Mere Christianity

[Cagliostro]

I would say that the biggest change to the way we use language these days has been technology, i.e., e-mail, texting and Twitter. In that, I think the geeks who invented the technologies were less interested in mind control than they were in creating a killer app that would make them rich. It's the advertisers who are interested in mind control; they're expert in creating a feeling of inadequacy in us, and convincing us that that feeling can only be assuaged by buying their product. Of course, the product never does the trick, or only does it for a fleeting moment -- and then we're stuck with this feeling of inadequacy and ripe for the Next Big Thing that comes along and promises to assuage it.

I have a number of friends in PR, but I could never do it myself....

If you're not familiar this routine from Bill Hicks, enjoy. Be warned that there is language in this that some deem as "bad."

[aliantha]

(Double post. Because I'm an idiot. )

[aliantha]

I'll have to check that out, Cag. But not here at work.

I am speaking about adults as well as children, and buzzwords are a prime example of what I'm talking about. I remember a time when terms like "weapons of mass destruction" were rarely, if ever, used. Then a media campaign begins, and lo and behold! The term is on everyone's lips. Likewise, "gay marriage" - something that never would have got off the ground without media support, and a thousand other common ones in use today (among the latest, terms like "to unfriend someone" [in support of your "twitter" point] are disseminated expressly by the media, including internet media). Those aren't even the best examples - those are just off the top of my head.

1. Marketers start with the kids -- indoctrinated kids grow up to be indoctrinated adults.
2. I get what you're saying about buzzwords, but you can't blame their popularity solely on the media. It's really due to an unholy alliance (if you'll pardon the phrase )between the media and those who originate the term. "Weapons of mass destruction" was originally bureaucratese, if you will, but it caught on partly because it made a cool acronym ("WMD"). "Unfriend" is actually from Facebook -- I remember e-mailing folks when I signed up for FB and bemoaning the fact that I was now using "friend" as a verb. And as the parent of a lesbian, I like to think that "gay marriage" caught on because a lot of people think it makes sense.

I know you're just using these as examples. I guess my point is that buzzwords catch on partly because they fit well. It's later when they get overused and hackneyed and then we get sick of hearing them.

Also, one of my pet peeves is 'studies'. I have enormous doubt in the concept of a study revealing objective truth, as studies are so often organized and arranged by partisans. The phrase "studies show", if anything, for me causes a first reaction of skepticism, rather than trust in what the studies show. Who ordered and paid for the study? Etc.

Oh, believe me, as a former journalist, I know all about businesses that put out "studies" saying their product is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

I realized when I typed it that "studies show" was going to be a problem -- but I was being kinda lazy... Several years ago, I was very involved in the "simple living" movement, and during that time I wrote a study guide to teach middle schoolers about money management, based on the book Your Money or Your Life by Joe Dominguez and Vicki Robin. (OMG, it's still up on the web!) I did a lot of research at that time about marketing and its effects on kids, which is why my brain immediately inserted "kids" when we started talking about corporate influences on our lives.

Hmm, I guess you could say that my study guide is partisan, too...

The basis of capitalism is no more holy than socialism - they are equal and opposite evils, and the essence of capitalism - an ever-decreasing circle of possessors, and the end run - can be summed up in the hot phrase from "Highlander": "There can be only one."

Y'know, I agree with you on this. We've certainly seen the depths to which capitalism can sink over the past few years, from the savings & loan implosion to Enron to Bernie Madoff.

Now, if only we could tie all this up with the main line of the thread...

Heh, good luck with that!

[rusmeister]

I am speaking about adults as well as children, and buzzwords are a prime example of what I'm talking about. I remember a time when terms like "weapons of mass destruction" were rarely, if ever, used. Then a media campaign begins, and lo and behold! The term is on everyone's lips. Likewise, "gay marriage" - something that never would have got off the ground without media support, and a thousand other common ones in use today (among the latest, terms like "to unfriend someone" [in support of your "twitter" point] are disseminated expressly by the media, including internet media). Those aren't even the best examples - those are just off the top of my head.

1. Marketers start with the kids -- indoctrinated kids grow up to be indoctrinated adults.
2. I get what you're saying about buzzwords, but you can't blame their popularity solely on the media. It's really due to an unholy alliance (if you'll pardon the phrase )between the media and those who originate the term. "Weapons of mass destruction" was originally bureaucratese, if you will, but it caught on partly because it made a cool acronym ("WMD"). "Unfriend" is actually from Facebook -- I remember e-mailing folks when I signed up for FB and bemoaning the fact that I was now using "friend" as a verb. And as the parent of a lesbian, I like to think that "gay marriage" caught on because a lot of people think it makes sense.

I know you're just using these as examples. I guess my point is that buzzwords catch on partly because they fit well. It's later when they get overused and hackneyed and then we get sick of hearing them.

Yes, yes and yes (this is almost boring, if we don't have anything to disagree on!
I won't comment on gay marriage because it is difficult to discuss something academically when to one or more of the parties it is personal. Any disagreement could be taken as a personal attack. (And it would provide yet another, if relevant, sidetrack. FWIW, my best friend from childhood considers himself "bi" and is deep in the "polyamory" - a term I deeply detest - crowd in CA, and that, like the other terms, would have to reference the concept of "evil euphemisms".)

Also, one of my pet peeves is 'studies'. I have enormous doubt in the concept of a study revealing objective truth, as studies are so often organized and arranged by partisans. The phrase "studies show", if anything, for me causes a first reaction of skepticism, rather than trust in what the studies show. Who ordered and paid for the study? Etc.

Oh, believe me, as a former journalist, I know all about businesses that put out "studies" saying their product is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

I realized when I typed it that "studies show" was going to be a problem -- but I was being kinda lazy... Several years ago, I was very involved in the "simple living" movement, and during that time I wrote a study guide to teach middle schoolers about money management, based on the book Your Money or Your Life by Joe Dominguez and Vicki Robin. (OMG, it's still up on the web!) I did a lot of research at that time about marketing and its effects on kids, which is why my brain immediately inserted "kids" when we started talking about corporate influences on our lives.

Hmm, I guess you could say that my study guide is partisan, too...

Actually, it looks like a really useful study guide. I wish I could get my older son interested - but he is in a rather protracted stage of rejecting things his parents think good for him. But your study guide has nothing to do with the kind of studies we were talking about , though.

The basis of capitalism is no more holy than socialism - they are equal and opposite evils, and the essence of capitalism - an ever-decreasing circle of possessors, and the end run - can be summed up in the hot phrase from "Highlander": "There can be only one."

Y'know, I agree with you on this. We've certainly seen the depths to which capitalism can sink over the past few years, from the savings & loan implosion to Enron to Bernie Madoff.

Yes - but I see it as going MUCH farther back than the last few years. In fact, being a necessary end run of capitalism, the problem begins in its very foundations. The only thing that could really check and balance it are social consensus on worldview - and I see that to be specifically an acceptance of a mystical doctrine (ie, religion) to counter the ability of reason to justify anything at all - which it generally does.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

Of course, that part of his farewell address is, in all my experience, excluded from modern public school textbooks by the use of three little dots ... a form of censorship belying the public claims of embracing of all beliefs.

One thing that continually impresses me is how the thinking of our ancestors tends to be so much deeper than that of our own time. I attribute that to the general abandonment of philosophy and theology.
At any rate, we see how the religious principle HAS been largely excluded from public life, with results that men long dead basically predicted.

Now, if only we could tie all this up with the main line of the thread...

Heh, good luck with that!

Actually, I think we can...
MC - Lewis - views on paganism/polytheism - on men and women - public education and the media - GKC - what's wrong with the world - (Bill Hicks? ) Now all we have to do is tie these all together and maybe even find a theme we all agree on...

[aliantha]

Thanks for the compliment on the study guide, rus. No worries about your son -- you'll note in the Acknowledgements that I had to bribe my kids with pizza to read it at all, and I *wrote* the bloody thing. I realize that my study guide and the studies I was referencing are two different things -- I was still being lazy about looking them up. But here are a couple of articles I found with a quickie Google search just now. Here's the abstract for one done in Australia in 1985:

In this study 175 older adolescents (83 males, 92 females) nominated their parents, particularly their mothers, then friends of the same sex, as people most important in their lives. While parents were rated as more important than friends overall, problems were more frequently discussed with close friends. Using a matched sampling design, the adolescents' own mothers, fathers, and a close friend of the same sex also responded to a scale where parents' or friends' opinions might be sought as part of adolescent decision making. As predicted, parents were perceived as most important in certain future-oriented areas, whereas for current decisions, friends' opinions were more valued. Several areas of possible parent-peer conflict were also identified.

Of course, there are two sides to every coin in academia. A book published in the late '90s called The Nurture Assumption apparently put forth a pretty convincing case that peers affect kids more than parents do. DISCLAIMER: I'm no psychologist and have not read either the paper or the book cited here; anybody with more expertise in the field, please feel free to comment.

(Totally off-topic: The local paper did a story on polyamorous relationships a couple of years back, and lo, one of my then-coworkers was featured in it. Talk about Too Much Information! )

I don't remember seeing *any* of Washington's farewell speech in a history text, other than a reference to his views on foreign relations, and maybe something about the need for two parties? Another thing to add to my ought-to-read pile, I suppose... I agree with you that morality -- if not religion per se -- ought to be a big check-and-balance against unscrupulous behavior in business (as elsewhere in life), and I agree with you that it's been lacking. Do you suppose that part of it is that the emphasis in education has been placed on "getting a job" instead of "learning how to think"? That it's considered more important to learn how to make money than it is to learn how to be fair?

I had to take a journalism ethics class in college, and I think medical ethics is required for med students. I wonder whether business students have to take a "business ethics" class. I suspect not...

Anyway, I'm sure we could drag this back to a discussion of Lewis's book somehow. But as The Close is also the place for philosophical discussions, I don't think we've gone too far afield....

[rdhopeca]

I had to take a journalism ethics class in college, and I think medical ethics is required for med students. I wonder whether business students have to take a "business ethics" class. I suspect not...

I can't remember if it was *required*, but I definitely took one when I was in school.

[rusmeister]

Thanks for the compliment on the study guide, rus. No worries about your son -- you'll note in the Acknowledgements that I had to bribe my kids with pizza to read it at all, and I *wrote* the bloody thing. I realize that my study guide and the studies I was referencing are two different things -- I was still being lazy about looking them up. But here are a couple of articles I found with a quickie Google search just now. Here's the abstract for one done in Australia in 1985:

In this study 175 older adolescents (83 males, 92 females) nominated their parents, particularly their mothers, then friends of the same sex, as people most important in their lives. While parents were rated as more important than friends overall, problems were more frequently discussed with close friends. Using a matched sampling design, the adolescents' own mothers, fathers, and a close friend of the same sex also responded to a scale where parents' or friends' opinions might be sought as part of adolescent decision making. As predicted, parents were perceived as most important in certain future-oriented areas, whereas for current decisions, friends' opinions were more valued. Several areas of possible parent-peer conflict were also identified.

Of course, there are two sides to every coin in academia. A book published in the late '90s called The Nurture Assumption apparently put forth a pretty convincing case that peers affect kids more than parents do. DISCLAIMER: I'm no psychologist and have not read either the paper or the book cited here; anybody with more expertise in the field, please feel free to comment.

(Totally off-topic: The local paper did a story on polyamorous relationships a couple of years back, and lo, one of my then-coworkers was featured in it. Talk about Too Much Information! )

I don't remember seeing *any* of Washington's farewell speech in a history text, other than a reference to his views on foreign relations, and maybe something about the need for two parties? Another thing to add to my ought-to-read pile, I suppose... I agree with you that morality -- if not religion per se -- ought to be a big check-and-balance against unscrupulous behavior in business (as elsewhere in life), and I agree with you that it's been lacking. Do you suppose that part of it is that the emphasis in education has been placed on "getting a job" instead of "learning how to think"? That it's considered more important to learn how to make money than it is to learn how to be fair?

I had to take a journalism ethics class in college, and I think medical ethics is required for med students. I wonder whether business students have to take a "business ethics" class. I suspect not...

Anyway, I'm sure we could drag this back to a discussion of Lewis's book somehow. But as The Close is also the place for philosophical discussions, I don't think we've gone too far afield....

I'm feeling my steam to respond to posts winding down, but things that cross my mind on reading your post -
There may be two sides to a coin, but as soon as you ask what is really true, there is generally only one side, with the other side, while perhaps containing many aspects of truth, is mistaken on something or other (I'm speaking about actual contradictions here).

Also, a problem that crops up with both psychology and psychiatry is the worldview of the psychologist/psychiatrist. If they perceive reality differently than you do, what they perceive as poison you might perceive as cure, and vice-versa (and the question of who, if anyone, is right is still out there). In short, it DOES matter what healers who would touch on your soul believe.

On Washington - which I would love to see more comments on, by the way - when I read these people I encounter minds and thoughts that are generally superior to anything I see today - even ones I disagree with.
I was speaking as a former public school teacher - I've been exposed to a number of official and approved textbooks. It was encountering the text I quoted above on the web that lead me to examine my history books. And they all had the triple dots in that point of the address (generally printed in the back in the appendices).

When you raise the question of public education - I'm kind of afraid to answer, because education is my professional field, and my peculiar history has put me through both public and private schools, as a pupil and later as a teacher, both east coast, west coast, and abroad. I got my certification after much of my experience, which enabled me to see what most teacher candidates can't see. In short, I'm afraid as being perceived as unreasonably dogmatic and perhaps insulting, when it would actually require a lot of context to prevent and refute that. The quick and excessively short answer I could give to your question is that the base - and most importantly unstated philosophy of public education is the cause of pretty much everything you see today. And that if a generation of people are raised in that philosophy, they will not even think of questioning it - they will take it for granted (and subsequently be shocked if anyone does question it).

I think that any class of ethics (and approaches to ethics) whatsoever is going to be informed by the particular philosophy held by the institution or individual controlling the curriculum, and the biggest problem with ethics/morality is people attempting to speak as if they are above/outside of all, as if they were speaking from a moral vacuum.

[Cybrweez]

rus, I read Underground History, recommended it for my book club, and we read/discussed in Nov. There was general consensus to the theme, we are dumbed down. I don't think your experiences, and resulting thoughts, are off base, and when people do ponder public ed system, they'll start to see some things.

IOW:

Do you suppose that part of it is that the emphasis in education has been placed on "getting a job" instead of "learning how to think"? That it's considered more important to learn how to make money than it is to learn how to be fair?

Yes. I would add more important than critical thinking.

[SoulBiter]

rus, I read Underground History, recommended it for my book club, and we read/discussed in Nov. There was general consensus to the theme, we are dumbed down. I don't think your experiences, and resulting thoughts, are off base, and when people do ponder public ed system, they'll start to see some things.

IOW:

Do you suppose that part of it is that the emphasis in education has been placed on "getting a job" instead of "learning how to think"? That it's considered more important to learn how to make money than it is to learn how to be fair?

Yes. I would add more important than critical thinking.

Agree... from what I can see the education system is relagated to teaching people how to pass qualifying tests and memorization of rote facts rather than teaching someone how to think and to learn and how to critically work through data for a theory or conclusion.

[aliantha]

rdhopeca -- thanks!

Do you suppose that part of it is that the emphasis in education has been placed on "getting a job" instead of "learning how to think"? That it's considered more important to learn how to make money than it is to learn how to be fair?

Yes. I would add more important than critical thinking.

I originally started to type "critical thinking" and switched it to "learn how to be fair." This emphasis on testing to make sure kids meet minimum standards of learning doesn't leave a whole lot of time for teaching critical thinking *or* fairness -- let alone giving kids free rein to be creative. (Arts education -- band, choir, orchestra, the visual arts -- is perennially one of the first things to get axed when budgets get tight. Not that that's a sore spot with me or anything. ) Although I was thinking more of postsecondary education when I posed the question Weez quoted.

[Orlion]

I think that any class of ethics (and approaches to ethics) whatsoever is going to be informed by the particular philosophy held by the institution or individual controlling the curriculum, and the biggest problem with ethics/morality is people attempting to speak as if they are above/outside of all, as if they were speaking from a moral vacuum.

I'm afraid that from experience, I'll have to agree with you. My ethics class was a real eye-opener, and my professor was one of the best I had. Throughout we learned the basic ethical systems, what made them right, and why they were wrong. Seems fair, right? The problem is that though my professor allowed freedom to express our beliefs in class and exams without repercussions, while he was teaching, there was a definite hint of his liberal views. He wasn't trying to indoctrinate us, he seemed to try to separate himself and his beliefs from the material, but as rus stated, it was still there. As a result, if a student taking the class thought it was taught "from a moral vacuum," he or she may assume that everything he heard was "fair and balanced" when in reality, a lot of the lessons are tinged with liberal morality and philosophy.

Disclaimer: This is an illustration, not a judgment, so there, nyah..

[SoulBiter]

I think that any class of ethics (and approaches to ethics) whatsoever is going to be informed by the particular philosophy held by the institution or individual controlling the curriculum, and the biggest problem with ethics/morality is people attempting to speak as if they are above/outside of all, as if they were speaking from a moral vacuum.

I'm afraid that from experience, I'll have to agree with you. My ethics class was a real eye-opener, and my professor was one of the best I had. Throughout we learned the basic ethical systems, what made them right, and why they were wrong. Seems fair, right? The problem is that though my professor allowed freedom to express our beliefs in class and exams without repercussions, while he was teaching, there was a definite hint of his liberal views. He wasn't trying to indoctrinate us, he seemed to try to separate himself and his beliefs from the material, but as rus stated, it was still there. As a result, if a student taking the class thought it was taught "from a moral vacuum," he or she may assume that everything he heard was "fair and balanced" when in reality, a lot of the lessons are tinged with liberal morality and philosophy.

Disclaimer: This is an illustration, not a judgment, so there, nyah..

I dont know that its possible to teach anything in a moral vacume. Unless you have no beliefs of your own, some of your bias is going to end up in your discussions and reactions to feedback to and from students.

[Cybrweez]

Yea, the ills of public education have been brought up in a couple of threads, and really don't seem to gain much traction.

Ali, in Underground History, he talks about the need for kids to be alone to think and process on their own, but in public ed, its more like groupthink. Everyone treated the same way, b/c we teach to the 'average', and of course, there is no 'average' human being.

[Seven Words]

Yea, the ills of public education have been brought up in a couple of threads, and really don't seem to gain much traction.

Ali, in Underground History, he talks about the need for kids to be alone to think and process on their own, but in public ed, its more like groupthink. Everyone treated the same way, b/c we teach to the 'average', and of course, there is no 'average' human being.

I was a product of gifted programs up through High School, and in those (in several states....New York, West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina) there was a strong movement to discourage groupthink, and strong encouragement of individual thinking and development. Regular classes, however, were bastions of "average" and groupthink.

[rusmeister]

Honestly, talk about "critical" or "group" or "individual" thinking misses the core problem - which, as I said, is the unstated philosophy of public education - which is the thing that determines how and what the children are to be taught, and when I say "taught", I don't mean planned curriculum, but the very organization of the system, of the schools, of the requirements for teachers, of the environment to be created from which the children will learn things regardless of what they are specifically told by teachers - much of which they don't listen to and/or forget, anyway. This is the "hidden curriculum" that Gatto speaks of.

The basic questions (thanks, John Stormer!) that that philosophy answers are:
1) What do you see the nature of man to be? and
2) What is his purpose in life?
Any public education official will tell you "We don't deal in those questions." Yet it is impossible to construct an educational system without having definitive answers to those questions. So it is in the actual answers to those questions, not the frivolous and hypocritical mission statements, that the answers are to be found. (After all, it is the philosophy that says why we should be fair, or anything else, if you would teach "fairness".)

If you can identify that philosophy - and if you actually study the history of public education, and learn where our system - and by now all western systems - have come from, and on what basis they were formed, then you can begin to understand what has most people baffled - how is it that we spend trillions of dollars annually on education, put children through an average of 13 years of professional education/study, and produce a majority of people that can't identify Iran on a world map (or whatever), really think critically (although I imagine that most, if asked if they have critical thinking skills, would answer in the affirmative - after all, the mission statements all promised it to them, right?), etc.

So, who here can expound on the philosophy and history of public education (besides me)? And please don't drag in the mission statements... (Hint - Wikipedia will not avail you much, and is generally a lousy way to learn anything in-depth.)

[Cybrweez]

My knowledge is from Gatto, that's it.

[aliantha]

If you're not familiar this routine from Bill Hicks, enjoy. Be warned that there is language in this that some deem as "bad."

Finally looked at this. Very funny -- and true. (I didn't look to start with because I thought it was a video clip -- didn't want my work computer to be dropping audible f-bombs... )

[Cagliostro]

If you're not familiar this routine from Bill Hicks, enjoy. Be warned that there is language in this that some deem as "bad."

Finally looked at this. Very funny -- and true. (I didn't look to start with because I thought it was a video clip -- didn't want my work computer to be dropping audible f-bombs... )

Sorry, I should have stated.

[rusmeister]

My knowledge is from Gatto, that's it.

I'd say you're lucky, Andy, in, without personal experience, having stumbled on and accepted an authority which happens to be right (seriously). (Kinda like stumbling by accident onto a faith that turns out to be the most correct one, eh?)

I have the advantage of knowing that he is right from extensive first-hand experience as an adult with the system. I was later able to formulate what the governing philosophy is...

[Fist and Faith]

On the second, this is surely proven to your satisfaction but unproven in public debate. It's just like when you refuse to expound on why Chesterton is wrong and insist on only debating me in my own words. Your assertion is no evidence for third parties.

I'm not interested in third parties or public debate. You and I only do this in public, because that's the nature of the Watch, and you will not discuss it privately. But I don't care if anyone else is swayed by either of us; I'm just seeing if any legitimate ideas out there contradict what I currently understand about life, reality, etc.

My opinion is that a refusal to directly confront the original authors in 'direct combat' is much more easily explained by an inability to defeat the ideas of those authors than by simply accepting a person's word that the writer is wrong. It is the refusal that is the strange thing and suspicious to the honest inquirer, who should always be ready to tackle the ideas of anyone, and not to discriminate against someone's ideas merely because they have died.

So OK, for everyone else except you Lewis's work would offer interesting thought - even if it were only thought they disagreed with, they wouldn't be able to say that the thought and consideration was unintelligent.

I posted this at Into the Wardrobe. I was told I should read various other books first, so that I'd be able to understand it. That didn't really help with the problem. That's always the answer. You have given me that same answer about books you've recommended by both Lewis and Chesterton. You say "Read X." When I say X is wrong, you don't address the particular problem*, you say "Read Y, then you'll get X." It wasn't that I didn't get X, I just think it's wrong. Now, I could reread up to that part in Miracles, in order to refresh my memory on what I didn't agree with. Do you think it will help? Do you think you'll answer it in a way that changes my mind? We did go back and forth a few times about Mere Christianity, and I still disagree with the basic premise of the book. Your arguments don't work for me, because their starting points are conclusions.

*Yes, I know, you'll now say, "You refuse to tell me the problems with TEM, so how can I address them?" And the non-Chesterton issues I bring up will be forgotten.

All of this says to me that we have reached a stalemate, something that has been obvious to me for some time.

I can refute the claim that starting points are conclusions, but again, think it a waste of time, except maybe for 3rd parties. When Lewis begins Mere Christianity bu stating that what we see is that we feel that we ought to act/be a certain way, and we do not in fact do this, that is not a conclusion - it is an observation, and an excellent starting point. If you don't agree with that observation, fine. But I think most intelligent people will - and that it is not a conclusion.

For the rest, stalemate.

What you see is different people acting in different ways. And you decide they must all feel the same way you feel. That is, they must all feel that they ought to act/be a certain way, and do not in fact do this. That all people feel as you do, rather than thinking that people who act different than you do feel different than you do, is a conclusion that you and Lewis have not only not established, but haven't even considered as a possibility. Most intelligent people will say that different behavior is NOT evidence of same feeling. Most intelligent people will say that, since there is different behavior, whether or not feeling is the same must be determined.

So are you now going to say we simply disagree; not support your assertion; then, at some point in the future, say I'm refusing to confront the issue because of my inability to defeat the idea? You are the one making an illogical assertion: "Different behavior means same feeling." You need to back that up.