Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Schedule 1 words

I am beginning a campaign similar to the FDA's. I am going to begin designating certain words as Schedule 1 words. A Schedule 1 word is a word that has no positive or medicinal purposes; and should be banned. The first of my Schedule 1 words is MORE. I'm not sure of a situation where the word MORE didn't have an implication of greed, or excess. I don't know if this is just the addictions counselor coming out in me, but I think that this word does more harm than good. (even that sentence was negative.) I think the designation of the word MORE as a Schedule 1 word, will help us to learn how to be happy with what we have and appreciate all accomplishments no matter how small those accomplishments may be. I don't want to discourage ambition, drive, or determination; but MORE doesn't have a completion point or a finish line. It's a bottomless pit. If you said that you weren't satisfied, then at least you would know that the goal was satisfaction. You can always ask for MORE; and some people always will. Maybe it's just semantics. Who knows. That's just my opinion though and who the hell am I?


Anonymous said...

Who the hell am I: More is a word that we need to use MORE of. We settle for less because of our "fears". Society has taught us that asking for more makes us to appear to be greedy, selfish or needy. Our mindset in today's world tells us be satisfield with what you have and settle for less; that we have to live proverty stricken and struggling the rest of our life. But you see, my mindset tells me that there is so much MORE and the higher I reach the higher I can go. Its a negative word only if your throught pattern is negative. In a positive sense
"more means greater quality" I can do all things, through him that strengthens me. I don't have to settle for less when I can have the best and the best always requires MORE of everything. But, who am I!

zen inquisitioner said...

I agree that in our consumer driven society, "more" has become problematic. However, I doubt that semantics will resolve anything. The real issue is that, by and large, our desires REQUIRE "more." For example, we get hungry, we eat. Then, later, we get hungry.... And so it goes for sex, or going to church, or snorting coke: any pleasure we receive from our behaviors is temporary, and thus demands we seek "more." What follows is a cycle of satiation that is familiar to any substance abuse counselor. That's what the Buddha was talking about when he said that our desires are so often the reason that we suffer. Sating our desires doesn't make ultimately happy, it's just a temporary high. Unfortunately, if you believe only in the positivistic, in what can be measured, in empirical data alone, that hedonistic cycling is all you've got.

Anonymous said...

You guys are talking about "more" in a negative way. If you are substance abuse counselor and I know Ron is, than I see why.
But see the flip side of "more". We settle for less all the time. See the positive in "more". You can't ban the word, we need it and it has positive purpose. Look what we are lacking that society needs "more" of: Love, commitment, prayer, elevation, change, affection, passion, compassion, role models, young people focused in positivity; assistance in helping others, problem solving, go getters, achievers, performers and the list goes on "in a positive way". Forget about the money, drugs, sex, clothes and cars. I'm talking about what the world needs "more" of and maybe getting our desires right would be a start. Instead of banning the word, lets work on our desires first.

Anonymous said...

Would you prefer that people want less, or just stay as they are. Lets take it a little bigger than that, to say nations, more specifically developing nations. First of all I believe the term "developing nations" to be ridiculous. In order for the term to fit they must be showing some form of improvement, gaining MORE for their people. The reality is that is almost imnpossible for them to acheive when outside forces, "stronger nations" continue to exploit and suppress them. Also their leader in the attempt to gain MORE maybe doing so for themselves instead of their nation. When there is a leader attempting to gain MORE for the people he is convienently eliminated in some shape or form by a higher power. And by a higher power I do not mean spiritually, I mean anything possessing MORE power than that specific leader. Maybe "developing nations" as well as "developing people" should simply be satisfied to the position they have been relegated to rather than attempt to better themselves by attaining a GREATER standing in their world.

Custom Search

net visitor stats
PSP Game Systems