Hi Arlo, Thanks for your reply. I agree that language shapes our thoughts. More importantly, language restricts our thoughts, but is essential for communication. A good example of this is the difference in thinking between the Chinese and Americans, symbols v words. A picture can represent many words, and is not as confining. I would disagree that mental patterns originate out of society, I am still trying to figure out what Pirsig means by his hierarchy, I do not see the world that way, yet
We do not think through language, but translate our thoughts into language. The personal hierarchy, in my view, is feelings generate thoughts, generate language. Our thoughts are merely a simplified, packaged form of our feelings (passions, emotions, whatever). I am glad that you disagree with a tax on soda, since that is what is being proposed. I do disagree that we should alleviate the "burden to society" by directly connecting one's eating habits and the overall well-being of a society. When you speak of the "single biggest single health item affecting our diet", you are lumping everybody together, those that drink soda responsibly and those that don't. Those that are healthy need to take care of those that don't through a dictated system rather than on one's own free will. This is dangerous to our inner freedom. While I believe in a responsible society, this should come from within. By creating a centralized healthcare system, there is no doubt that our eating habits will be regulated "for the greater good". As I recall, the huge penalty that cigarette companies had to pay was in part supported by the notion that by providing people with cigarettes, the Tobacco Companies were creating a huge burden on society. The same could be said of McDonald's, Jim Beam, Monster, Nescafe, etc. It is easier to blame the company, than the victimized individual. While I'm sure there could be extreme examples brought up as to where curtailing one's rights is good (legalizing cocaine, for example) the common sense of dictating what people should do for the greater good should be examined. Cheers, Willblake2 On May 14, 2009, at 8:37:39 AM, "Arlo Bensinger" <[email protected]> wrote: [WillBlake] You are right. We each choose our own PC, we may disagree, but that doesn't create right and wrong. [Arlo] I must repeat myself before answering your post. "PC" is an empty term, in many ways it stands as humorously self-referential, since the motive of using the term is to shape other's opinions. We each choose what is important to us, I think that is more correct. Moreso I want to point out that "language" itself, by its very nature, is a shaping force. At times this seems very transparent, at others we have the illusion of a neutral language that simply and objectively describes the way things are, without passing judgment or influencing reason. What we choose as important to us occurs within the shaping influence of language. "Mental patterns do not originate out of inorganic nature. They originate out of society, which originates out of biology which originates out of inorganic nature. And, as anthropologists know so well, what a mind thinks is as dominated by social patterns as social patterns are dominated by biological patterns and as biological patterns are dominated by inorganic patterns. There is no direct scientific connection between mind and matter. As the atomic physicist, Niels Bohr, said, "We are suspended in language." Our intellectual description of nature is always culturally derived." (LILA) I say this because I think there is tendency to buy into the illusion that most (or some) of language is neutral, while other language is "manipulative", that some language "shapes our thoughts" while other language merely expresses the world as it is. [WillBlake] What if our eating habits become a target of PC, in the name of Healthcare. The next thing you know, this administration will create a tax on soft drinks that have sugar. Or make health PC, and start giving my tax money to companies that promote healthy living. In this way what we eat becomes an employment issue. Do you think this could happen? [Arlo] This is a multi-faceted and very nuanced thing, I'll give you my overall thoughts as concisely as I can. Let me back up and say I do believe a valid role of government is information dissemination. Remember the food pyramid? Encouraging healthy eating is, I believe, a legitimate part of, say, public education phys-ed programs. The reason is, and this gets to you point about tax money, that the costs of obesity, diet-related diabetes issues, and all the other outcomes of unhealthy eating (heart attacks, strokes, etc.) is already a burden shared by society. In its most obvious, consider the cost of emergency room treatment alone, disability and the like. Government can, and should, be involved in promoting preventative health (not just as it relates to diet). Now the question is, how much and in what way. Should the government ban soda? (Which is, I argue, the single biggest health item effecting our diet, by virtue of the sheer amounts most people consume each day). Of course not. "Soda tax"? No. I think singling out individual diet choices is problematic and fails to address the larger issue. Now, offering tax breaks or incentives to companies that promote healthy behavior (including diet) for their workers is something I might support. The company likely realizes that it can minimize both its insurance payouts and its downtime by providing an environment that fosters a healthy lifestyle; whether is building an on-site gym, or offering only healthy foods in their vending machines, I think that this is overall not a bad thing. The government is rewarding the company for not only securing its own health, but for efforts to curtail costs to the public as well. I think providing a public infrastructure that encourages healthy living, for example providing bike paths, are typically expenditures I would support. But this must be placed in a larger context that asks why are so many Americans habituated to unhealthy eating? Does this cross over into Marsha's concerns about "neuromarketing"? [WillBlake] Many of us eat and drink appropriately, some don't. If healthcare is universal, we would have to pay for those who don't. [Arlo] I would argue that we are doing that now. We simply push back the expense until it is something huge, like an emergency room situation. [WillBlake] Because of this an effort may be made to dictate what we can eat. This would be very intrusive, in my opinion. [Arlo] Any effort made to dictate what you can eat would be immoral (apart from cannibalism, to be sure ;-)) Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
