Philosophy Now Forum

Greta wrote: Heh, I wasn't kind to the fellow in the wheelchair, just having a chat. I'm not much for being kind to people because of disabilities. EEO. People with disabilities have an equal capacity to be jerks.

This made my day.

Greta wrote:

artisticsolution wrote: If you were kind to the person in the wheelchair, Greta (which by the way is very nice)...why not be kind to the bitter blind woman who mistook your statement...who knows what her life has been like? It is easy to be kind to those who give you reward...harder to be kind to those who belittle you or make you out to be the bad guy. But really What is the harm of doing what Walker suggests? (not trying to make you an example....but I just realize I did...I apologize...I don't think poorly of you...really...as I have been there and done that...I'm just saying....exercising the body is alot like exercising the mind. When your body gets stronger it can handle alot more....same with the brain. When you understand where the pain is coming from in others...they can't hurt you...well...not as much. lol

Heh, I wasn't kind to the fellow in the wheelchair, just having a chat. I'm not much for being kind to people because of disabilities. EEO. People with disabilities have an equal capacity to be jerks.

If the disability is emotional, which may or may not cause someone to be a jerk, I don't think a little kindness is going to hurt them or you.

Do you?

artisticsolution wrote:

Greta wrote:

artisticsolution wrote: If you were kind to the person in the wheelchair, Greta (which by the way is very nice)...why not be kind to the bitter blind woman who mistook your statement...who knows what her life has been like? It is easy to be kind to those who give you reward...harder to be kind to those who belittle you or make you out to be the bad guy. But really What is the harm of doing what Walker suggests? (not trying to make you an example....but I just realize I did...I apologize...I don't think poorly of you...really...as I have been there and done that...I'm just saying....exercising the body is alot like exercising the mind. When your body gets stronger it can handle alot more....same with the brain. When you understand where the pain is coming from in others...they can't hurt you...well...not as much. lol

Heh, I wasn't kind to the fellow in the wheelchair, just having a chat. I'm not much for being kind to people because of disabilities. EEO. People with disabilities have an equal capacity to be jerks.

If the disability is emotional, which may or may not cause someone to be a jerk, I don't think a little kindness is going to hurt them or you.

Do you?

So she has to assume they are emotionally disabled as well as physically disabled? You don't think she should just treat them as fellow human beings?

Walker wrote: Just imagine this. Apologize profusely to the blind lady. Agree with her and join her in commiseration at the sorry state of the world where language can be so devoid of humanity. So sad. Tell her you are ashamed. Thank her for pointing out your error, and vow to the blind one that you will persevere to do better. Marvel that a blind one can see more clearly than one with eyes. Ask her if there is anything that you can do for her, perhaps a cold Dr. Pepper, and before leaving thank her once again for her kindness in helping you to be more mindful to the sensitivity that others may feel for their burdens of loss. If you mean all that from the heart the blind lady will feel lighter in spirit and so will you, and the universe will smile on you both. Like this.

Why should Greta have apologised to the blind woman? Greta didn't do anything wrong to her, it was the blind woman who jumped to conclusions and behaved offensively. I would have found Greta's story far more satisfying if it had ended with the blind woman getting a tongue lashing for butting in without understanding the situation.
I'm not sure Walker's prescription for how the situation should have been handled was meant to be taken seriously.

Harbal wrote:

Walker wrote: Just imagine this. Apologize profusely to the blind lady. Agree with her and join her in commiseration at the sorry state of the world where language can be so devoid of humanity. So sad. Tell her you are ashamed. Thank her for pointing out your error, and vow to the blind one that you will persevere to do better. Marvel that a blind one can see more clearly than one with eyes. Ask her if there is anything that you can do for her, perhaps a cold Dr. Pepper, and before leaving thank her once again for her kindness in helping you to be more mindful to the sensitivity that others may feel for their burdens of loss. If you mean all that from the heart the blind lady will feel lighter in spirit and so will you, and the universe will smile on you both. Like this.

Why should Greta have apologised to the blind woman? Greta didn't do anything wrong to her, it was the blind woman who jumped to conclusions and behaved offensively. I would have found Greta's story far more satisfying if it had ended with the blind woman getting a tongue lashing for butting in without understanding the situation.
I'm not sure Walker's prescription for how the situation should have been handled was meant to be taken seriously.

There was no wrong in Greta’s account. Just two ships passing in the night fog, one tooting its horn a bit too enthusiastically for the propriety of the circumstance.

The imaginary story is to illustrate the nature of emotions. By actually doing the story in action, in life, then the worth of the story is revealed. Think of apology as purification. Purification has an energetic effect upon the body. It activates dispassion that subsumes self-cherishing. From that a natural, clean and uncorrupted compassion arises. But I suspect this is getting irritating.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Walker wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: It's not. It ends up in the air. It might be a punctuation problem but it's not my job to edit it. Just because something is gibberish doesn't mean it's thoughtful.

You think it’s wrong but can’t say how other than with an incorrect assertion.

Could be what's wrong is that the sentence doesn't say what you would like it to say.

''The clever ones with more wit than half stayed silent as the terrorist-attack narrative telling the story of 911 and the aftermath fashioned from ideology, hindsight, and imagination.''
You have no predicate at the end. The clever ones, with more wit than half, stayed silent, as the terrorist-attack narrative telling the story of 11/9, and the aftermath fashioned from ideology, hindsight and imagination, rumbled on/made a lot of noise/blew bubbles...... Unless you are saying the 'terrorist-attack narrative' and 'the aftermath' were 'silent', which would be a bit ridiculous. What exactly ARE you trying to say?

What are you, a school marm?

Let’s add that word and see if the meaning reveals…

The clever ones with more wit than half stayed silent as the terrorist-attack narrative telling the story of 911 and the aftermath was fashioned from ideology, hindsight, and imagination.

artisticsolution wrote:
Well said, Walker! I agree. And I might like to add...this is such a hard thing to do when you are not prepared to humble yourself. It goes against every instinct we have about the goodness of ourselves. To do the above , without feeling bitter, takes practice. But when you finally get there...you see it is no big deal to admit defeat...and that perhaps it was you who were wrong...not only about the misunderstanding...but also about the thought, "I hate this blind woman."

Hello there. Love the rabbits.

Hate is a habitual interpretation of naturally arising energy.

I've done as the story says many times, but most sadly not enough and now, it can never be enough.

Walker wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Walker wrote:

You think it’s wrong but can’t say how other than with an incorrect assertion.

Could be what's wrong is that the sentence doesn't say what you would like it to say.

''The clever ones with more wit than half stayed silent as the terrorist-attack narrative telling the story of 911 and the aftermath fashioned from ideology, hindsight, and imagination.''
You have no predicate at the end. The clever ones, with more wit than half, stayed silent, as the terrorist-attack narrative telling the story of 11/9, and the aftermath fashioned from ideology, hindsight and imagination, rumbled on/made a lot of noise/blew bubbles...... Unless you are saying the 'terrorist-attack narrative' and 'the aftermath' were 'silent', which would be a bit ridiculous. What exactly ARE you trying to say?

What are you, a school marm?

Let’s add that word and see if the meaning reveals…

The clever ones with more wit than half stayed silent as the terrorist-attack narrative telling the story of 911 and the aftermath was fashioned from ideology, hindsight, and imagination.

Not a school marm. I just like to know what I'm reading.

Walker wrote:Think of apology as purification. Purification has an energetic effect upon the body. It activates dispassion that subsumes self-cherishing. From that a natural, clean and uncorrupted compassion arises.

If that's your way of saying that offering an apology when it is appropriate makes you feel better, I agree. On the other hand, apologising when it is uncalled for is not necessarily a good thing. I was queuing in McDonald's the other day when someone drew my attention to the fact that I had dropped my pen. As I bent to pick it up I apologised and spent the next ten minutes feeling like an idiot.

Walker wrote: The clever ones with more wit than half stayed silent as the terrorist-attack narrative telling the story of 911 and the aftermath was fashioned from ideology, hindsight, and imagination.

That must have taken you awhile. It's still gibberisth, even with a complete sentence.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Walker wrote: The clever ones with more wit than half stayed silent as the terrorist-attack narrative telling the story of 911 and the aftermath was fashioned from ideology, hindsight, and imagination.

That must have taken you awhile. It's still gibberisth, even with a complete sentence.

Oh, I remember. I paid attention. That's what happened all right.

Harbal wrote:

Walker wrote:Think of apology as purification. Purification has an energetic effect upon the body. It activates dispassion that subsumes self-cherishing. From that a natural, clean and uncorrupted compassion arises.

If that's your way of saying that offering an apology when it is appropriate makes you feel better, I agree. On the other hand, apologising when it is uncalled for is not necessarily a good thing. I was queuing in McDonald's the other day when someone drew my attention to the fact that I had dropped my pen. As I bent to pick it up I apologised and spent the next ten minutes feeling like an idiot.

Now that's funny.

As a practice, apologizing to animals and inanimate objects can also reveal the arbitrary nature of thought and the significant role self-cherishing plays in interpreting the surroundings. The practice, which is a variation of the “sorry sorry excuse me excuse me” mantra, enhances situations of deserved apologies and dispels embarrassment over folks who think you’re daft for asking the cat to move from the chair, and then waiting until it does.

Walker wrote: apologizing to animals and inanimate objects

I wasn't apologising to the pen, I was apologising to the man who told me I'd dropped it. I do seem to remember, when I first got a sat nav (GPS), having to stop myself from apologising to it for not following it's instructions properly. Now that I'm used to it, not only would I never even consider apologising to it, but, quite often, I treat it with utter contempt.

Harbal wrote:

Walker wrote: apologizing to animals and inanimate objects

I wasn't apologising to the pen, I was apologising to the man who told me I'd dropped it. I do seem to remember, when I first got a sat nav (GPS), having to stop myself from apologising to it for not following it's instructions properly. Now that I'm used to it, not only would I never even consider apologising to it, but, quite often, I treat it with utter contempt.

Our GPS had a selection of bosses to choose from. Bonnie sounds best. She has a persuasive way of directing my actions, though I’ve learned to verify her orders with my own compass sense.

I don’t feel contemptuous, utter or any, ever. I only speak as I can, according to my capacity and limitations.

Apologizing to the messenger is very funny, and I understood that.

Waiting for the cat to move doesn’t take so long when you learn how to involve further appeals to reason such as, you’re a human and chairs are designed for humans, thus they’re designed for cats to merely imitate humans by sitting upon. Then you tell the cat how your feet are tired, you say the dogs are really barking. You promise the cat that if it moves, soon you will eat tuna and the cat can lick the can. You remind the cat that tuna is champagne. And so on until the cat somehow figures out that moving from the chair will change the tune back to the cat comfort zone. Our old cat is gone now, to that big chair in the sky.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:

Greta wrote: Heh, I wasn't kind to the fellow in the wheelchair, just having a chat. I'm not much for being kind to people because of disabilities. EEO. People with disabilities have an equal capacity to be jerks.

If the disability is emotional, which may or may not cause someone to be a jerk, I don't think a little kindness is going to hurt them or you.

Do you?

So she has to assume they are emotionally disabled as well as physically disabled? You don't think she should just treat them as fellow human beings?

She doesn't HAVE to do anything. I am simply asking, 'where is the harm?"

How is being kind to everyone not 'treating them as fellow human beings'?

There is absolutely no harm in treating everyone kind, (even those we feel have said unkind things to us). There is harm, however, in harboring bad feelings:


"I was less certain about the humanity of the sanctimonious blind cow taking her misery at her misfortune out on others."


"You should have given the blind woman a slap."

I assert that neither of these statement will bring either parties a long term sense of well being.

I assert that letting the anger go is better for humanity on a wider scale.

I assert that if the blind woman would have been kind to Greta, Greta would have felt better about the day/people/situation.

I assert that if everyone sucked it up and just exercised their will to be kind instead of aggressive, it would be a better world.

I assert that our base instinct is to fight at the slightest aggression, and it's common to give into these desires.

I assert that fighting these desires makes us stronger emotionally and more able to discern that which should cause us concern.

"Purity of Heart, Is To Will One Thing" (Thereby having control of ourselves and not giving into our base instinct to be like the herd.)

Is it rational, to want people to be decent yet at the same time, call them cows and call for them to be slapped?

I think Kierkegaard calls this, double-minded, if I remember correctly.

You can't will one thing and do the other and expect your will to be done. It's impossible.

In conclusion, if you want to feel harmed, then continue to feel harmed and act out on those impulses. If you don't want to feel harmed, then break the cycle and don't act out on them...and eventually, those impulses to feel harmed...lessen.

Remove the judgement and you have removed the thought ‘I am hurt’; remove the thought ‘I am hurt’ and the hurt itself is removed. Marcus Aurelius