Symmetry between the Golden Rule and RWG

There is a symmetry in two these different habits

Golden Rule	do good	to others	as you would have them	do good	to you
Right/Wrong game	do bad	to others	as you would have them	do bad	to you

the good/bad in the rule is rotated (substituted) good to bad.

And this model keeps on giving ...

This symmetry can work another way ... consider a masochist, who prefers pain to pleasure. Rotate from a normal empathetic person to masochist and you also change from GR to RWG.

Try it, a masochist following the GR, will give pain to others, because he wants pain done to himself ... but that is just RWG: "do bad- to others as you would have them do bad- to you".

It is interesting to note, with certainty, that the "other" in the GR and the "other" in the RWG point to the very same identical thing. This is also the very same thing as i point to when i refer to "otherness" in otherness. see insides, see outsides

But to be honest about this symmetry here, the copula, "as you would have them", probably does not not point the very same identical thing in both behaviors. So to grock the symmetry one would need to move from the binary tyranny of language to human intuition.

Different coding of the Golden Rule (thanks to "I am not being spiritual, i am just being a good person" on facebook) ... mine above is similar ...

Comments

Seth says

IamanI 2015-09-29 16:25:18 18874

Are you equating them? Have you just discovered reciprocity? Anything here not said already? Knock - Knock - who's there?

nope not equating them ... just saying the one can be made into the other by substituting good for bad. they are the same kind of habit. the one is good for humanity, the other bad ... or so i judge it to be. who knows, maybe some super being would just see them like we see left handed and right handed.

and what is new here is that they are symmetrical relative to the good/bad axis. i have never heard that said before.

Seth says

IamanI 2015-09-29 16:51:21 18874

Because humans can invent machines does not mean that machines invented humans. (;-))

true ... but how is that lack of symmetry related to this item?

Seth says

IamanI 2015-09-30 09:17:20 18874

seth 2015-09-30 09:09:46 18874

IamanI 2015-09-30 07:27:07 18874

seth 2015-09-29 19:09:32 18874

IamanI 2015-09-29 17:24:21 18874

The GR & the RWG are not related.

Then too this smmtry can work another way ... consider a macocist, who prefers pain to pleasure. Rotate from normal to masochist and you also change from GR to RWG. Try it, a machosist following the GR, will give pain to others, because he wants pain done to him ... but that is just RWG: "do bad- to others as you would have them do bad- to you".

incidentally, just stating things are not related, does not make them not related or show how they are not related.

No cheese here either.

Well in my maze i can gestalt the pattern ... i won't go over it again ... it is clear enough already ... and i can see the relationship regardless of any cheese relative to myself or yourself.

In your maze i guess there just is no relationship to be gestalted.

Oh well, viva la difference.

Pattern junkies see what they want & what they look for.
Apparently you have some fixation at the left on genitals.
Still I am looking for something else - maybe an aha or something useful that makes my time & attention worth traveling through your word-maze. But it's not here today. The accidental meat-based computing machine is not my shtick.

Seth says

IamanI 2015-10-01 09:14:22 18874

seth 2015-10-01 09:00:27 18874

IamanI 2015-10-01 08:36:54 18874

seth 2015-10-01 08:29:14 18874

IamanI 2015-10-01 08:02:02 18874

Symmetry is in the eye of the beholder. Any two distinctions that have the property of IS can be determined to be related & their symmetry (or lack thereof) imagined.

i don't know about that ... symmetry can be tested objectively outside of my head. put your hands together and notice how they match. if they don't, let me know, we can write a anatomy book about your situation over there.

The symmetry is still in your head. It takes another brain/mind to ascribe the language that makes the symmetry separate out and associate to the physical. If you see chicken cross the road & ascribe a motive you are adding to the physical facts which are not really there except in your mind. Sequence in your mind & cause/effect are after the fact in things not you.

well if i can give you a method that arrives at a result that you can verify ... and you do the method and verify that the result is the same ... then surely there is something in front of us here that is not just in my head.

Maybe, maybe not - solipsism is a counter-example!

I subscribe more to the zen-ontology grasp of my life. I can grasp the function of language as callling into being distinctions about my perception through my senses which exist wholly independent of my being there otherwise. A tree falling in a forest kind of thingy makes noise or not.

yeah pretty much here too.

Seth says

this is quite in context here ...

IamanI 2015-10-01 07:21:29 1722

seth 2015-10-01 04:05:29 1722

IamanI 2015-09-30 23:58:08 1722

seth 2015-09-30 21:40:33 1722

Well I don't think there is any automatic need for people to protect their ego when they encounter a disagreement. Sure, i've seen some hyper-sensitivity like that, but i've also seen confident people not even act like there was a challenge to themselves, and i've seen others become curious, and others just react to resolve the disagreemt.

Try it & see how it works out for you the rest of your life!

Well yes definitely!

The less i tie my being right or wrong, to sombody else's being right or wrong, the better things go ... or said differently, respecting their being, in it's own right, is the most honest thing i can do.

Such behavior might be like the Golden Rule in one perspective - good idea - hard to put in practice due to haggling & the munge-factor. I suspect that if you commit, especially for the the rest of your life, you will eventually - if not next - run into the automatic need.

Seth says

The point here is that I have represented the RWG and GR in language sentences which are symmetrical (see bold blue above). That does kind of suggest to me that the behaviors that the sentences represent may be symmetrical in that same sense as well.

Seth says

it does also kind of suggest that, since the one rule prefers bad and the other rule prefers good, yet otherwise they are the same, that one could say that the one rule is bad, while the other rule is good. Now, i will admit that is very indirect and abstract thinking, and i don't take it all that serious ... but anyway i thought it was an interesting enough grock to at least blog.
Especially because you didn't like me "making the RWG rule, wrong"

, if you will permit me a bit of a chuckel.

Seth says

IamanI 2015-10-01 09:07:34 18874

seth 2015-10-01 08:56:26 18874

IamanI 2015-10-01 08:25:51 18874

seth 2015-10-01 08:24:48 18874

IamanI 2015-10-01 08:04:48 18874

The RWG can be played without communicating with the other parties. I just may be that it is all in your head.

well the chimera of you is all in my head

Related?

yeah, your sentence is like saying i am playing with chimera "all in my head". i just got specific as to a specific instance ... ie, my chimera of you in my head. i had thought we were together on that usage.

Maybe go back to where I first used the word & you will see how I use it. To generalize it to anything in my head or yours is to generalize, practice mungefulness & become the anti-distinction junky of the month. Happy ventures!

ok ... i'm going to leave this one alone now.

Symmetry between the Golden Rule and RWG

Tags

Comments

See Also