Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Golden Rule!

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 07:42 AM
link   
I often see people make reference to the Golden Rule. That is, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

This is often refered to as a reliable axiom in ethical matters, and in all respect I do see at first glance how that can seem so.
In fact, I agree that it can be very reliable and useful within a certain context-
when the other is of the same tribe as yourself.
If they have the same background and culture, they were instilled young with the same values, then this axiom can be quite useful!

BUT it fails miserably if applied in exchanges with people from other cultures, other backgrounds, or even just other social classes.
Values are different- what YOU would like to recieve is not necessarily what the OTHER would like to recieve!

This is even a great source of misunderstanding between men and women!

The guy tries to follow it and she is going to get a 6 pack of beer, a pizza, and an afternoon of football on tv for her birthday,
The girl tries and he is going to get roses, a poem, and a diamond bracelet for his birthday.

Efforts to express care and concern are misunderstood this way, sometimes as being the exact opposite!

Maybe this is more clear to me because my husband is of a different background and culture, but this is the biggest source of our conflicts earlier in our marriage!

On the other hand, I think it is something we do anyway, subconsciously even, systematically, at the beginning of any exchange.
We try at first to treat the other as we'd like them to treat us... that gives them a clue.
It is sometimes a matter of who will agree to bend and respond according to the desires of the other.
Who will copy?

One person wants to have an exchange of friendliness and merging,
the other wants to have an exchange of challenge and conflict,

which one shall give in? That is usually seen rather quickly and the exchange goes on in those terms.
Some like to say that sticking to your own principles no matter what is best....(turn the other cheek) and religion aside, that is what can lead to things like martyrism and relations of tyrant-victim. Like the spouse who remains sweet and passive and giving, to the other who is violent and unjust.

Somewhere you need to ask yourself , "What is more important?" that I feel self rightious with myself ? Or that I have exchange with this other person that is meaningful ?"

I do not think there is a "right" answer to that, it may vary accordingly- perhaps it is a matter of "pick your battles carefully", I don't know.

But I have seen females especially run into this problem- thinking that through what they do for the other, it is clear what they themselves would want. They don't NEED to voice it clearly. The old "if you loved me you wouldn't need me to ASK" problem.

My point is
1- the Golden Rule is very limited as a reliable axiom for ethical behavior.
It does not eliminate the necessity of actually paying very close attention to the other and being receptive ot who they are. Just listening to your inner voices commands are not enough for effective exchanges!

2- Much of the time, we ARE doing what we'd like to recieve, at least at first. It is part of our oldest instincts, our sympathetic nervous system, and our mirror neurons. Only, part of our psychology being subconscious we are not always completely aware of what it is we want and don't recognize our own repeated invitations!
edit on 12-11-2012 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   
In my humble opinion, all religions have this somewhere in their cultus. They call it different things: The Golden Rule, The Law Of Three, Karma, etc. They all have their root with in the Laws of Creation, specifically the third law: What you put out is what you get back.

This isn't a physical thing (gotta get that gift for the loved one), but the intentions behind the gift giving, or how we treat the other person. We wouldn't go about killing each other for receiving a flower from the other person, would we? It is all about intentions and how we think about each other, what we ask for, from the universe, from ourselves, from other minds. If you think back, on just about any point in your life, you will remember asking for something from the universe, but it just didn't come the way you wanted, or didn't come at all. One reason for this, is that the Universe is a big copy machine.

Negative Desire, and statement: "I WANT to feel more love." Response: "I will give you the experience of WANTING to feel more love."

Positive Desire, and statement: "Money comes easily and frequently." Response: "I will give you the experience of Money coming easily and frequently."

But it is slightly more then this, just asking for what you want. How you treat others is very important, after all, what you put out, what vibration you inflict, or gift to others also loops back and affects you as well.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bluesma
I often see people make reference to the Golden Rule. That is, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

This is often refered to as a reliable axiom in ethical matters, and in all respect I do see at first glance how that can seem so.
In fact, I agree that it can be very reliable and useful within a certain context-
when the other is of the same tribe as yourself.
If they have the same background and culture, they were instilled young with the same values, then this axiom can be quite useful!

BUT it fails miserably if applied in exchanges with people from other cultures, other backgrounds, or even just other social classes.


Hi there, LOL.........I may be your first reader. My only question to you for the part I highlighted, is that isn't the "golden rule," the basic building block of most cultures and religions?

The way I take your post is that based on the culture, it is male dominant? Not inclusive of both genders, or in respect to others that are different?

If that is what you are pointing to, then it's obvious that people are not following the rule. So why should cultural, or different religions matter?

I guess in my post via the other thread, that most people do have this inherent in them, at some core level. If they don't follow it, it's for selfish gainful purposes, and they are not following it at all.

It can't be a partial belief. It's something that requires more than using it to just benefit oneself.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Bluesma
 

Your examples are the shallow expression of the rule.

I don't want people to intentionally buy me foods they know I don't like but they do like, therefore I won't buy people foods I like that they don't like (once I am made aware of this).

If I buy someone food they don't like in ignorance, I want them to let me know they aren't a fan of the food, but appreciate the offer. Thus if someone gives me food I don't like, I try to let them know I'm not a fan but I am very appreciative of the offer.

The Golden Rule *does* fail if you only apply it "selfishly", which is the version you offered. The full scope of it must be reciprocal.

That said: If someone *wants* to be punched when greeted, but I don't... the Golden Rule application would be: I punch them upon greeting, they do not punch me upon greeting because there are conditions where *they* would not want to be punched.

It requires being sensitive to the others, not just "Lalalala I'm doing what I want".

Thus two people from different cultures who are following the rule will likely initiate contact by first finding out what the other person does or doesn't appreciate and aiming to interact in that direction as much as possible.

Hopefully you see? It requires following the "doing to others as you would have them do to you" in the full circle.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Skada
 


That sounds very sublimated to me, perhaps I am having trouble translating that to practical terms?


I can give an example and perhaps you can use it to apply this and make it clearer to me how that works in real life?

See, I live in a country where interdependance is valued and independance de-valued.
This is in opposition to my background, where it is the opposite.

I like to have my independance and freedom respected- and I once would try to give that to others around me.
I respected their privacy and did not spy on them, I do not offer them uninvited criticism and advice, I do not talk about them behind their back.

Because the culture here is one of interdependance, they took that to mean I don't care about anyone but myself, I have no interest in others, and I don't respect them.

I took their doing these things to mean they didn't like me, they didn't respect me, they purposely intended to let me know that- they wanted to hurt my feelings or make me feel preyed upon.

They were trying to show they care, they are alert to me and my needs, and they are "being their brothers keeper".

If I stuck to the Golden Rule, this misunderstanding between us would continue. I would not only not have friends, but would completely isolated in this village! -And I would be very bitter, thinking this is a land of cruel evil people, that just refuse to treat me as they would like to be treated!


How can this rule be applied effectively in such a situation?

edit on 12-11-2012 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Those that are here for consciousness development, understand and largely live in this manner. Those that are imprisoned here because they don't play well, follow there Golden Rule "Do unto others and guilt only exists, if you get caught"



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by rollsthepaul
Those that are here for consciousness development, understand and largely live in this manner. Those that are imprisoned here because they don't play well, follow there Golden Rule "Do unto others and guilt only exists, if you get caught"


I hate to agree with you, but you are right in many ways.

It's not only keeping up with the Jones's in the world today, it's about surpassing them and seeing them in ruins that comes to mind.

Even if people have the inherent root of the rule, they side step it for self serving purposes, which is the definition of pure evil.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Bluesma
 


Well, since we are not telepathic yet, perhaps sitting down and talking to people and getting to know the local culture would be a great benefit. It takes a village to raise a child, it still takes that same village to help raise your inner-child. We are social creatures and need companionship. Even the old hermit needs company once in a while.

Also, in reference to the interdependence vs. independence: Balance is key. It is "This AND That", not "This OR That." You need both, just not all the time. you wouldn't build a barn by yourself, although you could go fishing by yourself, but the other person may make the fishing trip more enjoyable. Change your paradigm, or the way you see things, and try to see things from the other villagers point-of-view, and you will see that you have much more in common then you realize.
I hope that makes sense, any one else want to add to that, make it more clear?



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Sissel
 


Maybe if you read my post above, it can giev a better idea of where I first began contemplation on this problem!

People here DO offer what they would like to recieve, but in many cases, I didn't want the same, so at first, I didn't recognize that. I thought they were not following that Golden rule- but they were.

Another example of culture clash-
It is also a tradition to begin some bonding through a ritual of debate or provocation.
Often at the dinner table, in fact, over a very controversial subject.
One person will invite the other to this verbal dance, through some provocative pokes on the subject,
(sometimes they don't even really mean it, it is said tongue in cheek and understood to be an invite),
and some snappy comebacks and debate is exchanged. This gets energy flowing between the two and at some point everyone just laughs and has a drink of wine together- now they know each other and are friends!

Now, in my country? Controversial subjects are no-no's at the meal table,
and debating is seen as hostile challenge- not friendly bonding.
There is also supposed to be a "winner" and a"loser" in a debate, so it doesn't end until there is one, and someone will walk away feeling bad or having submitted.

So you can see my misunderstanding when people I barely knew would do this to me?
And their misunderstanding when I refused to oppose and argue?
Both of us, in those choices, were doing what we'd like to be done to ourselves, and totally misunderstanding the deeper intent of the other- because of cultural education and habit!



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skada
reply to post by Bluesma
 


Well, since we are not telepathic yet, perhaps sitting down and talking to people and getting to know the local culture would be a great benefit. It takes a village to raise a child, it still takes that same village to help raise your inner-child. We are social creatures and need companionship. Even the old hermit needs company once in a while.

Also, in reference to the interdependence vs. independence: Balance is key. It is "This AND That", not "This OR That." You need both, just not all the time. you wouldn't build a barn by yourself, although you could go fishing by yourself, but the other person may make the fishing trip more enjoyable. Change your paradigm, or the way you see things, and try to see things from the other villagers point-of-view, and you will see that you have much more in common then you realize.
I hope that makes sense, any one else want to add to that, make it more clear?


Yes, lol, I have been here for more than 20 years, I have it down now. But I had to start by actually listening and paying attention to others -NOT to my inner conscience telling me what is right and wrong to do.
I had to start off actually offering to others what I DID NOT want myself, in order to effectively communicate my deeper INTENT- which is "I care".

I ended up aquiring the same values added on to my previous ones (closer to balance) so then I began to appreciate their ways of communicating care, and exchanging them. But if I had stuck to the Golden rule, that would not have happened.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:52 AM
link   
I take this saying to be loosely interpreted a s telling others to be mindful and courteous in the other persons prospective and right to believe as they choose. There is so much we can learn from others if we take our ego out of the equation and actually listen to each other to understand why they think the way they do and not pass judgment because it goes against what we believe. There are no absolutes in life; everyone is offered many different paths to explore and find Truths.

I understand where you are coming from with your football analogy of the men vs. women mindset or culture differences. Perhaps it comes down to the maturity of one’s personal evolution through soul growth? I know a lot of people dismiss the ramblings of souls and such as New Age nonsense but think about it. In every culture, era, etc. there always is total upheaval with groups of people in power imposing their will on others from the earliest recorded history. If everyone would could live by the Golden Rule in the simple virtue of mindfulness and tolerance, we could live in a peaceful world.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Bluesma
 


reply to post by Bluesma
 




1- the Golden Rule is very limited as a reliable axiom for ethical behavior. It does not eliminate the necessity of actually paying very close attention to the other and being receptive ot who they are.


I don't think the Golden Rule is meant for the finer points of social interaction.
I think it's more of a guideline for not committing obvious offenses such as stealing and physical/emotional harm.



One person wants to have an exchange of friendliness and merging, the other wants to have an exchange of challenge and conflict


This type of drama is all part of the lesson plan of being "caught up" in the material world.

We are here to learn the Golden Rule as it applies to all reality;
The world was never meant to be a paradise, but rather a school where we learn to live without our desire to struggle or to see what's around the next bend.

Most of us do not run barefoot over the land anymore. We are not comfortable with it like the animals. We are learning to return to spirit and leave our bodies and desires behind.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bluesma
reply to post by Sissel
 


Maybe if you read my post above, it can giev a better idea of where I first began contemplation on this problem!


I did read it. Somehow you are stuck in this situation, for which I feel sorry for you. It seems your quandry is that that you are stuck.


People here DO offer what they would like to recieve, but in many cases, I didn't want the same, so at first, I didn't recognize that. I thought they were not following that Golden rule- but they were.


This is not following the rule, then, if it is self serving.


Another example of culture clash-
It is also a tradition to begin some bonding through a ritual of debate or provocation.
Often at the dinner table, in fact, over a very controversial subject.
One person will invite the other to this verbal dance, through some provocative pokes on the subject,
(sometimes they don't even really mean it, it is said tongue in cheek and understood to be an invite),
and some snappy comebacks and debate is exchanged. This gets energy flowing between the two and at some point everyone just laughs and has a drink of wine together- now they know each other and are friends!


The rule is for the common good. While they may end up laughing, that thorn is stuck in the side of somebody, so the rule where you are has a personal agenda.


Now, in my country? Controversial subjects are no-no's at the meal table,
and debating is seen as hostile challenge- not friendly bonding.
There is also supposed to be a "winner" and a"loser" in a debate, so it doesn't end until there is one, and someone will walk away feeling bad or having submitted.


See above. It's not the rule for the good of all, but personal agenda.


So you can see my misunderstanding when people I barely knew would do this to me?
And their misunderstanding when I refused to oppose and argue?
Both of us, in those choices, were doing what we'd like to be done to ourselves, and totally misunderstanding the deeper intent of the other- because of cultural education and habit!


I see your situation for what it is, disrespect for others, and their opinions, which is completely contrary to the rule.

I'd probably be stoned to death, or offed in some manner where you live, because nobody's life, opinions or really anything, are less than the next person to you at the supper table.

It must really suck to sit around a table eating a meal with people so self absorbed, and not for the common good. Best wishes to you in having to endure that.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sissel


I did read it. Somehow you are stuck in this situation, for which I feel sorry for you. It seems your quandry is that that you are stuck.


Oh, I guess I didn't communicate well, there has been a misunderstanding! This is no longer a problem!
I used this as an example of a past situation from which I learned some lessons! (mainly "do not assume that we all want the same things")



This is not following the rule, then, if it is self serving.

What? They were doing to me what they would like me to do to them. They were following the Golden rule!
They also assumed that what they wanted, I also wanted. So how is that self serving?

We were both trying to be considerate of the other, but mistaken about what the other wanted, felt, and needed.



The rule is for the common good. While they may end up laughing, that thorn is stuck in the side of somebody, so the rule where you are has a personal agenda.


What thorn? For these people nobody won or lost; both got a chance to word their opinions (considered a pleasurable act) and they are both flattered that the other wanted to get close to them and danced with them this way.




I see your situation for what it is, disrespect for others, and their opinions, which is completely contrary to the rule.

I'd probably be stoned to death, or offed in some manner where you live, because nobody's life, opinions or really anything, are less than the next person to you at the supper table.

It must really suck to sit around a table eating a meal with people so self absorbed, and not for the common good. Best wishes to you in having to endure that.


Oh goodness..... you don't get it at all!
It is a show of respect and care for others! It is a compliment that one wants to hear your opinion and invites you to share it with them,
it is a respect that causes them to not feel it must be "changed" to fit their own!
It is care that makes the fun play of words not a big deal, and something we can do and laugh with each other about.

It is quite warm and loving once you understand that.

Nobody stones each other here (
) it is highly developed land..... they just would think that you don't care about anyone else but yourself and don't have any interest in anyone else, and ignore you after that.
edit on 12-11-2012 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy


I don't think the Golden Rule is meant for the finer points of social interaction.
I think it's more of a guideline for not committing obvious offenses such as stealing and physical/emotional harm.



THAT ^makes sense to me, and seems like perhaps an important point.
This "rule" can be an obstacle to true understanding of each other when applied in everyday interactions.
It can cause us to misinterpret intent.

In the long run, our intent, is the most important thing to get across, right? If you came upon a country where sticking up your middle finger was a way of communicating "I love you" then it doesn't make sense to refuse to do it if you love someone, does it?

And after a while you may even start to long for someone to stick their middle finger up at you as well!

I think what we do is important (I am not one that feels all that matters is what is in our heads and hearts, that is always the excuse of those who don't show love, and refuse to engage with others and life...)
But I guess, sometimes, "do what the other would like you to do to them"
is a better option,
along with "ask them what they would like you to do to them"
and
"Tell others what you like to recieve!"

but that is more complicated.......



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bluesma


Oh goodness..... you don't get it at all!
It is a show of respect and care for others! It is a compliment that one wants to hear your opinion and invites you to share it with them,
it is a respect that causes them to not feel it must be "changed" to fit their own!
It is care that makes the fun play of words not a big deal, and something we can do and laugh with each other about.


I must not. Supper at your house must be interesting, conversationally, and I would enjoy it greatly.

I am happy you have figured out a way out of this with your dinner guests, and so to sum it up, it's about respect for them, but not yet holding true to the rule.

I'd love to be there, but I could not say your best china would be safe at a meal with me!



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Sissel
 


I have foudn it to be great fun now- and in a way, I am glad my kids grew up with this habit- our family meals are very animated, with the kids speaking up to form their arguments and opinions.

I had to learn not to be so sensitive though, to not take it personally when another disagrees. To listen carefully to the other- if even in order to form a good retort- it still ends up with me sometimes learning new things from them.

But I really didn't take it this way at first, and I kept expecting glasses to fly- but they don't do that. They don't get that passionate about it- it is just debate, these are just ideas, opinions......

The french..... well, in Monty Pythons "Holy Grail", there is the french knight who rolls out a bunch of silly insults "Your mother is a hamster..." ? They do kind of have a love of verbal back and forth, as a game. If KIng Arthur had countered with some creative responses back, they probably would have ended up laughing their heads off and inviting the knights in for a feast!


I apologize, I got a little carried away describing my own experience, and went off topic.
edit on 12-11-2012 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bluesma
My point is

1- the Golden Rule is very limited as a reliable axiom for ethical behavior.
It does not eliminate the necessity of actually paying very close attention to the other and being receptive to who they are. Just listening to your inner voices commands are not enough for effective exchanges!



The reason why it doesn't work well across ethnic/religious/political lines is exactly what you said, we are all different and with different VALUES but that's the KEY. Putting a VALUE on something creates an OPINION, all based on DUALITY of Right/Wrong and/or Good/Bad, etc.. Whereas, if you take a NEUTRAL stance concerning Life you eliminate PERCEPTION and only have LOGIC left and from there, getting the answer isn't interfeArred with by Perception but many don't realize that Perception is the Source of Fear.


It is also written that we are not to judge others but that one is usually ignored first, then the Golden Rule is applied, because everyone knows you can treat scum of the earth as just that, scum of the earth, since you can rest assured their judgment of you will have no merit, or so they think and have you noticed all the pedophiles being uncovered lately? Everyone hates pedophiles but to hate, one must judge first because you cannot defy that Order and hate first, then judge last, so hate cannot exist without judgment first and if someone applys the Golden Rule after judging someone, the end result will be wrong.

"If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the ditch."

"Perception is the Leprechaun behind the curtain of human stoopidity." - Old Toad Proverb

Ribbit


edit on 13-11-2012 by ButtUglyToad because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Bluesma
 


i have always said the golden rule is;

"once is funny; three or four times it just gets old"



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jed001
reply to post by Bluesma
 


i have always said the golden rule is;

"once is funny; three or four times it just gets old"


And considering you've said that probably more than a million times, you just don't remember doing it all of those times but you do at least vaguely remember all the times you've said it this time around, so taking it to heart:

If only Once is funny, then the saying is pure sarcasm if you say it more than 3 or 4 times.

So while it's a cute saying, it clearly doesn't qualify as the Golden Rule if you can't repeat it forever and it still ring as true the first time as the last and all in-between.


Just pointing out the facts ... .. .

Ribbit





new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join