Archive of articles classified as' "Manners For The 21st Century"Back home
“So exactly what does ‘han’ mean in Korean?”
“Well, it can have several meanings depending on the context.”
“What about the one that means ‘loneliness’ or ‘isolation’?”
“Hmm, I suppose it can mean that,
but that’s only a small part of it.
It would also include great sadness and hatred.”
“So, it’s kind of like the blues.”
“No, not like the blues. That’s too soft.
If you say your heart is filled with han,
it means you are full of anger and sadness
and hatred and despair and loneliness past
the most extreme feelings you can bear.
It means you’ve gone to the end and
there is no turning back.”
So in other words,
Batman has han.”
You’re stepping out for a night on the town with your beloved and just as you’re about to enter the very very tres ritze’ restaurant where you’ve booked reservations months in advance…
…you encounter the town’s most notorious hamster diddler.
And there’s no doubt this person diddles hamsters:
Not only have they been convicted of hamster diddling in the first, second, and third degrees but they also have a website where they’ve uploaded selfies of themselves diddling hamsters.
And as you’re entering and the hamster diddler is leaving, they lean over to you and say:
“Don’t go in there,
the kitchen is on fire!”
Now, do you:
(a) Ignore whatever that damned hamster diddler has to say because =feh!= they’re a hamster diddler, f’r cryin’ out loud! and proudly march into the restaurant.
(b) Do you look inside to ascertain if you can see smoke and/or cooks running around screaming with flames billowing off of their chef’s hats?
Because if — if! — the hamster diddler is telling the truth that’s valuable information to know!
Got into an interesting
online discussion with
the previous post.
Essentially the person I was discussing the topic with wanted no part of Bertrand Russell on the grounds he was an atheist who favored big government.
Okay, be that as it may,
does any of that negate
the validity of what he said?
The truth, as Agent Mulder frequently reminded us, is out there.
And it doesn’t matter from whose lips or depraved fingers it may fall.
It’s either true or it’s not.
The ancient church had no problem accepting the findings of pagans, polytheists, Mithrans, Muslims, Hindus, diests, Gnostics, and agnostics in matters pertaining to things outside the theological realm.
Their findings in science & math & metallurgy & medicine & engineering either worked…
…or it didn’t work.
And if it didn’t work it didn’t matter how bona fide their bona fides were: It didn’t work!
And if it did work — It worked! — no matter how how suspect their philosophical and/or theological roots.
You are not betraying your faith — whatever it may be — to look at something a person of another faith did and say, “Yeah, in that particular area they’re right”.
It doesn’t touch your theological underpinnings,
it doesn’t crumple up your church.
You just acknowledge it
And move on.
We have far too often allowed ourselves to be divided and have far too often followed blindly when some pundit tells us “We are always right, they are always wrong; ignore everything they have to say and especially don’t listen to anything that contradicts what you’ve been told by us!”
First off, anybody who is confident they speak / write the truth has no bashfulness re confronting contrarian opinions: They will either expose weaknesses in their own thinking, or at the very least give us an opportunity to understand why those with opposing points of view possess those views.
Second, no mortal human being, not even yrs trly is always 100% right all the time, and even a sincere person who is absolutely right re a particular situation today may be wrong on that same situation tomorrow as new evidence comes in or conditions change.
‘Twas ever thus…
Don’t automatically dismiss something a hamster diddler has to say.
Not unless you want to have your after dinner mints in the burn ward.
art by Drew Friedman
 Or non-faith.
 And, truth be told, too willingly — nay, eagerly! — participate in the divisiveness.
 Although some folks have some pretty decent batting averages.
Perhaps the essence of the Liberal outlook could be summed up in a new decalogue, not intended to replace the old one but only to supplement it. The Ten Commandments that, as a teacher, I should wish to promulgate, might be set forth as follows:
- Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.
- Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.
- Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed.
- When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavor to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.
- Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.
- Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.
- Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
- Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.
- Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.
- Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool’s paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness.
found via brainpickings
Imagine we’re all standing on a giant chessboard.
I can take a position. Row E, Column 4. (Not a strong position on any chessboard, but never mind.) I can say, “This square — Row E, Column 4 — this is my position. This is the best position on the board. This is the only position worth having. This is the right position and I will defend it to your death.” That’s defending a position — a specific position. It keeps the defender, immobile, stuck, unable to move forward or back, unable to adapt or respond.
Now, let me try it another way. I can step onto any square on the board and declare. “I am a stand for winning. I stand for victory. I can stand here on this square and stand for winning, or I can take two steps to the right and stand on this square and stand for winning. I can stand on a white square and stand for winning, or I can stand on a black square and stand for victory. But wherever I am standing, I stand for winning.” It doesn’t matter where I’m standing, I still stand for the same goal.
Self-righteousness is about defending a position.
Making a difference is about taking a stand.
Frank Kelly Freas
And contrary to what some others might think,
it’s possible — even desirable — to find happiness
and meaning in one’s work. I know I do…
Truth be told, no matter how much money you have in the bank,
you won’t be happy unless you can live by certain basic guidelines.
…and if you can live by those guidelines,
then it really doesn’t matter how much
money you have in the bank.
That leaves just about 12 percent. That might not sound like much, but the good news is that we can bring that 12 percent under our control. It turns out that choosing to pursue four basic values of faith, family, community and work is the surest path to happiness, given that a certain percentage is genetic and not under our control in any way.
The first three are fairly uncontroversial. Empirical evidence that faith, family and friendships increase happiness and meaning is hardly shocking. Few dying patients regret overinvesting in rich family lives, community ties and spiritual journeys.
This shouldn’t shock us. Vocation is central to the American ideal, the root of the aphorism that we “live to work” while others “work to live.” Throughout our history, America’s flexible labor markets and dynamic society have given its citizens a unique say over our work — and made our work uniquely relevant to our happiness. When Frederick Douglass rhapsodized about “patient, enduring, honest, unremitting and indefatigable work, into which the whole heart is put,” he struck the bedrock of our culture and character.
…rewarding work is unbelievably important, and this is emphatically not about money. That’s what research suggests as well. Economists find that money makes truly poor people happier insofar as it relieves pressure from everyday life — getting enough to eat, having a place to live, taking your kid to the doctor. But scholars like the Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman have found that once people reach a little beyond the average middle-class income level, even big financial gains don’t yield much, if any, increases in happiness.
So relieving poverty brings big happiness, but income, per se, does not. Even after accounting for government transfers that support personal finances, unemployment proves catastrophic for happiness. Abstracted from money, joblessness seems to increase the rates of divorce and suicide, and the severity of disease.
And according to the General Social Survey, nearly three-quarters of Americans wouldn’t quit their jobs even if a financial windfall enabled them to live in luxury for the rest of their lives. Those with the least education, the lowest incomes and the least prestigious jobs were actually most likely to say they would keep working, while elites were more likely to say they would take the money and run. We would do well to remember this before scoffing at “dead-end jobs.”
…Work can bring happiness by marrying our passions to our skills, empowering us to create value in our lives and in the lives of others. .Franklin D. Roosevelt had it right: “Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort.”
art by David Lockhart
“Watching porn to learn to have sex is like watching Vin Diesel movies to learn how to drive.”
– Nina Hartley
Read what led up to this panel here.
Thank you, Glenn, for succinctly summing up exactly what’s at the heart of the issue…
…what’s that? You say I’ve unfairly strip quoted you? You say I took only part of what you said and presented it out of context so it seems like you are saying something else?
Well, you would know, wouldn’t you?
Okay, here’s your full quote:
“‘Why did you need that to divide us politically?’ Because that’s all this ad is. It’s in your face, and if you don’t like it, if you’re offended by it, you’re a racist. If you do like it, you’re for immigration. You’re for progress. That’s all this is: To divide people. Remember when Coke used to do the thing on the top and they would all hold hands? Now it’s, have a Coke and we’ll divide you.”
Sooooooo, if we make bigots and racists feel bad about not being able to lord it over other people, then we are the bad people, because heaven knows bigots and racists are fully entitled to have the rest of the world know-tow to their wishes so they don’t ever have to feel uncomfortable.
You know who thinks that sorta thing?
Bigots and racists.
Now, I’m not saying you are a bigot and a racist, Glenn. Oh, no, far from it: Bigots and racists at least have core principles by which they stand. But I am saying: