LIVING BY PRINCIPLES
This recent primary elections have raised a lot of speculation about, “who really lives by their principles”. One guy claims to be more pure and the next guy points out how he or she is not pure. They all rant about how their principles are the right ones and that the other guy is a hypocrite. How do you see all that? Do you know how I see all that? Have you been reading my posts?
Living by principles is a great example of an unconscious world. Living by principles means that I do not experience the world directly as it is, but I look at the world thru the distortion of my principles that colors my judgment of everything I observe. (I think the admonition of “judge not, lest you be judged” fits here) We, as a society, seem to want to hold up people who live by principle, as somehow more holy and better citizens. I would say that all people live by their principles, it is just that some do not declare them so strongly, or do not even know what they are.
Ok, lets slow down and explore this, or are you in a rant based on your principles? When I say that everyone works from their principles, what I mean is that every conditioned human being has a set of ideas/values/beliefs that we can call principles, that they use to make sense of the world. If a person sees the world as a hostile place, out to harm them, as uncaring and self centered, and bias toward them, then they will “act on those principles” without ever acknowledging them, but certainly expressing them in their actions. We love to imagine that “principles” are some high flying exemplary notions of life, when the simple fact is that they are simply the way we have been conditioned to view the world. It is our “right way” to live.
It always scares me a bit when someone says, “I always live by my principles” because that means that no matter what the world may show them, they are fixed in their response. That means that they are more interested in forcing the world to conform to their principles, than to make the world a little better from where it is starting. It is layering on of principle over actual life. By the way, some of the most awful people history has known, worked from principle. (Hitler, Stalin, etc) Of course, the “principled people” would just say that they had the wrong principles. They can not see that any principle that blocks clear seeing of the world, is the wrong principle.
I know that I am up against an overwhelming population that truly believes in this principle thing. Both on the right and the left. I know that I can tend to piss off both sides who sincerely believe that their principles are the right ones. And I can see how they all can not see that “principles” are the problem, not which ones you happen to choose to live by. Live in the present and you will see what I am pointing to. Or live in your principles and be frustrated and angry with all those others who violate your principles. Tlane 1/24/12
Let us consider and opine upon principles vs values. Public vs private.
There was a time in my consulting work that I was pressed, to say that values were central to education and schooling. I thought then that values had to do with religious virture so I could not concede.
I spoke from the premise of personal honesty. I am glad for the experience, and ask now, how does principle relate to value? Leave $$ out.
I am not sure they are different, in my view. One definition of value is a construct that I hold important, a belief that one identifies as significant. And I could use that definition for a principle, but maybe the only difference is that a principle seems to be more active and a value more passive. Either way, they are thought based constructs that block direct engagement with life. Make sense? Thanks Rita. tom
Yes, makes sense. I checked dictionary.com for definitions of ‘values’ only to the word ‘principle’ listed. Not really surprised, but a bit disappointed.
I do find myself puzzling and searching for better understanding of values (and principles) … both the content and the intent seem to continually shift. Thinking now of them as “thought based constructs that block direct engagement” and therefore obstruct perception is helpful.
I am aware that I continually resist being cloaked or confined or restricted by values / principles imposed. The word ‘should’ is ominous though it sneaks into many a conversation. Thank you.
A great continuation of this issue which is at the heart of all of my writing. My sense is that, ideally, we wanted people to act in accordance with some set down rules/norms/etc. that allowed societies to function well. Not stealing or killing or other basic behavior was at first just punished until we learned that we can “condition” people to not do those things by teaching them the “value” of self managing around those things. This control of people by worded admonitions was much easier than punishment, so it caught on. Then it got bigger and bigger and the human ego evolved to supercede simple social functioning to a broader control and self righteousness. The mysteries of the world were put into a “God’s” hand and the priests expanded the game of conditioning, until in most “civilized” societies, we lost our ability to directly observe life around us, and we took on the mantle of the powerful.
Some, like real explorers, scientists, poets, and other curious questioners, resisted enough to find the actual world and delighted in its constant discovery.
But the masses live in the conceptualized version of life, preaching the shoulds and judging those who are wrong. Much ado about nothing… tom
“But the masses live in the conceptualized version of life, preaching the shoulds and judging those who are wrong.”
Hmmmm. That is quite a generalization. Is it possible that in attempting to design a situation for discussion one can over-polarize?
Or, maybe the situation was not designed for discussion.
All this is designed for dialogue, which is not debate, but may be a discussion, I guess. I do not see that statement as an over generalization. I hardly ever see, hear, or watch anything in the mass media that is not of this character. I would guess that less that 1% of all recorded material of any sort has to do with a non-conceptualized version of the world. Far less… A good push back on this, but the whole notion of polarization does not even fit into this. After all, what is polarization? t