tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12679107.post113535211884125154..comments2023-10-15T10:46:24.276-05:00Comments on Parables: the practicality of free, individual choiceespíritu pazhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17483308467615005496noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12679107.post-1136567079829100392006-01-06T11:04:00.000-06:002006-01-06T11:04:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.asdfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03955909231054937508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12679107.post-1136484995206608172006-01-05T12:16:00.000-06:002006-01-05T12:16:00.000-06:00As for the Mennonites you refer to…hmm. Must be li...As for the Mennonites you refer to…hmm. Must be like that neighbor of yours over there, whom I saw on the tele too :) <BR/><BR/>I suppose I don’t understand or know why you would be so preoccupied with hypocrisy. <BR/>Hypocrisy, none-the-less based on a presupposition that all those of a particular name are the same. <BR/>Aren’t all snowflakes different? One can grab handfuls to form into a snow art. Some snow coheres more readily than other. Some snow flakes are brushed off/fall off the work of art. Inevitably it all melts and is cycled into cloud, rain and possibly snow again. We call it snowflake/snowman/slush/groundwater/cloud.<BR/><BR/>FYI: I don’t believe I’m claiming moral high ground. My intention in this blog is to demonstrate difference, struggle and even ambiguity in as much as creativity allows, through parable.<BR/><BR/>...even with story of partying friends. I could have written a similar one of driving a car to the market, unveiled, with a national neighbor, in Yemen.espíritu pazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17483308467615005496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12679107.post-1135374715129424912005-12-23T15:51:00.000-06:002005-12-23T15:51:00.000-06:00A first thought on universal morals that comes to ...A first thought on universal morals that comes to mind is the Japanese case; they don't have universal morals on what is good and what is bad; their culture is based on shame and losing face.<BR/><BR/>It explains some of the atrocities that were committed by them during WWII; apparently, they didn't have an 'inner moral voice' that told them not to mistreat people; their being out of their usual surrounding meant a vacuum was left (no peers to judge them) and their prisoners were considered 'faceless' pigs/cowards, not worthy of living and too cowardice to have died.<BR/><BR/>Had to dig quite deep for this (the things you learn on a course on Japanese quality management :-) ) but it provides an explanation.<BR/><BR/>This comment (mine) can be viewed in the light of your friends holiday? And what might happen to mankind without universal morals.<BR/><BR/>Free choice/individual choice is a major part illusory, I think. I've noticed in my own case that I was 'rationalizing' some of my own decisions; i.e. a feeling caused me to do something, which I later tried to justify by ratio. Like why I liked or didn't like a particular person.<BR/><BR/>BTW, the 2nd part of 'personal space, and it being expensive' is very true. To me. I know many people in my surrounding who are perfectly happy in a crowded city; where they hear the neighbours flushing the toilet, or can hear what TV program they are watching. Lived like that for 6 years in Rotterdam, being a 'country boy'. City life is not for me. However, most people I speak say they don't mind living crowded. On the other hand, all people I know who can afford it buy a house in the country. Will too one day, I hope.<BR/><BR/>Still, I wonder about the quote. Is the writer saying there are no longer clear criteria on right & wrong? Disagree. He says the 'self becomes our moral guide', but I have trouble linking it to the statement that follows: '...But [...]' Morality has very little to do with the ability to buy a house or land, IMO?<BR/><BR/>And if he were implying that people living in the country or escape hectic city life are (or may be) moral-less, I disagree even more. But perhaps this quote has another meaning than I think it has when seen in context of the rest of the chapter/book?<BR/><BR/>Off topic from your comment on individuality:<BR/>Other point: just found out what 'menn.' meant in another statement in this blog. About a year ago I saw a (Danish/Swedish?) documentary on a religious community somewhere in Sout-America. At first I could show respect for these people (even while disagreeing with their beliefs), but when they showed kids sneaking out for alcohol, boys & girls 'fooling around', car races etc., esp. the fact that the elders seemed to tolerate this behaviour on whatever ground ticked me off. Linked to the hypocrisy-statement in another post. Also, the mother of the family had a terribly infected wound on her leg and wasn't allowed to seek medical attention; gangrene was already present or on its way. However, they did accept the medical help (bandages, plasters, desinfectant, etc.) of the two reporters. Not meant to be a rant against these people. But if you claim to be on high moral ground, and hypocrisy in your behaviour will be observed closely and used against you.<BR/><BR/>Quote (by guess who...):<BR/><BR/>There is no hope of joy except in human relations.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>-------------<BR/>Peter.<BR/><BR/>On ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur, l'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux. (Saint-Exupéry)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com