Notice: There will be only one quick Admonishment this month for ordinary people in order that Mr. Fondlegod may propound for the intelligentsia his Admonishment Analyticum, which he will be presenting to a panel for civic consciousness in Hico, Texas in the spring. Fartch apologizes to the ordinaries and promises more listings for you guys in coming issues.
________________________________
Admonishment #273. On Cutting Your Future Babies a Break If You've Recently Immigrated From Certain Parts of the World.
In some countries it's no big thing. But now that you're an American, it might be doing your child a favor to pick a name that doesn't sound like "Dung." Dung doesn't cross the ocean well, no matter how you spell it. Bullies aren't going to look into your ancestral reverences before they assign your child a number and punch it. For the record, "Dong" has issues too. [Please. I did not create these unfairnesses, and as always in this column, seek but to advise & assist.]
Admonishment #50. The Fondlegod Admonishment Analyticum
Everyone understands that good people can give either fine or poor advice/admonishment, as (from time to time) can evil people. It also stands without quarrel that the advice/admonishment given will bear fruit differentially depending on whether the recipient is good or evil. Admonishment-giving or –assessing professionals and students should understand the precise relative importances of these three determinants of the advice/admonishment’s ultimate net effect in the world: 1) moral status of advice/admonishment giver, 2) objective merit of the advice/admonishment, 3) moral status of advice/admonishment receiver. Those relative importances are calculated in the Admonishment Analyticum of Fartch Fondlegod. In summary, the moral statuses of giver and receiver are of equal importance. The merit of the advice or admonition is seven times as important as either.
The essentials of the Analyticum are laid out in the table below in a way that any reasonably perceptive person can rightly interpret.
|
|
Giver |
Advice/ |
Receiver |
Net Effect in the World |
|
1 |
evil |
poor |
evil |
Some receivers perish, but most grow more evil- NET NEGATIVE |
|
2 |
good |
poor |
evil |
Some receivers perish, but most grow more evil- NET NEGATIVE |
|
3 |
evil |
fine |
evil |
most receivers ignore, but some improve- NET POSITIVE |
|
4 |
good |
fine |
evil |
most receivers ignore, but some improve- NET POSITIVE |
|
5 |
evil |
poor |
good |
Some receivers perish, others turn evil- NET NEGATIVE |
|
6 |
good |
poor |
good |
Some receivers perish & givers wilt, but amends likely, and good-faith lessons learned- NET EVEN |
|
7 |
evil |
fine |
good |
NET POSITIVE |
|
8 |
good |
fine |
good |
NET POSITIVE |
Highlights: From the table it is clear that:
1) Importance of Giver. When the Giver of advice or admonishment is evil, there are 2 each of net Positive and Negative outcomes, so [1+1-1-1]/4 = Avg .= 0. When the Giver is good, there are 2 POSITIVE, 1 NEGATIVE and 1 Even results, so [1+1-1+0]/4 = Avg. = 0.25. So the magnitude of difference in Givers is 0.25 – 0 = 0.25
2) Importance of the Advice or Admonishment’s Merit. When the advice/admonishment is of poor quality, there are 3 net Negative outcomes and one Even., so [-1-1-1+0]/4 = Avg. = -0.75. When the advice/admonishment is fine, all 4 outcomes are net Positive, so [1+1+1+1]/4 = Avg. = 1.0. The magnitude of difference in Merit is 1.0 – (-0.75) = 1.75
3) Importance of Receiver. When the Receiver of advice is evil, the math works out identically to that of the Giver’s case. Magnitude of difference in Receivers = 0.25.
Thus we see that the Merit of the advice or admonishment is 1.75/0.25 = 7 times as important as the moral condition of either its giver or its recipient in determining its effect in the world.
It is noted that some reviewers have questioned various “assumptions” of the Analyticum. Bomby Fondlegod responds that there ARE no assumptions; the Analyticum is of absolute axiomatic construction for the following ideal conditions: pure good and pure evil respecting givers and receivers, pure poor and pure fine respecting objective merit of the advice/admonition given. Net Effect in the World incorporates no assumptions, Fondlegod indicates, but relies on things he knows and that, had they been around the business of admonishing as long as he, these reviewers would also know. Certainly, all working scenarios will involve varying degrees of “grey area” and situational deviations from the ideal, and therefore will require factored evaluation indexed against the Analyticum standards.
Fartch Bombastric Fondlegod considers this a groundbreaking publication of new science unlikely to be recognized for three hundred years, then apt to be surpassed by fancier, more ambitious and rigorous (probably error-riddled) modeling. About all he expects ever to profit from it is possibly to have his bones exhumed and removed to loftier environs among other departed visionaries put to pulling the tourist bucks.Fondlegod has opined.
| jptArchive Issue 5 |
| Copyright 2008- WJ Schafer & WC Smith - All Rights Reserved |
| The Journal of Provincial Thought |
 luminance |
