Tanya Tucker was singing about a most common experience: friends had warned us against dating that person. He is nothing but trouble, we are told. She will break your heart; don’t do it. He is bad news, temper like a yellow jacket and strikes like the snake that he is. But, for reasons we can’t explain even to ourselves, we have already lost our heart to them. That’s why she sings: “Well, it’s a little too late to do the right thing now.”
Hooked on pot before we knew it, took that first drink, lost our virginity, turned in a research paper that we bought off the internet, or even in blind rage killed our husband’s lover. Yes, it’s a little too late to do the right thing now. What’s done can’t be undone. But not really; there is more to it than that.
Considerate thinking--another term for the otohbotoh dialectic–says that we always are in an on-the-other-hand situation. It may be a little too late to do what was the right thing to do at the time, but this time is not that time. The clock has moved on, maybe even the calendar. We did the wrong thing, but that’s in the past. “Now” means that we are in the present.
In the aftermath of any mistake, we have choices available in the now. Something is the right thing to do now. Find it and do it. Like Andrei Gromyko, I have gotten a lot of mileage out of the old Russian proverb: “No matter how long you’ve been traveling the wrong road, turn around.” We face a new set of choices. In the present, in the now, we can turn around and move toward that which is the right way for the now.
This is what Christian repentance is about. We have seen the destruction our habitual philosophy of life led to. We have understood the world one way, have believed that way was the truth, we’ve followed some particular mental map of reality and found it to be a dead-end. Repentance means that we can choose to be reoriented, begin to walk the way that leads to life, believe that Jesus has Reality mapped out right.
No, it is not too late to do the right thing now.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
The Quick and Easy Way to Become a Good Thinker
It is not enough to be a critical thinker, or a creative thinker, or a logical thinker, or a scientific thinker; to be a good thinker, in all senses of the term, is to be a considerate thinker. Consideration is the key to greatly improved thinking.
By thinking dialectically you can Improve your thinking immediately. The dialectic, as old as Socrates, can be used easily and effectively in the 21st Century. Like the unfolding of a flower bud, simple and beautiful itself, it opens into new depths of beauty and fragrance.
The dialectic will lead you to:
• Consider other perspectives.
• Consider logical implications.
• Consider who you are.
• Consider who you want to become.
• Consider what is possible, what can actually be done.
You will quickly become:
• A person whose ideas must be reckoned with.
• A person who is rarely blind-sided.
• More honest.
• More respectful and more respected.
• More aware and appreciative.
• More courteous.
__________________
If this is your first visit, some of the early posts on this blog will explain how I use the term, “The Dialectic.”
By thinking dialectically you can Improve your thinking immediately. The dialectic, as old as Socrates, can be used easily and effectively in the 21st Century. Like the unfolding of a flower bud, simple and beautiful itself, it opens into new depths of beauty and fragrance.
The dialectic will lead you to:
• Consider other perspectives.
• Consider logical implications.
• Consider who you are.
• Consider who you want to become.
• Consider what is possible, what can actually be done.
You will quickly become:
• A person whose ideas must be reckoned with.
• A person who is rarely blind-sided.
• More honest.
• More respectful and more respected.
• More aware and appreciative.
• More courteous.
__________________
If this is your first visit, some of the early posts on this blog will explain how I use the term, “The Dialectic.”
Monday, October 8, 2007
How I Go about Thinking
Recently I heard from one of those three or four individuals who read my blogs on a regular basis, and he told me that, as a result, he believed he was beginning to learn how to think. That, coupled with a provocative discussion another fellow–a friend--and I had, is what lies behind today’s blog.
Our intense conversation was stimulating and challenging. My friend and I appeared to have major disagreements about where we were coming from and where we were we believed it took us. We had time to stir things up a bit, but not enough to clarify much, and although as friends we retain a harmonious relationship, we left our discussion without resolving our differences. We will meet again; of that I am confident.
This kind of emotionally charged attempt to reason together is an encounter not uncommon for me. It always drives me, always, to reconsider my own thinking. As I drove home that day, reconsidering my thoughts, I began trying to do a complete review of how my thinking characteristically proceeds. What follows is a provisional statement of the essential elements of my thought processes.
Four reference points are always consulted; yes, and a fifth is also involved. These are linked interdependently.
• The Christian’s Holy Scriptures
• Logic
• Words: their usage, definition, and etymology
• The actual life context of whatever is at issue
• And to be honest, I must include my experience of life as I have seen, felt, and understood it.
Three assumptions are always present in the pattern of my thinking:
• No human statement is ever complete. It matters not whether it a sentence, a speech, an essay, a book, or a political platform that makes the statement, it can never be complete.
• There is always more to be said. Sometimes that more changes everything.
• [Thus] It is always possible that I am wrong.
The scriptures that Christians consider holy, when taken as a whole, are fuzzy. This is why they always have been and will remain, subject to interpretation. Many interpretations exist. Therefore, we can see that Christians have never reasoned from Scripture alone, although many have claimed to do just that.
Logic is equally fuzzy. None of its premises are incontrovertibly true. The reasoning process often is invalid. Inductive logic, by its very nature, cannot produce conclusions that will always prove worthy of our trust.
Trying to settle matters by logic, it is essential that we must understand and accept the premises from which we are reasoning. We must also accept the validity of the reasoning process. Otherwise, we are unlikely to agree on conclusions.
Anytime we disagree with the conclusion of someone’s reasoning, there are only two ways they can be challenged: the truth of their premises and the validity of their reasoning process. This is true at least for deductive reasoning. Since inductive reasoning always goes somewhere beyond the evidence offered in the premises, we may reasonably disagree on the conclusions. The only way to clarify the matter is to reduce it to some deductive pattern. Then it can be subjected to rigorous testing.
The meaning of words lies more in how they are used than in what dictionaries, lexica, or etymologies have to say. Nonetheless, unless we clearly stipulate how we are using language, we cannot stray far from established meaning without jeopardizing our ability to communicate.
_________
Personally:
• Within the Holy Scriptures, my heart, mind, emotions, and soul turn to the following passages as interpretative signposts and as illuminators of the rest of these writings:
--I John 4:16
--Matthew 7:24-27
--John 14:6
--Colossians 1:15-20
--John 1:1-18
--Ephesians 1:10
--2 Corinthians 5:17-21
╶ Revelation 5
• When I turn to logic, my major methods of testing by deduction are:
--The categorical syllogism
--The conditional syllogism
--The dilemma
╶ The reductio ad absurdum
Inductively, I turn to the ways of testing:
--Analogies
--The hypothetico-deductive method
--Simple induction
• I approach the biblical writings using a logic appropriate to stories rather than to strict propositional logic. As story, the Bible speaks with multilayered, multifaceted, and somewhat open-ended meaning.
• Therefore I concur with Jan Zwicky’s judgment that none of it--whether understood as story or parts of the story, or understood in propositional language–can be reduced to unidimensional meaning without misre-presentation of its intention.
• I also concur with Ludwig Wittgenstein when he says, “That which is ragged should be left ragged.” In spite of the ultimate clarity that is visible when we look at the big picture of the biblical theme and when we have acknowledged its unity and harmony, the Bible remains a rather ragged collection of writings.
________________
A couple of ideas that came up in the conversation that stimulated this little essay might clarify some small piece of what I’ve been saying.
1. The word, introvert, was used a few times. It was not clear to me how it was being used; its usage did not fit with my own. The real heart of our concerns was sabotaged by this vagueness. “Contrary to what most people think, an introvert is not simply a person who is shy. In fact, being shy has little to do with being an introvert! Shyness has an element of apprehension, nervousness and anxiety, and while an introvert may also be shy, introversion itself is not shyness. Basically, an introvert is a person who is energized by being alone and whose energy is drained by being around other people.”
In context, “introvert” was used to designate a group that was perceived to represent a representative majority of the population of the United States, if not actually most of the entire human population. The majority were identified as introverts. Among authorities, the well-established fact is that introverts constitute only about 25% of the population.
This ratio seems validated in my own life experience as, for at least sixty-five years, I’ve observed human social interaction. Day in and day out, wherever you go, the great majority of our world, as well as almost any select group, is made up of extroverted people. And, as an introvert myself, I suspect that God intended us to be so, so that we can live in societies rather than in reclusion, seclusion, and isolation.
On the other hand:
Most people believe that an extrovert is a person who is friendly and outgoing. While that may be true, that is not the true meaning of extroversion. Basically, an extrovert is a person who is energized by being around other people. This is the opposite of an introvert who is energized by being alone.
[About.com is a helpful starting point for understanding these two types of human personality.]
2. It was said that Jesus called us–whoever that might be--to be “fishers of men.”
When Jesus actually called a few fishermen to become his special trainees, he did say he would make them “fishers of men.” When, however, he called a collector of governmental revenues, he neither told him that he was to become a “fisher of men,” nor that he was to be a “revenuer for God.” When he called a fellow who was part of a quasi-military group, he said nothing to him about either “fishing” or fighting.
What we can appropriately extrapolate from ancient texts, sacred or otherwise, is another discussion altogether.
_________________
This has been an essay into something of how, in practice, I put my concept of considerate/dialectical thinking to use. It is written to whomever it concerns, and for whatever it is worth.
___________
Now, in private, I will, along these lines, go about analyzing the aforementioned challenging discussion.
Our intense conversation was stimulating and challenging. My friend and I appeared to have major disagreements about where we were coming from and where we were we believed it took us. We had time to stir things up a bit, but not enough to clarify much, and although as friends we retain a harmonious relationship, we left our discussion without resolving our differences. We will meet again; of that I am confident.
This kind of emotionally charged attempt to reason together is an encounter not uncommon for me. It always drives me, always, to reconsider my own thinking. As I drove home that day, reconsidering my thoughts, I began trying to do a complete review of how my thinking characteristically proceeds. What follows is a provisional statement of the essential elements of my thought processes.
Four reference points are always consulted; yes, and a fifth is also involved. These are linked interdependently.
• The Christian’s Holy Scriptures
• Logic
• Words: their usage, definition, and etymology
• The actual life context of whatever is at issue
• And to be honest, I must include my experience of life as I have seen, felt, and understood it.
Three assumptions are always present in the pattern of my thinking:
• No human statement is ever complete. It matters not whether it a sentence, a speech, an essay, a book, or a political platform that makes the statement, it can never be complete.
• There is always more to be said. Sometimes that more changes everything.
• [Thus] It is always possible that I am wrong.
The scriptures that Christians consider holy, when taken as a whole, are fuzzy. This is why they always have been and will remain, subject to interpretation. Many interpretations exist. Therefore, we can see that Christians have never reasoned from Scripture alone, although many have claimed to do just that.
Logic is equally fuzzy. None of its premises are incontrovertibly true. The reasoning process often is invalid. Inductive logic, by its very nature, cannot produce conclusions that will always prove worthy of our trust.
Trying to settle matters by logic, it is essential that we must understand and accept the premises from which we are reasoning. We must also accept the validity of the reasoning process. Otherwise, we are unlikely to agree on conclusions.
Anytime we disagree with the conclusion of someone’s reasoning, there are only two ways they can be challenged: the truth of their premises and the validity of their reasoning process. This is true at least for deductive reasoning. Since inductive reasoning always goes somewhere beyond the evidence offered in the premises, we may reasonably disagree on the conclusions. The only way to clarify the matter is to reduce it to some deductive pattern. Then it can be subjected to rigorous testing.
The meaning of words lies more in how they are used than in what dictionaries, lexica, or etymologies have to say. Nonetheless, unless we clearly stipulate how we are using language, we cannot stray far from established meaning without jeopardizing our ability to communicate.
_________
Personally:
• Within the Holy Scriptures, my heart, mind, emotions, and soul turn to the following passages as interpretative signposts and as illuminators of the rest of these writings:
--I John 4:16
--Matthew 7:24-27
--John 14:6
--Colossians 1:15-20
--John 1:1-18
--Ephesians 1:10
--2 Corinthians 5:17-21
╶ Revelation 5
• When I turn to logic, my major methods of testing by deduction are:
--The categorical syllogism
--The conditional syllogism
--The dilemma
╶ The reductio ad absurdum
Inductively, I turn to the ways of testing:
--Analogies
--The hypothetico-deductive method
--Simple induction
• I approach the biblical writings using a logic appropriate to stories rather than to strict propositional logic. As story, the Bible speaks with multilayered, multifaceted, and somewhat open-ended meaning.
• Therefore I concur with Jan Zwicky’s judgment that none of it--whether understood as story or parts of the story, or understood in propositional language–can be reduced to unidimensional meaning without misre-presentation of its intention.
• I also concur with Ludwig Wittgenstein when he says, “That which is ragged should be left ragged.” In spite of the ultimate clarity that is visible when we look at the big picture of the biblical theme and when we have acknowledged its unity and harmony, the Bible remains a rather ragged collection of writings.
________________
A couple of ideas that came up in the conversation that stimulated this little essay might clarify some small piece of what I’ve been saying.
1. The word, introvert, was used a few times. It was not clear to me how it was being used; its usage did not fit with my own. The real heart of our concerns was sabotaged by this vagueness. “Contrary to what most people think, an introvert is not simply a person who is shy. In fact, being shy has little to do with being an introvert! Shyness has an element of apprehension, nervousness and anxiety, and while an introvert may also be shy, introversion itself is not shyness. Basically, an introvert is a person who is energized by being alone and whose energy is drained by being around other people.”
In context, “introvert” was used to designate a group that was perceived to represent a representative majority of the population of the United States, if not actually most of the entire human population. The majority were identified as introverts. Among authorities, the well-established fact is that introverts constitute only about 25% of the population.
This ratio seems validated in my own life experience as, for at least sixty-five years, I’ve observed human social interaction. Day in and day out, wherever you go, the great majority of our world, as well as almost any select group, is made up of extroverted people. And, as an introvert myself, I suspect that God intended us to be so, so that we can live in societies rather than in reclusion, seclusion, and isolation.
On the other hand:
Most people believe that an extrovert is a person who is friendly and outgoing. While that may be true, that is not the true meaning of extroversion. Basically, an extrovert is a person who is energized by being around other people. This is the opposite of an introvert who is energized by being alone.
[About.com is a helpful starting point for understanding these two types of human personality.]
2. It was said that Jesus called us–whoever that might be--to be “fishers of men.”
When Jesus actually called a few fishermen to become his special trainees, he did say he would make them “fishers of men.” When, however, he called a collector of governmental revenues, he neither told him that he was to become a “fisher of men,” nor that he was to be a “revenuer for God.” When he called a fellow who was part of a quasi-military group, he said nothing to him about either “fishing” or fighting.
What we can appropriately extrapolate from ancient texts, sacred or otherwise, is another discussion altogether.
_________________
This has been an essay into something of how, in practice, I put my concept of considerate/dialectical thinking to use. It is written to whomever it concerns, and for whatever it is worth.
___________
Now, in private, I will, along these lines, go about analyzing the aforementioned challenging discussion.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Preventing Bad Luck
On the old TV show, Hee Haw, every week, with downcast face and voice, they sang:
Gloom, despair and agony on me!
Deep dark depression, excessive misery!
If it weren't for bad luck I'd have no luck at all!
Dialectical–considerate–thinking shuts out most of our bad luck. Nothing can stop all of it, but it can usually be avoided if we live with our eyes and ears and mind “on the other hand,” which is where bad luck ordinarily comes from. When we can avoid being caught by surprise, we can be prepared for whatever might be headed our way. We can be like Nathan Bedford Forrest who said of Stonewall Jackson, “he got there firstest with the mostest.”
If we make it our habit to consider life from several perspectives, we can seize the initiative and “get there the firstest with the mostest.” Sometimes we can catch that potential “bad luck” before it gets to us, and be prepared to ambush it before the bad luck knows what is happening.
Likewise, thinking like an octopus, considering the many hands, using all the time available to us before decision-making time, will open the door and put out the welcome mat for good luck to walk into our house for a visit. A perennial truism says that the more we pre-pare, the more we stay alert, the more are aware, the more we pay attention, the luckier we get.
Yeah, yeah, we know all of that. We’ve heard it all our lives. We know it’s true, yet we continue to believe that some people are just born lucky and others unlucky. We might ought to wipe the dust and cobwebs off of those wise old words, so that, like the Boy Scouts, we can “be prepared.” If so, we just might get to be among the lucky ones.
Good luck!
Gloom, despair and agony on me!
Deep dark depression, excessive misery!
If it weren't for bad luck I'd have no luck at all!
Dialectical–considerate–thinking shuts out most of our bad luck. Nothing can stop all of it, but it can usually be avoided if we live with our eyes and ears and mind “on the other hand,” which is where bad luck ordinarily comes from. When we can avoid being caught by surprise, we can be prepared for whatever might be headed our way. We can be like Nathan Bedford Forrest who said of Stonewall Jackson, “he got there firstest with the mostest.”
If we make it our habit to consider life from several perspectives, we can seize the initiative and “get there the firstest with the mostest.” Sometimes we can catch that potential “bad luck” before it gets to us, and be prepared to ambush it before the bad luck knows what is happening.
Likewise, thinking like an octopus, considering the many hands, using all the time available to us before decision-making time, will open the door and put out the welcome mat for good luck to walk into our house for a visit. A perennial truism says that the more we pre-pare, the more we stay alert, the more are aware, the more we pay attention, the luckier we get.
Yeah, yeah, we know all of that. We’ve heard it all our lives. We know it’s true, yet we continue to believe that some people are just born lucky and others unlucky. We might ought to wipe the dust and cobwebs off of those wise old words, so that, like the Boy Scouts, we can “be prepared.” If so, we just might get to be among the lucky ones.
Good luck!
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Sing, Draw, Dance, Think
Anyone can become a good thinker, I am convinced.
I have read, and I believe, that if you can talk, you can sing. For some of us, it takes a lot of help and training to become a halfway decent singer, but any of us can do it, after some fashion.
An art teacher once told us that if you can write, you can draw. Writing requires that we develop the ability to draw each character of the alphabet well enough to distinguish it from the other letters. We have to draw these letters with enough clarity that they can be read. If we can write, we have already developed some degree of drawing ability.
As a matter of fact, all children draw, even more naturally than they write. They begin drawing before they know anything about reading and writing. It is only after they are art classes where art teachers tell them what they’ve done wrong, that they decide they can’t draw. Anyone who can write can draw, and with training and encouragement, can learn to draw fairly well.
A teacher of choreography told me that anyone who can walk can dance. We can maintain our balance, move our feet in proper sequence, and adjust our pace to walk with some else. Most of us can even learn to march in step with music. As dancers, we probably will never become a public performer nor become known as an artist, but we can move our feet rhythmically and/or move our feet to music.
These are things I have heard said, and that I believe.
_______________
I say: If you ever think at all, you can become a good thinker. Maybe not like Einstein, but effectively. The following repeats what I wrote in a much earlier blog.
If you learn to think considerately–dialectically–then you will become more:
• considerate
• moderate
• appreciative
• aware,
• diplomatic
• honest
• respectful
You will:
• understand others better (including your opposition)
• ask more questions
• read more
• eliminate arrogance
• be less apt to go off half-coked
• make fewer mistakes
• need to make fewer apologies
You will have more:
• patience
• humility
• wonder
• openness
• integrity
• sympathy
• tolerance
• people who respect you
• have more patience
You will be less apt to be blind-sided because you have thought and looked more than one way.
If you are new to this blog, the early posts on this site will help you understand more fully what has been said in this one.
If you are not new, you are aware that I’ve neglected–to my disappointment–this blog. I hope to remedy that, because I have much more I want to say on the subject of dialectical/considerate thinking.
I have read, and I believe, that if you can talk, you can sing. For some of us, it takes a lot of help and training to become a halfway decent singer, but any of us can do it, after some fashion.
An art teacher once told us that if you can write, you can draw. Writing requires that we develop the ability to draw each character of the alphabet well enough to distinguish it from the other letters. We have to draw these letters with enough clarity that they can be read. If we can write, we have already developed some degree of drawing ability.
As a matter of fact, all children draw, even more naturally than they write. They begin drawing before they know anything about reading and writing. It is only after they are art classes where art teachers tell them what they’ve done wrong, that they decide they can’t draw. Anyone who can write can draw, and with training and encouragement, can learn to draw fairly well.
A teacher of choreography told me that anyone who can walk can dance. We can maintain our balance, move our feet in proper sequence, and adjust our pace to walk with some else. Most of us can even learn to march in step with music. As dancers, we probably will never become a public performer nor become known as an artist, but we can move our feet rhythmically and/or move our feet to music.
These are things I have heard said, and that I believe.
_______________
I say: If you ever think at all, you can become a good thinker. Maybe not like Einstein, but effectively. The following repeats what I wrote in a much earlier blog.
If you learn to think considerately–dialectically–then you will become more:
• considerate
• moderate
• appreciative
• aware,
• diplomatic
• honest
• respectful
You will:
• understand others better (including your opposition)
• ask more questions
• read more
• eliminate arrogance
• be less apt to go off half-coked
• make fewer mistakes
• need to make fewer apologies
You will have more:
• patience
• humility
• wonder
• openness
• integrity
• sympathy
• tolerance
• people who respect you
• have more patience
You will be less apt to be blind-sided because you have thought and looked more than one way.
If you are new to this blog, the early posts on this site will help you understand more fully what has been said in this one.
If you are not new, you are aware that I’ve neglected–to my disappointment–this blog. I hope to remedy that, because I have much more I want to say on the subject of dialectical/considerate thinking.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Thinking about Health
Consider getting a second opinion. In 1957 I suffered an aggravating health problem so I went to one of the most highly respected physicians in Fort Worth. After the doctor examined me, he said I needed to come in for surgery as soon as I could take two weeks off all activity. I was in the middle of graduate studies and saw no way to miss that much school for two weeks, so I continued to endure the aggravation.
But it got worse, so I decided to take advantage of the school doctor. He was free. He was a seasoned teacher at Baylor Medical School in Dallas, who gave one day a week to the school. I went to see him. I told him what the other doctor had said. The old medical school physician examined me, and told me I did not need surgery at all. He suggested a few ways to alleviate the aggravation.
Considerate thinking. Considerate medical thinking. Since I could not easily follow the first doctor’s recommendation, I gave the matter some thought and considered getting another opinion. But then I had to consider two conflicting medical recommendations. How was I to know which was right? Both were highly regarded in their field.
One of the essential elements in considerate thinking is to use all the time you have available before a decision must be made. At least, if possible, sleep on it. Let the unconscious mind do some of your thinking. Of course there are times when decisions must be made and action taken immediately. In those cases instant consideration is given to the consequences of delay. This spurs us to a prompt decision.
I decided to take some time considering both options. Inertia set in. The recommendations of the second doctor helped, so I continued to delay decision. Of course the decision to postpone decision is a decision not to act right then. The end of the story is that, almost by default, I decided against the surgery that I had been told was needed as soon as possible.
That was fifty years ago. I’ve not had the surgery and have gotten by, most of the time, quite well.
If you have any question about a doctor’s diagnosis or recommendations, consider getting a second opinion.
Recently, a relative was having some memory problems and thought perhaps Alzheimer’s was the problem. A specialist was consulted and within five minutes, Alzheimer’s was confirmed. Further testing that morning substantiated the five minute judgment.
Thinking about this devastating diagnosis that promises such a black and bleak future, a second opinion was considered. The family physician doubted the disturbing diagnosis, and recommended a nationally acclaimed doctor who has developed the first definitive, objective test for Alzheimer’s.
After seven hours of careful testing, the national expert reversed the diagnosis. With a more than 95% certainty, the doctor assured that the problem was not serious and certainly was not Alzheimer’s. Unimaginable relief.
Think about it; always consider a second opinion.
_____________________
Many other medical matters call for considerate thinking.
• Is my condition serious enough to go to the doctor, or do I decide just to live with it or try any of a variety of home remedies and means of relief?
• Do I trust the doctor completely, or do I ask questions, perhaps hard questions?
• Do I eat a healthy diet, exercise, get proper sleep, and take other measures to maintain good health, or do I merely do as I please, trusting in the medical community to fix whatever might go wrong?
• When medicine is prescribed, do I take the brand name or consider the generic? Do I, without further thought, merely trust the doctor and take the prescribed medication, or do I consult information about possible side effects?
• If I am diagnosed with cancer, do I take radiation and chemo, both of which potentially have miserable side effects, or do I take my chances without such treatment? There are many things to consider.
• Do I want to draw up an advance directive, a living will? What do I want done if death looks imminent? Do I want heroic measures to be taken when I am no longer able to live without artificial support–measures such as resuscitation, the use of a feeding tube, or oxygen equipment that breathes for me?
These and many other health-related issues need to be thought through dialectically: On the one hand; but on the other hand; yes, but on the other hand; yes, but. . . . Sometimes we have to think like an octopus because there are several hands to consider.
Our health, well-being, and life itself depend in large measure on the quality and extent of our thinking.
I hope it is well with you today. But think also about tomorrow.
But it got worse, so I decided to take advantage of the school doctor. He was free. He was a seasoned teacher at Baylor Medical School in Dallas, who gave one day a week to the school. I went to see him. I told him what the other doctor had said. The old medical school physician examined me, and told me I did not need surgery at all. He suggested a few ways to alleviate the aggravation.
Considerate thinking. Considerate medical thinking. Since I could not easily follow the first doctor’s recommendation, I gave the matter some thought and considered getting another opinion. But then I had to consider two conflicting medical recommendations. How was I to know which was right? Both were highly regarded in their field.
One of the essential elements in considerate thinking is to use all the time you have available before a decision must be made. At least, if possible, sleep on it. Let the unconscious mind do some of your thinking. Of course there are times when decisions must be made and action taken immediately. In those cases instant consideration is given to the consequences of delay. This spurs us to a prompt decision.
I decided to take some time considering both options. Inertia set in. The recommendations of the second doctor helped, so I continued to delay decision. Of course the decision to postpone decision is a decision not to act right then. The end of the story is that, almost by default, I decided against the surgery that I had been told was needed as soon as possible.
That was fifty years ago. I’ve not had the surgery and have gotten by, most of the time, quite well.
If you have any question about a doctor’s diagnosis or recommendations, consider getting a second opinion.
Recently, a relative was having some memory problems and thought perhaps Alzheimer’s was the problem. A specialist was consulted and within five minutes, Alzheimer’s was confirmed. Further testing that morning substantiated the five minute judgment.
Thinking about this devastating diagnosis that promises such a black and bleak future, a second opinion was considered. The family physician doubted the disturbing diagnosis, and recommended a nationally acclaimed doctor who has developed the first definitive, objective test for Alzheimer’s.
After seven hours of careful testing, the national expert reversed the diagnosis. With a more than 95% certainty, the doctor assured that the problem was not serious and certainly was not Alzheimer’s. Unimaginable relief.
Think about it; always consider a second opinion.
_____________________
Many other medical matters call for considerate thinking.
• Is my condition serious enough to go to the doctor, or do I decide just to live with it or try any of a variety of home remedies and means of relief?
• Do I trust the doctor completely, or do I ask questions, perhaps hard questions?
• Do I eat a healthy diet, exercise, get proper sleep, and take other measures to maintain good health, or do I merely do as I please, trusting in the medical community to fix whatever might go wrong?
• When medicine is prescribed, do I take the brand name or consider the generic? Do I, without further thought, merely trust the doctor and take the prescribed medication, or do I consult information about possible side effects?
• If I am diagnosed with cancer, do I take radiation and chemo, both of which potentially have miserable side effects, or do I take my chances without such treatment? There are many things to consider.
• Do I want to draw up an advance directive, a living will? What do I want done if death looks imminent? Do I want heroic measures to be taken when I am no longer able to live without artificial support–measures such as resuscitation, the use of a feeding tube, or oxygen equipment that breathes for me?
These and many other health-related issues need to be thought through dialectically: On the one hand; but on the other hand; yes, but on the other hand; yes, but. . . . Sometimes we have to think like an octopus because there are several hands to consider.
Our health, well-being, and life itself depend in large measure on the quality and extent of our thinking.
I hope it is well with you today. But think also about tomorrow.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Randy Travis
Back in 1986, Randy Travis sang about a fellow who has just met an exciting woman. She has his complete attention, has him almost spellbound. He considers the possibility of spending the night with her. Then he sings, “On one hand I count the reasons I could stay with you . . . all night long . . . and on that hand I see no reason why it’s wrong.” That is one way for him to look at the situation.
But the refrain reveals the rest of the picture, as he sings, “But on the other hand there’s a golden band to remind me of someone who would not understand.” He has been tempted to forsake his marriage, and might have done so if he just looked at things from the most obvious point of view, the way he felt. He sings about a strong desire to stay, but the logic of marital love and commitment realizes that, “the reason I must go is on the other hand.”
Therein lies one of life’s crucial lessons. On one hand--every day, throughout the day--we see what we believe to be right and what feels right at the time. On the other hand there is always more to be considered, another side. On one hand we are ready to act; on the other hand it is possible that we might be wrong.
The truth is that no single way of seeing anything is ever the complete picture. There is always more. Mortimer Adler made the strange claim that the greatest contribution Greek civilization ever made to our culture is the idea of men/de, two little particles in the Greek language.
These little particles, men and de, are commonly translated into English as on one hand/on the other hand. When we think of Greek culture, sculpture, philosophy, and drama, we certainly might wonder what the man was thinking to make such an audacious claim. On the other hand. . . .
But the refrain reveals the rest of the picture, as he sings, “But on the other hand there’s a golden band to remind me of someone who would not understand.” He has been tempted to forsake his marriage, and might have done so if he just looked at things from the most obvious point of view, the way he felt. He sings about a strong desire to stay, but the logic of marital love and commitment realizes that, “the reason I must go is on the other hand.”
Therein lies one of life’s crucial lessons. On one hand--every day, throughout the day--we see what we believe to be right and what feels right at the time. On the other hand there is always more to be considered, another side. On one hand we are ready to act; on the other hand it is possible that we might be wrong.
The truth is that no single way of seeing anything is ever the complete picture. There is always more. Mortimer Adler made the strange claim that the greatest contribution Greek civilization ever made to our culture is the idea of men/de, two little particles in the Greek language.
These little particles, men and de, are commonly translated into English as on one hand/on the other hand. When we think of Greek culture, sculpture, philosophy, and drama, we certainly might wonder what the man was thinking to make such an audacious claim. On the other hand. . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
