| The Middle Ground of Life - The Most Important of All |
The Other Level
I got to thinking about it just awhile ago, while absorbing the primary campaign
news, thinking about our "new culture", and reading about the last blog from a
major in Iraq - just ruminating about it all, and it occurred to me there is another
aspect of Middle Ground. I have touched on it elsewhere, but thought it might be
useful (for what, I can not say) to thrust it upon the waters for consideration here.
It might seem a little preachy, and I suppose it is; this is a shot of philosophy, after
all. But before we get mired in more mundane detail we might want to broaden our
horizons a bit. Rousseu once said "everything is related to politics" and in a sense
that is true, if one considers that there is a political facet in everything in life, so if that
is so, what is the Middle Ground of Life?
I got to thinking about it just awhile ago, while absorbing the primary campaign
news, thinking about our "new culture", and reading about the last blog from a
major in Iraq - just ruminating about it all, and it occurred to me there is another
aspect of Middle Ground. I have touched on it elsewhere, but thought it might be
useful (for what, I can not say) to thrust it upon the waters for consideration here.
It might seem a little preachy, and I suppose it is; this is a shot of philosophy, after
all. But before we get mired in more mundane detail we might want to broaden our
horizons a bit. Rousseu once said "everything is related to politics" and in a sense
that is true, if one considers that there is a political facet in everything in life, so if that
is so, what is the Middle Ground of Life?
Potpourri of Thoughts
1. The word empathy - putting one's self in another's
place before making judgment.
2. Temperance in all things - avoiding the extremes,
avoiding excess.
3. Respect is a Middle Ground related concept -
4. If properly tempered, experience rounds off rough
edges of immature passion. And the tempering?
Knowledge - real knowledge. Then, one might ask, what
is left without passion? A dried out husk? Reasonable
question; but it was not suggested that passion be
expunged, but rounded off. Passion, after all, must be
controlled, tempered, as all else.
5. Conceit - narcissism - arrogance - virtually preclude
taking the Middle Ground in life. Being always right
inevitably drives one from Middle Ground.
6. On the other hand relegating one's self to Middle
Ground also tends to preclude from brilliant success. The
doers in life are not the meek. So are meek and Middle
Ground synonymous? Or stated differently, does a Middle
Ground position preclude brilliant success? It might, and
the similarity of meek and Middle Ground warrants some
more thought.
1. The word empathy - putting one's self in another's
place before making judgment.
2. Temperance in all things - avoiding the extremes,
avoiding excess.
3. Respect is a Middle Ground related concept -
4. If properly tempered, experience rounds off rough
edges of immature passion. And the tempering?
Knowledge - real knowledge. Then, one might ask, what
is left without passion? A dried out husk? Reasonable
question; but it was not suggested that passion be
expunged, but rounded off. Passion, after all, must be
controlled, tempered, as all else.
5. Conceit - narcissism - arrogance - virtually preclude
taking the Middle Ground in life. Being always right
inevitably drives one from Middle Ground.
6. On the other hand relegating one's self to Middle
Ground also tends to preclude from brilliant success. The
doers in life are not the meek. So are meek and Middle
Ground synonymous? Or stated differently, does a Middle
Ground position preclude brilliant success? It might, and
the similarity of meek and Middle Ground warrants some
more thought.
Meek and The Middle Ground
Are they the same?
Certainly they can be. Certainly Middle Ground can be an
excuse for taking any action at all - and interesting
conundrum. At what point does virtue become vice? Or
perhaps more appropriately, at what point does virtue
become impotence. Turn the other cheek comes to mind.
This, I would contend, poses another Middle Ground
challenge; at each new level of a concept we are
challenged to understand the extremes it poses.
This, I might add, is one of the arguments against taking
the Middle Ground position, or, as is laid at the feet of
philosophers, it entails taking so many different positions
it is impossible to reach any conclusion.
Go back to empathy and respect. To understand a
person's position (empathy) does not entail embracing it.
Nor does respect entail an embrace.
Middle Ground is understanding, not necessarily
embracing. In fact the great challenge is to be able to
understand and still take action deemed appropriate or
necessary. There comes a time when some must suffer
so that others can go on; no decision in life can be greater
than making that determination when the responsibility to
do so has been laid on. Playing god is the way the
sufferers would describe it, and perhaps it is. It is
commonly called for in combat; when must the lives of
some be placed in jeopardy to attempt to save the lives of
others? Middle Ground is understanding enough to weigh
the options; decisions often drive one away from Middle
Ground, through necessity.
Nothing is simple, and Middle Ground is no more an
exception that are the simplicities of emotion. Nor should
it be an excuse for inaction demanded by principle.
Are they the same?
Certainly they can be. Certainly Middle Ground can be an
excuse for taking any action at all - and interesting
conundrum. At what point does virtue become vice? Or
perhaps more appropriately, at what point does virtue
become impotence. Turn the other cheek comes to mind.
This, I would contend, poses another Middle Ground
challenge; at each new level of a concept we are
challenged to understand the extremes it poses.
This, I might add, is one of the arguments against taking
the Middle Ground position, or, as is laid at the feet of
philosophers, it entails taking so many different positions
it is impossible to reach any conclusion.
Go back to empathy and respect. To understand a
person's position (empathy) does not entail embracing it.
Nor does respect entail an embrace.
Middle Ground is understanding, not necessarily
embracing. In fact the great challenge is to be able to
understand and still take action deemed appropriate or
necessary. There comes a time when some must suffer
so that others can go on; no decision in life can be greater
than making that determination when the responsibility to
do so has been laid on. Playing god is the way the
sufferers would describe it, and perhaps it is. It is
commonly called for in combat; when must the lives of
some be placed in jeopardy to attempt to save the lives of
others? Middle Ground is understanding enough to weigh
the options; decisions often drive one away from Middle
Ground, through necessity.
Nothing is simple, and Middle Ground is no more an
exception that are the simplicities of emotion. Nor should
it be an excuse for inaction demanded by principle.
Notice the difficulty imposed by
generalities. What is principle? What
justifies action that endangers some for the
benefit of others? Where is that line between
complacent surrender and arrogant
obstinacy?
These are things one must decide for one's
self and causes holding Middle Ground to be
both tenuous and challenging.
Life ain't simple and it will not reduce itself
to simple formulas, (despite many powerful
thinkers having tried to do so) unless one is
driven by the emotions of ignorance - then it's
easy.
A large dollop of wisdom is very helpful. So
is the ability to see something with a bit of
flexibility, realizing the difference between
taking a position and demanding that
someone else must take the same.
generalities. What is principle? What
justifies action that endangers some for the
benefit of others? Where is that line between
complacent surrender and arrogant
obstinacy?
These are things one must decide for one's
self and causes holding Middle Ground to be
both tenuous and challenging.
Life ain't simple and it will not reduce itself
to simple formulas, (despite many powerful
thinkers having tried to do so) unless one is
driven by the emotions of ignorance - then it's
easy.
A large dollop of wisdom is very helpful. So
is the ability to see something with a bit of
flexibility, realizing the difference between
taking a position and demanding that
someone else must take the same.
It should be quite evident that I am a
quotation junky. Here is one I particularly like
from Anton Myrer (Once An Eagle):
"Read, think, disagree with everything, if you
like - but force your mind outward."
That, after all, is what we are all about here.
quotation junky. Here is one I particularly like
from Anton Myrer (Once An Eagle):
"Read, think, disagree with everything, if you
like - but force your mind outward."
That, after all, is what we are all about here.
BEWARE - BEWARE - BEWARE
Bernard le Bovier de Fontenelle:
"A philosopher sees the earth as a large planet, traveling
through the heavens, covered with fools."
Bernard le Bovier de Fontenelle:
"A philosopher sees the earth as a large planet, traveling
through the heavens, covered with fools."
Compromise
Compromise is another concept we think of in political context, but has far broader application. In a sense
all life is compromise; even the ruthlessly powerful face it - even they can't have everything for themselves and
are forced to compromise, if not on principle at least on priorities.
Being the way most of us are, sure of ourselves and opinionated - and emotionally committed, compromise
is not particularly palatable because we see it as giving up something. Well, in life one must almost always
give up something to achieve something because all just can't have everything they want. And not everyone
agrees as to what should be open for compromise - see "Compromise and Principles" in the section of
Collected Quotations. Perhaps that is the secret of effective compromise: knowing when and where it is
acceptable and appropriate, and where it isn't.
The greatest political compromise is between rights and order. But this has cultural application as well.
We all continually face compromise between what we want - and even expect - and what we realize we must
settle for. One of the beauties of the concept of cost - money - is that it forces compromise: what we want and
what we can afford always entail compromise (or did until credit cards - and even then it eventually does). But
then the rights/order compromise is continually in our faces on a day to day basis, and the old adage, your
rights end where my nose begins, expresses it succinctly.
In fact try this one on for size: compromise is a subset of responsibility. So is it any surprise that the youth
of today in our New Culture have trouble dealing with compromise when they are inadequately trained in
responsibility? Or more brutally, part of the not growing up we are observing shows the same disconnect.
Compromise - like kissing your sister, one wag suggested - has gotten a bad rap in our culture. It is
weakness, it is meekness (from above), it is wimpiness - because we say it is. Is that more influence of
propaganda? On the contrary, compromise is civilization; what odd twists we put to words, perhaps
because too many of us really don't understand their meanings - or subvert those meanings. How did we
slide back to ignorance?
Entertainment - fantasy - helps (notice how I keep hitting the same bases in different contexts - either
because that's the way it is or because that is my intellectual prejudice - take your choice). One never sees a
compromising action hero. Leaders in fantasy always know exactly what they need to do and do it in the face
of any and all opposition. Consider a real life compromise challenge. When the Germans occupied France
and imposed their control the French were faced with a compromise decision: go into the woods and fight, or
accept it and live with it. We are judgmental: fight fight fight. But what of the fifty year old family man with a
wife and four small children who ran a business in Paris? Close it down, and join a partisan group? Think
about it. Most of life is like that, and not like the fantasy scripts in which we wallow so deliciously.
There is, of course, much more; but that is enough for now.
Compromise is another concept we think of in political context, but has far broader application. In a sense
all life is compromise; even the ruthlessly powerful face it - even they can't have everything for themselves and
are forced to compromise, if not on principle at least on priorities.
Being the way most of us are, sure of ourselves and opinionated - and emotionally committed, compromise
is not particularly palatable because we see it as giving up something. Well, in life one must almost always
give up something to achieve something because all just can't have everything they want. And not everyone
agrees as to what should be open for compromise - see "Compromise and Principles" in the section of
Collected Quotations. Perhaps that is the secret of effective compromise: knowing when and where it is
acceptable and appropriate, and where it isn't.
The greatest political compromise is between rights and order. But this has cultural application as well.
We all continually face compromise between what we want - and even expect - and what we realize we must
settle for. One of the beauties of the concept of cost - money - is that it forces compromise: what we want and
what we can afford always entail compromise (or did until credit cards - and even then it eventually does). But
then the rights/order compromise is continually in our faces on a day to day basis, and the old adage, your
rights end where my nose begins, expresses it succinctly.
In fact try this one on for size: compromise is a subset of responsibility. So is it any surprise that the youth
of today in our New Culture have trouble dealing with compromise when they are inadequately trained in
responsibility? Or more brutally, part of the not growing up we are observing shows the same disconnect.
Compromise - like kissing your sister, one wag suggested - has gotten a bad rap in our culture. It is
weakness, it is meekness (from above), it is wimpiness - because we say it is. Is that more influence of
propaganda? On the contrary, compromise is civilization; what odd twists we put to words, perhaps
because too many of us really don't understand their meanings - or subvert those meanings. How did we
slide back to ignorance?
Entertainment - fantasy - helps (notice how I keep hitting the same bases in different contexts - either
because that's the way it is or because that is my intellectual prejudice - take your choice). One never sees a
compromising action hero. Leaders in fantasy always know exactly what they need to do and do it in the face
of any and all opposition. Consider a real life compromise challenge. When the Germans occupied France
and imposed their control the French were faced with a compromise decision: go into the woods and fight, or
accept it and live with it. We are judgmental: fight fight fight. But what of the fifty year old family man with a
wife and four small children who ran a business in Paris? Close it down, and join a partisan group? Think
about it. Most of life is like that, and not like the fantasy scripts in which we wallow so deliciously.
There is, of course, much more; but that is enough for now.
Emotionalism
It emerges from both ends of the spectrum. In my opinion it is
almost always couched in ignorance, and I need to explain that
rationale. Those who are emotional are emotional about
something, and that something is what they know and concentrate
their thinking upon. It is most often based on experience, however
narrow, or strongly held beliefs, now matter how unrealistic.
Specifically, what is known tends to be derived from someone or
something - or plural someones or somethings - that fueled the
emotion: it's not fair! What's not fair? It is the way it has to be!
Really? Whatever the experience pointed to that was not fair;
whatever the belief just has to be and to be otherwise is also not
fair.
Not fairs are easily found; they abound. There is much in our lives,
our world, that is not fair. Life is not fair. Often the not fairs are
seen in isolation; as a result, with possible causes lost in the fog
of the past. Poverty suggests a case in point. Some, not all,
poverty is self perpetuated Positive opportunities offered were
spurned; negative opportunities were embraced. Education is one
of the positives; drugs are one of the negatives. We all make
choices and some are bad. Yet some of the choices made were
not entirely within the control of the maker. Some lost educational
opportunities, for example, may have been due to family situations.
Sure, there are also examples of those that rose above them, but
many were unable to do so. The point is those in the clutches of
emotion tend to see results and discount the steps that led up to
those results or they discount anything that lies outside of their
fixed beliefs.
The emotional extremes stress either a need for individual
responsibility and resourcefulness on the one hand, or need for
compassion and succor on the on the other. Each tends to
discount the other. Politically this can be seen in rights or order.
Emotionally it can be seen as arrogance or dependence. Who
speaks up for a balance between the two? Who wants to point to
the yes, buts? Propaganda doesn't work like that. Entertainment
doesn't work like that. Emotionalism doesn't work like that. We
would prefer to concentrate on the not fair, or not right. People
need to stand on their own; people need to be given assistance to
help them get by. Yes, on both counts - but tempered and with
great care.
A little knowledge helps too, particularly the knowledge of
unintended circumstances. But also of just how can what is
thought should be done to be done? Emotionalism doesn't give
adequate attention to such things. It is needed therefore it must be
done; don't bother me with how, just do it. Ignorance of what is
required to do it is the enabler of unbounded emotionalism. Just
do it.
In the middle there is reality.
It emerges from both ends of the spectrum. In my opinion it is
almost always couched in ignorance, and I need to explain that
rationale. Those who are emotional are emotional about
something, and that something is what they know and concentrate
their thinking upon. It is most often based on experience, however
narrow, or strongly held beliefs, now matter how unrealistic.
Specifically, what is known tends to be derived from someone or
something - or plural someones or somethings - that fueled the
emotion: it's not fair! What's not fair? It is the way it has to be!
Really? Whatever the experience pointed to that was not fair;
whatever the belief just has to be and to be otherwise is also not
fair.
Not fairs are easily found; they abound. There is much in our lives,
our world, that is not fair. Life is not fair. Often the not fairs are
seen in isolation; as a result, with possible causes lost in the fog
of the past. Poverty suggests a case in point. Some, not all,
poverty is self perpetuated Positive opportunities offered were
spurned; negative opportunities were embraced. Education is one
of the positives; drugs are one of the negatives. We all make
choices and some are bad. Yet some of the choices made were
not entirely within the control of the maker. Some lost educational
opportunities, for example, may have been due to family situations.
Sure, there are also examples of those that rose above them, but
many were unable to do so. The point is those in the clutches of
emotion tend to see results and discount the steps that led up to
those results or they discount anything that lies outside of their
fixed beliefs.
The emotional extremes stress either a need for individual
responsibility and resourcefulness on the one hand, or need for
compassion and succor on the on the other. Each tends to
discount the other. Politically this can be seen in rights or order.
Emotionally it can be seen as arrogance or dependence. Who
speaks up for a balance between the two? Who wants to point to
the yes, buts? Propaganda doesn't work like that. Entertainment
doesn't work like that. Emotionalism doesn't work like that. We
would prefer to concentrate on the not fair, or not right. People
need to stand on their own; people need to be given assistance to
help them get by. Yes, on both counts - but tempered and with
great care.
A little knowledge helps too, particularly the knowledge of
unintended circumstances. But also of just how can what is
thought should be done to be done? Emotionalism doesn't give
adequate attention to such things. It is needed therefore it must be
done; don't bother me with how, just do it. Ignorance of what is
required to do it is the enabler of unbounded emotionalism. Just
do it.
In the middle there is reality.
Middle Ground is not
relativism, raising an
important challenge; it is
called PRINCIPLES.
Danger to Middle Ground
arises from an ignorant,
self centered, greedy
majority bent on destruction
of the principles of a
minority for its enrichment;
Middle Ground is more than
majority.
relativism, raising an
important challenge; it is
called PRINCIPLES.
Danger to Middle Ground
arises from an ignorant,
self centered, greedy
majority bent on destruction
of the principles of a
minority for its enrichment;
Middle Ground is more than
majority.
A Dichotomy
A casual observer (assuming there was one) might see the
dichotomy I have wrought, and it offers a valuable lesson - at
least it has for me. My Middle Ground model began with the
political arena; moved to economics, logically and reasonably
enough; and then into the broader category of life, where it
runs into the rather serious difficulty of trying to deal with
principles. Middle Ground is compromise, but principles
resist compromise, for very good reason.
Yet "principles" are a sticky wicket within the human panoply
of thoughts and ideas: Honesty is a principle; is socialism? I
ran into a similar dilemma when I attempted to extol honor.
Honor is a fine principle, until it is discredited by idiocy that
changes something basically good to something ridiculous.
Most principles can be similarly debased when expanded to
mean something not intended by the original meaning of the
word. On the other hand that which one might consider a
principle not to be compromised may be something to be
eschewed by another: perhaps the issue of pro life and pro
choice is an example of that; but one might even argue that
faith in a supreme diety falls into this category.
Does this mean that I am wrong to try to expand the Middle
Ground into this arena? Yes and no. Clearly it has to be done
carefully - and probably selectively. For now let me suggest
this: the Middle Ground of life should require that we be open
minded and respectful of others' ideas and positions, and
when they do personally impact us, should not be contested.
In other words we should not attempt to imposed our wills
upon others when they offer no harm to us. That needs more
work. As I have said elsewhere, this is a work in process for
the purpose of thinking through the philosophy.
A casual observer (assuming there was one) might see the
dichotomy I have wrought, and it offers a valuable lesson - at
least it has for me. My Middle Ground model began with the
political arena; moved to economics, logically and reasonably
enough; and then into the broader category of life, where it
runs into the rather serious difficulty of trying to deal with
principles. Middle Ground is compromise, but principles
resist compromise, for very good reason.
Yet "principles" are a sticky wicket within the human panoply
of thoughts and ideas: Honesty is a principle; is socialism? I
ran into a similar dilemma when I attempted to extol honor.
Honor is a fine principle, until it is discredited by idiocy that
changes something basically good to something ridiculous.
Most principles can be similarly debased when expanded to
mean something not intended by the original meaning of the
word. On the other hand that which one might consider a
principle not to be compromised may be something to be
eschewed by another: perhaps the issue of pro life and pro
choice is an example of that; but one might even argue that
faith in a supreme diety falls into this category.
Does this mean that I am wrong to try to expand the Middle
Ground into this arena? Yes and no. Clearly it has to be done
carefully - and probably selectively. For now let me suggest
this: the Middle Ground of life should require that we be open
minded and respectful of others' ideas and positions, and
when they do personally impact us, should not be contested.
In other words we should not attempt to imposed our wills
upon others when they offer no harm to us. That needs more
work. As I have said elsewhere, this is a work in process for
the purpose of thinking through the philosophy.
Matter for Consideration
The Individual Middle Ground
Middle Ground, as I have chosen to attempt to try to
address it has mostly to do with dealing with the differences
among men, which is from whence comes the need for
compromise. When we cannot agree, and we want to
continue to get along, there must be compromise - the Middle
Ground between extreme positions, or even positions that are
not so extreme.
But thrusting the concept of compromise into the business
of life - one's personal life - expands the equation beyond what
was originally intended. Compromise applies to relationships
- that which is outside an individual; principles apply to what is
inside an individual. The concept of a Middle Ground
approach to life can only be understood when limited to that
which is outside, not what is inside. Perhaps this is where
relativism started - people started compromising principles to
conform with relationships.
I shall take the position that personal - individual -
principles should not be compromised, else the individual
destroys the individuality that makes him what he is.
Examined continually, yes; and altered when found wanting.
Inflexible principles can be highly debilitating. That's the
inside part; but no individual lives in isolation from his fellow
man, so there must be an interface between inside
(principles) and outside (relationships); this is where Middle
Ground applies, and, I would contend, it is at that interface
where so many problems among us - including in the political
and economic arenas - exist and fester. Politics and
economics are the broader environment in which we must
subsist; the applicable personal Middle Ground is the
interface we must fashion between the internal - our principles
- and the external environment. It is always a monumental
challenge.
Why? Because principles, particularly when
microscopically defined, tend not to be shared - at the
microscopic level. Take honesty, for example. Take politics:
we want to be told what we want to hear, else we will withhold
our vote, so politicians tell us what we want to hear, consistent
with whatever principles to which they adhere, to get our vote.
Where does honesty come in? Or the "little white lie," where
avoiding naked truth that can be hurtful is accepted. Even
honesty with self can be difficult. Principles are not quite as
hard and fast as we would wish them to be; so if individual
principles are so, what of the interface between the principles
of one and the principles of another?
I suggest we have all we can do to deal with our own
principles, the inconsistencies thereof and our inevitable
inability to adhere to them as we would wish to do, without
trying to thrust ourselves into the principles of others. That
brings us back to where we must view our Middle Ground of
Life: at the interface with relationships with others. Simply
stated, we owe it to ourselves to share our principles - views -
with others, but we do not have the right - individually - (we do
collectively, but that brings us back to politics and rule of law)
to attempt to impose our principles upon others. That's why
laws and governments are necessary - as well as
compromise - and respect. Personal Middle Ground is so
difficult (and problematical) because it requires us to develop
and adhere to principles while respecting those of others -
and dealing peacefully with the interface between them.
Oh, boy.
Middle Ground, as I have chosen to attempt to try to
address it has mostly to do with dealing with the differences
among men, which is from whence comes the need for
compromise. When we cannot agree, and we want to
continue to get along, there must be compromise - the Middle
Ground between extreme positions, or even positions that are
not so extreme.
But thrusting the concept of compromise into the business
of life - one's personal life - expands the equation beyond what
was originally intended. Compromise applies to relationships
- that which is outside an individual; principles apply to what is
inside an individual. The concept of a Middle Ground
approach to life can only be understood when limited to that
which is outside, not what is inside. Perhaps this is where
relativism started - people started compromising principles to
conform with relationships.
I shall take the position that personal - individual -
principles should not be compromised, else the individual
destroys the individuality that makes him what he is.
Examined continually, yes; and altered when found wanting.
Inflexible principles can be highly debilitating. That's the
inside part; but no individual lives in isolation from his fellow
man, so there must be an interface between inside
(principles) and outside (relationships); this is where Middle
Ground applies, and, I would contend, it is at that interface
where so many problems among us - including in the political
and economic arenas - exist and fester. Politics and
economics are the broader environment in which we must
subsist; the applicable personal Middle Ground is the
interface we must fashion between the internal - our principles
- and the external environment. It is always a monumental
challenge.
Why? Because principles, particularly when
microscopically defined, tend not to be shared - at the
microscopic level. Take honesty, for example. Take politics:
we want to be told what we want to hear, else we will withhold
our vote, so politicians tell us what we want to hear, consistent
with whatever principles to which they adhere, to get our vote.
Where does honesty come in? Or the "little white lie," where
avoiding naked truth that can be hurtful is accepted. Even
honesty with self can be difficult. Principles are not quite as
hard and fast as we would wish them to be; so if individual
principles are so, what of the interface between the principles
of one and the principles of another?
I suggest we have all we can do to deal with our own
principles, the inconsistencies thereof and our inevitable
inability to adhere to them as we would wish to do, without
trying to thrust ourselves into the principles of others. That
brings us back to where we must view our Middle Ground of
Life: at the interface with relationships with others. Simply
stated, we owe it to ourselves to share our principles - views -
with others, but we do not have the right - individually - (we do
collectively, but that brings us back to politics and rule of law)
to attempt to impose our principles upon others. That's why
laws and governments are necessary - as well as
compromise - and respect. Personal Middle Ground is so
difficult (and problematical) because it requires us to develop
and adhere to principles while respecting those of others -
and dealing peacefully with the interface between them.
Oh, boy.
| See below for a different context |
"Intellectual and respectful sharing of ideas
and principles is the essence of civilization -
and peaceful coexistence. We have a long
way to go. The path is clear; how to negotiate
it is anything but."
and principles is the essence of civilization -
and peaceful coexistence. We have a long
way to go. The path is clear; how to negotiate
it is anything but."
Pain and Suffering
The subject is broad.
Here is another Middle Ground for
consideration: pain versus discomfort - and
the middle ground between the two. We,
unfortunately in my opinion, have swung way
to far in the direction of pain: everything that is
not comfortable for us is deemed pain and
should be curable by a pill - even
unhappiness.
This is not a healthy outlook. Much "pain"
should be merely endured and treated as it
is - discomfort. Suck it up and endure. Or
better yet, accept as middle ground and
endure until it becomes unendurable
(individual tolerances, which have become
incredibly low, understood), and only then
pursue stronger options.
Much "pain" goes away when ignored.
The subject is broad.
Here is another Middle Ground for
consideration: pain versus discomfort - and
the middle ground between the two. We,
unfortunately in my opinion, have swung way
to far in the direction of pain: everything that is
not comfortable for us is deemed pain and
should be curable by a pill - even
unhappiness.
This is not a healthy outlook. Much "pain"
should be merely endured and treated as it
is - discomfort. Suck it up and endure. Or
better yet, accept as middle ground and
endure until it becomes unendurable
(individual tolerances, which have become
incredibly low, understood), and only then
pursue stronger options.
Much "pain" goes away when ignored.