« On the State of Affairs | Main | Steve Earle »
Decency
August 11, 2004
We're back from our annual vacation to the West Coast of Michigan. A grand time was had by the Huffmans and the Jenkins (and cousin Hucek). This year was slightly different in that we didn't stay at the usual place, a cottage at a resort called Watervale, which Sarah and her parents have been visiting for approx. twenty years. No, this year we rented a cabin, literally a two minute drive from Watervale, from a coworker of Sarah's dad, Tom. Personally, I liked this place a bit better, as it had laundry facilities and a bit more privacy and space. Some, however, would have preferred to stay at the usual place, but seeing as how this place was half the price, we couldn't really pass it up.
Alas, we're back, which is good in some ways, and not so good in others. I really oughta start playing the lottery. You know, you can't win if you don't play. And I never play, so...
Someone on TAG recently linked to this Kurt Vonnegut article, which I found to be hilarious and one of the more sane things I've read in a while. Vonnegut is so cool. Not bad for a guy from Indianapolis, eh? Anyway, what especially got my attention was this quote for Dave:
A sappy woman sent me a letter a few years back. She knew I was sappy, too, which is to say a lifelong northern Democrat in the Franklin Delano Roosevelt mode, a friend of the working stiffs. She was about to have a baby, not mine, and wished to know if it was a bad thing to bring such a sweet and innocent creature into a world as bad as this one is. I replied that what made being alive almost worthwhile for me, besides music, was all the saints I met, who could be anywhere. By saints I meant people who behaved decently in a strikingly indecent society. Perhaps some of you are or will become saints for her child to meet. You'll have to read the rest of the article, but I think that the part of acting decently in a strikingly indecent society is profound. I feel that most people struggle in their own ways to act decently. And that's the battle that we'll all fight for the rest of our lives. And I'm glad to fight that fight, to be honest with you. The idealist in me wants a perfect world, but the realist in me knows that that's impossible, so I think that what I really want is to act as decently as I can. And I want as many other folks (like YOU!) to act as decently as they can to illustrate to even more people that acting decently is it's own reward. I truly believe that that's the way to a perfect world, or as close as we can get. And I already know that Dave is a decent guy. He's a decent husband and he'll be a decent father. And each of us have that legacy to pass on.
All right, enough of the sappy shit. How do people like the links to the right? Are you checking them out, or do you all forget that they're there?
Search
Weblog Archives
About This Page
This is my weblog - a place for me to write about whatever interests me. The topic is a wildcard, but is likely to be about UI Design, Usability, Web Standards, Photography, Music, Politics, etc. Every once in a while even a little politics. Expect anything.
the links on the right are spot-on, chris. good way to post quick links with a short comment/bit of context. the only problem i see is that it means that your longer posts will now all be sappy, "my life is so good" type posts. ;)
I forgot about them until you mentioned them. A couple of reminders is all that it'll take, I suspect.
aiming to be decent - a worthwhile and noble gesture. i'll couple that with learning to embrace an imprefect world.
I'll remember when I'm driving my SUV (with windows up and AC cranking) and eating McDonald's before I go home to drink a few beers, smoke a few ciggies, crank up the AC, and turn on FOX News while running a very small load thru the washer and dryer that as long as I act decently, things will work out just fine. Thanks for advice.
And here I thought it was about acting responsibly.
Some would argue that acting decently implies being responsible, Phil.
I didn't think that the two were mutually exclusive.
I think they are mutually exclusive. My parents are very decent people, but that don't make responsible choices all the time...especially in terms of politics and the environment.
"Be decent to each other" sounds like United Methodist hogwash, not a responsible way of living life.
Decency, I would argue, depends upon responsible actions. I doubt that truly responsible people are very indecent. Again, I don't think that the two are mutually exclusive. You're example of your parents is faulty. Their irresponsibility is indecent, arguably, but perhaps it's just all semantics.
To your comment about Methodists: as an attender of a Methodist church, I find that blanket statement offensive and, honestly, somewhat arrogant. Irresponsible or indecent actions belong to the acting moral agent, they are not the responsibility of religious groups.
Well, my feelings about the United Methodist church aside (I was brought up that way and consider it Christianity Lite), I think that my point is valid and you're now trying to force a definition onto the word "decency" that is not accurate instead of just admitting that there's much more to being responsible than being decent.
glad you enjoyed your vacation, but it's back to work! (i need you to fix my comments;)
I'll agree that there is much more to being responsible than just being decent. I never said that there wasn't. All I've said is that in order to act decently you must display some ability to act responsibly and vice versa - that they are not mutually exclusive. I think that we're both illuminating our own standards toward "How to be a Good Person" (whatever that means). And to that, I would say that there are many things that you must be. Decent and responsible are two of them and they are not mutually exclusive. Now, you're parents may be one and not the other, but that's for you to say, not me.
For analogy, I could say that in order for one to drive safely, you must drive slowly. And furthermore, while driving slowly you should also drive defensively. Now, driving defensively is not exactly equivalent as driving slowy, but you ARE going to be (on average) safer by doing both, rather than just the one. Then it is wise to do both.
If what you are arguing is that decency is fine, but that responsibilty is a larger or greater goal, then fine. I can agree with that. I think that personal responsibility is very important, too. But, I felt that Vonnegut's words about acting decent were profound. It's not enough to just be responsible, you must also act decently. And I agree with that sentiment. We should all do both.
Jib, what's wrong with your comments?
when one posts, they get a cgi error. the post goes through, but the comment number stays the same on my index until i rebuild the site.
this all heppened after i went to mt 3, and tried to impliment typekey, which i backed out of.
i never changed any code, so i don't know what the problem is.
I disagree. When Christ went on his rampage through the temple turning over the table's of the moneychangers, I think he was behaving responsibly but not decently.
Personally, I'm so frustrated with the world and the people in it at this point, that I really empathize with the rampaging Christ. Being polite and decent only goes so far. Sometimes you have to get in people's faces and perhaps bruise their delicate sensibilities to get their friggin' attention and wake them up from their waking sleep.
Believing that things will get better if we all just treat each other decently is a pipe dream. Some people need to be grabbed by the scruff of the neck and shaken.
That, to me, is a major distinction between acting decently and being responsible.
I understand the sentiment of the article and of your wish that we all treat each other decently. I merely wanted to point that a Bill and Ted "Be excellent to each other" philosophy smacks of pulp feelgoodism and that too often people draw the line on being responsible with politeness instead of getting outraged at how completely friggin' messed up the world is.
Fantastic debate. You both make great points! Best debate in a long while. I have to agree with Phil (looking at all points) but I dig like Chris's driving analogy.
I think a great debate is 1) where the shit gets out
2) something topically timely 3) where both parties keep their heads (for the most part) [So, there it is...I am of the decent camp, in that regard] But I am also in agreement with the rampaging Christ idea. Which Chris aptly pointed out as the 'driving defensively' part of slow driving (decency.) The larger goal.
I think what Phil objects to mostly is the idea that in Chris's initial post, it smacked of isolationism. ("We, the decent...etc.") Phil would continue the document: ("We, the decent, blind, and soft...")
But overall, I think there's somewhat of an apples and oranges thing going on here.
Chris was really only reflecting on the "common sense" of decency and lack thereof. A revival of the common sense of decency would be a welcome sight for Chris (as it would for all).
No one could refute that EXCEPT if it compromised the "larger societal goal," which Phil cross-examines.
So, what I come up with is: "Decency if possible."
Or "Decency as dictated."
Anyway, I applaud you both for buttin' heads bravely. It's not easy to put 'em out there - the ensuing challenge can be scary. At that point one either concedes defeat or one clarifies. At which point the challenger either allows a "save face" or a "bad doggy/ who's my bitch."
If they're old friends like you two, then some bitch-slappin' might be good fun. If it's strangers, then I recommend "save face" [Bop! Here I am in the "decent" camp again!]
So: "Decency when decency permits"; but NOT "Decency at all costs."
But for some reason, the word "decency" rubs me the wrong way. Let's take for example one of my favorite comedians: Andrew "Dice" Clay. Perhaps one of the most objectionable comedians ever. (Not nearly as fiery and no-holds-barred as George Carlin, Carlin offers a more intelligent POV generally)
Question: Is Carlin decent?
Forget Dice for a second, I think I'll get to my point quicker with Carlin.
Carline has said some incredibly "indecent" things. "Indecent" as defined by the FCC etc. But Carlin is a "rampaging Christ" figure. He has a public shitfit every year on HBO which largely capitalizes on the criminal acts of public leaders etc.
We need Geroge Carlin; yet a lot of people won't let their kids watch him.
Well, that's where semantics gets me, John. I'd bet that I define decent differently than the FCC or the average American.
Christ's actions were indecent to others, but perhaps, considered appropriate to him and his followers.
I'd say that the dictionary definition of 'decent' doesn't work well for me because it requires a community standard be applied to define what is decent. In my view, decent is defined with common sense, not by a jury of imbeciles.
I thought maybe I'd find pay dirt with making a distiction between decent behavior and speech.
If we eliminate "decent" as a mode of conduct, a social instruction, then we get Crowley's: "Do what thou will" [which really means: do what is in your will to do, which, upon further understanding of the man and translation, means: do "The Will," which is in strcit accord with the will of others; which eventually makes its way to the "Golden Rule."
How do you get from Crowley to Jesus? Pot. [Is it decent for me to smoke it?]
Seriously, though: probably the most irrefutable mode of behavior or social instruction is "The Golden Rule." Do unto others...
People get all hot and bothered about the semantic ramifications of such a general rule. They say things like, "Yeah, but if I like being stuck in the eye with a thumb tack, then should I...?"
NO! that's not what it means t'all.
Here is an unquestionable interpretation or rewrite of the Golden Rule:
Be considerate.
But there is something that walks a fine line between anarchy and golden rule: "Do the right thing."
The "right" thing may or may not seem decent or seem a considerate thing to do. Also, it takes us into the duality of man. There simply exists opposition for every point of view. We go Socrates, we got "majority rules."
We go Jesus, we got: majority are ignorant. Ayn Rand would agree. Strange bed-fellows. It's amazing who actually ends up sleeping together in philosophy.
So, "Do what thou will" = golden rule = decency at all costs = Socrates
Or, "Do the right thing" = John Locke = Thoreau = Lucifer
I have to laugh now. Because upon close inspection of any blanket "social dictate" one can find his way into the opposite but from the same camp. It is a conundrum. And doing what I just did: generalizations, simplifications, etc. It does seem at once clarifying & ridiculous.
So my point is that there is no perfect social format that can be summarized in a overall creedo.
My personal favorite, Chris: (add NYC accent): "What can ya do..."
Wait, let me get it right: "What a ya gonna do...?"
He's a perfect stranger,
Like a cross
of himself and a fox.
He's a feeling arranger
And a changer
of the ways he talks.
He's the unforeseen danger
The keeper of
the key to the locks.
Know when you see him,
Nothing can free him.
Step aside, open wide,
It's the loner.
John, did you notice that I had been listening to that, or did you just drop that Neil Young lyric randomly?
No, I saw that you were listening to it; and I've been listening to a lot of Young lately as well, particulary his first album. Great song, great album, great artist!
What an absolutely adorable child!
"he Web Accessibility Toolbar has been developed to aid manual examination of web pages for a variety of aspects of accessibility. Brilliant!" yeah, brilliant. an accessability tool that only works if you're using IE. insert ironic comment here.
chris, how dare you write a namby-pamby post about the positives of acting decently without recognizing that any human being living in the US today is by definition indecent and therefore a pawn of the man and part of problem.
Ned, that's a lame statement that does not recognize either shades of grey or my point.
Yes, Ned, an accessibility toolbar that works for more than 75% of all web users. The goal is to bring all sites into compliance. Why do people continue to focus on the browser wars when the obvious goal isn't ONE browser for everyone, but rather one accessible web for everyone?
Unless your beef is with the developers made this thing and gave it away for FREE. Than I agree, damn those bastards for not tripling their efforts to make an Opera and Mozilla toolbar, as well. >:(
actually, chris, i thought the point of bringing sites into compliance was so that they weren't dependent on which browser you're using.... i'm just yanking your chain, of course, don't take my teasing too seriously. if someone wants to build cool tools and give them away i say more power to them. i'm just saying that if that tool was a website you'd say it wasn't kosher because it only works for IE. since most of the tools in that toolbar enhancement seem to be web-based anyway, i could see them just making it all online and not browser specific.
lame and lacking a recognition of shades of grey? hey, that's exactly how i'd describe your first response to chris' post, brother. but i agree, i don't get your point.
You're right, Ned, the point is to allow sites to be the same in all browsers. But, as you point out, this tool isn't a site, it's an add-on. With such things comes the proprietary nature of browsers. But you already know that and I know that you're just pointing it out. I don't mind a bit.
There are lots of sites that do most of the functions that that toolbar does. All the toolbar has done is dock it with IE. For a designer/developer like myself, it speeds up some processes.
I agree, though, that it'd be nice if such things weren't browser-specific, but that's a pipe dream. And, ultimately, the nature of that toolbar is to get the web to a level place where browsers with innovative features (like tabbed browsing and dockable aggregators) can duke it out over such meatier issues, rather than over display differences.
Oh, and I love mozilla as much as anyone, but I'm stuck designing to IE for now, and honestly, I don't ever see that changing.
The whole point of my first response was to point out the need for recognizing shades of grey and how blanket statements about a word as vague as "decency" are lacking when used to describe a way of life, i.e., that while it's tempting to try and boil everything down to one word, doing so is rarely, if ever, satisfying.
Furthermore, I went on to make an additional point about the word "responsibility" being a better term and then stated that decency and responsibility are not interchangable synonyms to make my point a tad clearer. But if saying you didn't get my point is your way of sidestepping discussing this with me, I can only wonder why you commented on my comments at all in the first place.
If you ask me, there was really a decent, though somewhat tongue-in-cheek and sarcastic, conversation going on until I stepped on toes with my "United Methodist" comment--which was a way of describing things in terms familiar to me and not an attack on Chris. I didn't know he was United Methodist. I was merely using the term based on my own experiences. Obviously, the tag line "Go ahead and speak your mind" doesn't apply to me.
i assume "Go ahead and speak your mind" refers to both of us; i assume you're not saying i shouldn't have spoken my mind.
you left what i thought was a pretty snarky comment in response to a post that seemed pretty innocuous to me, so it seemed appropriate for me to snark right back.
i recognize that you're frustrated with the world and want to bruise some sensibilities, i just don't see how chris' desire to live decently is such a bad thing. because trying to live a decent life isn't enough? okay, so it's not going to solve the world's problems, but it's not going to hurt, either. you can get into whether you think a decent person is by definition responsible or not, but as you say, there are all kinds of levels of responsibility and decency. you seem worried that folks are deluding themselves into thinking that by trying to live decently they're not doing anything wrong, which isn't how i read chris' original post. trying counts for something in my book. we're all just trying to do the best we can with what we've got, but we're irreversably flawed too.
i think john danced around close to my perspective on it (though you lost me when you got to morality algebra "Do the right thing" = John Locke = Thoreau = Lucifer). some people try harder to do the decent thing than others do, it's true. it seems to come easier for some people. some of my friends make decent living seem so effortless and simple; i've never felt like i've gotten it down. but i like to think i'm trying. i haven't given up on it. i'm still selfish and soft and narcacistic, and there's so much more i can be doing. so if the point was to remind me that trying to live decently doesn't equate with actually living decently, then point taken.
but like i said, it just seemed like a snarky comment, so that's how i responded.
chris: is most of the stuff you design for in-house customers? do you have stuff that only works in IE? and... do you ever work with Cold Fusion?
I never said being decent was a bad thing. I said that being decent was not enough. And, as I've pointed out more than once now, my issue is with the word decent and how with how vague it is.
By the way, I'm not out to bruise sensibilities for the sake of merely bruising sensibilities, but I'm not about to hold back on being honest for fear of doing so. If we can't be honest and express our feelings with each other, how is anything to be accomplished? I find that by expressing my positions, I am more likely to have someone call me out and thereby learn that something I may believe or think is not based on entirely sound logic. And, as I said, I welcome being called out. I am not defined by my past and what I have said (though others may dwell on where I stood when I began a conversation than on where I stand when all is said and done); I am defined by what I am and am becoming.
"If we can't be honest and express our feelings with each other, how is anything to be accomplished?" I agree. the other side of that coin is that if you throw attitude out there you can expect to get it back, which was all i was doing.
to get back to KurtV, he's got an introduction to one of his books (i wish i could remember which) where he talks about a letter he got from one of his readers. the letter basically said that the reader had figured out the point of all of vonnegut's writing, which was something like "Love may fail, but simple politeness will carry the day." (google didn't help me out much with this, but i think that's close to the quote i remember). KV says he didn't need to write another novel since this reader had summed up his perspective so nicely, but he'd already written one, so he was publishing it anyway.
i'm sceptical of the effectiveness of grabbing folks by the scruff of the neck and shaking them to get them to see the world differently (even though i can empathise with the impulse). i don't think it would work on me; i think i'd just resent it. and i suspect that such behavior takes place more often out of a desire to vent than to really change someone's mind about something. i wonder if the moneychangers jesus messed with came away with a different perspective or not. i tend to think they'd just make sure to buy more security to keep out the religious fanatics while they're doing business.
Yeah, that's a tough one. (interesting KV reference, wow - what a letter to get from a fan; must've been exhilarating for him.)
On one hand you got Heraclitus: "What anger wants, it buys at the price of soul," and on the other, the "kick-his-ass-Seabass Jesus."
So it seems all a matter of timing. If, in the beginning, Jesus grabbed his followers by the scruff, he'd have ended up alone; and he'd also be attacking the wrong people (those that are willing to listen.) Two unproductive actions.
First you must get acquainted, then you go for the throat. BUT, then you've hurt the ones you love (which is something that some seem to think is inevitable). OR, timing being in check, you procede then to stay even-tempered no matter what. UNTIL, you deem someone your enemy (or the beholder of enemy-like thoughts in the minds of friends.)
So now you must impress upon those who will listen to you (acquaintenances and friends) your true feelings about a subject without stepping on toes; though the most accurately portrayal of those feelings who be a kick in the groin!
The gamblers in the church were probably indifferent to Christ's cause; but still they got a swift kick in the groin. Christ saw them not as enemies, but he was pissed. And what if Thomas, a friend, said, "I don't believe you, JC." Would Christ exact a certain lesson/penalty for having found one of his disciples with his head in his ass.
Seems like Christ made a lot of split decisions.
I think Phil was trying to convey the energy behind his conviction by way of a "slap on the head." Not so much to Chris; but to the thoughts (and better, the ramifications of those thoughts) in Chris's mind.
Chris not being an enemy; Chris being willing to listen, Phil didn't kick him out of the temple, but took the oppurtunity to talk to the world, via Chris's comment box, not necessarily to Chris, though Phil does't like to hide behind the better angels of his nature. He just stands and delivers, if you hold William Tell's apple over your head, you get blasted. But it's never You, it's the apple on your head he's aiming for; but in doing so, he's not as careful as, say, William Tell.
I relate to this because I've got myself in all kinds of arguments in the Blog-world due to the fact that I've grappled with an argument and, inadvertantly, the people behind them. It's unfortunate both ways.
It's unfortunate to take it personal, and it's unfortunate to give it personally.
(strictly for the record, knowing that Ned wasn't asking for an explanation)
Man, the "do the right thing" = Locke = Thoreau = Lucifer...yowie, did I say that?? Okay, I must explain my thread:
"Doing the right thing" means that you've decided to side with your own perceptions of right & wrong; as opposed to the Confucianism: "what you do not want done to you, do not do to others." (The negative version of the Golden Rule, I guess).
When one decides on a course of action and defends that course, one is rationalizing h/er behavior. "I don't want bullets fired into my head," yet, I am firing bullets into the head of my enemy; therefore, I've already broke the rule.
BUT the rationale being that it's in defense. (Defense of what?) Of what YOU believe. And through it all, you "believe" that you are "doing the right thing." But that's a relative term. So this is why I went to Rousseau (though I mistakenly put Locke, was hoping, like a lot of my babblings, it would go unnoticed) but even so, in putting "do the right thing = Rosseau, I should've just kept out of algebraic oversimplifications.
It's in my basic understanding of some of the ramifications of some of Rousseau's political philosophies (mainly one): that once a democracy is set up, the "general will" of the people should be absolute. No deviations.
My logic saw this as a precursur to a totalitarian point of view, which, regarding this argument, relates to the action of those who come to decide that what they deem as "right" must be followed through, even at the cost of the golden rule. "I choose a course of righteousness" (which, in calling it "right" repudiates its relativity and, thusly, its true nature.) So, instead of just adhering to the Golden rule, I've gone ahead and decided what was right & what was wrong. In following my own perceptions I am free to ignore the golden rule.
Which leads me to Thoreau's denial of the norm for his own perceptions, which leads to Lucifer telling God where to go, (the very place he ended up.)
Still, not very sound algebra, wish I didn't put it that way. Oh well, I'm still fairly goofy sometimes.
Afterall, Rousseau advocted democracy, though some of the ramifications of his complete version leads to Fascism - it was this topsy turvy nature of duality and strange bedfellows which is what I so clumsily went after. Still clumsy after all these years ;)
But in regards to Phil & Chris. I think Phil took an oppurtunity, a clear & perfect oppurtunity to shed some light on an interesting conundrum. Because, it would seem that decency is the best; but what Phil was trying to say is that, actually, it isn't a good motto at all when one thinks of the end result, which, in Phil's view, is a relatively worthless ideal. He's saying, "so what, you think you're decent..." And beyond this he's suggesting some of the outcomes of these "decency watchers" so to speak. FCC, etc.
Now Chris was really only saying: "Man, I don't have all the answers, but at least I'll treat other people decently." Which is an overall very good way to behave. I don't think Chris was advocating this as the "be all end all"; nevertheless, Phil took this as an oppurtunity to shed some light on this interesting argument.
It's hard not to take Phil personally because Phil demands personal acceptance of the resonsibility of one's statements. Phil keeps it hard; and, in his mind, appropriately. Where another stays diplomatic and thusly may become frustrated when no action ensues. Severity sometimes is a swifter and surer route to attack complacency.
BUT Chris wasn't being complacent - yet, Phil was just checking; and hi-lighting the fine line between decency and complacency.
Like, I'm hoping for a lot of indecent acts in NYC for this year's Republican Convention. But complacent people won't do that, assuring themselves that it's indecent to be indecent. When sometimes, it's actually more decent to be indecent. That's all I believe Phil was saying; and I think he meant to shout it at Chris; but not rub it in his face like Chris is a bad doggy. He merely traveled on the momentum of conviction.
Still, Chris has a right to say, "Slow your roll, pal."
This is where the art of saving face is so vital; provided it isn't completely benign to do so.
It would seem to me that judging by Phil's overall delivery to Chris, that Phil is trying to warn Chris.
My assessment: Phil could put it better; and Chris could take it better. Both hard to do - which leads one to the final conclusion: nobody's perfect.
For instance, I like the way Ned said he agreed with me (but not all of me). He didn't attack what I said about the clumsy algebra; but he could've.
He gave me room to explain myself, and in return, I'm honest enough to admit to my goofy clumsy shit.
Ned saved my face.
So maybe in the end, we HAVE to keep each other honest, confront each other; try to deliver the real point sans smoke and fire. We forget that the point of everything we say is actually: "I love you." Henry Miller pointed that out to me.
So, Phil, next time you tear someone a new asshole, say, "I love you" when you're done.
I love you all.
I love you.
Love,
John.
let me try to over-simplify further, john: attitude out, attitude in. if i make a snarky comment, i shouldn't be surprised when someone snarks back. i don't necessarily have a problem with snark (and i'm sure some folks think that's all i ever do) per se, just the feigning surprise that snark is met with snark....
but to get back to your comments re: golden rule... i don't know about confucious, but i have read it argued that one of the big switches from judaism to christianity was the tense of that statement. (and please forgive me, i can't back any of this up substantively, just my vague recollection) the original jewish idea was "Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you" ... as this site says, that's a much more passive concept than DO unto others, which seems more a command to take action.
for me this ties back to chris' post & phil's response; i like to think that so long as i'm not actively hurting anything i'm okay, i'm acting decently. but it's easy to argue that this sort of passivity is a self-deception (feel-good hogwash, to paraphrase phil); just because you don't see starving people doesn't mean you don't have a responsibility to do something for them. that's the part i tend to willfully ignore. every dime i spend that doesn't go to a worthy cause is selfishly spent, as is every moment of every day that isn't spent actively working towards bettering the world. right? how many kids in liberia might have gotten new school books if i had bought those instead of a few cases of pbr? there's really no justification for most of my "lifestyle choices" when compared to the overwhelming needs of the many. yet here i am. does it change anything if i try to make small changes, though? i see a spectrum, i guess.
Yeah, Ned, I hear you loud & clear. "Your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins..." (Something like that anyway.)
I read your link, cool site. I guess I prefer the "Silver Rule" then, because of its passive nature that you delineated. Also, because of what that guy said about it: "The golden rule assumes everybody has compatible personal desires."
That's the minute problem I've always had with the "golden rule" - the semantic problem, anyway.
Seems like our minds comprehend this philosophy more than words can say. But it all falls under empathy, right? I remember the first fight I got into in grade school. It was by breaking one up. The kid that was bleeding and crying then had a chance to run away; I remember him running away to freedom and not looking back. Right after that, I was in a headlock. The crowd gathered and I got my tail whooped; but not as bad as Kelly Haulrey (damn, I remember his name) Because the bully (Jerry something) didn't really want to kick my ass.
Minutes into the fight the crowd turned against Jerry and beat him down. I was suddenly the hero. The whole bus stop underwent a change. The first fight found them cheering for blood; the second fight (my fight) found them terribly guilty. I was just shaken up a little; but to this day, thankful that I stepped in.
As I recall, it wasn't even a matter of bravery. It was sheer instinct not to see someone get beaten. So, the point of the story, I guess I have an over-inflated sense of empathy. I could never watch, passively, someone in great pain.
I say great pain because I can watch people in pain. Like hurricane Charley is something I still cannot figure out. maybe you could offer me, this self-professed peacenik, some insight as to why I should "feel" for the "victims" of Charley.
My wife read me an article the other day (down here there's an article about Charley everyday & umpteen news programs, footage.)
But this one article described the mobile-home people (the ones that seem at the center of every storm tragedy...) (It's like Bong-boy)
It went on to say that these were transplants of other parts of the country who just wanted to enjoy the weather down here cheaply. And now look.
So, I "feel" for them; but not like I felt for the kid that I saw bloodied in a fight.
I know one reason for this is because it's not in my face. There's a huge difference in reaction there. Anything in my face, I respond to almost immediately. But you tell me of starving people in Ethiopia. Deep, deep down in the shameless wells of private thought. I do not care. I almost want them to reap the bitter harvest and duly go away. I want to tell them to stop making babies if all they have in store is starvation. I want to yell, "Come one, get up and go! Let's go people. You just gonna sit there and starve??"
But there's nothing but long roads in Ethiopia; and apparently in Lee County too.
There's been times of overwhelming conviction regarding starving children; "at least, at least, we can see to them..." I once posited.
So maybe the emotional formula has something to do with proximity. "Empathy is inversely proportional to proximity" ?
Lee County is on the other side of the penisula. I imagine all mobile-home people in the world feel for them.
I look around and imagine my neighborhood as a disaster area; I'm looking up at the sky and pleading with the Lord to send me some much needed supplies. Perhaps my wife is badly injured; we're both thristy. At this point, I'm wondering where all the help is. I get anger at people's complacence.
I imagine that they, like me, perhaps succumbed to the cheap thrill of sadism. This, to them, is "what I get" for not preparing; for living on the coast of Florida. I plead with them in my mind: 'No, I was prepared. I have a wife. All our preparations were blown away. We didn't think this would happen to us. Don't be harsh. Don't be mean. Don't turn your backs.' I imagine those that do, as I hold my wife in the disaster area, are on thei way to hell. I like it. I imagine them there, like they imagine me here. Everybody in Hell - a fairness and equality in that. We're all sinners. If there's a Hell, we all belong in it. Good. Then I die, with my wife in my arms, already dead.
Grim.
I realize how desenitized I am. I feel like sending Lee County some water. But I know for a fact that they have tons of help already. It's an election matter. But still...what of my heart that insists it doesn't matter how I feel?
Like I said before, I've been down here 10 years. I've had neighbors that were such bleeding hearts. They'd spend their weekends drving goods down to these hurricane victims, those hurricane victims etc. I thought they were such simpletons. I thought, okay, if that's how you feel good about yourself, then go for it.
They show you on the news some of these people in mobile homes and you swear you can't believe their human. They sound stupid, they look like shit, they're wearing baseball caps that say incredibly stupid things, they're fat, they're toothless, etc. You find yourself in the wells of silent hatred, happy that they are troubled. You wonder how they can't be permanently troubled. You want people like that to go away. You don't want your tax dollars supporting white trash.
Okay, so I'm trying to point out the dynamics of empathy and desensitation. It's completely fractured. On one hand, I feel; on the other, when I searchingly try to be brutally honest with myself, I do not. In fact, the opposite. I can only imagine how the Irish immigrants looked to Americans in the mid-19th century. I can totally understand why they were despised.
I despise those that despised the Irish; but in doing so, I have to despise myself, or at least, part of myself; the desensitized self, the self unaffected because of the proximity formula.
I think on one level, we all hate poor people. They stimulate us in ways we'd rather not be stimulated. But the only Bible stories I could relate, and truly see my nature, were the ones about the beggars being spat on and then someone would help. I was always the one helping in my mind. And I grw up helping. Breaking up fights, myhear used to be so big. I'd pass a car accident and pray. Now I say things like, "Those fucking idiots."
I think I'm just being heartless and lazy and hateful. So, perhaps I am heartless, lazy,and hateful. Maybe I seem to think I'm in good company (when it comes down to it) don't see any Mother teresa's around me. Of those nieghbors I was telling you about, the ones who'd spend their weekends helping; something tells me that they derived more satisfaction then the people they helped - but is anything wrong with that? Maybe its just a nice built-in reward system for helping; making helping a good thing.
Believe me, I'm not adverse to helping. I still have a big heart when situations or before me. And, even echoing around the wells of solitude and privacy, are my better angels of my nature. I'm not heartless, I'm frustrated - I sick of it. Yep, I'm lazy.
Or, gulp, I'm secretly a Republican who considers the poor a blight. But that's not true, because I'm poor too! I'm fat. I have a gap between my teeth - to some I am white trash. To those who live on Palm Beach, I'm a fat piece of white trash from the Gardens. I say, "Fuck them!" But, I see it. I know why they can't help but see me as the "expendable class." Unless there's a "women & children first" mandate - even when the boat isn't sinking - the Palm Beachers will always be the survivors; and it seems to everyone, deep down inside, rightly so. Though we all cry when its our turn to cry, and thusly beg, and die.
However, when I'm in my God - all makes sense. Whatever You do for the Lowly, You do for Mel. It's blind when You Know. It's clear.
Now was that a freudian slip or what? "Mel" - whatever you do for the least of my people, you do for Mel Gibson. No, that was a slip.
Yikes. I'm scared now. I hide. I suck thumb.
Mel frightens. Mel, you have powers I wasn't before acquainted with. I kneel before thee, popcorn in mouth, the sacrament of popcorn.
It's just like a friend once told me about Satan; anytime you set out to make a serious point, he'll mess you up. Like an incredibly scary gremlin.
But enough with all this. I only meant to say, that when you really look at it, when you see it for what it is, there is only one decision to make; and that is to help. Period.
Ned, when did I ever convey surprise that someone snarked back...within the context of the present comment thread (i.e. that whole focus on the present thing)? You seem to be stuck on this idea. In fact, when did I even acknowledge that anyone had snarked at me? I just see a conversation which one party has dropped out of for reasons of their own.
And, since I'm here, you said, "I like to think that so long as I'm not actively hurting anything I'm okay, I'm acting decently." What about passively hurting anything? Your logic can play out this way: you hear your neighbor beat his children regularly but you choose not to get involved, i.e., you're passively not hurting anything. But I think such inaction would be deplorable. My point is: inaction (which can be something as simple as holding your tongue in the face of poor logic) can, to varying degrees, being hurtful...or at least retarding in terms of societal progress.
yeah, phil, that's exactly my point: i like to think that by doing nothing i'm not contributing to the problem, but deep down i know that's a cop-out (that was the point of the paragraph that follows the sentence you quoted).
maybe i'm stuck on it as it you say; to me it just feels like i'm having a conversation. and maybe surprise is the wrong word; i'm talking about how when i called you on your sarcastic comment ("I'll remember when I'm driving my SUV"), you responded by acting like someone was telling you that you can't give your opinion ("Obviously, the tag line 'Go ahead and speak your mind' doesn't apply to me.") i'm just saying you can expect folks to be sarcastic when responding to your sarcastism.
but i'm sure this will feel less contentious when we're actually speaking face to face later tonight....
and john, you're right to fear the Mel.
the only times i've been in a similar situation (to the fight you describe) i was more stunned than anything else, and it was over too quickly for me to act except feebly. i like to think that i'd jump into the fray for the right reason, but i'd probably just freeze.
I thought that might be the case, Ned. Actually, that comment wasn't directed at you at all. Ya gotta be careful with assumptions.
Who's being contentious?
I didn't take that line to mean I was being told not to leave my opinion. I was saying that it was odd that Chris would have such a tag line and then get so seemingly bent-out-of-shape over a snub of the United Methodist church (that was in no way consciously directed at his beliefs in the first place--as I've explained above) that he'd drop out of the conversation, take his ball, and go home.
I wasn't as much peeved by the Methodist comment, Phil. Not that it's anybody's business, but I rarely attend Sunday services at any church, but I do attend special events and Sarah and I do volunteer work through programs hosted by the church.
My only problem with the church comment was that you inferred that the responsiblity of ones actions could be blamed, however partially, on a religious institution. I find that offensive: 1. Because people who only rely on their religious beliefs to justify their actions are lazy, morally and intellectually. Further, people who accept those excuses and then redirect their anger at the institution are making the same cop-out. 2. Because many a Methodist that I know are awfully good people who don't deserve the wrath of those who have a beef with organized religious groups, as you've clearly stated you do with Methodists. Your parents may be "decent" but not "responsible", as you put it, but that's on them, not their religion. You're injecting a great deal of your own religious interpretation into your opinion of Methodists - unfairly labeling people who haven't had the time or inclination to do the same research (for however many valid reasons). But I understood what you meant and let that one slide after I made it clear how I felt about your comment. No hard feelings, whatsoever.
But I did very much take offense to your comments on your site. Making it clear how we "don't see eye-to-eye", then "we see things much differently than I had ever imagined before", which escalated to you admitting that you "still sort of think of the Bloomington Chris who, I think, didn't attend church and think quite as conservatively." and that you felt that I'd " 'settled down 'a bit more than I thought."
Calling me conservative is an insult. You're going to imply that you're only calling me conservative relative to the "Chris" that you remember from 5 years ago, which I have a hard time believing, since you and I had minimal interaction when I lived in Bloomington - as you were, for a good part of that time, in your "darker" period.
I dropped out of the conversation, Phil, because I didn't have any more that I WANTED to say. I haven't found a lot of time to respond, Phil, because I have been working ten hour days and going to bed early. But, if you're just going to keep flooding my comments with more and more defenses for your indecencies and then bait me by incinuating that I've run away, then this is what you'll get.
Frankly, I'm over it all and would like to move on. Apparently, you're not. Who's right and who's wrong? Who gives a shit? As Ned put it, it was an innocuous comment that I found in a reading. I didn't mean for it to be interpreted as the sole moral tenent for humanity. In fact, I agree with a lot of what you said. And I appreciate being reminded not to oversimplify these things.
Ned, 100% of what we produce is for in-house customers. We have been developing version 3.0 of our flagship product since December. Basically, no one without a userID & password can access it, else I'd direct you to it (though the current interface has 0% of my influence). Three very large automakers are our principle clients and they require many thousands of their business partners to use our site to conform to business practices. As such, they all require them to have the latest version of IE (as most, if not all, Fortune 500 companies do). Therefore, I develop for it and don't see any change to that platform in the future. Microsoft has such a stranglehold in corporate America, as you probably know.
John, thanks for all your input. Your ability to articulate in such massive quanitity awes me.
You need to write books (or rather, volumes thereof). Though I have a feeling that the editing process might be your hell on earth.
Well, okay then. I'm flooding your comments...not John or Ned. Just me. Thanks for clarifying.
I do have a beef with churches that keep the Sunday Sabbath. Always will. I especially have a beef with the United Methodist church because I was brought up in it and, as such, can identify most of my experiences with pick-and-choose "Christianity" with it. I don't blame my parents' outlooks entirely on their church, but I'm not about to deny there's no connection.
I said "conservative", not "Republican". The term conservatism, as I was using it, applies to much more than politics. But, you're right, I never knew you that well...that's why I couched my comment in terms of my perceptions and not the absolutist terminology you were trying to impose upon my words.
And, I was responding to Ned, not baiting you. You read that into it. In fact, I wouldn't be "flooding" your comments if Ned hadn't engaged me. Sometimes when Ned and I are going back and forth, it's not about me trying to talk to you; it's actually about me talking to Ned.
No, you're right, Ned was certainly engaging you, too. But, I'd say John was just trying to explain his view of things - thinking out loud, as it were.
I never thought you were baiting until you said that I had "drop[ped] out of the conversation, [taken my] ball, and [gone] home", which I felt was a dig at me for not getting involved in the conversation you two were having.
Just to be clear, I'm not pissed. In fact, that's one of the reasons that I waited to respond - because I didn't want to respond and sound bent-out-of shape. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm not about to get all worked up over words on the blog that lack inflection and other interpersonal contextuals. I respect you guys and trust that that respect is reciprocated. Miscommunications are too frequent here to get pissed off about.
I step back and remind myself of that all the time.
It's all good. I'm just addicted to written conversations. I find them (and this online medium) fascinating. Certainly, we must all admit that there is a lot said on the blog that would probably never come out between friends in face-to-face conversations...especially given the distance that separates so many of us.
If the Chateau days were my "darker days", I can only wonder how people characterize my "cheery" online persona these days, or my Zagreb's days.
Thanks, Chris! Yes, you got me pinned, editing doth sucketh hard! ;)
BUT, I am learning through my gig at New Times in Ft. Lauderdale. I get little pieces to write, avg. 300 words about plays, parties, events etc. I'm learning quick. It's fun. More fun than I thought.
In fact, today I just made a deadline about Tom Stoppard. And like him, (I've recently learned), I write with my fingers crossed.
Chris - thanks - I'd like to think I'm 'decent', and when it comes to children - I agree - being a good person is a pretty important first step.
What's "good" mean?
Sorry, I can't resist this continued trend toward condensation of appropriate behavior and life skills into one word.
Somebody stop me.
phil, what does "appropriate" mean? how can you distill an entire world view down to one word like that?
That's what I'm asking people to define. I'm the one wondering what people mean, not the one saying be "decent" or be "good". "Decent" probably hits closer to the mark since it doesn't define the world in such black and white terms, i.e., good and bad/evil. For example, if we just need to be "good people", what does that make the majority of the inhabitants of the world? Good and bad? Are most good, or just a few? If most, why is there so much fear, hate, etc.
Of course, this discourse in semantics has gotten old...especially when the best you can do is say things like, "Oh yeah, well then define 'appropriate'."
Then again, I'm sure some would argue that it got old a while back.
But then it's not like there's all that much going on in blogworld to divert my attention.
If you expect specific definition for every casual statement then
I guess I'd point towards my relationship with what is 'good' comes
from taoist meditation on this reading from the 'Tao Te Ching'.
"Great good is said to be like water,
sustaining life with no conscious striving,
flowing naturally, providing nourishment,
found even in places
which desiring man rejects.
In this way
it is like the Tao itself.
Like water, the sage abides in a humble place;
in meditation, without desire;
in thoughtfulness, he is profound,
and in his dealings, kind.
In speech, sincerity guides the man of Tao,
and as a leader, he is just.
In management, competence is his aim,
and he ensures the pacing is correct.
Because he does not act for his own ends,
nor cause unnecessary conflict,
he is held to be correct
in his actions towards his fellow man"
Good being in my opinion is an external relationship with the world, since
my own personnal spiritual relationship with my self is ineffable and changing
constantly, not bound by rules or definition necessary for communication, nor
'shareable' by language.