Who or what is in control of your life? You? God of Jehovah? Jesus? Allah? People? Chaos? Fear? Love? The Law? The Bible? The Koran? Situational ethics? The theory of relativity? Politicians? Judges/ Juries? Mom & Dad? Secular Humanism? Twitter?
I’ll posit something. I’ve said it before. After satisfying needs for water, food, shelter, procreation, security, health, love, praise and More (I’ll defer to Samuel Gompers here), people want control. Absent control they want comfort, recreation and entertainment. Most have an easier time obtaining recreation and entertainment and abandon most attempts for control. Using alcohol and drugs obviates the desire for control. Rationalization soothes lack of control. Lower your expectations. Monks will tell you feed the spirit and seek enlightenment. You don’t need to, or can't control the physical world. Concentrate on the metaphysical. Meditate. Grow your spirit. I like it. Which of course let’s the Chinese take over, more actively seeking physical control.
But let’s take a look at “desidero, decideras, deciderat:”
[what I want, what you want and what we want] based on a spiritual person’s persona (qi (chi), weltanschuung)
Positive control = Balance = harmony (give and take)
non desidero, …as, …at:
Negative control = Unbalanced = disharmony (take and take)
Example of non balanced leading to balanced leading to non balanced:
Places of employment, struggle for control:
Company establishes a business. Following market forces and sound economic principles, it expands. Hires more workers. Grows, hires more workers, the cycle continues. The workers achieve water, food and shelter, which can be purchased with wages, which (failing spending it all on drugs, gambling, etc) lead to temporary satisfaction. Later they get health insurance, vacation, retirement, holidays, etc. Once these necessities are satisfied we finally get to “control” and who has it. First we get various concerns. Some workers are retained, even promoted. Others are furloughed, discharged even. Where are the rules? Why is all this happening? Rumors are Debbie and the boss really like each other and Debbie got a raise. The boss fired Dave because he didn’t like him. Eventually they feel powerless and frustrated. They compare their work situations with others. They realize they could have it better. They organize, form a union and periodically negotiate. We want more. Pay. Benefits. And we want to reduce management’s control so there’s no subjectivity any more.
Unions want printed rules. A book of them. A rule for everything. A remedy for infractions. Wages spelled out. Seniority rewarded. The tacit goal is to remove management’s prerogatives. Once the contract refers to the book of rules, there is no need for management, other than to challenge when rote adherence to written rules produces unsatisfactory results, which it often does. All generalisations are false sooner or later. All rules lead to unsatisfactory results, for everybody and then the union, which requested the book of rules, gets to intercede now as the arbiter of rules. Failing to follow the rules by management also makes the union challenge management. Second guessers always have the benefit of hindsight. Removing management’s prerogative removes management’s intelligence. Somewhere between no rules and all subjective management to nothing but rules with no intelligence there is balance and harmony. I have worked in and experienced both situations. Too much management subjectivity reduces everybody’s morale, including the supervisors who have to carry out discriminatory practices based on emotions, preconceptions and poor judgment. Everybody gets mad, makes mistakes has errors of judgment. That’s when a union can step in to remedy management’s errors. The sweet spot here is some intelligence based on knowledge, experience, and common sense and a basic set of written rules and guidelines. The balance requires supervisors of workers who have experienced both being a worker and a supervisor. Too little management intelligence (a rule for everything with no need for knowledge, experience or common sense) leads to retention of sub mediocre employees and promotion based on longevity. Long term valued employees make one stupid mistake and are terminated and replaced with new hires. Products and services suffer. When the balance is way out of control, companies go under. The needs of the employees are all met save that of a work place to go to. An unbalanced situation over a long term will eventually lead to a sudden crash. Something that is until it isn’t.
Example of struggle for power based on democratic freedom:
Gradually our country has undergone a dramatic political shift away from long held ideals and morality based on religion and tradition. A lot of it is healthy. Fifty to a hundred years ago it was Judeo/Christian God and country (mostly Christian). The Bible, Mom, the flag and apple pie. To question those ideals was both anti-American and immoral. Ethics and morality were paramount in leaders, both political and social. Or was it? As society got more and more open and information became more and more readily available, hypocrisy was identified as a byproduct of strict morality. These rules, while “just,” became inconvenient. Kids turned on to drugs and burned the flag, refusing to serve if they felt the situation wasn’t right. President Kennedy was a good father and husband when he wasn’t cheating with Marilyn Monroe or Judith Exner. President Clinton didn’t have sex with that woman, depending on how you defined sex or “is” or perhaps woman. Situational ethics overcame religious and moral imperatives. You didn’t need to serve your country or forgive your leaders as much as shrug your shoulders. A thing “is” until it isn’t any more. Three years ago our President, Barack Obama opposed same sex marriage. Today he doesn’t. Something is until it isn’t. Some of this is obviously healthy. What was whispered in the shadows is now more open and above board. Religion or lack of it isn’t the deciding factor for a job, an appointment or an association, outside of church. Or at least that’s the general idea. Merit counts. The color of your skin, the sex of your employee, their origin, nationality or religious preference shouldn’t decide associations, employment or appointments. Persons with disabilities struggled for equality for decades. Most would agree they’ve achieved a higher level of recognition and equality, at least under the law. Now (2015) sexual preference and orientation has the nation’s attention with the President leading the way with his recent flip-flop. Men should marry men and woman should marry women, if they choose to. Nothing’s wrong with it, right? Uh, anymore. Shrug your shoulders. A thing is a thing until it isn’t a thing. Then it’s something else. In relative terms that is.
Will this movement toward situational ethics and intelligent tolerance of (fill in the blank): murder (euthanasia), lying (Clinton and just about everybody else), divorce (a majority of the time), children born out of wedlock (a majority of the time), false gods (wealth, power, lust), and pleasures of the flesh over power of the spirit eventually lead to an out of balance situation? Are there no absolutes? Do we need no spiritual guidance? No religion? No commandments? But of course many gay people are religious, Republican (as an example of relativism, at least a few) and believe in the power of the spirit over lust. Not all power and wealth is used in a self-serving manner (see Bill and Melinda Gates). And many prelates are coke sniffing hypocrites and priests pedophiles. So? Does’t this mean everything is relative? There are no absolutes? What do we use as guidance?
Can secular humanism replace the ten commandments? It can if it’s codified? Society through politics = law. Then you get to choose whether you obey the law or not? Doesn’t the minority have a voice?
Let’s pass a law that prevents people from discriminating against gay people. Since society can’t recognize religion, as there are too many of them, laws will trump scripture, or perceived scripture. Don’t want to sell them a cake because you don’t like gay marriage? Too bad. Pay a fine. Face a lawsuit. Let’s codify morality. We know what’s right, right? Let’s have a book of rules that show everybody how to live. We don’t or can’t need a Bible or a Koran (separate religion). We have society’s rules which, of course, are subject to variance and interpretation depending on who is in power at the time. That’s situational of course. But follow your society’s laws, or don’t, depending on the situation?
Final posit: Democracy is and always has been situational and subject to interpretation. If you want to avoid immoral or unethical behavior, you will be confused by statutory fiat. My old friend Sam Lang, who spent a lifetime serving the law gave me some free advice: Do what you think is right. Obey the law. It is after all, the law. But in the final analysis, do what you think is right. When right and legal are mutually exclusive, do what’s right. I have never received better advice from anyone. The harder question is: what can you always believe in, no matter what?
Who or what is in control of your life?
I’ll posit something. I’ve said it before. After satisfying needs for water, food, shelter, procreation, security, health, love, praise and More (I’ll defer to Samuel Gompers here), people want control. Absent control they want comfort, recreation and entertainment. Most have an easier time obtaining recreation and entertainment and abandon most attempts for control. Using alcohol and drugs obviates the desire for control. Rationalization soothes lack of control. Lower your expectations. Monks will tell you feed the spirit and seek enlightenment. You don’t need to, or can't control the physical world. Concentrate on the metaphysical. Meditate. Grow your spirit. I like it. Which of course let’s the Chinese take over, more actively seeking physical control.
But let’s take a look at “desidero, decideras, deciderat:”
[what I want, what you want and what we want] based on a spiritual person’s persona (qi (chi), weltanschuung)
Positive control = Balance = harmony (give and take)
non desidero, …as, …at:
Negative control = Unbalanced = disharmony (take and take)
Example of non balanced leading to balanced leading to non balanced:
Places of employment, struggle for control:
Company establishes a business. Following market forces and sound economic principles, it expands. Hires more workers. Grows, hires more workers, the cycle continues. The workers achieve water, food and shelter, which can be purchased with wages, which (failing spending it all on drugs, gambling, etc) lead to temporary satisfaction. Later they get health insurance, vacation, retirement, holidays, etc. Once these necessities are satisfied we finally get to “control” and who has it. First we get various concerns. Some workers are retained, even promoted. Others are furloughed, discharged even. Where are the rules? Why is all this happening? Rumors are Debbie and the boss really like each other and Debbie got a raise. The boss fired Dave because he didn’t like him. Eventually they feel powerless and frustrated. They compare their work situations with others. They realize they could have it better. They organize, form a union and periodically negotiate. We want more. Pay. Benefits. And we want to reduce management’s control so there’s no subjectivity any more.
Unions want printed rules. A book of them. A rule for everything. A remedy for infractions. Wages spelled out. Seniority rewarded. The tacit goal is to remove management’s prerogatives. Once the contract refers to the book of rules, there is no need for management, other than to challenge when rote adherence to written rules produces unsatisfactory results, which it often does. All generalisations are false sooner or later. All rules lead to unsatisfactory results, for everybody and then the union, which requested the book of rules, gets to intercede now as the arbiter of rules. Failing to follow the rules by management also makes the union challenge management. Second guessers always have the benefit of hindsight. Removing management’s prerogative removes management’s intelligence. Somewhere between no rules and all subjective management to nothing but rules with no intelligence there is balance and harmony. I have worked in and experienced both situations. Too much management subjectivity reduces everybody’s morale, including the supervisors who have to carry out discriminatory practices based on emotions, preconceptions and poor judgment. Everybody gets mad, makes mistakes has errors of judgment. That’s when a union can step in to remedy management’s errors. The sweet spot here is some intelligence based on knowledge, experience, and common sense and a basic set of written rules and guidelines. The balance requires supervisors of workers who have experienced both being a worker and a supervisor. Too little management intelligence (a rule for everything with no need for knowledge, experience or common sense) leads to retention of sub mediocre employees and promotion based on longevity. Long term valued employees make one stupid mistake and are terminated and replaced with new hires. Products and services suffer. When the balance is way out of control, companies go under. The needs of the employees are all met save that of a work place to go to. An unbalanced situation over a long term will eventually lead to a sudden crash. Something that is until it isn’t.
Example of struggle for power based on democratic freedom:
Gradually our country has undergone a dramatic political shift away from long held ideals and morality based on religion and tradition. A lot of it is healthy. Fifty to a hundred years ago it was Judeo/Christian God and country (mostly Christian). The Bible, Mom, the flag and apple pie. To question those ideals was both anti-American and immoral. Ethics and morality were paramount in leaders, both political and social. Or was it? As society got more and more open and information became more and more readily available, hypocrisy was identified as a byproduct of strict morality. These rules, while “just,” became inconvenient. Kids turned on to drugs and burned the flag, refusing to serve if they felt the situation wasn’t right. President Kennedy was a good father and husband when he wasn’t cheating with Marilyn Monroe or Judith Exner. President Clinton didn’t have sex with that woman, depending on how you defined sex or “is” or perhaps woman. Situational ethics overcame religious and moral imperatives. You didn’t need to serve your country or forgive your leaders as much as shrug your shoulders. A thing “is” until it isn’t any more. Three years ago our President, Barack Obama opposed same sex marriage. Today he doesn’t. Something is until it isn’t. Some of this is obviously healthy. What was whispered in the shadows is now more open and above board. Religion or lack of it isn’t the deciding factor for a job, an appointment or an association, outside of church. Or at least that’s the general idea. Merit counts. The color of your skin, the sex of your employee, their origin, nationality or religious preference shouldn’t decide associations, employment or appointments. Persons with disabilities struggled for equality for decades. Most would agree they’ve achieved a higher level of recognition and equality, at least under the law. Now (2015) sexual preference and orientation has the nation’s attention with the President leading the way with his recent flip-flop. Men should marry men and woman should marry women, if they choose to. Nothing’s wrong with it, right? Uh, anymore. Shrug your shoulders. A thing is a thing until it isn’t a thing. Then it’s something else. In relative terms that is.
Will this movement toward situational ethics and intelligent tolerance of (fill in the blank): murder (euthanasia), lying (Clinton and just about everybody else), divorce (a majority of the time), children born out of wedlock (a majority of the time), false gods (wealth, power, lust), and pleasures of the flesh over power of the spirit eventually lead to an out of balance situation? Are there no absolutes? Do we need no spiritual guidance? No religion? No commandments? But of course many gay people are religious, Republican (as an example of relativism, at least a few) and believe in the power of the spirit over lust. Not all power and wealth is used in a self-serving manner (see Bill and Melinda Gates). And many prelates are coke sniffing hypocrites and priests pedophiles. So? Does’t this mean everything is relative? There are no absolutes? What do we use as guidance?
Can secular humanism replace the ten commandments? It can if it’s codified? Society through politics = law. Then you get to choose whether you obey the law or not? Doesn’t the minority have a voice?
Let’s pass a law that prevents people from discriminating against gay people. Since society can’t recognize religion, as there are too many of them, laws will trump scripture, or perceived scripture. Don’t want to sell them a cake because you don’t like gay marriage? Too bad. Pay a fine. Face a lawsuit. Let’s codify morality. We know what’s right, right? Let’s have a book of rules that show everybody how to live. We don’t or can’t need a Bible or a Koran (separate religion). We have society’s rules which, of course, are subject to variance and interpretation depending on who is in power at the time. That’s situational of course. But follow your society’s laws, or don’t, depending on the situation?
Final posit: Democracy is and always has been situational and subject to interpretation. If you want to avoid immoral or unethical behavior, you will be confused by statutory fiat. My old friend Sam Lang, who spent a lifetime serving the law gave me some free advice: Do what you think is right. Obey the law. It is after all, the law. But in the final analysis, do what you think is right. When right and legal are mutually exclusive, do what’s right. I have never received better advice from anyone. The harder question is: what can you always believe in, no matter what?
Who or what is in control of your life?
