand”?
By the way, what harm is there in trying to “challenge” and trying to “personally define” ? If you feel any trepidation about “trying”, just think about it! Think about what was just written!!!
Are you willing to risk your life on the beliefs of “others”?
Are you willing to turn the success of your own life to the opinions of “others”?
Are you a “Happy Follower” or an “Individual”?
Do you have a “successful alternative?”
Do you “just go along” and “follow” like sheep in a herd?
An “Individual” has ideas and principles of his own. He has studied alternatives and has chosen “his own” particular way. He has taken advantage of opinions and ideas from others and has blended them into a mix that suits himself. He has his “own” blend.
A “Follower” takes the ideas from another as his own. He has no independent thoughts, but rather, has accepted the thoughts and opinions of another as his ‘own”. He has no point of view except the point of view of his “another”. He does not question the authority or content of his “another”. He makes the information and opinions that he’s given as his “own”…. no questions asked! He is “happy” for others to do his thinking. It is much safer to believe in the doctrine of “another” than to go through the grief and indecision of trying to think things out for himself. He is a “Happy Follower”.
So what’s the problem?
If, by chance, the information and opinions of “another” are NOT correct, are NOT lasting, are NOT satisfactory over the long run… where are you as an individual with no base to fall back on? Just suppose the information upon which you so blindly lean for the basis of your life turns out to be less than satisfactory …. Where do you go? … What do you do?
You have given your life, your very existence, to the thoughts and opinions of “another”. You are without defenses. You have become totally vulnerable. Your only defense will come from the internal challenges you bring to the thoughts on which you so firmly rely. The very idea of a challenge to test your presupposed ideas and content are your only “safety net”. These extreme “challenges” give you intellectual strength. The desire to personally “understand and define” will give you a reason to “rely” on other ideas more.
Mere “acceptance” can only lead to confusion an despair. What “alternatives” will you have if you have not tried to “understand”?
By the way, what harm is there in trying to “challenge” and trying to “personally define” ? If you feel any trepidation about “trying”, just think about it! Think about what was just written!!!
Are you willing to risk your life on the beliefs of “others”?
Are you willing to turn the success of your own life to the opinions of “others”?
Are you a “Happy Follower” or an “Individual”?
Monday, March 24, 2008
#7800 - #14 - Personal - #67 - Oh yeah!...There really are “bad” people out there!
The U.S. has the largest prison population of any state in the world!
The U.S. has the largest number of homicides of any state in the world!
The U.S. faces a large number of violent rapes, robberies and home invasions!
The U.S. faces a large number of narcotics violators!
The U.S. faces a large number of unpleasant divorces!
The U.S. encourages a large number of different religious convictions…..some convictions are against the U.S. standards of their society!
Oh yeah!...There really are “bad” people out there!
Who has a way to talk to all these different “bad” people at the same time?
If they are incarcerated in a foreign land, and they are not treated the way the U.S. treats prisoners, who cares? Who do they complain to? What are the repercussions?
If it costs the U.S. $40,000 a prisoner, why not send them to Russia or Turkey or South America on a contract basis…. say $20,000 per year with a yearly accounting? They are “bad people”! They do nothing for the U.S.!
The prisoners can be carefully chosen …. murderers, rapists, child molesters, physical violence crimes, etc….. the ones that offer no contribution to the U.S.!
Oh yeah!...There really are “bad” people out there!
Rather than waste time in the media and the T.V. shows on the “bad people”, what should and should not be permitted; send them to other places on a per diem rate. The author is sure the foreign countries would love the income. It is a sure means of revenue!
What else do you do with people who resist your standards of Society. Let them go free to another place …. (not in the U.S.!)
There is no sense in trying to talk or negotiate with these people. They are against your own Society!
What about the real important issues?
There would be no U.S. if we lose the war! Also, where would we be without the economy? There could be no war without the economy!
Now as to “Leave no student behind”, Welfare, Carbon and CO2, etc.; these are secondary but get lost in the avalanche of rhetoric.
Who addresses them? ….the so-called representatives? …. the committees?
SUPPOSE …Just SUPPOSE we did very little. We have survived by questioning only what we had answers too; not by questioning everything. We have survived by NOT trying for perfection. We have lived in reasonable peace despite wars. We have survived because we did NOT question everything.
The U.S. has the largest number of homicides of any state in the world!
The U.S. faces a large number of violent rapes, robberies and home invasions!
The U.S. faces a large number of narcotics violators!
The U.S. faces a large number of unpleasant divorces!
The U.S. encourages a large number of different religious convictions…..some convictions are against the U.S. standards of their society!
Oh yeah!...There really are “bad” people out there!
Who has a way to talk to all these different “bad” people at the same time?
If they are incarcerated in a foreign land, and they are not treated the way the U.S. treats prisoners, who cares? Who do they complain to? What are the repercussions?
If it costs the U.S. $40,000 a prisoner, why not send them to Russia or Turkey or South America on a contract basis…. say $20,000 per year with a yearly accounting? They are “bad people”! They do nothing for the U.S.!
The prisoners can be carefully chosen …. murderers, rapists, child molesters, physical violence crimes, etc….. the ones that offer no contribution to the U.S.!
Oh yeah!...There really are “bad” people out there!
Rather than waste time in the media and the T.V. shows on the “bad people”, what should and should not be permitted; send them to other places on a per diem rate. The author is sure the foreign countries would love the income. It is a sure means of revenue!
What else do you do with people who resist your standards of Society. Let them go free to another place …. (not in the U.S.!)
There is no sense in trying to talk or negotiate with these people. They are against your own Society!
What about the real important issues?
There would be no U.S. if we lose the war! Also, where would we be without the economy? There could be no war without the economy!
Now as to “Leave no student behind”, Welfare, Carbon and CO2, etc.; these are secondary but get lost in the avalanche of rhetoric.
Who addresses them? ….the so-called representatives? …. the committees?
SUPPOSE …Just SUPPOSE we did very little. We have survived by questioning only what we had answers too; not by questioning everything. We have survived by NOT trying for perfection. We have lived in reasonable peace despite wars. We have survived because we did NOT question everything.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Government - #101 - #68 - Racism is a NATURAL thing!
Oh yeah! Everyone wants to be different, wants to be noticed, everyone wants a different thing!
Everyone wants a good and long pension plan!
Everyone wants a good and lasting home!
Everyone wants a good and peaceful life!
Everyone wants to believe in his own religion!
Everyone wants to believe he is living a life of hope, a life that “could be better and will be better”.
Everyone believes in his race!
Everyone believes he is living the “good life”!.... (or what could be the “good life”)
Everyone believes in his own ideas!
So how do we come to believe in the same things?
So how do we listen to the different points of view from the media, the politicians, the different races, the pundits and public speakers?
So how do we develop a mutual “current interest”?
So how do we “just get along”?
If we believe there are different races, religions, ways of living…. How do we “just get along”?
True we are at physical war with a few. True we don’t believe that everyone wants the same thing? True that we believe in “live and let live” (except when we don’t!)
We appoint people to represent our thoughts and hope that those people have the time and brains to reduce the many different opinions and facts that continuously face us every day.
What if they don’t? ….
The mere fact that our contract can change every two or four years is too long in many people’s opinion. Is the uninformed “mob” a better choice? Is the “rule of the many” a cure? What does history say? If the students riot, does that make it right? After all, they are the many; but are they the most experienced?....
What has “the most experienced” brought us to?.....
Differences are a “natural thing”!
Racism is a “natural thing”!
Surely we “got along” mostly, all these centuries. There was a way! Then we became lawyers and began to investigate everything. But everything doesn’t have a ready made answer. Things we couldn’t answer or define, we couldn’t let go. We became suddenly of a conscious that wouldn’t “let go”. We turned our way into a constant examination. We thought everything was “understandable’. We thought we had words that could describe everything. We lacked the ability to say that we could not understand everything. That only through more study were we able to add to our understanding.
This is called the real “EDUCATION”!
Not “tools” to be memorized but the use of these “tools” to add to our experiences.
Yes! …..“Racism and Differences” are NATURAL things……
Everyone wants a good and long pension plan!
Everyone wants a good and lasting home!
Everyone wants a good and peaceful life!
Everyone wants to believe in his own religion!
Everyone wants to believe he is living a life of hope, a life that “could be better and will be better”.
Everyone believes in his race!
Everyone believes he is living the “good life”!.... (or what could be the “good life”)
Everyone believes in his own ideas!
So how do we come to believe in the same things?
So how do we listen to the different points of view from the media, the politicians, the different races, the pundits and public speakers?
So how do we develop a mutual “current interest”?
So how do we “just get along”?
If we believe there are different races, religions, ways of living…. How do we “just get along”?
True we are at physical war with a few. True we don’t believe that everyone wants the same thing? True that we believe in “live and let live” (except when we don’t!)
We appoint people to represent our thoughts and hope that those people have the time and brains to reduce the many different opinions and facts that continuously face us every day.
What if they don’t? ….
The mere fact that our contract can change every two or four years is too long in many people’s opinion. Is the uninformed “mob” a better choice? Is the “rule of the many” a cure? What does history say? If the students riot, does that make it right? After all, they are the many; but are they the most experienced?....
What has “the most experienced” brought us to?.....
Differences are a “natural thing”!
Racism is a “natural thing”!
Surely we “got along” mostly, all these centuries. There was a way! Then we became lawyers and began to investigate everything. But everything doesn’t have a ready made answer. Things we couldn’t answer or define, we couldn’t let go. We became suddenly of a conscious that wouldn’t “let go”. We turned our way into a constant examination. We thought everything was “understandable’. We thought we had words that could describe everything. We lacked the ability to say that we could not understand everything. That only through more study were we able to add to our understanding.
This is called the real “EDUCATION”!
Not “tools” to be memorized but the use of these “tools” to add to our experiences.
Yes! …..“Racism and Differences” are NATURAL things……
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Personal - #501 - #16 – What’s the meaning of: “Truth”
Here we go again!!!
“Whose truth”? … Whaddy’a mean?
“Whose the judge?”
How can we even discuss the subject unless we begin by “defining the terms”! Instead of trying to give an answer, let’s begin by attempting to describe what we’re talking about.
The word “truth” has a certain definite focus, a certain limitation.
There seems to be only “one” truth. There lies the difficulty already! If there’s only “one”, whose “one” is it? Can you have “equal” truths?? I don’t think that’s what’s generally meant. (Let’s assume that there is only “one” real truth; at least, for this discussion!)
The word “truth” seems to require an acceptance and understanding of what the “truth” is referring too. That is, there is a set of ideas or so-called facts that is “mutually” understood before we can state a “truth”. “Truth” seems to require a “mutual acceptance”! To be “true” requires agreement.
“Just tell me the truth!” … Oh yeah!! According to whom?… Is it “my truth” or “our truth”?
Isn’t it a fact, that if there is agreement on facts or ideas, it is already a “truth” for us, both?
“Just tell me the truth!!!” … Do you expect me to tell you a lie??… If we don’t agree on what’s told, we do not have a mutual “truth”. That’s pretty simple.
“Truth” could be a set of statements that I believe are accurate. If you, also, believe they are accurate, then a “truth” has been told. It is a “truth” between us.
What about a “universal truth”! Does the whole universe believe the same? I don’t think you could know!! If you state that something is a “universal truth”, are you sure? Do you know everybody’s mind.? Couldn’t there be exceptions?
Why must you be so positive? Isn’t it enough to have “mutual agreement” among the people in the discussion?
By being so “positive”, aren’t you starting an argument?
As a matter of interest, what is your purpose for being so “positive”? Do you expect agreement by being so “positive”? Do you think you’ll get acceptance of your thoughts? …. I don’t think so!!! I think you’ll be starting a “defense”.
So, a “truth” is really an understanding, a mutual agreement, and an acceptance of a state of facts or ideas, between participants in a discussion. If you’re not a participant, it may not be a “truth” to you!!
“Whose truth”? … Whaddy’a mean?
“Whose the judge?”
How can we even discuss the subject unless we begin by “defining the terms”! Instead of trying to give an answer, let’s begin by attempting to describe what we’re talking about.
The word “truth” has a certain definite focus, a certain limitation.
There seems to be only “one” truth. There lies the difficulty already! If there’s only “one”, whose “one” is it? Can you have “equal” truths?? I don’t think that’s what’s generally meant. (Let’s assume that there is only “one” real truth; at least, for this discussion!)
The word “truth” seems to require an acceptance and understanding of what the “truth” is referring too. That is, there is a set of ideas or so-called facts that is “mutually” understood before we can state a “truth”. “Truth” seems to require a “mutual acceptance”! To be “true” requires agreement.
“Just tell me the truth!” … Oh yeah!! According to whom?… Is it “my truth” or “our truth”?
Isn’t it a fact, that if there is agreement on facts or ideas, it is already a “truth” for us, both?
“Just tell me the truth!!!” … Do you expect me to tell you a lie??… If we don’t agree on what’s told, we do not have a mutual “truth”. That’s pretty simple.
“Truth” could be a set of statements that I believe are accurate. If you, also, believe they are accurate, then a “truth” has been told. It is a “truth” between us.
What about a “universal truth”! Does the whole universe believe the same? I don’t think you could know!! If you state that something is a “universal truth”, are you sure? Do you know everybody’s mind.? Couldn’t there be exceptions?
Why must you be so positive? Isn’t it enough to have “mutual agreement” among the people in the discussion?
By being so “positive”, aren’t you starting an argument?
As a matter of interest, what is your purpose for being so “positive”? Do you expect agreement by being so “positive”? Do you think you’ll get acceptance of your thoughts? …. I don’t think so!!! I think you’ll be starting a “defense”.
So, a “truth” is really an understanding, a mutual agreement, and an acceptance of a state of facts or ideas, between participants in a discussion. If you’re not a participant, it may not be a “truth” to you!!
Personal - #501 - #16 – What’s the meaning of: “Truth”
Here we go again!!!
“Whose truth”? … Whaddy’a mean?
“Whose the judge?”
How can we even discuss the subject unless we begin by “defining the terms”! Instead of trying to give an answer, let’s begin by attempting to describe what we’re talking about.
The word “truth” has a certain definite focus, a certain limitation.
There seems to be only “one” truth. There lies the difficulty already! If there’s only “one”, whose “one” is it? Can you have “equal” truths?? I don’t think that’s what’s generally meant. (Let’s assume that there is only “one” real truth; at least, for this discussion!)
The word “truth” seems to require an acceptance and understanding of what the “truth” is referring too. That is, there is a set of ideas or so-called facts that is “mutually” understood before we can state a “truth”. “Truth” seems to require a “mutual acceptance”! To be “true” requires agreement.
“Just tell me the truth!” … Oh yeah!! According to whom?… Is it “my truth” or “our truth”?
Isn’t it a fact, that if there is agreement on facts or ideas, it is already a “truth” for us, both?
“Just tell me the truth!!!” … Do you expect me to tell you a lie??… If we don’t agree on what’s told, we do not have a mutual “truth”. That’s pretty simple.
“Truth” could be a set of statements that I believe are accurate. If you, also, believe they are accurate, then a “truth” has been told. It is a “truth” between us.
What about a “universal truth”! Does the whole universe believe the same? I don’t think you could know!! If you state that something is a “universal truth”, are you sure? Do you know everybody’s mind.? Couldn’t there be exceptions?
Why must you be so positive? Isn’t it enough to have “mutual agreement” among the people in the discussion?
By being so “positive”, aren’t you starting an argument?
As a matter of interest, what is your purpose for being so “positive”? Do you expect agreement by being so “positive”? Do you think you’ll get acceptance of your thoughts? …. I don’t think so!!! I think you’ll be starting a “defense”.
So, a “truth” is really an understanding, a mutual agreement, and an acceptance of a state of facts or ideas, between participants in a discussion. If you’re not a participant, it may not be a “truth” to you!!
“Whose truth”? … Whaddy’a mean?
“Whose the judge?”
How can we even discuss the subject unless we begin by “defining the terms”! Instead of trying to give an answer, let’s begin by attempting to describe what we’re talking about.
The word “truth” has a certain definite focus, a certain limitation.
There seems to be only “one” truth. There lies the difficulty already! If there’s only “one”, whose “one” is it? Can you have “equal” truths?? I don’t think that’s what’s generally meant. (Let’s assume that there is only “one” real truth; at least, for this discussion!)
The word “truth” seems to require an acceptance and understanding of what the “truth” is referring too. That is, there is a set of ideas or so-called facts that is “mutually” understood before we can state a “truth”. “Truth” seems to require a “mutual acceptance”! To be “true” requires agreement.
“Just tell me the truth!” … Oh yeah!! According to whom?… Is it “my truth” or “our truth”?
Isn’t it a fact, that if there is agreement on facts or ideas, it is already a “truth” for us, both?
“Just tell me the truth!!!” … Do you expect me to tell you a lie??… If we don’t agree on what’s told, we do not have a mutual “truth”. That’s pretty simple.
“Truth” could be a set of statements that I believe are accurate. If you, also, believe they are accurate, then a “truth” has been told. It is a “truth” between us.
What about a “universal truth”! Does the whole universe believe the same? I don’t think you could know!! If you state that something is a “universal truth”, are you sure? Do you know everybody’s mind.? Couldn’t there be exceptions?
Why must you be so positive? Isn’t it enough to have “mutual agreement” among the people in the discussion?
By being so “positive”, aren’t you starting an argument?
As a matter of interest, what is your purpose for being so “positive”? Do you expect agreement by being so “positive”? Do you think you’ll get acceptance of your thoughts? …. I don’t think so!!! I think you’ll be starting a “defense”.
So, a “truth” is really an understanding, a mutual agreement, and an acceptance of a state of facts or ideas, between participants in a discussion. If you’re not a participant, it may not be a “truth” to you!!
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Personal - #501 - #15 – What’s the meaning of: “Selfish”
“You’re too selfish!” …… “Stop being so selfish!” …. “All you think about is yourself!”
Would you agree that “selfish” is a bad thing?
You would?
Well, let’s try another story…..
A man sees his best friend drowning in the lake. He, himself, is not a strong swimmer; but he takes off his shoes and dives in. He tries to swim out and save his friend. ….. IS HE “SELFISH”?
Why did he do it?
Could he have done it because something inside himself said to try? Could he have done it to satisfy “himself”? Could the “act” be beneficial to his friend; but the rescue “attempt” be to satisfy something within “himself”? …. Is this “selfish”? …. Done for “oneself”!!!
Could it be that “being selfish” is NOT so bad!!!
Can the “good” and the “bad” of selfish lie in a “definition”?
May I propose the following……
The only time “selfish” is BAD, is when you do something for yourself “at the expense of another!!!
If you do something for yourself (i.e. save a drowning friend to satisfy an urge within yourself) only GOOD can come from being “selfish”.
But…. If you take food away from your friend to satisfy your own hunger (at the expense of your friend) that would be a “bad” selfishness.
So there are two “selfish-nesses”……
1. A “selfishness” to serve yourself “at the expense of another”
2. And… A “selfishness” to serve yourself at “NO” expense to another; because you have an inner need to help, an inner need to serve, an inner need to follow… (You wish to do it for “yourself!)
So what’s wrong in being “selfish”? ……
NOTHING, if it’s the right “selfish”!
(Be careful when you use the word “selfish”. It may NOT be what you mean!!!)
Would you agree that “selfish” is a bad thing?
You would?
Well, let’s try another story…..
A man sees his best friend drowning in the lake. He, himself, is not a strong swimmer; but he takes off his shoes and dives in. He tries to swim out and save his friend. ….. IS HE “SELFISH”?
Why did he do it?
Could he have done it because something inside himself said to try? Could he have done it to satisfy “himself”? Could the “act” be beneficial to his friend; but the rescue “attempt” be to satisfy something within “himself”? …. Is this “selfish”? …. Done for “oneself”!!!
Could it be that “being selfish” is NOT so bad!!!
Can the “good” and the “bad” of selfish lie in a “definition”?
May I propose the following……
The only time “selfish” is BAD, is when you do something for yourself “at the expense of another!!!
If you do something for yourself (i.e. save a drowning friend to satisfy an urge within yourself) only GOOD can come from being “selfish”.
But…. If you take food away from your friend to satisfy your own hunger (at the expense of your friend) that would be a “bad” selfishness.
So there are two “selfish-nesses”……
1. A “selfishness” to serve yourself “at the expense of another”
2. And… A “selfishness” to serve yourself at “NO” expense to another; because you have an inner need to help, an inner need to serve, an inner need to follow… (You wish to do it for “yourself!)
So what’s wrong in being “selfish”? ……
NOTHING, if it’s the right “selfish”!
(Be careful when you use the word “selfish”. It may NOT be what you mean!!!)
Monday, March 17, 2008
Personal - #501 - #14 – What’s the difference between a “friend” and an “acquaintance”?
“Young man, how many friends have you got?”
“Oh, I guess I have six friends!”
Young man, what’s a friend?”
“err, ahh, hmm, …..”
“Well you had six. What were they?” …… “What’s a friend?”
Well someone I trust.”
“OK. There’s a man in the middle of traffic in a blue uniform. He directs traffic. Do you trust him?”
“yeah, sort of….”
“Is he a friend?”
******************
This is a typical conversation. The young man knows he has something but he really doesn’t know what it is. He’s never been confronted about what he said. He’s never been questioned about his own words. Isn’t this typical about most conversations? Instead of defensively regurgitating your opinions, shouldn’t you first find out what the meaning of the conversation is? …… What the definitions of the terms are….. If there can be a mutual agreement on what was said?
*******************
What’s the problem about “NOT KNOWING”?
Well, you may have thought you had a friend and he turned out to be just an acquaintance!
You didn’t lose a friend! You lost an acquaintance!
Doesn’t this change things? Doesn’t this make a difference to you? Do you feel as bad knowing you just lost an acquaintance?
But, if you don’t know the difference ……
You may have “wished on this person” all the attributes you wanted but may never have existed in him . You may have put your trust in a person who was not your friend but merely an acquaintance
Go to the bathroom and look in the mirror and see someone who has made a mistake!
Now, do you see the value in knowing the difference.?
*********************
By the way, this is a very important issue. Do you have a personal definition for the words “you use to yourself”; or, do you just put a common label on things and suffer the consequences?
*********************
Suppose I mention a few differences between a “friend” and an “acquaintance”:
A “friend” is:
a. A friend is usually someone you know over a reasonably longer time.
b. A friend is someone you have tried to share ideas, confidences and deep personal feelings with.
c. And, yes, someone you ,at least, trust.
d. A friend is someone you care deeply about, you have confidence in.
e. A friend is someone whose advice and comfort you value and appreciate.
An “acquaintance” is:
a. Someone who you just met or occasionally meet. Someone you know for a short time. (They could be a new friend, but careful is the word here!)
b. An acquaintance is someone you “hold back” on, you don’t necessarily feel comfortable with, you feel a lack of confidence in.
c. Someone you think has some important values but you’re not quite sure.
d. Someone you “might like to “ care about.
*******************
When you begin to be more “defined”, more explicit with yourself, everything is better. You can enjoy your true friend more because you know better what his real, extraordinary values are to you. You can also be more careful about what you see in a newer acquaintance. You don’t have “to look in the mirror so much”!! You don’t feel as much pain, because you didn’t arrive at a place where you “wished” certain attributes in another only to find out that they didn’t exist in the first place. Life gets better, more orderly, less frustrating the more you know. But…. There is a choice!!
It’s always up to you!
(I hope you see the advantages of trying a little harder to mutually “define and understand”.)
“ Is there a successful alternative?”
“Oh, I guess I have six friends!”
Young man, what’s a friend?”
“err, ahh, hmm, …..”
“Well you had six. What were they?” …… “What’s a friend?”
Well someone I trust.”
“OK. There’s a man in the middle of traffic in a blue uniform. He directs traffic. Do you trust him?”
“yeah, sort of….”
“Is he a friend?”
******************
This is a typical conversation. The young man knows he has something but he really doesn’t know what it is. He’s never been confronted about what he said. He’s never been questioned about his own words. Isn’t this typical about most conversations? Instead of defensively regurgitating your opinions, shouldn’t you first find out what the meaning of the conversation is? …… What the definitions of the terms are….. If there can be a mutual agreement on what was said?
*******************
What’s the problem about “NOT KNOWING”?
Well, you may have thought you had a friend and he turned out to be just an acquaintance!
You didn’t lose a friend! You lost an acquaintance!
Doesn’t this change things? Doesn’t this make a difference to you? Do you feel as bad knowing you just lost an acquaintance?
But, if you don’t know the difference ……
You may have “wished on this person” all the attributes you wanted but may never have existed in him . You may have put your trust in a person who was not your friend but merely an acquaintance
Go to the bathroom and look in the mirror and see someone who has made a mistake!
Now, do you see the value in knowing the difference.?
*********************
By the way, this is a very important issue. Do you have a personal definition for the words “you use to yourself”; or, do you just put a common label on things and suffer the consequences?
*********************
Suppose I mention a few differences between a “friend” and an “acquaintance”:
A “friend” is:
a. A friend is usually someone you know over a reasonably longer time.
b. A friend is someone you have tried to share ideas, confidences and deep personal feelings with.
c. And, yes, someone you ,at least, trust.
d. A friend is someone you care deeply about, you have confidence in.
e. A friend is someone whose advice and comfort you value and appreciate.
An “acquaintance” is:
a. Someone who you just met or occasionally meet. Someone you know for a short time. (They could be a new friend, but careful is the word here!)
b. An acquaintance is someone you “hold back” on, you don’t necessarily feel comfortable with, you feel a lack of confidence in.
c. Someone you think has some important values but you’re not quite sure.
d. Someone you “might like to “ care about.
*******************
When you begin to be more “defined”, more explicit with yourself, everything is better. You can enjoy your true friend more because you know better what his real, extraordinary values are to you. You can also be more careful about what you see in a newer acquaintance. You don’t have “to look in the mirror so much”!! You don’t feel as much pain, because you didn’t arrive at a place where you “wished” certain attributes in another only to find out that they didn’t exist in the first place. Life gets better, more orderly, less frustrating the more you know. But…. There is a choice!!
It’s always up to you!
(I hope you see the advantages of trying a little harder to mutually “define and understand”.)
“ Is there a successful alternative?”
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Personal - #501 - #13 – Everybody’s 5” x 7” card catalogue system
Everybody has a personal 5”x7” card catalogue system in a “box”.
There are at least two ways to use this personal “box”.
As you hear or read something you write a personal 5”x7” card.
1) Some people spend their whole lives reading their cards to other people. Some of the cards are read so many times that they become torn, tattered and destroyed from overuse. But one thing I can assure you …. At the end of your life you will have fewer cards than you started with.
2) Another way to use your 5”x7” card system is to walk around with a few empty cards in your hand, eager to write a new one. Rather than read your cards, you look for the opportunity to write a new card. As you write the new one you can either compare it with one you already have and decide the old one is still better than the new one and you can throw the new one away. At least, upon review, you have now decided that your old thought was better than your new one. But perhaps you don’t even have an old card written for this new thought. So, you merely add a new card to your “box”.
One thing I can assure you …. At the end of your life you will have more cards than you started with!!!
How is your card catalogue “system”?
How do you use this 5”x7” card system?
Will you have more cards or less cards at the end of your life?
It’s all about learning and having new ideas. If all you do is read your old cards over and over again how can you ever learn anything new?
Be certain of one thing!! …….
We all have a “personal card catalogue system”!
At least you now have two choices!! … two ways to use this system!! ….
You choose!!
There are at least two ways to use this personal “box”.
As you hear or read something you write a personal 5”x7” card.
1) Some people spend their whole lives reading their cards to other people. Some of the cards are read so many times that they become torn, tattered and destroyed from overuse. But one thing I can assure you …. At the end of your life you will have fewer cards than you started with.
2) Another way to use your 5”x7” card system is to walk around with a few empty cards in your hand, eager to write a new one. Rather than read your cards, you look for the opportunity to write a new card. As you write the new one you can either compare it with one you already have and decide the old one is still better than the new one and you can throw the new one away. At least, upon review, you have now decided that your old thought was better than your new one. But perhaps you don’t even have an old card written for this new thought. So, you merely add a new card to your “box”.
One thing I can assure you …. At the end of your life you will have more cards than you started with!!!
How is your card catalogue “system”?
How do you use this 5”x7” card system?
Will you have more cards or less cards at the end of your life?
It’s all about learning and having new ideas. If all you do is read your old cards over and over again how can you ever learn anything new?
Be certain of one thing!! …….
We all have a “personal card catalogue system”!
At least you now have two choices!! … two ways to use this system!! ….
You choose!!
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Personal - #501 - #66 - Can Obama fix the “Prime Loan” debacle!
Is the “Consolidation of loans “a National Failure”?
Can we legally redo a contract?
Can we adjudicate “fraud and speculation”?
Can we legally force people or organizations to take a loss?
Can you save yourself from ignorance and greed?
Is all this too complicated “to do” anything ?
Can we find a way to take a loss? If the house I bought priced too high…. So what?
If the mortgage I read about, was beyond my ability to pay without relying on an ever increasing value of this house; do I have a way NOT to take a loss?
Is the fact that I “could not” or “did not” relieve myself to read the obligation I just signed mean that the paper I just signed was suddenly invalid?.... What of other pieces of paper, other contracts?
Does the fact that the paper was hard to read, make it invalid? …. “Whose loss is it anyway?”
Who decides if it was too hard to read?.... What is the standard of “too hard”?
Once I signed and approved of the piece of paper whose liability was the person who approved and signed it….the “piece of paper”?….the person who agreed to what was said on the piece of paper?..... the person who brought then piece of paper?
“Whose loss is it anyway?”
There is no reasonable way to change the law of “Contracts”. (Loans, etc.)
There simply is no way to say “Whose loss is it, anyway!”
“There is simply no equitable solution” except to have rules of engagement changed to prevent this from happening again!(Once the horse is in the barn, there is little to do “equitably”!)
Can we legally redo a contract?
Can we adjudicate “fraud and speculation”?
Can we legally force people or organizations to take a loss?
Can you save yourself from ignorance and greed?
Is all this too complicated “to do” anything ?
Can we find a way to take a loss? If the house I bought priced too high…. So what?
If the mortgage I read about, was beyond my ability to pay without relying on an ever increasing value of this house; do I have a way NOT to take a loss?
Is the fact that I “could not” or “did not” relieve myself to read the obligation I just signed mean that the paper I just signed was suddenly invalid?.... What of other pieces of paper, other contracts?
Does the fact that the paper was hard to read, make it invalid? …. “Whose loss is it anyway?”
Who decides if it was too hard to read?.... What is the standard of “too hard”?
Once I signed and approved of the piece of paper whose liability was the person who approved and signed it….the “piece of paper”?….the person who agreed to what was said on the piece of paper?..... the person who brought then piece of paper?
“Whose loss is it anyway?”
There is no reasonable way to change the law of “Contracts”. (Loans, etc.)
There simply is no way to say “Whose loss is it, anyway!”
“There is simply no equitable solution” except to have rules of engagement changed to prevent this from happening again!(Once the horse is in the barn, there is little to do “equitably”!)
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Personal - #501 - #12 – What’s the difference between:“Discrimination” versus simple “Choice”
There’s a certain unpleasant feeling about the word “Discrimination”. However making a “simple choice” brings little or no reaction whatsoever. How come??
Could it be that there is a lack of “definition” between the two? Could it be a “politically correct” issue …
When you select and finally buy a beautiful china service, and “you” have “discriminating taste”, is that what “you” mean by “discriminating”?
If you have special knowledge and “you” are able to “discriminate” between a genuine antique and a copy, is that what “you” mean by “discriminating”?
Awh! You know what I mean!!! …… Oh, really??
If you don’t want profanity around your children and you “discriminate” between the people you invite to your home, is that what “you” mean by “discriminate”?
When you personally favor one person or group over another, is that “choice” or “discrimination”?
We make choices every day. Which “choice” is “discrimination”? When does “choice” become “discrimination”? “Who” determines the difference? As a matter of fact, “what” determines the difference? What are you talking about?
Here, again, we have an area of “mutual misunderstanding”.
Would you be so upset if we used the word “choice” instead of “discriminate”?
What do mean when you want to talk about the issue of “Discrimination”?
1. Do you need special knowledge to participate in “discrimination”?
2. Do you need special races, minorities, or, religions to be involved when you apply the word “discrimination”.
3. Must the outcome of the “discrimination” be bad in order to use the word? Can there be “good discrimination”?
4. Must “discrimination” be between people? … or, perhaps, “thoughts”?
5. What’s the “alternative” to “discrimination”? … Is there an “alternative”?
6. How do these same questions apply to the word “choice” … “simple choices”?
(Don’t you think that before you get “riled up” you ought to have a discussion about these types of questions before you focus on “discrimination”? Maybe you were talking about “choices’ all the time? If there’s a legal definition to your discussion, it would seem appropriate to state the legal definition and see if there is “mutual” understanding to even what “that” MEANS!!! ….Just a thought!!)
Could it be that there is a lack of “definition” between the two? Could it be a “politically correct” issue …
When you select and finally buy a beautiful china service, and “you” have “discriminating taste”, is that what “you” mean by “discriminating”?
If you have special knowledge and “you” are able to “discriminate” between a genuine antique and a copy, is that what “you” mean by “discriminating”?
Awh! You know what I mean!!! …… Oh, really??
If you don’t want profanity around your children and you “discriminate” between the people you invite to your home, is that what “you” mean by “discriminate”?
When you personally favor one person or group over another, is that “choice” or “discrimination”?
We make choices every day. Which “choice” is “discrimination”? When does “choice” become “discrimination”? “Who” determines the difference? As a matter of fact, “what” determines the difference? What are you talking about?
Here, again, we have an area of “mutual misunderstanding”.
Would you be so upset if we used the word “choice” instead of “discriminate”?
What do mean when you want to talk about the issue of “Discrimination”?
1. Do you need special knowledge to participate in “discrimination”?
2. Do you need special races, minorities, or, religions to be involved when you apply the word “discrimination”.
3. Must the outcome of the “discrimination” be bad in order to use the word? Can there be “good discrimination”?
4. Must “discrimination” be between people? … or, perhaps, “thoughts”?
5. What’s the “alternative” to “discrimination”? … Is there an “alternative”?
6. How do these same questions apply to the word “choice” … “simple choices”?
(Don’t you think that before you get “riled up” you ought to have a discussion about these types of questions before you focus on “discrimination”? Maybe you were talking about “choices’ all the time? If there’s a legal definition to your discussion, it would seem appropriate to state the legal definition and see if there is “mutual” understanding to even what “that” MEANS!!! ….Just a thought!!)
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Personal - #501 - #11 – What’s the definition of: “a meaningful relationship”
“Most people wouldn’t know a “meaningful relationship” if it hit ‘em in the mouth!!!” …. Wow!!!
What a statement! … Make you mad? … Did you think you knew???
Let’s explore……!
1. What’s the word “meaningful” mean? Meaningful as “valuable? Or, meaningful as, just “serious”? Meaningful to just me or to both of us? How do I know it’s meaningful to you? How do I check? Or, is this a one way street? … O.K. with me, or, not OK with me? …. Important to me , or, not important to me?
2. What makes it “valuable”? … “Valuable” to me? … What makes it “valuable” to you? … Do I care? (By the way, what does the word “valuable” mean to both of us?)
3. What in heavens name does the word “relationship” mean???
“At least, I’m sure I understand him!!… or ….. I don’t really know if he understands me, but, I think he does!”
(By the way, what does the word “understand” mean to each of us? Is it “agree”, “disagree”, etc.?)
4. Does “relationship” include two way, mutually understandable communication; or, is “closeness” enough? How do you find out?.. Even you .. are “you” qualified to judge? What is his “judgement”? How do you find out?
5. Is “respect” involved in a “meaningful relationship”? (You know what’s coming!)
(What’s your “mutual definition” of “respect”? Are you talking about “fear”, “discipline”, intellectual respect, ethnic or age respect? What “are” you talking about?)
So you see, maybe “having a meaningful relationship” is not so easy to recognize. Maybe what’s a “meaningful relationship” to you is not the same as to another person. Maybe you expect too much from something that isn’t there!! Maybe it never was there!!! Maybe you threw away the only “meaningful relationship’ you ever had but didn’t recognize it as such!!!
I present these few questions as a kind of map that you can explore to see if “what you think is what you’ve got!!” ….. “Is there a successful alternative?”
To have a “meaningful relationship”, you must try to mutually communicate and answer some of these questions and more. If you think you have a “relationship” is that enough? Do you have to care whether the other person is involved? As long as you are satisfied, is that enough?
It is, if you don’t change your mind and begin to expect even more. Maybe it wasn’t there in the first place. Maybe you didn’t know enough to care whether it was or was not. But now you do care! What now?
You may have a price to pay. If it isn’t there, the value of the relationship to you may not warrant you staying in it. If it’s, truly, “that valuable to you”, you must recognize it and make the appropriate move.
But, it is just as important to you that you recognize the true “value to you”, as opposed to the “next step”. Maybe, in light of the next step, your opinion of its importance to you is less!
You’ll never know unless you think about it. It will NOT just “come to you”!
Obviously a lot of mutually, well defined, communication is required. Are you, yourself, capable and motivated to achieve such communication. Is your “other half” capable and motivated? Maybe your relationship should remain just that …”a relationship”. Maybe it’s NOT a “meaningful relationship”! Maybe it doesn’t have to be!!! It may be good enough for now. What’s wrong with that? The only problem with this is that, if you begin to expect more, if you begin to want more; you may not be able to find it. It just might not be there! Look in the bathroom mirror and say… “I made a mistake. I thought that I had more. I never tried to find out. I can’t be disappointed because I received what I thought I wanted. I just changed!!!” No harm in that ….. and no stomachache either!!!
The heartache comes when all this comes as a surprise!! Now, there’s no need for surprise. … a little disappointment, but no surprise! Time to either “accept” or “to move on”! … What’s it really worth to you?
I find there is simply no substitute for “understanding”!
What a statement! … Make you mad? … Did you think you knew???
Let’s explore……!
1. What’s the word “meaningful” mean? Meaningful as “valuable? Or, meaningful as, just “serious”? Meaningful to just me or to both of us? How do I know it’s meaningful to you? How do I check? Or, is this a one way street? … O.K. with me, or, not OK with me? …. Important to me , or, not important to me?
2. What makes it “valuable”? … “Valuable” to me? … What makes it “valuable” to you? … Do I care? (By the way, what does the word “valuable” mean to both of us?)
3. What in heavens name does the word “relationship” mean???
“At least, I’m sure I understand him!!… or ….. I don’t really know if he understands me, but, I think he does!”
(By the way, what does the word “understand” mean to each of us? Is it “agree”, “disagree”, etc.?)
4. Does “relationship” include two way, mutually understandable communication; or, is “closeness” enough? How do you find out?.. Even you .. are “you” qualified to judge? What is his “judgement”? How do you find out?
5. Is “respect” involved in a “meaningful relationship”? (You know what’s coming!)
(What’s your “mutual definition” of “respect”? Are you talking about “fear”, “discipline”, intellectual respect, ethnic or age respect? What “are” you talking about?)
So you see, maybe “having a meaningful relationship” is not so easy to recognize. Maybe what’s a “meaningful relationship” to you is not the same as to another person. Maybe you expect too much from something that isn’t there!! Maybe it never was there!!! Maybe you threw away the only “meaningful relationship’ you ever had but didn’t recognize it as such!!!
I present these few questions as a kind of map that you can explore to see if “what you think is what you’ve got!!” ….. “Is there a successful alternative?”
To have a “meaningful relationship”, you must try to mutually communicate and answer some of these questions and more. If you think you have a “relationship” is that enough? Do you have to care whether the other person is involved? As long as you are satisfied, is that enough?
It is, if you don’t change your mind and begin to expect even more. Maybe it wasn’t there in the first place. Maybe you didn’t know enough to care whether it was or was not. But now you do care! What now?
You may have a price to pay. If it isn’t there, the value of the relationship to you may not warrant you staying in it. If it’s, truly, “that valuable to you”, you must recognize it and make the appropriate move.
But, it is just as important to you that you recognize the true “value to you”, as opposed to the “next step”. Maybe, in light of the next step, your opinion of its importance to you is less!
You’ll never know unless you think about it. It will NOT just “come to you”!
Obviously a lot of mutually, well defined, communication is required. Are you, yourself, capable and motivated to achieve such communication. Is your “other half” capable and motivated? Maybe your relationship should remain just that …”a relationship”. Maybe it’s NOT a “meaningful relationship”! Maybe it doesn’t have to be!!! It may be good enough for now. What’s wrong with that? The only problem with this is that, if you begin to expect more, if you begin to want more; you may not be able to find it. It just might not be there! Look in the bathroom mirror and say… “I made a mistake. I thought that I had more. I never tried to find out. I can’t be disappointed because I received what I thought I wanted. I just changed!!!” No harm in that ….. and no stomachache either!!!
The heartache comes when all this comes as a surprise!! Now, there’s no need for surprise. … a little disappointment, but no surprise! Time to either “accept” or “to move on”! … What’s it really worth to you?
I find there is simply no substitute for “understanding”!
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Personal - #501 - #10 – I don’t understand even the “basics” of…..What’s legal and what’s not?
There are now “seven” legal ways to commit murder!
Eye-witness testimony is not considered “good” evidence!
A newly educated public jury now finds “reasonable doubt” in everything!
“Reasonable” is now an indeterminate term of negotiation!
We play in the field of “lawyers”! “We”, the general public, can no longer figure out “What’s legal and what’s not”! It takes two competing lawyers and a jury to decide whether we are right or wrong.
The jury is chosen by experts that normally do not allow formally educated or reasonably “professionals” to be part of the selection. The selection is based upon one of the professional’s idea of what’s best for his client. Justice is NOT sought! Innocence or guilt is NOT sought!
We are trying to find out whether a situation is “more or less” guilty or innocent. It is a contest! It is not a field for the general public. It is a playing field for “experts”.
No wonder we don’t understand what’s legal and what’s not!
The basic question is:
“For how long can this deterioration of the respect for “the law” continue before (out of frustration), people begin to administer “the law” in their own hands.
Are we beginning to see the beginning?
If I don’t like you, I take the law in my own hands.
If you “disrespect me”, I take the law in my own hands.
As long as I think I’m “right”, “my” law is ok.
Is this what’s happening?…. Is this what fills the newspapers ?
What exactly is “unnecessary or undue force”?
What is “self defense”?
What am I allowed to do to protect myself or my property?
When am I “in danger”?
What do I do when the so-called “law” is not there to protect me?
Is there a clear, mutually understandable explanation somewhere?
Where is it? … Don’t you think this ought to be available to everyone? …or is this such a complicated “legal” issue that the ordinary person could not understand it?
Yet, the ordinary person is required to understand something he can’t comprehend.
How can this be?
You have rules that are not easily understandable. Where do you learn these rules? At what age do you begin? Who teaches these rules?
What do you do when an officer of the court (a lawyer) says…..”I’m supposed to deal with the Law as it is written. I do not want to know if my client is guilty or not guilty. I am here to practice the law and I owe my client to present his best defense. I will use every effort to use the law to gain my objective. I will defend him or convict him whichever is my purpose.
It is up to the jury to decide which was the better presentation…. Definitely not who is guilty or innocent!!! There is no “moral” point of view. It is merely a professional “presentation”!!
Is it any wonder that “respect for the law” is diminishing !
First, people don’t know what it is!
Secondly, how do you hold people responsible for something they don’t understand!
If all this sounds frustrating, it is meant to be so!
Is this another case of “Well, we don’t know what the answers are?”
It is so easy to send a man to the moon or make a new drug discovery. But the real important issues are giving people a “headache” and they don’t want to be bothered. Believe me, you’ll be bothered when you have to protect yourself one day!!
My email address is: glfstudent@aol.com
I’m open for suggestions!!
Eye-witness testimony is not considered “good” evidence!
A newly educated public jury now finds “reasonable doubt” in everything!
“Reasonable” is now an indeterminate term of negotiation!
We play in the field of “lawyers”! “We”, the general public, can no longer figure out “What’s legal and what’s not”! It takes two competing lawyers and a jury to decide whether we are right or wrong.
The jury is chosen by experts that normally do not allow formally educated or reasonably “professionals” to be part of the selection. The selection is based upon one of the professional’s idea of what’s best for his client. Justice is NOT sought! Innocence or guilt is NOT sought!
We are trying to find out whether a situation is “more or less” guilty or innocent. It is a contest! It is not a field for the general public. It is a playing field for “experts”.
No wonder we don’t understand what’s legal and what’s not!
The basic question is:
“For how long can this deterioration of the respect for “the law” continue before (out of frustration), people begin to administer “the law” in their own hands.
Are we beginning to see the beginning?
If I don’t like you, I take the law in my own hands.
If you “disrespect me”, I take the law in my own hands.
As long as I think I’m “right”, “my” law is ok.
Is this what’s happening?…. Is this what fills the newspapers ?
What exactly is “unnecessary or undue force”?
What is “self defense”?
What am I allowed to do to protect myself or my property?
When am I “in danger”?
What do I do when the so-called “law” is not there to protect me?
Is there a clear, mutually understandable explanation somewhere?
Where is it? … Don’t you think this ought to be available to everyone? …or is this such a complicated “legal” issue that the ordinary person could not understand it?
Yet, the ordinary person is required to understand something he can’t comprehend.
How can this be?
You have rules that are not easily understandable. Where do you learn these rules? At what age do you begin? Who teaches these rules?
What do you do when an officer of the court (a lawyer) says…..”I’m supposed to deal with the Law as it is written. I do not want to know if my client is guilty or not guilty. I am here to practice the law and I owe my client to present his best defense. I will use every effort to use the law to gain my objective. I will defend him or convict him whichever is my purpose.
It is up to the jury to decide which was the better presentation…. Definitely not who is guilty or innocent!!! There is no “moral” point of view. It is merely a professional “presentation”!!
Is it any wonder that “respect for the law” is diminishing !
First, people don’t know what it is!
Secondly, how do you hold people responsible for something they don’t understand!
If all this sounds frustrating, it is meant to be so!
Is this another case of “Well, we don’t know what the answers are?”
It is so easy to send a man to the moon or make a new drug discovery. But the real important issues are giving people a “headache” and they don’t want to be bothered. Believe me, you’ll be bothered when you have to protect yourself one day!!
My email address is: glfstudent@aol.com
I’m open for suggestions!!
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Personal - #501 - #09 - The enormous value of “doubt”….the sin of “certainty”
Many people “must” have a “certainty”. They cannot live with “doubt”.
For them, the pain of “doubt” is so enormous that they cannot live successfully. They must have a “definite” answer … a definite limit … a “finite” understanding. If there are any “unanswered” questions, they are more than just uncomfortable … They feel “painfully” insecure.
To “others”, the mere fact that a “doubt” exists is a challenge. A “challenge” to find something still missing … something to be understood. For them, a life without the possibility of asking more questions …of being challenged by continuing “uncertainty”, is a life without adventure … a life without “challenge”. They would be uncomfortably “bored”.
“The sin of certainty” would mean that there could be no more questions. There would be nothing more to “find out”. There would be an “answer”, a completion. For them, there might be no more purpose in living further…..
It is the continuing “search” that gives many human beings a desire to exist. The “challenge” is the blood of life…. The energy to keep on living … keep on trying. To them, “The sin of certainty” is an end to research … an end to adventure.
And so you see there are choices...... Which one are you??
Your behavior is a product of which choice you make… or… to which choice you are “leaning”!
You do not have to be on one end of the scale or the other. There are “gradations”. You can “lean”.
But, whichever choice you favor will color your approach to most everything. If there is only one complete answer for you, you will not tolerate a question. You will not tolerate a different point of view. In fact, you may always end up “defending” your “certainty”!
On the other hand, if you believe in “The value of doubt”, you will encourage challenges. You will be more willing to share your ideas rather than “defend” them!
If Politics, Death, Religion, Infinity, etc. are problems for you, you may try to protect yourself by “certainty” … by one answer, one explanation. You will not accept “challenges” …You will most likely “defend”.
This is a choice you are making!
On the other hand, if these subjects are of increasing interest and “doubt”, you will enjoy the “sharing” of different points of view and will only seek discourse. You know (for you) that “certainty” is a death knell to further “adventure”. You eagerly await a different point of view … new information, new research.
I wonder if you ever thought about this?
I wonder if you might change or “lean” towards a different point of view?
Successful relationships may be enhanced, at least, by knowing which choice the other party seems to be making. What’s the use of engaging another if there is an ultimate difference in “choices”. One party wants to “defend” and the other party wants a new “adventure”. Might as well stay home and take a nice warm bath!!
Without “doubt” there would be no research. Without “doubt” there would be no desire to explore, to learn more. Without “doubt” there would be no motivation to “try”. The world would cease to undertake “change” … improvement …. motion. The “ships of state” would lie dead in the water. There would be no “change in direction”. But there would be “certainty”!!!
Isn’t it true that at the end of your “defense”, things remain exactly as they were?
No new thoughts were encouraged … just an advocacy of already conceived ideas.
Sorry, but I think this is a terrible waste!!!
So, I believe strongly that “There is an enormous value in doubt” and there is a “Sin of certainty”.
For them, the pain of “doubt” is so enormous that they cannot live successfully. They must have a “definite” answer … a definite limit … a “finite” understanding. If there are any “unanswered” questions, they are more than just uncomfortable … They feel “painfully” insecure.
To “others”, the mere fact that a “doubt” exists is a challenge. A “challenge” to find something still missing … something to be understood. For them, a life without the possibility of asking more questions …of being challenged by continuing “uncertainty”, is a life without adventure … a life without “challenge”. They would be uncomfortably “bored”.
“The sin of certainty” would mean that there could be no more questions. There would be nothing more to “find out”. There would be an “answer”, a completion. For them, there might be no more purpose in living further…..
It is the continuing “search” that gives many human beings a desire to exist. The “challenge” is the blood of life…. The energy to keep on living … keep on trying. To them, “The sin of certainty” is an end to research … an end to adventure.
And so you see there are choices...... Which one are you??
Your behavior is a product of which choice you make… or… to which choice you are “leaning”!
You do not have to be on one end of the scale or the other. There are “gradations”. You can “lean”.
But, whichever choice you favor will color your approach to most everything. If there is only one complete answer for you, you will not tolerate a question. You will not tolerate a different point of view. In fact, you may always end up “defending” your “certainty”!
On the other hand, if you believe in “The value of doubt”, you will encourage challenges. You will be more willing to share your ideas rather than “defend” them!
If Politics, Death, Religion, Infinity, etc. are problems for you, you may try to protect yourself by “certainty” … by one answer, one explanation. You will not accept “challenges” …You will most likely “defend”.
This is a choice you are making!
On the other hand, if these subjects are of increasing interest and “doubt”, you will enjoy the “sharing” of different points of view and will only seek discourse. You know (for you) that “certainty” is a death knell to further “adventure”. You eagerly await a different point of view … new information, new research.
I wonder if you ever thought about this?
I wonder if you might change or “lean” towards a different point of view?
Successful relationships may be enhanced, at least, by knowing which choice the other party seems to be making. What’s the use of engaging another if there is an ultimate difference in “choices”. One party wants to “defend” and the other party wants a new “adventure”. Might as well stay home and take a nice warm bath!!
Without “doubt” there would be no research. Without “doubt” there would be no desire to explore, to learn more. Without “doubt” there would be no motivation to “try”. The world would cease to undertake “change” … improvement …. motion. The “ships of state” would lie dead in the water. There would be no “change in direction”. But there would be “certainty”!!!
Isn’t it true that at the end of your “defense”, things remain exactly as they were?
No new thoughts were encouraged … just an advocacy of already conceived ideas.
Sorry, but I think this is a terrible waste!!!
So, I believe strongly that “There is an enormous value in doubt” and there is a “Sin of certainty”.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)