Tag: meaning

  • R-E-S-P-E-C-T: It’s Multi-Faceted Meanings & How Knowing The Variations Can Save Your Life

    R-E-S-P-E-C-T: It’s Multi-Faceted Meanings & How Knowing The Variations Can Save Your Life


    # 92 on my 99 Life Tips–A List is: You should, respect a person (or not) based on 1- who they show themselves to be. But, you should respect authorities based on 2- what they can do to you. None can require you to respect the person in the uniform or office, refer to “1” for that.


    I could not write this essay about respect without hearing Aretha belt out the spelling in that inimitable, soulful way of hers. I hope you’ll enjoy that earworm. If you belong to my generation, you will. If not, you’re already thinking, “huh?”

    This is an essay about respect; its various meanings, its contextual application, and how knowing how to show respect appropriately can save your life.

    Words are idea containers 

    We need to think for a minute about what respect is and what it isn’t. Like Aretha, we spell it only one way. But we use it to mean many things. I won’t bore you with definitions except to say this about words: Words are idea containers.

    When my firstborn was young — precocious, verbal child that she was — if she saw something she didn’t have the vocabulary for, she used a catch-all container, the word “pumen” (rhymes with lumen). Her word box contained everything from blackberries to motorcycles, from horses to Santa Claus. It was a large container. We grew used to her pointing at something and asking, “What’s that pumen?”

    “Respect” tries too hard to contain too much

    My story has a point. Which is that some words contain ideas so numerous and varied the containment stretches and tests the adequacy of the word to hold and convey them all.

    The word “love” is a prime example. We use it to describe our feeling for bananas, baseball, and best friends.

    With words such as love, like, hate, we come to understand that context plays a role helping the hearer or reader infer the speaker or writer’s intent. There is a broad range of meaning in these “over packed” words.

    Respect is such a word. It is an over-packed, “try-hard” of a word attempting to do overmuch. It is the “pumen” of social lubricants and niceties. This gives it a wide spectrum of meaning. But not all the meanings are apropos for every usage. 

    A variety of meanings to fit the contextual and cultural pendulum

    There is a contextual and cultural pendulum when selecting the applicable meaning of respect. In my lifetime, the meaning of respect has swung from — “to acknowledge the right of,” or, “to regard” — to the current meaning (as used by my kid’s generation) in which it reflects an amalgamation of “esteem, high regard, acceptance, and approbation” (though my kids never use that actual word). So, the meaning of respect is rapidly accelerating to its farthest and highest meaning which is “deep admiration” and “the highest regard”.

    And in some cultures respect has always meant “deep veneration” and “honor”, such as that respect shown to one’s elders, something we’ve never been good at in the U.S..

    We see then, that the single word respect conveys a variety of meanings. It doesn’t mean the same thing to all people, even to those who speak the same language and share the same cultural heritage.


    The Advice Reframed

    I laid that groundwork in an essay about respect to serve as a footing upon which to discuss the advice I offered at the outset. 

    When you read it again, notice how the meaning shifts. The ideas contained in the word respect change as the context changes.

    Below, for clarity’s sake, I’ve reframed the advice offered in my tip.

    Respect a person (or don’t respect them) based on:

    1- Who they are in words and deeds.

    2- The power they have (because of the office or job they fill) to mess with or take your life.

    As stated, Respect is an interesting idea-container of a word. It includes variations of meanings which have shifted in one generation. In my youth, showing respect was simply to act with the deference of courtesy and politeness. It was akin to good manners. Respect had little to do with agreement or acceptance or esteem, except at the very highest levels where only the most deserving received it. In such cases, we substituted a better, more specialized word, more descriptive of feelings of esteem, admiration, and acclaim.

    For example, I’ve never heard a fan say, “I really respect Jerry Garcia’s soloing.” Or, “I respect Mark Twain as a writer of short stories.” And no one would say, “I respect the way Mother Teresa cared for Calcutta’s poor.”

    Because Respect and Admiration are different

    To respect you is to offer you the opportunity to be heard, to voice your own opinion, to state your view and stake out a position. This fundamental level of respect comes with the territory inherent in the idea that we are equals. You are as entitled to your opinions as I am entitled to mine. I regard your right to speak for yourself and live the way you choose as valid rights. But… I am not required to admire the things you say or the lifestyle choices you make. I am not required to look to you as a role model. I may totally disrespect your choices, and you mine, while simultaneously respecting your right to make them.

    So, I can respect your right to your opinions without respecting your opinions. I can listen to you and still not agree with you. Respect doesn’t mean I shelve my discernment, logic, learning, or personal biases and views and adopt yours. Respect is not acquiescence, or agreement, or approbation.

    The Respect of 2 Ideological Opponents

    The story is told of the friendship of the late Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. These two were figurehead iconoclasts of vastly different political and judicial ideologies, yet remained friends until Scalia’s death. Before his passing, someone once asked Scalia, the strict constructionist conservative, about his friendship with Ginsberg, the vaunted liberal feminist. The questioner expressed incredulity about the basis of such a cordial relationship when their political and judicial views were so diametrically opposed.

    Scalia quipped, “I attack ideas, not people.”

    If I could write that into my next thousand stories, I would.

    We do well to remember and practice those sage words. Respect for the other person is the contextual framework that allows that to happen. Scalia respected Ginsberg. She respected him. I respect them both, nay; I admire them both, for showing each other such deferential respect for the right to their own views and opinions, even when they didn’t share or admire the views expressed.

    How the meaning has shifted

    In my kid’s generation, the so called Gen X through Z, the meaning of respect has steadily swung towards the esteem side of the pendulum. If I disagree with the viewpoint of my youngest kids, they will often accuse me of being “disrespectful”, or worse, “rude” (which seems to be one of the worst character flaws you can display to members of the generations at the end of the alphabet).

    I’m sure the shift in meaning is because of mistaken ideas of Self-Esteem propagated in public educational environments. We commonly treat self-esteem as an entitlement to be granted to all as a participation trophy, rather than as the internal esteem one earns and holds for oneself because of one’s character (virtue). The word “self” in the phrase “self-esteem” is a dead giveaway that this esteem must come from within. No one can give it to you. Esteem conferred from without we should call by some other name.

    I can respect the right of a student to come to class, or to skip class. I can respect their right to learn up to their ability, or to shun the effort required to learn. But I do not esteem anyone who skips class or who does not better themselves when granted a free opportunity to do so. What is estimable about that?

    Thus, respect is not esteem, though the highest end of the respect-definition-spectrum does include the concept.

    Numbers 1 and 2 unpacked — This could save your life

    My advice in #1 above relates to this higher end of the spectrum. Admirable character, words, and deeds must earn the highest meaning of the word respect. To none but the worthy do we entitle this usage. We reserve it for the deserving because it conveys the sense of appreciation, approval, acknowledgement of worthiness, etc.. We don’t grant it lightly, denigrating and trivializing it into a meaningless entitlement to all comers, regardless of character, expertise, or worthiness.

    The admonition in number 2 of my advice, if heeded, can save you a lot of needless heartache, and possibly even save your life.

    I have in mind here those persons acting in an official capacity who have both authority and power to interfere with your personal freedom or life, in extremis. They can take either, or both. In an essay about respect, I would be remiss not to warn you to respect that power. Together we can pray and work to see the end of that power being abused and mis-used. Regrettably, that day remains in the future.

    We have all seen the horrifying and gut-wrenching examples of unscrupulous, even murderous, thugs (for there is no better idea container for them), dressed in uniforms and armed with badges, batons, billy clubs, and guns, who deserve no more esteem, admiration, acclaim, approval, or acceptance than a sociopathic criminal deserves. Their lack of character, lack of ethical behavior, lack of morality, lack of humanity all stand as accusers at the bar of justice, and we all want them to receive the just recompense of the crimes they’ve committed while clothed in the uniform and trappings of state authority.

    When in doubt, focus on the uniform, not the person

    Still, if a uniformed authority figure accosts you, you do well to respect the uniform for the power the wearer has to alter forever, or even to end, your life. It is shamefully true that some have shown this basic deference and respect for the uniform, if not for the person wearing it, and still had their lives taken away by a uniform wearing murderer. But it is wise to respect the power behind that uniform. It is wise to acknowledge the authority that created that position. It is important to remember that the authority that created the position also armed them with a weapon that if used, whether in righteousness or murder, can make you just as dead either way.

    So while, because of unworthiness of moral character, we may feel utter contempt, disdain, and disgust for the politician, or judge, or cop, or soldier who wields social or political or judicial power, we’d best respect the power. We can reach in the container of respect and at least come up with the sense of acknowledgement, understanding, and regard for what the uniform or office represents, even if we wouldn’t waste saliva to spit on the person occupying it. For the person wearing the uniform or occupying the office to receive more than base level respect, they will have to do so by earning it.

    The Takeaway — A Respectable Purpose

    But let’s turn away from uniformed persons, or officeholders, and other authority figures and end this essay about respect thinking about ourselves. If you want my respect, I stand ready to give it to you. I want nothing more than to have a role model to admire, a mind I can glean from, an example to be inspired by. Go for it. I will respect you to the fullest meaning. But I won’t hand you that just for sitting there breathing. Nor do I expect it from you. I aim to earn your respect. I want to earn it first as a person. No rotten tree can bear good fruit

    So, first I strive to be a person whose life and character are respectable. From that kind of life, I hope will flow opinions and ideas that will induce more respect. Do I hope to win your admiration and acclaim? Yes, yes I do. I hope that my presence on this planet enriches you and creates good things in your life. And I hope that your life will create good things for me. There’s no more respectable purpose, is there?

  • The Bible Is A Menu Not A Magic Book

    The Bible Is A Menu Not A Magic Book

    Picture of a blooming' onion from outback steakhouse menu to make the point the Bible is a menu
    An Outback Steakhouse menu even has pictures, but even these won’t feed you…looks good though, doesn’t it?

    # 32 on my, 99 Life Tips – A List is: The Bible is a menu describing a life that is available. Memorizing a menu won’t feed you.

    I realize that, to many people, those words will come across as either sacrilegious, anti-Christian, or both. Nevertheless, after 35 years of careful consideration, I am willing to say again, the Bible is a menu. It describes a life that is available. Memorizing a menu won’t feed you. It is not that I don’t care if some are offended. But, I care more that too many have not well considered the matter and thus venerate the menu, mistaking it for the things it describes.

    In an interesting synchronous side-trip, this morning, having already decided to write on this subject, I got the following link to Seth Godin’s blog. His post today is called, Code Words. In it, in his characteristic, brief, minimalist way, he makes the argument that all words are code, or rather, that every word is a code. This…this is what I mean by my tip.

    It’s probable that I cannot sum up all of language theory in a sentence. A quick Google search, it turns out, isn’t so quick. Major research universities devote entire departments to the study of language. For example, this link to the Department of Linguistics at Georgetown University. So, it’s a big discipline to try to summarize. Here goes: Language, whether spoken or written, is representative of actual ideas or things and not the ideas or things themselves. That will suffice, I believe.

    You Can Memorize A Menu And Still Leave Hungry

    That being the case, I ask each of you how many times you have read the words Bloomin’ Onion and Bone-In Ribeye from the Outback Steakhouse menu and pushed away from the table satisfied? What if you memorized the menu? Would that help? 

    I understand the silliness of my comparison. But, can we agree the menu is not the point of the restaurant experience? You do not go to a steakhouse to read the menu. The food, the steak, is the point. If you look at a menu, see an item, order it, then eat it, the menu has accomplished its purpose. It led you to the thing itself. To get full, or receive any nutritional effects, you will need to take some additional steps after reading the menu.

    That’s how it is with the Bible. It is not a magic book. The Bible is a menu. The words themselves have no power apart from their ability to induce belief. The words are pointing towards the thing itself. They are not the thing. To make the Bible more than that is the equivalent of making the menu the point of going out to eat. But think with me, if all the Bibles in print vanished simultaneously, would the God described disappear too?

  • Authenticity

    Authenticity.

    There is a fine word. And with much urging telling us to find and be true to our authentic selves, I thought I’d take a crack at it. To get there, let’s think on a few things.

    How many people have inputs into your outputs?

    Asked another way, how many people do you feel beholden to act, or speak, or dress, or function in a certain way for?

    Put in the negative, how many elicit constraints upon you, causing you to refrain from acting, speaking, dressing, or functioning in ways you may privately prefer?

    Or this, to whom do you feel obligated to make these accommodations?

    And to whom is this obligation legitimately owed?

    When people live and work in close proximity to one another, they modify themselves accordingly.

    A couple remains a couple so long as they conform themselves the one to the other.

    ’Tis true, the best relationships require the least remodeling to achieve conformity, but all require some. And in the best relationships, the conforming of partner to partner is what gives each the greatest pleasure and fulfillment.

    Families sharing the same dwelling and utilizing the same resources find an equilibrium conferring membership privileges to those who are least able to provide for the resources needed for the family’s well being. Parents and siblings reconfigure their lives outwardly and inwardly to conform to the needs of a new baby. They continue to do so as the child advances in years, feeling themselves obligated to conform the patterns of their own existences to provide the necessities of smaller, shorter, younger persons, unable yet to secure the necessaries of life for themselves. Good parents do this for some eighteen years, not of compulsion, but voluntarily. 

    And is it not true that at all stages of a baby’s life, save in the first mewling months, that child is shaped, and taught, and fashioned to learn to temper the authenticity of its innocent selfishness to the needs and desires of others? Meaning; as soon as is practicable in most households, training begins to teach and shape the baby for accommodation to the needs of the people on whom it depends for survival. Bed time and nap times are employed. An interval of feeding is established. A rhythm develops. A pattern emerges. Some kind of symbiosis evolves that allows the caretaking parents and older siblings to meet the baby’s needs and appetites without killing themselves in the effort. 

    It is only during infancy, and quite early infancy at that, that the person is authentic in his unconcern for conforming to the needs of those around him. (The possible exception of this is the extreme advance of old-age.) Unaware of, and unconcerned for, others except as means to his own satisfaction, the infant is a living consumer of the attentions, energies, and efforts of those positioned to give him what he wants and needs. This is tolerably cute at one month, but is a veritable nightmare by age two.

    So, when we speak of adults rediscovering their authentic selves, and assign any connotation of selfish indulgence as that, and only that, which is truly genuine, we are speaking of that phase of our lives which existed for perhaps three to six months at most, then vanished, as it should have.

    Why then, the desire for authenticity? Especially that described as adhering to one’s true self? 

    No human, save Adam, was created as a reclusive hermit to live out his days consulting only his own whims and wishes. 

    If cooperation and adaptability are the hallmarks of enlightened humanity, it is no surprise that Eve was formed out of Adam’s rib. She has no being apart from Adam. And it had already been determined by God Himself, and not Adam, that it was not good for man to be alone. Therefore, he lay down and slept, voluntarily giving, quite literally, of his own substance, to provide the materiel necessary for a life other than his own, he having no being worth having apart from her.

    And thus, from the earliest story of our race, we can learn that it is others, and our relationships and adaptability to them that gives rise to our lives. And is therefore that which gives both meaning and richness to our lives. If this is not authenticity, what is?

    No one is required to yield to the childish, selfish demands of those who have aged out of infancy and who therefore ought to know better. The law of love is naught but an appeal and reminder to humans to love others As we love ourselves. 

    The interests of every other person are as important and valuable to them as yours are to you. They are not greater in value and have no greater claim. One may voluntarily choose to love another More than oneself, or act in another’s interests, more than one’s own, but if that person is of similar age and situation in life, it is not obligatory, and it is no part of human authenticity requiring that degree of conformity and accommodation. 

    But let’s consider that it is the very nature of authentic, genuine human-ness to adapt our lives to those around us. Had not our mothers literally accommodated us in their own bodies, we’d have no selves at all, authentic, or otherwise, right? It is accepting, yielding, and adapting to the life of another that makes life possible at all.

    This is a dance in which we sometimes lead and sometimes follow. We sometimes give and sometimes receive, This is human authenticity. He who practices these adaptations best is most authentic and most human.

  • Form Follows Function

    Form follows Function in Nature…almost as if it were designed that way, right?

    ”Whether it be the sweeping eagle in his flight, or the open apple-blossom, the toiling work-horse, the blithe swan, the branching oak, the winding stream at its base, the drifting clouds, over all the coursing sun, form ever follows function, and this is the law. Where function does not change, form does not change. The granite rocks, the ever-brooding hills, remain for ages; the lightning lives, comes into shape, and dies, in a twinkling.

    It is the pervading law of all things organic and inorganic, of all things physical and metaphysical, of all things human and all things superhuman, of all true manifestations of the head, of the heart, of the soul, that the life is recognizable in its expression, that form ever follows function. This is the law.”

    The above quote is from Louis Sullivan, an American architect of the late 19th-century, best known for his protegé, Frank Lloyd Wright, and for developing the shape of the tall steel skyscraper in 19th-century Chicago.

    His quote above, taken from an article about the artistic design of tall office buildings, has been condensed to one perhaps more familiar to most readers which is:

    Form follows function

    How something looks, its form, should reflect what it does, its function

    I really like the 21st-century rise of ”Lifestyle Design”. Tim Ferris, author of books including The 4-Hour Workweek, The 4-Hour Body, and Tribe of Mentors, would be one of the leading proponents of this school.

    I find that most of the people I’ve met don’t think much about designing their lives. Their lives are designed to serve a function created by someone else.

    Perhaps this is inherent in what Thoreau meant when he said,

    The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation…

    Does the form of your life follow a function you chose? Or did someone else choose it for you?

    If you’re living a life that looks the way it does out of necessity to fulfill a function that is more useful for someone else than it is for you, stop and think what you can do to re-design it so that it functions first for you. 

    If there is anything essential and exceptional about American Freedom, it’s to be found in the answer to that question.