To do or not to do.

There are two saying's in the world:

The first is; Do unto other's, as you would like done onto your self.

Then there's the opposite second; As other's have done onto you, do unto them.

What's wrong with these is that you can't always do that which you'd like done to you, and nether can you do that which they'v done to you, so the question is what "can" you do?

I'd like to hear your answers.


P.S. I feel like Yoda's chuckling some where.....

(Just gonna post my part from the past post, just to put my contribution in. )

I think both could live in harmony in a world that follows both. You have others treat you the way they wish to be treated, and because you have then been treated as others would like to be treated, you treat others the way you want to be treated. (Took me a few tries to write it, but i think I got my point across there. )

Yes, both are hard (especially the first) in this world. But this world is not perfect. There are imperfect people, broken people, that will not do unto others they would do unto themselves. They are the hills on an otherwise smooth landscape. They are the challenges that test who we are, to continue to do unto them as we would do unto ourselves, even if they do not do the same.

Its funny I am working on a lesson for my Knights journal called the failure of the Golden rule. I will post it here when I am done as well as in my journal.

Eugene wrote: There are two saying's in the world:

The first is; Do unto other's, as you would like done onto your self.

Then there's the opposite second; As other's have done onto you, do unto them.

What's wrong with these is that you can't always do that which you'd like done to you, and nether can you do that which they'v done to you, so the question is what "can" you do?

I'd like to hear your answers.


P.S. I feel like Yoda's chuckling some where.....

I think the first one exists to orientate action in the absence of doing what they actually want, ie the 'else' parameter of cooperation.
I'd be wondering why are you 'doing' anything, but as far as interaction goes perhaps its either communication, cooperation, or just communion. So across that spectrum I guess its about being engaged, aware and active.

I'd never heard of the second one, but I guess its almost like 'an eye for an eye'. If though its more equivilant to the first one, then its just a form of mimicry and would exist as another 'else' parameter, for when you've no information as to what you'd want. Basically, do what is expected, else (if in the absence of that) do you'd want, else (if in the absence of that) do what they did (or would do)... if you have to do anything at all :whistle:
Perhaps another alternative is, do what you think is best, or do what you think they'd think is best, but I'd say the whole point of those initial two statements in the OP is to avoid thinking about it, and to serve as generic rules to employ in the absence of being able to think about it at any level of confidence.

The golden rule . I like it . My own thoughts though... Ima bit deferent that way lol . I also subscribe to the no contest contest , in that idea it's simple , act like we are not in contest with others. ( another way to say the "selfless") imagine a world where you were encouraged and not judged and. It labeled but seen and accepted first. ? That's how it is at my house any way , everyone's invited, fed and glad they came , plenty o chairs drink and food for all. That's my golden rule , feed and fellowship, everything else will come to in time . My own practice !!

I think both rules are impractical as neither one are capable of being lived up to. The first is a Jedi tenet and the second is a sith tenet. I prefer the middle road...

What does not kill you makes you stronger.

What does not kill you makes you stronger.

You think this is more practical? Able to be lived up to?

Plenty of examples of that which did not kill people did not make them stronger. I am willing to bet they outweigh those that do.

What doesnt kill you, will change you, but not necessarily for the better.

Thats just trying to cover a dog turd in gold, but its still just a gold covered dog turd.

Its shit, pretty shit, but its still shit nonetheless.

How about not trying to sum things up in one sentence. Or even two.

Life will make a mockery of both, any, and all, on a long enough time line.

Khaos wrote:

What does not kill you makes you stronger.

You think this is more practical? Able to be lived up to?

Plenty of examples of that which did not kill people did not make them stronger. I am willing to bet they outweigh those that do.

What doesnt kill you, will change you, but not necessarily for the better.

Thats just trying to cover a dog turd in gold, but its still just a gold covered dog turd.

Its shit, pretty shit, but its still shit nonetheless.

How about not trying to sum things up in one sentence. Or even two.

Life will make a mockery of both, any, and all, on a long enough time line.

Yes its more practical because one does not have to live up to any aspect of it. There is no goal to it. Its just a fact that is unavoidable. Strength comes in a vast array of forms. There's strength in diversity as well. Who's to say that what you perceive as weakness is not in fact a strength for another or in another context. We are all different for a reason. None of us are perfect and if you try to define "being better" as coming closer to some self defined perfect standard that is just a failure of imagination on your part.

Eugene wrote: so the question is what "can" you do?

The only thing we can do—the only power any of us has—is to be who we are.