?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Unasked-for Opinions

Meddle not in the affairs of Jedi hobbits, for they are subtle and apt to become even more subtle.

An opinion survey will appear here as if by magic, in the fullness of time.

Meanwhile, I'd like to quote an aphorism that appears in the sig file of tamf's husband and is attributed in the Talmud (Shabbath 31) to Rabbi Hillel the Elder of Babylon (c. 50 BCE) as a synopsis of the essence of Judaism:
What you find hateful to yourself, do not do to another.
This is the whole of the Law; all else is commentary.

This converse of the Golden Rule definitely applies in force. Expect respect? Command it; do not demand it.

Oh, and you all know this is a public blog - as public as it gets, as I never lock posts. Enjoy. :-D

--
Banazîr

Comments

( 32 comments — Leave a comment )
gondhir
Apr. 30th, 2004 11:13 am (UTC)
What you do not wish others to do to you, do not do to others. That is the whole of the law; all else is commentary.
Confucious, wasn't it?

The Golden Rule definitely applies in force.
Actually, I would say that there is a slight difference between Confucious's and Jesus's versions.
Jesus: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Confucious: DON'T do unto others what you DON'T want them to do to you.

Slight, I know, but I think it makes a difference in meaning. In either case, however, it isn't always the best idea because what you may want or not want done to you may differ from what someone else wants or doesn't want done to them.
borgseawolf
Apr. 30th, 2004 12:09 pm (UTC)
What you do not wish others to do to you, do not do to others. That is the whole of the law; all else is commentary.
Confucious, wasn't it?


In this version, it's a rabbi in a jewish folk joke.
banazir
Apr. 30th, 2004 05:32 pm (UTC)
Not so much a joke
I rather like it; it reminds me of the Wiccan Rede.

--
Banazir
banazir
Apr. 30th, 2004 05:31 pm (UTC)
Confucius and contrapositive
I was going to say it was Rabbi Hillel, but I checked with my father, and "What you do not wish others to do to you, do not do to others," is a Confucian analect.

"That is the whole of the Law; all else is commentary," is attributed to Hillel in the anecdote.

The Golden Rule definitely applies in force.
Actually, I would say that there is a slight difference between Confucious's and Jesus's versions.
You're right; it's really the converse.
p(x) == wish_others_to_do_to_you (x)
q(x) == should_do_to_others (x)

Golden Rule: p(x) -> q(x)
Confucius-Hillel Rule: !p(x) -> !q(x) <=> q(x) -> p(x)

Good way to demonstrate contrapositive, that. :-)

Slight, I know, but I think it makes a difference in meaning.
Not so slight!
Unless you aver that the space of "things done to people" (or more precisely, human behaviors) is closed under complementation (i.e., for everything action x that can be done, there is a "don't" !x), the statement and the converse are not equivalent.

Thanks for the correction; I've edited accordingly.

--
Banazir
gondhir
Apr. 30th, 2004 05:40 pm (UTC)
Re: Confucius and contrapositive
Slight, I know, but I think it makes a difference in meaning.
Not so slight!

Well, if someone practices one, they probably practice the other too. And most people who are even aware of the Confucious version simply consider it to be the same thing. Ie. "Confucious came up with the Golden Rule before Jesus."
banazir
Apr. 30th, 2004 06:16 pm (UTC)
Golden rule and converse
Slight, I know, but I think it makes a difference in meaning.
Not so slight!
Well, if someone practices one, they probably practice the other too.
Sometimes.
Think of philanthropy as an altruistic exercise and you can see that while giving alms to the poor might be the equivalent of not starving them, there isn't an exact moral analogy or categorical imperative (or if there were, we'd all agree better on how much to give).

And most people who are even aware of the Confucious version simply consider it to be the same thing.
The Golden Rule and its converse were both advocated by Confucian disciples.

Ie. "Confucious came up with the Golden Rule before Jesus."
Well, Jesus was just reiterating a recognized truth.

Hindu theologians independently coined the saying c. 1000 BCE, some centuries after the Hebrew Exodus. The Wiccan Rede is attributed to a pre-Christian oral tradition that was variously committed to print by François Rabelais (1494 – 1553), Pierre Louÿs (1870-1925) , Aleister Crowley (1875-1947), and Gerald Gardner (1884-1964). Modern rediscovery and renderings into verse are 20th century adaptations, and late 20th at that. We'd have to ask deire or istari_ala about the probable origins (at least, I haven't the time to look it up just now).

Oh, and Kong Fuzi was just paraphrasing his students. ;-)

This Other Golden Rules page provides a nice synopsis.

I actually don't know whether #3 & #12 are attributed properly or misattributed. I'll have to check later.
(Later: This seems to indicate that Confucius actually said #12)

1. First, do no harm.
Hippocrates (Ancient Greek)

2. Love, and do what you like.
St. Augustine of Hippo (Christian)

3. Do unto another what you would have him do unto you, and do not do unto another what you would not have him do unto you. Thou needest this law alone. It is the foundation of all the rest
The Analects of Confucius (Confucianism)

4. Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
The Udana-Varga 5:18 (Buddhist)

5. So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them, for this is the law and the prophets.
The Bible Matthew 7:12 Revised Standard Version (Christian)

6. And as you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.
The Bible Luke 6:31 Revised Standard Version (Christian)

7. We should conduct ourselves toward others as we would have them act toward us.
Aristotle (Ancient Greek)

8. For it has become apparent to us that it is never just to harm anyone.
Plato's Republic Book I, 335e (Ancient Greek)

9. To be of help to all and to harm no one.
Motto of Saint Peter Fourier (Christian)

10. Anything done for another is done for oneself.
Pope Boniface VIII (Christian)

11. If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, who am I for? And if not now, when?
The Talmud (Hebraic)

12. Do not do to others what you would not like others to do to you.
Hillel (Hebraic)

--
Banazir
Re: Golden rule and converse - anglachel1 - Apr. 30th, 2004 06:29 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Golden rule and converse - banazir - Apr. 30th, 2004 07:39 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Golden rule and converse - anglachel1 - Apr. 30th, 2004 10:24 pm (UTC) - Expand
Who can spare a piece of his mind? GIMME! - banazir - Apr. 30th, 2004 10:44 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Golden rule and converse - deire - May. 1st, 2004 07:10 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Golden rule and converse - banazir - May. 1st, 2004 08:01 pm (UTC) - Expand
oxbastetxo
Apr. 30th, 2004 07:20 pm (UTC)
Locks and unlocks
I guess my experience is different from others in regards to public journals. I do have a journal, but I have most of my private posts locked. If I want the world to know what I'm doing, I'll let them, if I don't, I reserved the privacy of just letting those I trust know.

I worked as a forum moderator back on the old forum boards long
before email lists and LJs and blogs and after have spent several months being harassed by a stalker who loved to post pornographic posts featuring myself and other female form moderators on our child friendly forum board and would follow us around in the chat group private messaging us trying to solicit us. *sigh* I actually at one point contacted the police and they put me in contact with the FBI, but there was nothing that could be done at that time. Thankfully, there are groups around now like Cyberangels and such that can do things.

I just prefer to keep my private life that, my life. I deal with enough stress in my life that I don't need it online as well. I know anything and everything public I post get scrutinized for double meanings all the time. So be it, but I refuse to provide cannon fodder.
banazir
Apr. 30th, 2004 08:50 pm (UTC)
Privacy issues
I guess my experience is different from others in regards to public journals. I do have a journal, but I have most of my private posts locked. If I want the world to know what I'm doing, I'll let them, if I don't, I reserved the privacy of just letting those I trust know.

As is your right - I'm not making a value judgement between filtered and public journals here, merely asserting that I keep mine open to scrutiny. Sometimes I even invite scrutiny in my more attention-monger moments, but that's not as often as it might seem.

I worked as a forum moderator back on the old forum boards long before email lists and LJs and blogs and after have spent several months being harassed by a stalker who loved to post pornographic posts featuring myself and other female form moderators on our child friendly forum board and would follow us around in the chat group private messaging us trying to solicit us.

Sorry to hear it. I hope he wasn't local to your area. jereeza can tell you a similar story, as can others I will not name for the sake of their privacy. For my part, I have been online since 1986 and was sysop of a WWIV BBS c. 1990. Back then, the flaming was done by teenagers, foragainst teenagers.

More recently, though, I had a burning book set on my front walk in the pre-dawn hours before. (I suppose I should thank God it wasn't a cross.) And I've had a couple of incidents of the online harrassment, too - not pleasant, even for us guys. I hope your incidents didn't escalate into physical confrontation in your case or that of the other moderators.

*sigh* I actually at one point contacted the police and they put me in contact with the FBI, but there was nothing that could be done at that time. Thankfully, there are groups around now like Cyberangels and such that can do things.

Well, it depends on the egregiousness of the incident.
If it is bad enough, one could invoke the Patriot Act or the laws against child pornography.
In my personal and professional experience, isolated incidents do not always get investigated so thoroughly.

I just prefer to keep my private life that, my life. I deal with enough stress in my life that I don't need it online as well. I know anything and everything public I post get scrutinized for double meanings all the time. So be it, but I refuse to provide cannon fodder.

I tell all of my friends and acquaintances the same thing on this subject: if you aren't comfortable posting it, you don't have to. Yes, anything posted online without benefit of privacy filters (and even anything one writes in journals, boards, or special interest group fora where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy).

--
Banazir
oxbastetxo
Apr. 30th, 2004 09:22 pm (UTC)
Re: Privacy issues
Sorry to hear it. I hope he wasn't local to your area. jereeza can tell you a similar story, as can others I will not name for the sake of their privacy. For my part, I have been online since 1986 and was sysop of a WWIV BBS c. 1990. Back then, the flaming was done by teenagers, foragainst teenagers.

Thank the Lord, no! All of us ran under aliases and we *never* gave out personal information and discouraged the other on the lists of doing that.

More recently, though, I had a burning book set on my front walk in the pre-dawn hours before. (I suppose I should thank God it wasn't a cross.) And I've had a couple of incidents of the online harrassment, too - not pleasant, even for us guys. I hope your incidents didn't escalate into physical confrontation in your case or that of the other moderators.

(((Hugs))) that's awful. It's horrible how mean people can be to each other and feel totally justified to do it.

Well, it depends on the egregiousness of the incident. If it is bad enough, one could invoke the Patriot Act or the laws against child pornography. In my personal and professional experience, isolated incidents do not always get investigated so thoroughly.

Unfortunately, it was before any of those laws applied to the Internet. It would have been '96-'97 when this happened. I was told by the FBI that because it was on the Internet, it really couldn't be traced and they had no idea how many jurisdictions were being crossed and/or state lines and until it escalated into physical stalking and/or violence, there wasn't anything they could do. *sigh*

I tell all of my friends and acquaintances the same thing on this subject: if you aren't comfortable posting it, you don't have to. Yes, anything posted online without benefit of privacy filters (and even anything one writes in journals, boards, or special interest group fora where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy).

It's just interesting a couple things someone drew to my attention of private things I've posted popping up in public places from people who shouldn't have it. I just found it odd. I tend to post some tongue in cheek comments from time to time and was a bit surprised to find them taken rather out of context and badly skewed. Just proves the point...privacy still really isn't private.

....grr...sorry about that...brain locking on punctuation issues and html coding....
ldymlissa
Apr. 30th, 2004 09:34 pm (UTC)
Re: Privacy issues
That's interesting... I've read some of your locked posts and haven't seen anything anywhere that's been taken from them or referred to by people not in your friends, though I'm certain I don't read all of the journals of people who are friends of your friends etc. But yeah, there is a fine line between public and private.
banazir
May. 1st, 2004 03:21 pm (UTC)
Cyberstalkers
Thank the Lord, no! All of us ran under aliases and we *never* gave out personal information and discouraged the other on the lists of doing that.
Ah, OK, good.
It's still possible for certain cyberstalkers to get IP info and look things up, though, so it pays to know where your stalker is.

[burning book]
(((Hugs))) that's awful.
It's horrible how mean people can be to each other and feel totally justified to do it.

I have an idea who it was, but I tend to leave these things in the hands of law enforcement. One burns books on people's walks at the risk of being charged with hate crime, though.

Unfortunately, it was before any of those laws applied to the Internet. It would have been '96-'97 when this happened. I was told by the FBI that because it was on the Internet, it really couldn't be traced...
Having been on the Internet since 1986 (via CompuServe and FidoNet, which had ARPAnet feeds), I can tell you that cyberstalking legislation was definitely in the works at this point. Could you tell me (privately if you wish) whom you talked to at the FBI? I think he or she may have done you a disservice.

It depends on the egregiousness of the harassment, of course. Many obscenities on the net (profane language, for example) are considered run-of-the-mill, unfortunately. It's a balance between being reasonable (as opposed to oversensitive) and putting one's foot down when it comes to personal safety.

It's just interesting a couple things someone drew to my attention of private things I've posted popping up in public places from people who shouldn't have it.
Well, speaking only for myself, I make reference to many things that are posted unlocked. Sometimes this gives a context to what is posted privately, but I don't refer directly to private posts or divulge information therein. At this point, because some of my friends have multiple filters, I simply assume that if there is a lock symbol on the post and the target audience isn't identified, it isn't something that anyone else can see. I keep that assumption until I see a reply or hear someone else refer to it.

I just found it odd. I tend to post some tongue in cheek comments from time to time and was a bit surprised to find them taken rather out of context and badly skewed. Just proves the point...privacy still really isn't private.
The legal "reasonable expectation of privacy" is a pretty weak definition. marm can tell you better than I. For instance, if you leave things on your desk at work and close (even lock) the door, they can often be disclosed if a custodian or co-worker comes in for a legitimate reason and spots them. If they are in a locked cabinet that only you have the key to, then you may have a case.

As for LJ posts, it's a fine line. It may be betraying a confidence (and hence unethical) for someone to repost or even quote something you had on friends-lock, but you are giving up some privacy rights (legally speaking) when you transmit the information to them. Again, ask a qualified person (an attorney or someone who works in law enforcement) if you really want to know, or look it up in an official statutory reference.

--
Banazir
Re: Cyberstalkers - oxbastetxo - May. 1st, 2004 04:25 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Cyberstalkers - masteralida - May. 1st, 2004 04:27 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Cyberstalkers - oxbastetxo - May. 1st, 2004 05:02 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Cyberstalkers - masteralida - May. 1st, 2004 05:09 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Cyberstalkers - oxbastetxo - May. 1st, 2004 06:07 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Cyberstalkers - masteralida - May. 1st, 2004 06:10 pm (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
Re: Cyberstalkers - masteralida - May. 1st, 2004 06:17 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Cyberstalkers - oxbastetxo - May. 1st, 2004 06:24 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Cyberstalkers - masteralida - May. 1st, 2004 06:26 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: Cyberstalkers - oxbastetxo - May. 1st, 2004 06:18 pm (UTC) - Expand
The Definition of Gossip - banazir - May. 1st, 2004 08:12 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: The Definition of Gossip - oxbastetxo - May. 1st, 2004 08:39 pm (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
banazir
May. 1st, 2004 08:03 pm (UTC)
Auugh! Softy star! The blood of Bana compels you!
Yerknow, trask everything I said in my last comment - everyone is starting to post Goliaths!
It must be the summer.

The Lellow Face makes the psots grow?

Ooh, "the spice must flow"... "the psot must grow"... hm.

--
Banaizr
masteralida
May. 2nd, 2004 09:10 pm (UTC)
Yes, but does banazir post anything but Goliaths? ;) Everyone else is just following his lead.
banazir
May. 2nd, 2004 10:13 pm (UTC)
Somebuddy psot some Davids!
Yes, but does banazir post anything but Goliaths? ;)
Everyone else is just following his lead.

So are these "David" comments?
Hard lille pellets that trask you in the heead?
;-)

<Your Psalm of choice here>

Hey, is "Pslam potery" Biblical potery read in a slam style?
Acos I liek to see the Song of Songs done thataway, and no mistake.

--
Banazir
( 32 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

December 2008
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

KSU Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (GEC) Lab

Teunciness

Breakfast

Science, Technology, Engineering, Math (STEM) Communities

Fresh Pages

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Naoto Kishi