Rules (page 3)

Incense_and_Peppermints

Brummie-of-the-really-bad-cat-breath-class

xenawarrior

So, as we move through the venues of personal and social recognition...when (and how) do we realize, within ourselves, that "rules" are nothing more, and nothing less, than a way of playing games with ourselves?

How so? I'm curious to know how you see it as playing games with ourselves?

Interesting read, Craig. Are you per chance referring to hard set "rules" which are black and white and ones that have "consequences" if broken OR are you talking of personal boundaries that we set w/in ourselves?

LittleToe

Iz it coz I iz black maaan?

Scoot, nice clarification...

minimus

Rules are not for playing games with ourselves unless we're the maker of the rules. When we belong to a group that has rules within its body, we abide by the rules so as to stay in the group.

onacruse

XW:

How so? I'm curious to know how you see it as playing games with ourselves?

In this respect: Laws (rules) of a purely physical nature (gravity, the structure and behavior of atoms, etc.) are inviolable and quite predictable. We never object to them as being morally heinous..."it is what it is."

However, rules of human society are variable, and even capricious. In one generation, or in one culture, abortion is considered ("ruled") absolutely wrong. Just a few years later, it's "re"-ruled as acceptable. The same for euthanasia, capital punishment, patricide, invading a country supposedly to prevent the dispersion of WMDs, and on and on. Even the rules of how a db (good lord, on a scale of human meaning, such a relatively, even insignificantly, small thing) is administered are not infrequently the object of much consternation...as if there if some "rule of heaven" about how a db should be administered.

And this leads to the aspect of 'playing games with ourselves': The "rules" are nothing more, or less, than the transient conditions within which we allow ourselves to be confined. There is nothing moral, or amoral, about those rules, or about any violation of those rules. They are simply what they are, when they are.

So (along the "games" line of thought), one season, what the umpire says goes, and not one chance for a respite. Next season, we see the same umpire being over-ruled after a coach's challenge. But the rules of "last" season don't matter now.

And yet, how many times do we find ourselves jumping out of our chairs and yelling "That stupid, blind, total idiot of an umpire!!!!!!"...with a certain sense of moral outrage.

But, it's all just a game; we invent these rules of life, and abide by these rules of life, as if they are written in stone.

Which brings up a question (which I have been pondering for the last few days):

Is there any "rule" of human existence that has remained unchanged throughout the last 50,000 years?

Swan

Rules (speaking in the practical sense) are "what works for the time, and people of that time."
So: Are rules inherently bad?
If not, then can rules justifiably change?
Craig (of the "has several rulers on his desk" class)

Ok, this is about the remote again, isn't it? I think after a year of marriage you should be able to share it with her instead of making up rules. Tammy

Golf

I've spoken on this topic once before. My best example is golf. I would have your head spinning if you took the time to read the golf rules. Don't be frigthened, I'll make it short, "golf rules are designed to save you strokes!"

When playing competitive golf, if your no sure of a ruling, you play two balls. If there's an official on the course get a ruling, if not, after the round. Never sign your scorecard without first getting a ruling, NEVER. The results can be damaging.

Yes, rules and laws differ. Just remember, golf rules are designed to save you strokes, not to hinder or hamper your game. The game was made to be enjoyed. Take it from there.

Guest77

Angharad

Ok can we get back on topic - Mac your insulting post and the s ubsequent argument have been removed

Rules