> Do unto others as you would have them to do unto you - makes YOU
> the sole Judge of what "others" would like (which I think is
> dangerous). I think it also leaves out the element of kindness as
> I don't think you can be kind to another without knowing/
> understanding/having empathy with their concerns as they see them.
Maybe the doer won't be determining what to forcibly do to others.
The emphasis (at least in the logic, in my opinion) is DO (unto them) as
You would have them DO (unto You). It doesn't say that You know or can
judge what they would want. It doesn't even SAY that they are going to get
what I think. Question - What matters more, things or the spirit of
things? A husband can ask for a glass of water, and the wife can say,
what's the matter with you, you've got legs. So the husband can get the
water (the thing), though I'm not sure it will be refreshing! So if I say,
I would like to be treated easy, then I should treat others easy. I might
say that I would like a jalapeno burger (challenging myself), yet the
option of changing my mind would be welcomed. So if I offered such a treat
to another, they should also be given the freedom to say No. (They may not
get what I first planned to give.)
We could say, people won't qualify the rules like they should. Maybe it is
more related to the culture of having seen kind service, appreciating it,
and learning that's the way to do things than it has to do with judging
what actions should be done to another.
So, instead of thinking of "do unto others as You would have them do unto
You" as direction to judge what others will get, maybe it has more to do
with the how of doing.
That reminds me of what Joan said in the Values and Complexity thread -
that values, such as kindness, have to do with the "how".
Have a nice day
John Paul Fullerton
jpf@myriad.net
--"John Paul Fullerton" <jpf@mail.myriad.net>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>