[From Bill Powers (940905.1515 MDT)]
Bill Leach (940905.0811) --
An interesting example of how "the facts" get different interpretations:
Many health care people have been asserting for quite some time now
(though it is only now "popular in the media") that the major factors
influencing illness and life span in the US are poor "life style"
choices rather than failure of the medical system.
The other way to interpret the same data is to say that the claims of
the medical profession to be "the best in the world" are based on
changes that have been due more to change in life style than advances in
medical technology. In one area that has received intensive publicity
and that has soaked up lots of money and caused lots of changes in life
style, fatal heart disease, nothing at all seems to have worked: the
incidence just keeps going up. This is not mentioned by doctors touting
the great advances in _treatment_ for this problem.
···
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Buchanan (940905.1500 EDT) --
RE: trust and love
I think you have hit upon one of the commodities which one can give away
in unlimited quantities, and still have unlimited quantities left to
use.
One of the ingredients was described by Hugh Gibbons (a law professor
interested in PCT), in his attempt to find a basic concept behind the
way law is actually administered and decided. He came to the conclusion
that respect for the will of others is the "greatest good for the
greatest number" that underlies most important legal decisions. What
could be a more powerful basis for trust and love than respect for the
will of others?
The attitude I have developed through long study of PCT is not just a
prohibition against trying to control others, for practical reasons of
avoiding conflict. It is a positive desire to see others work their own
will as seems best to them, for them to reach the goals they wish to
reach, for them to live their lives free of coercion from me or anyone
else. Joy in the happiness and success of others, it seems to me, is
like a validation of our deepest human desires and hopes; if it can
happen to them, it can happen to me.
Of course I still recognize that the will of others can easily conflict
with mine, and that we have a long way to go in figuring out how to deal
with that. Where there are serious and unresolvable (by the parties
involved) clashes of will, we will always need a formal way to settle
the issue. But, if Hugh Gibbons is right, it is possible to interpret
law so that the least action is taken which will allow all parties the
maximum exercise of will, going only as far as required to redress wrong
and no farther. The law, to the disgust of the vengeful and simple-
minded, can say "This part of what you have done infringes on the will
of others and you must make amends; the rest is OK."
Somehow I can't get too excited about deciding which level of control
that involves. It's up there somewhere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Best to all,
Bill P.