Golden Rule

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

was there ever a time
when i did not
show me the place
where i failed

how come there are
gaps
not filling yet

. .. .... ........ ................

dearlg1 wrote:

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

This assumes we all have the same likes and dislikes, values and proclivities -- a rather egocentric perspective.

The Golden Rule in it's various forms have been endorsed by most of the major religions of the world, so yes I suppose you would consider it egocentric. I do not.

http://www.jcu.edu/philosophy/gensler/goldrule.htm

for a rule to become and/or remain "ego-centric",
there had to be an underlie-ing deviation
from its mutual understanding

so much for caring!

Romana wrote:

dearlg1 wrote:

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

This assumes we all have the same likes and dislikes, values and proclivities -- a rather egocentric perspective.

These seem like really HUGE jumps in conclusion to me. I don't see where the connect is between treating others as you would like to be treated and assuming they have the same likes and such comes from at all, therefore the next jump seems based on the assumption that others have the same likes and proclivities.

"Treat others as you would like to be treated" is kind of like common sense and well meaning for all as far as I can see. Take the story of the good Samaritan for instance? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Good_Samaritan

Some small examples to clarify my meaning:

My mother loved to go to fancy restaurants. An ideal birthday treat would be to take her to dinner at one. If she did for me as she would wish done for herself, however, it would not be a treat at all since I do not enjoy eating out. I would prefer that she make my favorite dinner at home.

A less trivial example would be what to do for people who are grieving, as after a death. I prefer to work through grief largely alone, and appreciate when friends give me space to do so. I know people, however, for whom the company of friends is a great comfort in grief. Were I to treat such a friend as I wish to be treated, she might feel abandoned at a difficult time.

Yes, with many of the "big things", like murder, assault, and theft, it is safe to assume that one's own desire to preserve life, limb, and property are fairly universal. In many day-to-day encounters, however, one does better to be more sensitive to the individual needs of others, and to treat them as they would want to be treated.

Of all the golden rule expressions on the poster above, this is most closely approximated by the Taoist one: Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss.

Romana, I see your point and it is well taken. I see it a bit different as putting myself in someones else's shoes (the best I can) and and try to see how they would want to be treated in situations like that. Without compromising your own integrity that is. Thats the way I would want be teated.

in the elegance of the great silence
at least seeming demanded
in public
such educational measures
should not have to be less
than shared treasures

imho.

dearlg1 wrote:

Romana, I see your point and it is well taken. I see it a bit different as putting myself in someones else's shoes (the best I can) and and try to see how they would want to be treated in situations like that. Without compromising your own integrity that is. Thats the way I would want be teated.

Much harm has been done through the ages by assuming that everyone does things as we do, and that what is good for us is good for them. The key is to be able, as you say, truly to put yourself in their shoes and see the situation from their point of view. I confess that, while I know this well in theory, I find it difficult to implement in practice.

Romana wrote:

dearlg1 wrote:

Romana, I see your point and it is well taken. I see it a bit different as putting myself in someones else's shoes (the best I can) and and try to see how they would want to be treated in situations like that. Without compromising your own integrity that is. Thats the way I would want be teated.

Much harm has been done through the ages by assuming that everyone does things as we do, and that what is good for us is good for them. The key is to be able, as you say, truly to put yourself in their shoes and see the situation from their point of view. I confess that, while I know this well in theory, I find it difficult to implement in practice.

i follow your thought by questioning the exploit(ation)s of such assumptions: with malicious intent or with a lame excuse for falling asleep over them?

lavender orchid wrote:

Romana wrote:

dearlg1 wrote:

Romana, I see your point and it is well taken. I see it a bit different as putting myself in someones else's shoes (the best I can) and and try to see how they would want to be treated in situations like that. Without compromising your own integrity that is. Thats the way I would want be teated.

Much harm has been done through the ages by assuming that everyone does things as we do, and that what is good for us is good for them. The key is to be able, as you say, truly to put yourself in their shoes and see the situation from their point of view. I confess that, while I know this well in theory, I find it difficult to implement in practice.

i follow your thought by questioning the exploit(ation)s of such assumptions: with malicious intent or with a lame excuse for falling asleep over them?

I am not sure I understand your question. Are you asking what is the source of these assumptions -- malice or otherwise? If so, I attribute them partly to ignorance, of the other person's perspective; partly to laziness or thoughtlessness, not making the effort to understand the other person's perspective, or even to consider that it might be different from one's own; and occasionally to a misplaced sense of superiority, as in the various attempts of westerners or Europeans to "civilize the heathens for their own good". I see a certain egotism, or self-centeredness implicit in most of these motivations, hence my first comment on this topic.

Romana wrote:

lavender orchid wrote:

Romana wrote:

dearlg1 wrote:

Romana, I see your point and it is well taken. I see it a bit different as putting myself in someones else's shoes (the best I can) and and try to see how they would want to be treated in situations like that. Without compromising your own integrity that is. Thats the way I would want be teated.

Much harm has been done through the ages by assuming that everyone does things as we do, and that what is good for us is good for them. The key is to be able, as you say, truly to put yourself in their shoes and see the situation from their point of view. I confess that, while I know this well in theory, I find it difficult to implement in practice.

i follow your thought by questioning the exploit(ation)s of such assumptions: with malicious intent or with a lame excuse for falling asleep over them?

I am not sure I understand your question. Are you asking what is the source of these assumptions -- malice or otherwise? If so, I attribute them partly to ignorance, of the other person's perspective; partly to laziness or thoughtlessness, not making the effort to understand the other person's perspective, or even to consider that it might be different from one's own; and occasionally to a misplaced sense of superiority, as in the various attempts of westerners or Europeans to "civilize the heathens for their own good". I see a certain egotism, or self-centeredness implicit in most of these motivations, hence my first comment on this topic.

these "misgivings" can be sensed throughout even the best of conversations, made with the best of intent.
i attribute them to and call them trauma.
\!!

Romana wrote:

dearlg1 wrote:

Romana, I see your point and it is well taken. I see it a bit different as putting myself in someones else's shoes (the best I can) and and try to see how they would want to be treated in situations like that. Without compromising your own integrity that is. Thats the way I would want be teated.

Much harm has been done through the ages by assuming that everyone does things as we do, and that what is good for us is good for them. The key is to be able, as you say, truly to put yourself in their shoes and see the situation from their point of view. I confess that, while I know this well in theory, I find it difficult to implement in practice.

Isn't doing to others as you would like to have done for your own self different than treating others as you would like to be treated if you were them?

One projects the self onto the other, and the other asks for some compassion for the other's wishes. So to me taking a person out to a seafood restaurant because it's your own favorite meal is egoism and selfishness because if you were that other person you would not want seafood. In other words you would not be doing unto others as you would like done for yourself because you are disrespecting the preferences of that other person. Unless you'd like your own preferences shrugged off, then you've failed.

Not that I'm fond of platitudes....

^this has been an ongoing debate in the new age circles i once sought to join.
people there seem to take delight in teasing one another and testing limits, still unable to overcome limitations thus created.
or unwilling, with more or less admitted fear of having to surrender "power".
it made me (and still does) sad.

if compromises cannot seem to be a mutual agreement based on deep understanding of mutual appreciation and support, they are just compromising, i.e. damaging, the person. each in a different set of traumatic experiences and shrugging it off as inevitable "human condition".

one of the catchwords has been "unconditional love". i have not seen the social justice as a result of it, but instead endless indirect accusations, a spiritual cruelty playing one-up with the honest efforts of hopelessly conscientious "servants".

another topic is "responsibility for the self". the finger-wagging of yesteryears revisited, imho.

you and i, or i or you: be+have, bar+gain; games people like to play. it has really cut down on the mind's capabilities..

sorry, if this sounds pessimisitic. every thought has a certain frequency.

"am i my brother's keeper?" no strings attached, sure.

blueelm wrote:

Isn't doing to others as you would like to have done for your own self different than treating others as you would like to be treated if you were them?

One projects the self onto the other, and the other asks for some compassion for the other's wishes. So to me taking a person out to a seafood restaurant because it's your own favorite meal is egoism and selfishness because if you were that other person you would not want seafood. In other words you would not be doing unto others as you would like done for yourself because you are disrespecting the preferences of that other person. Unless you'd like your own preferences shrugged off, then you've failed.

My point exactly.

Romana wrote:

blueelm wrote:

Isn't doing to others as you would like to have done for your own self different than treating others as you would like to be treated if you were them?

One projects the self onto the other, and the other asks for some compassion for the other's wishes. So to me taking a person out to a seafood restaurant because it's your own favorite meal is egoism and selfishness because if you were that other person you would not want seafood. In other words you would not be doing unto others as you would like done for yourself because you are disrespecting the preferences of that other person. Unless you'd like your own preferences shrugged off, then you've failed.

My point exactly.

q.e.d. on holy grounds.

Missing the point seems to be a common thing anymore. It also seems to seem that anything can be interpreted anyway they want then twist it to fit their misinterpretation to make it seem more palatable to be disagreeable.

A new Golden Rule for everyone:

When all else fails, read the directions.

Romana wrote:

blueelm wrote:

Isn't doing to others as you would like to have done for your own self different than treating others as you would like to be treated if you were them?

One projects the self onto the other, and the other asks for some compassion for the other's wishes. So to me taking a person out to a seafood restaurant because it's your own favorite meal is egoism and selfishness because if you were that other person you would not want seafood. In other words you would not be doing unto others as you would like done for yourself because you are disrespecting the preferences of that other person. Unless you'd like your own preferences shrugged off, then you've failed.

My point exactly.

So, I think I understand this. We are talking about showing respect and empathy for the differences in our unique preferences of the moment, correct?

Just because I may want seafood doesn't mean the other does. Another of Jesus's sayings comes to mind here. "Judge not others for with what judgment ye shall judge, so shall ye be judged." - this implies to me that if we judge others, we create these same judgements on ourselves, and I am not personally big on giving myself judgements and prison sentences. Of course, the original argument of the Golden Rule comes about full circle, now, doesn't it?

I don't really think you can have an effective Golden Rule and maintain projections of self unto others and judgements of them and possibly the intrusions of trying to force or accuse them without breaking the Golden Rule.

In short, I think a golden rule without non-judgementalness is neither feasible nor desirable.

Non-judgmentalness is an ideal that none of us will ever reach, but we should always aim for it. That way, we will at least not fall so short.

Judge not, least ye not be judged: otherwise known as karma

acknowledging the fine difference with thanks. hoping for improved communications.

There once was a man from Galilee
He tried to help many find Freedom of mind
so they had Him hung from a tree
If your dad is from Leningrad

It may seem quite sad
but Buddha said concepts are
just concepts and to let the hate be
and for Christ's sake
Do not partake in any ways in hate

If it is to Paradise one my find one's way
It is all just so easy you know
All it takes for Christ sakes
is to eliminate all hatreds from the mind
and this is the only way

O, it is called all Freedom from all Fears, Dears
or possibly stated with hatred eliminated
and fears all vanquished
the mind finds itself re-invented
into what it always was and always will be

What was it said by the man from Galilee?
"Find the truth, and the Truth shall set you Free"
What silly his temperament
yet arguably so perfectly true

Mayflow wrote:

There once was a man from Galilee
He tried to help many find Freedom of mind
so they had Him hung from a tree
If your dad is from Leningrad

It may seem quite sad
but Buddha said concepts are
just concepts and to let the hate be
and for Christ's sake
Do not partake in any ways in hate

If it is to Paradise one my find one's way
It is all just so easy you know
All it takes for Christ sakes
is to eliminate all hatreds from the mind
and this is the only way

O, it is called all Freedom from all Fears, Dears
or possibly stated with hatred eliminated
and fears all vanquished
the mind finds itself re-invented
into what it always was and always will be

What was it said by the man from Galilee?
"Find the truth, and the Truth shall set you Free"
What silly his temperament
yet arguably so perfectly true

dear Mayflow: Leningrad is now named St. Petersburg again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aHtwklb53o&feature=related

By any name, the city is magical during the White Nights. Switching gears a tad:

Moscow Nights