Department Of The Best One Sentence Movie Review I’ve Read In Some Time
That would be from friend CC, in a text on Tuesday, furthering the conversation we had in the movie theater parking lot on Monday, after having seen Past Lives. Which, BTW, is the next movie *you* are going to see, (if moiself can influence you to do so) and then talk about with friends and family.
Here’s the movie’s summary/blurb, from people who are paid to do such things: 
“Nora and Hae Sung, two deeply connected childhood friends, are wrest apart after Nora’s family emigrates from South Korea. Decades later, they are reunited for one fateful week as they confront destiny, love and the choices that make a life.”
It’s the kind of movie…I want MH and my offspring to see it, although in a nod to ageism, a part of me thinks that, even at ages 30 and 27 respectively, my son and daughter aren’t old enough (as in, have not had the life experiences) to truly get it. Also, in another nod to ageism, it’s a summer release movie without the “summerisms”: there aren’t any superheroes or explosions….
…and it is a gentler-paced movie, even as it time jumps through 24 years…. But damn, there is so much going on.
CC wondered if MH and I had talked about the movie – she and her husband had a conversation “…about love and life’s twists and turns,” when she returned that afternoon after having seen the movie. No, we didn’t…even though I wanted to. But I held back, giving MH only a brief description when he asked me how the movie was. I was still ruminating on it moiself, and wanted him to see it so I wouldn’t have to explain the unexplainable. Such as, how you may love someone in some way, and maybe the way they love will not be enough…and will you be “the person who leaves” in someone’s life, and/or “the person who stays,” in another someone’s life…and the concepts of destiny and fate – in yun, from Korean/Buddhist influences – which can also be seen as coincidence, and all of which might have much more influence in our lives than we think…as per this bit of dialogue (from one of the Korean born protagonists to her American husband) from the movie:
“There’s a word in Korean: 인연 [in yun] — it means “providence” or “fate.” If two strangers walk by each other in the street, and their clothes accidentally brush, that means there have been eight thousand layers of 인연 between them.”
Yet again, moiself digresses. CC’s one sentence review which I thought nailed the essence of the film, and its influence:
“I was pondering that all couples should see this film to give them better words to say to each other and know how normal all of this is, immigration or not, to question how a person loves and to accept how a person loves.”
* * *
Department Of Ethics Teaching Of The Week
Humanists generally follow The Platinum Rule, not The Golden Rule. There is an important distinction between the two directives, in both the statement and implications. Class, do you think you can spot the difference?
First, we have the more familiar, “The Golden Rule.” There are various phrasings of TGR – an ethical principle found across religions and world views – which all amount to,
Treat others the way you would want to be treated.
TGR is phrased in either “positive” (to do something) or “negative” (to refrain from doing something) formulas. In Christianity this principle is found in Matthew 7:12: “In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you. . . .”
The “negative” form of this principle, “Do not do to others what you would not like done to yourselves,” is found in 2nd-century documents of the early Christian church ( Didachē and the Apology of Aristides), in second century Jewish works ( Tob. 4:15), in the writings of the classic Jewish scholars, including Hillel and Philo of Alexandria “…and in the Analects of Confucius (6th and 5th centuries BC). It also appears in one form or another in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Isocrates, and Seneca.” 
Examples of TGR across world religions:
Lay not on any soul a load that you would not wish to be laid upon you, and desire
not for anyone the things you would not desire for yourself.
( Bahá’í Faith; Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings)
Treat not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
( Buddhism; The Buddha, Udana-Varga 5.18 )
One word which sums up the basis of all good conduct….loving-kindness. Do not
do to others what you do not want done to yourself.
( Confucianism; Confucius, Analects 15.23 )
This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you.
( Hinduism; Mahabharata 5:1517)
Not one of you truly believes until you wish for others
what you wish for yourself.
( Islam: the Prophet Muhammad, Hadith )
One should treat all creatures in the world as one would like to be treated.
( Jainism; Mahavira, Sutrakritanga 1.11.33 )
What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour. This is the whole Torah; all the
rest is commentary. Go and learn it.
( Judaism; Hillel, Talmud, Shabbath 31a )
Do not do unto others whatever is injurious to yourself.
( Zoroastrianism; Shayast-na-Shayast 13.29)
The Golden Rule variations are well-intended; however and ultimately, they miss a key point of Human Reality:
* People are different. *
Okay; sure; you know that. But do you really get what *that* means?
Not all people like or want the same things. This reality is both simple and profound, because it means that while at first glance it sounds fine or even admirable to treat everyone like yourself, it is in fact inappropriate to do so, given people’s different backgrounds, experiences, mental and physical abilities, and expectations.
The Golden Rule lets you get away with, and even promotes, self-centric thinking (“Others think the way I do.”). And self-centric thinking  lets you off the hook from doing the work, which can range from pesky to grueling, of trying to understand someone else’s point of view.
So, what’s an honestly-seeking-to-do-the-right-thing ® kinda person to do? Follow the principles of Humanists, Freethinkers, Brights, Skeptics, and other supernatural-free world views. As in, practice The Platinum Rule:
Treat others the way *they* want to be treated.
Meditate on this, for a moment.
The subtle yet powerful difference is that The Platinum Rule calls for a more thoughtful consideration of the *others* who will be on the receiving end of your treatment of them.
As in, don’t presume that *your* likes and preferences – or dislikes and aversions – are universal.
Here’s an example a child could understand: There’s nothing Jilly likes better than having her feet tickled. Not only that, Jilly’s best friend, Millie, also enjoys having her feet tickled – she and Jilly agree, it’s the best fun, ever! But for Jilly’s brother, Billy, having his feet tickled is tantamount to torture. Should Jilly and Millie tickle Billy’s feet?
* * *
Department Of Public Service: Things To Ponder® Moment Of The Week
Brought to you by the following excerpt from my recent letter to moiself’s offspring. 
…. Yesterday morning I went walking in the Neahkahnie Beach area, and wondered if I would catch a glimpse of the coyotes that have been spotted crossing the roads there, and out on the beach.
The coyotes (at least two adults, possibly a pair raising pups nearby) are going after unleashed dogs on the beach: one tries to lure the dogs to follow them by assuming play postures, then running into the shrubbery (where coyote #2 would spring out and attack – wildlife biologists note that this is a hunting adaptation of coyotes living near human-populated areas). One coyote has even chased several dogs, as reported by the dogs’ owners who came to their pets’ rescue, then posted on a local FB group to warn others.
Some people responded to these reports and warnings (which have included pictures of the coyotes) with, “My dog responds to voice control,” or “The coyotes just want to play.” Some people are morons.
And I can call them “morons,” although I can’t (even though I wouldn’t) call them “retards,” which I find mildly bemusing.
Get ahold of your nightsticks, y’all self-appointed word police: I understand (and agree with) the prohibition of the term retard, as it became a shorthand pejorative for people formerly known as “mentally retarded.” But the term mentally retarded is not a pejorative in and of itself, and was once considered to be a valid descriptor for adults classified on (an outdated) psychiatric scale of severe intellectual disability. The scale was:
* Moron (adult with an estimated mental age between 7 and 10 and an IQ of 51–70)
* Imbecile (” ” ” ” mental age of three to seven years and an IQ of 25–50)
* Idiot ( ” ” ” ” less than three years; IQ below 25)
Now then: I can and do sometimes use those words (moron; imbecile; idiot) to disparage someone and/or their behaviors…although, when I do so the image of an actual person with an intellectual disability *never* comes to my mind.
I can think or say that people who let their dogs go off leash on the beach – after having been warned about coyotes going after unleashed dogs – are morons, or that their behavior is idiotic and/or their reasoning imbecilic. I’ve used the words (moron; idiot; imbecile) sporadically over the course of my life (most frequently during the #45 administration), with no corrections from a Well-Meaning Guardian Of The Hurt Feelings Of Others ® (“It’s not nice to make fun of morons.”). And I can’t help but wonder why that is. 
* * *
Freethinkers’ Thought Of The Week 
* * *
May you avoid self-centricism masquerading as ethical principles;
May you follow The Platinum Rule;
May you see the movie “Private Lives” and discuss it with friends and family;
…and may the hijinks ensue.
Thanks for stopping by. Au Vendredi!
* * *
 In this case the movie studio PR staff, I’d guess.
 I send daughter Belle and son K weekly letters, every Friday. Letters as in snail, not e-, mail.
 Isn’t it time for another footnote? Just wondering.
 “free-think-er n. A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief. Freethinkers include atheists, agnostics and rationalists. No one can be a freethinker who demands conformity to a bible, creed, or messiah. To the freethinker, revelation and faith are invalid, and orthodoxy is no guarantee of truth.” Definition courtesy of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, ffrf.org
 In July 14’s blog.