![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
basic assumptions
Sep. 24th, 2010 02:25 pmFor each of us there exists a few fundamental thoughts/beliefs/ideologies/feelings/opinions/etc. that are so ingrained we take them as a given until and unless someone or something causes us to step back and re-examine them. Often these points of view are so ingrained that we make other comments based on the assumption of these "facts" without specifying that they exist, nor what they are--we don't see the lack in that because these things are just the way the world *is*. Except that it is not. For each of these thoughts that one of us hold as so "right" that it goes without saying, someone else has a different perspective.
I discovered one of mine as a result of the writer's block reply post I did yesterday. When the question asked "should there be any restrictions", I understood "restrictions" to mean what I think of when I hear the word. To me a "restriction" is something that can only be self-imposed--it is a decision that an individual makes for themselves with the goal of obtaining a positive benefit. Examples include people who had a tendency to over-eat so decided to restrict their food intake with the goal of bringing their weight back down to a healthy limit. Or deciding that one likes to be awake whilst at work, and therefore setting a restriction as to how late one stays up at night.
While it is possible for someone else to suggest a restriction to another, unless the other decides of their own free will to adhere to it it will not make any difference (other than possibly causing some resentment). I see "laws" as different from "restrictions" in that "laws" are a list of things a government wishes its people to either refrain from doing or make a point of doing (depending on the law). The people are free to do them, or not, but there are consequences in the form of punishment (or possibly reward if they choose to do something that is on the list of laws requiring an action to be taken). This, to my mind, is very different from the consequences of not following a restriction you choose for your self. In the case of going on a "diet" choosing not to adhere to the restrictions results in not losing weight--it is something that simply happens, a direct cause and effect relationship. Laws, on the other hand, come with an indirect cause and effect. The punishment happens because the law was broken, but a different set of actions must be initiated to cause the punishment to come into being, it doesn't arise naturally out of the failure to follow it.
Therefore, when I wrote yesterday on the topic of overpopulation and the list of "restrictions" I think could make a difference in reducing the number of people on the planet, I simply listed the ideas that came to me, and didn't think to state the basic assumptions that are so ingrained in me that I hadn't noticed them--that in order to qualify as a restriction it cannot be imposed by an outside authority. The only way my suggestion could work would be if suddenly everyone on the planet woke up and said to themselves all at once that they would like to apply those restrictions to themselves.
Will this ever happen? No, not bloody likely. While everyone on the planet may agree that breathing is a good thing, I don't think that anything else is unanimous, or is ever likely to be. Solutions to problems that are dreamed up when doing a quick essay in response to a question (like the writer's block questions) are often not practical. However, I still think that should everyone suddenly decide to give my idea a try that the results, despite the negative consequences for some) would still be better than the famine/plague/pestilence/war that will happen as a result of overpopulation.
It has been interesting seeing how others react to my words, and to realize that many of you clearly have a very different meaning to the word "restrictions" than do I. No idea if explaining the basic assumptions on meaning and implications of that word for me helps ease any of the negative reaction others had to it when I used it or not, but it seemed worth sharing the ideas nonetheless. I certainly wouldn't have thought so much about how I see the word if others hadn't reacted strongly and so differently than do I.
I discovered one of mine as a result of the writer's block reply post I did yesterday. When the question asked "should there be any restrictions", I understood "restrictions" to mean what I think of when I hear the word. To me a "restriction" is something that can only be self-imposed--it is a decision that an individual makes for themselves with the goal of obtaining a positive benefit. Examples include people who had a tendency to over-eat so decided to restrict their food intake with the goal of bringing their weight back down to a healthy limit. Or deciding that one likes to be awake whilst at work, and therefore setting a restriction as to how late one stays up at night.
While it is possible for someone else to suggest a restriction to another, unless the other decides of their own free will to adhere to it it will not make any difference (other than possibly causing some resentment). I see "laws" as different from "restrictions" in that "laws" are a list of things a government wishes its people to either refrain from doing or make a point of doing (depending on the law). The people are free to do them, or not, but there are consequences in the form of punishment (or possibly reward if they choose to do something that is on the list of laws requiring an action to be taken). This, to my mind, is very different from the consequences of not following a restriction you choose for your self. In the case of going on a "diet" choosing not to adhere to the restrictions results in not losing weight--it is something that simply happens, a direct cause and effect relationship. Laws, on the other hand, come with an indirect cause and effect. The punishment happens because the law was broken, but a different set of actions must be initiated to cause the punishment to come into being, it doesn't arise naturally out of the failure to follow it.
Therefore, when I wrote yesterday on the topic of overpopulation and the list of "restrictions" I think could make a difference in reducing the number of people on the planet, I simply listed the ideas that came to me, and didn't think to state the basic assumptions that are so ingrained in me that I hadn't noticed them--that in order to qualify as a restriction it cannot be imposed by an outside authority. The only way my suggestion could work would be if suddenly everyone on the planet woke up and said to themselves all at once that they would like to apply those restrictions to themselves.
Will this ever happen? No, not bloody likely. While everyone on the planet may agree that breathing is a good thing, I don't think that anything else is unanimous, or is ever likely to be. Solutions to problems that are dreamed up when doing a quick essay in response to a question (like the writer's block questions) are often not practical. However, I still think that should everyone suddenly decide to give my idea a try that the results, despite the negative consequences for some) would still be better than the famine/plague/pestilence/war that will happen as a result of overpopulation.
It has been interesting seeing how others react to my words, and to realize that many of you clearly have a very different meaning to the word "restrictions" than do I. No idea if explaining the basic assumptions on meaning and implications of that word for me helps ease any of the negative reaction others had to it when I used it or not, but it seemed worth sharing the ideas nonetheless. I certainly wouldn't have thought so much about how I see the word if others hadn't reacted strongly and so differently than do I.
