# How good is 'good'?



## rogerblingham (Aug 16, 2015)

A flash of insight whispered the word into my ears. I started focusing on that word: Good. Yes. Good is the word to be brought under the analytical lenses of the logical mind.

What is so special about this word? We use it mindlessly (I mean without thinking) as often as we use the word useless. We use it more often than the word arrogance and shameless. It is just the expression of a different kind of feeling. All of us associate it with pleasantness. We tend to use a word called ‘not’ in front of it to associate it with unpleasantness in spite of the fact that an exactly opposite word exists in the dictionary.

Still, I felt, little more focus on this word should be order of the day. Initial focus revealed a set of usual constructs which are part of our day to day life. Those constructs are : good books, good people, good food and good medicine.

I stopped at that point. I knew more focus will reveal a large number of things after the word good and analysis would become more complex.

It is time to analyze the limited list. It is an undisputable fact that all the four are desperately wanted and chased by every Tom, Dick and Harry under appropriate context for the particular thing for e.g. good medicine when you are sick. The question is how desperately?

Analytical lenses of my mind fully opened up. First thing revealed by the analysis was pretty intuitive and not easy to perceive. Everyone is chasing good part of all phrases. Not the full phrase! Everyone wants it because someone else says it is good. No one knows for sure what they are really chasing.

Then I thought what is common to all the listed phrases. Immediate answer is the obvious word ‘good’. It is common to all four things. Somehow it was not at all convincing. Here is what further analysis revealed. It should blow your mind.

Good books are not liked in the beginning of the reading exercise. Most of the time, first few pages turn out to be boring. It can be boring to the extent of driving you away from the book itself. Generally, when you cross the hurdle of first few pages of a good book; you are setting yourself up for a life changing experience. At times you may even have to repeat the reading of the book a number of times before getting the real message the book stands for. A good book always delivers new meanings, every time it is read.

In all probability, the advice coming from Good people is not to your liking. Their advice or the word may even hurt you. Actually, they speak from the higher perspective of your good in their mind. If you listen to them, I guarantee you that your life will be simpler. Look back at your life, count the number of times you have disliked true advice. I am willing to bet on my life to say that the count you produce is a measure of your success in life. Larger the number, larger would be your failure.

Really healthy good food tastes bland and will not be liked. It is peculiar that identification of good food is associated with the taste. Everyone will say that sugar tastes good and hence sugar is a good food. Research, clearly indicates otherwise. On the contrary bitter gourd qualifies to be called as a good food whereas very few like the taste of it. Medical research indicates the fact by mentioning the food value in terms of calories and other nutrients. Better test for good food would be to look at the calorific value and arrive at your own list. Check that list. I am willing to bet most of the items landing on your list will not form an appealing set of eatables for your tongue. You will become and remain healthy, if you force yourself to eat them, despite the taste.

You will not like the taste of good medicine. Most of the medicines taste bitter. Just because of this you resort to several wasteful camouflaging techniques to suppress the bitterness.

By chance, if you arrive at a conclusion, you are not going to like it. That is the reason number one why I am allowing you to do just that!


----------



## Sleepwriter (Aug 27, 2015)

I appreciate what you are trying to do here, but I have a few issues.

Why cant a good book be entertaining? It doesn't have to provide new meaning every time its read to be good.

Good advice won't hurt you otherwise it's not good advice.

If you are looking at the caloric values of what you are eating, then you are still eating processed food, not good for you.

Not sure where you are getting all these bitter medicines from, but i've found the pills I take to be rather tasteless.

The writing itself I thought was pretty good, so keep at it.


----------



## rogerblingham (Aug 28, 2015)

Dear Sleepwriter,

Thanks for some of the appreciative words! 

I think I was over dramatizing to drive a point home. That did not fit your perspective completely. Hope creative liberties of such nature are allowed!


----------



## John Oberon (Aug 31, 2015)

If I were you, I would abandon philosophy or whatever it is you're trying to impart, because thinking does not appear to be your strong suit. You did not "drive a point home"; I couldn't find a point at all.

Why don't you try writing a true story? I think you'd have much better luck.


----------



## LeeC (Aug 31, 2015)

It seems to me you have a premise that could be expounded upon to reveal its nebulousness in the subjectiveness of human communication, but rather in my opinion your argument is mired in the subjectiveness of human reality. 

In the reality of the natural world, words like good and bad have no meaning as physical life is simply a cascade of consequences intended to promote the continuum of physical life overall, not the individual. Physical life being fueled by life and counterbalanced by biodiversity, is a harsh reality that's dificult for individuals to to cope with. 

Being individuals we have in our mental capacity the facility of imagination to in good part ease our tribulations, as do other species we know of. Where this has led is a myriad of dogmas that further the natural life renewal cycle in ways that are abundantly evidenced. 

As products of thousands of years of cultural inculcation, and being yet another morphological variation on the theme of physical life for offsetting biodiversity, truly objective thought is an elusive goal. But, if we orient our thoughts towards more objectivity we might better lessen our tribulations. 

So, what I'm saying is if you articulate your thoughts more analytically, ferreting out the subjectiveness, maybe in contrast, your arguments could be more persuasive, at least to those that have broader perspectives ;-) 

A good exercise that is commendable in effort ― I wish more would try


----------



## Terry D (Aug 31, 2015)

My advice would be to simplify your presentation. Complex topics do not require complex structure. This piece reads like you are trying too hard to make it sound lofty, or academic and that makes it sound somewhat contrived. Just my opinion.


----------



## rogerblingham (Aug 31, 2015)

Terry, Thanks a lot for the suggestions. I will take them in right earnest.


----------



## rogerblingham (Aug 31, 2015)

John Oberon said:


> If I were you, I would abandon philosophy or whatever it is you're trying to impart, because thinking does not appear to be your strong suit. You did not "drive a point home"; I couldn't find a point at all.
> 
> Why don't you try writing a true story? I think you'd have much better luck.



Thanks a lot John. Your suggestions are absolutely welcome and I really enjoy these. Just a doubt : why don't you consider that I am culling out a piece of my life and telling an absolutely drab story? Sure enough, there is nothing for you to take away. Though it was not intentional, sorry to have wasted your valuable time. Enjoy your life.

Since you want a story, there is one titled "Interview" in the fiction section. You are welcome to read it.


----------



## rogerblingham (Aug 31, 2015)

LeeC said:


> It seems to me you have a premise that could be expounded upon to reveal its nebulousness in the subjectiveness of human communication, but rather in my opinion your argument is mired in the subjectiveness of human reality.
> 
> In the reality of the natural world, words like good and bad have no meaning as physical life is simply a cascade of consequences intended to promote the continuum of physical life overall, not the individual. Physical life being fueled by life and counterbalanced by biodiversity, is a harsh reality that's dificult for individuals to to cope with.
> 
> ...



LeeC, I thought I was complex in my expression and you have matched me. Thanks a lot!


----------



## Ariel (Aug 31, 2015)

Hi Roger, most of us here are not like John Oberon.

I think that with a personal framework to tie this to this could be a very strong piece indeed.  The ideas are engaging and interesting.


----------



## rogerblingham (Aug 31, 2015)

amsawtell said:


> Hi Roger, most of us here are not like John Oberon.
> 
> I think that with a personal framework to tie this to this could be a very strong piece indeed.  The ideas are engaging and interesting.



Dear Amsawtell, thanks a lot for providing yet another view. In fact, it came out as support for a personal frame work and I had difficulty in expressing my reality. I needed a justification in my own words and here is the result in front of you.

Honestly speaking, in some of the matters which do not affect my life much, I too have an attitude like John. That is why I appreciate him. My difference of opinion would be issue based. However, I do not take it to personal level.


----------



## John Oberon (Aug 31, 2015)

amsawtell said:


> Hi Roger, most of us here are not like John Oberon.
> 
> I think that with a personal framework to tie this to this could be a very strong piece indeed.  The ideas are engaging and interesting.



Hmmm...now I wonder that means. It could be taken as a compliment or a slap, you know.

amsawtell, I wonder if you could explain to me one of Roger's ideas you thought was really engaging and interesting. I only ask because I had difficulty understanding most of it, let alone seeing a point to any of it, and I think I'm not alone.


----------



## Ariel (Aug 31, 2015)

Sure, the gist of the piece is that we use the word good for things that are not aesthetically pleasing.  Things that are good for us are not things that we necessarily enjoy.


----------



## John Oberon (Aug 31, 2015)

Really. And you thought this was a really engaging and interesting idea.

So what really socked that idea home to you? What part of his essay do you think really made that idea come alive for you?


----------



## Ariel (Aug 31, 2015)

John, it is neither my intent or my interest to keep explaining myself or this article to you.  If you really want an open discourse about this then I would suggest you, politely, engage with the writer of the article.


----------



## J Anfinson (Aug 31, 2015)

Let's get this thread back on track. This is a work for critique. Keep the comments about the work.


----------



## Kevin (Aug 31, 2015)

As far as the writing I did notice that it seemed like there were a lot of connective words missing from sentences. It's strange, because when you're just talking it seems to flow well. It's only when you get into the more technical parts, the explaining, that it gets... well, a little clunky. 

For instance: *Still, I felt, little more focus on this word should be order of the day.--- *'a' little more focus(?) 'the' order of the day(?)

*Most of the time, first few pages turn out to be boring.* --- 'the' first few(?)

*Their advice or the word may even hurt you.*  --- This has two subjects that are too unrelated to be joined by 'or '     '...the word..' What word? good?

*Actually, they speak from the higher perspective of your good in their mind.--- *."..of your good in their mind." Huh?  Missing words here, or something.

I think you should go through this and read it out loud to someone. They should be able to pick out right away what needs to be reworded.  hope any of this helps, K.


----------



## Boofy (Aug 31, 2015)

I noticed a lot of connectives missing, but more prominent than that for me was that you put in a definition of mindlessly in brackets next to the use of the word, which I felt broke the flow somewhat and also seemed a little unnecessary. I think it would read better if you took that definition out and followed Kevin's suggestions where the connectives are concerned. All in all, I reckon it could be an interesting piece once tightened up a little ^^

Keep going! 

- Boofs


----------



## JustRob (Aug 31, 2015)

There is an implicit subjective aspect to everything that we write. In these forums especially our words are tacitly nothing more than our opinions on a subject and, that being recognised, there is little need for anyone to challenge them. One can hardly challenge another person about their own opinions. In this piece though you attribute many absolutes to others who might well disagree. Perhaps you should tighten up on your choice of when to refer to yourself, to "us", meaning both yourself and others, and to "you", meaning others. To misquote somebody or other, you can represent some of the people some of the time but you'll inevitably misrepresent all of the people all of the time.

Sometimes a writer will emphasise the indisputability of a fact precisely because he fears that it might be disputable, but by doing so he actually draws attention to it and invites dispute, the very thing that he hoped to avoid. In your case one could even suggest that the word "undisputable" is itself disputable whereas "indisputable" is less likely to be, at least in some necks of the woods. 

In analysis there is also almost always the exception that proves the rule. If one is truly sure of one's analysis then one will test it with exceptions, preferably before publishing one's findings. It is far too easy to slip into generalisations when the richness of life is actually in the exceptions. Some say that God is in the detail and maybe those who don't believe in such a being would accept that the good is often in the detail, not the broad generalisations. Nevertheless it is fun to generalise, if only because it prompts controversy.

If I were to dispute any of your observations it would be concerning "good people". At best the term describes our own subjective expectations of how a person might behave in the future or may have behaved in the past. There are no absolutes here and words like "trust" and "hope" and "reliability" have to be factored in. How are we to judge those good men who do nothing, for example?

Yes, whenever we write we expose our own subjectivity but that is nothing to be concerned about, simply aware of. Perhaps if you were to choose an approach to that problem, to examine your own subjective stance within this analysis more for example, then the piece would gain more merit.

So far as the writing itself is concerned I agree with others here, that you need to pay greater attention to precise sentence formation, which does not preclude the use of fragments for effect in places. An analysis cannot be so freely written as fiction however without losing some of its strength. Your subdivision into paragraphs to fit the points is, to use a possibly subjective word, good. 

I liked the subject that you chose to tackle, not an easy one by any measure. Keep at it. There are situations where bad will lead to good when nothing else will.


----------



## rogerblingham (Sep 1, 2015)

Hi everybody,
Thanks a lot for large number of suggestions. I will take them and improve the article. 

Just a side note : I seem to be attracting some extreme reactions. I wrote this to lighten myself and I do not want it to be a burden to someone else. Also, all points in the article are debatable but none of them are arguable as argument invariably produces two losers and in rare cases a winner too!


----------



## Terry D (Sep 1, 2015)

rogerblingham said:


> Hi everybody,
> Thanks a lot for large number of suggestions. I will take them and improve the article.
> 
> Just a side note : I seem to be attracting some extreme reactions. I wrote this to lighten myself and I do not want it to be a burden to someone else. Also, all points in the article are debatable but none of them are arguable as argument invariably produces two losers and in rare cases a winner too!



Not to worry, Roger. If your work has elicited emotional response, then it has done the job writing is intended to do. You are not responsible for the manner -- good, or ill -- in which others represent themselves. Use the advice which resonates with you and discard that which does not, but, for heaven's sake keep writing!


----------

