As you know, I am a fan of your writing so my critique today is written in the spirit of engagement. I believe you to be correct in advising us to be aware of the fundamental beliefs that frame our actions and from whose paradigm we construct our judgement of ourselves and others. Given that it so important, we need I think, to be especially carefully with our taxonomy and not confuse Instructions with the Principles from which they are derived.
The 10 Commandments are with one exception an instructional manual not a list of principles. Likewise your list contains one (almost) principle and four instructions which presumably are derived from underlying principles or „incontravertible truths“ that you believe to be foundational. „You are what you do“ is the closest you come to a principle and from it you derive behavioural habits and admonishments which, presumably, are the practical implication of believing that to be both true and important. Attached to that principle is a derived value of authenticity or integrity.
I think the distinction is much more than just semantics. If you think you are articulating principles but are in fact writing a recipe, then you will soon bump up against the limits of your recipe in helping you deal with adversity, moral conflict or questions of personal theology. An instruction manual just isn‘t up to the same job that principles are when the wind blows fiercely in our lives.
If you wanted to examine a book built on a recipe list that has its taxonomy right from the start then you could do worse than Stephen Covey‘s „7 Habits“ - he explicitly does not call them 7 Principles although their formulation comes close to statements of principle.
I don‘t want to hog your comments sectiom or detract from your piece - especially as you quoted William D. Wattles from his excellent and (incomprehensibly) totally ignored „The Science of Getting Rich“ at the start of the essay - but I would be very interested in knowing the principles that led to the creation of your commandments!
Steven, I appreciate your position and time on this! Perhaps I did a poor job of presenting them. The first one could be... "The meaning of life is unique to you." The second one could be... "Actions form your identity." The third one could be... "Small, continuous improvements compound over time." And so on. What do you think?
I think that is a significant improvement. A benefit of articualting principles is that each one spawns many potential “instructions” that help put that principle into action.
As you know, I am a fan of your writing so my critique today is written in the spirit of engagement. I believe you to be correct in advising us to be aware of the fundamental beliefs that frame our actions and from whose paradigm we construct our judgement of ourselves and others. Given that it so important, we need I think, to be especially carefully with our taxonomy and not confuse Instructions with the Principles from which they are derived.
The 10 Commandments are with one exception an instructional manual not a list of principles. Likewise your list contains one (almost) principle and four instructions which presumably are derived from underlying principles or „incontravertible truths“ that you believe to be foundational. „You are what you do“ is the closest you come to a principle and from it you derive behavioural habits and admonishments which, presumably, are the practical implication of believing that to be both true and important. Attached to that principle is a derived value of authenticity or integrity.
I think the distinction is much more than just semantics. If you think you are articulating principles but are in fact writing a recipe, then you will soon bump up against the limits of your recipe in helping you deal with adversity, moral conflict or questions of personal theology. An instruction manual just isn‘t up to the same job that principles are when the wind blows fiercely in our lives.
If you wanted to examine a book built on a recipe list that has its taxonomy right from the start then you could do worse than Stephen Covey‘s „7 Habits“ - he explicitly does not call them 7 Principles although their formulation comes close to statements of principle.
I don‘t want to hog your comments sectiom or detract from your piece - especially as you quoted William D. Wattles from his excellent and (incomprehensibly) totally ignored „The Science of Getting Rich“ at the start of the essay - but I would be very interested in knowing the principles that led to the creation of your commandments!
Steven, I appreciate your position and time on this! Perhaps I did a poor job of presenting them. The first one could be... "The meaning of life is unique to you." The second one could be... "Actions form your identity." The third one could be... "Small, continuous improvements compound over time." And so on. What do you think?
I think that is a significant improvement. A benefit of articualting principles is that each one spawns many potential “instructions” that help put that principle into action.
A fair point. Thank you for making this piece better. I appreciate you!