[MD] PC Madness

[markhsmit]

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" <ajb102 at psu.edu> 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/