Guilt Free Desserts
It appears to assert a fact about the relative merits of chocolate and vanilla ice cream. But, unlike the cases considered above, the fact expressed is about the person who makes the assertion. This claim is, first of all, implicitly relative. A claim is implicitly relative when it involves a comparison or other relation to something it doesn't explicitly mention (see Chapter 1, pp. 28-29, for a review of this concept). For example, said of an adult man, 'John is tall' states a comparison, a relation, between John and other men it really says that John is taller than the average man.1 But furthermore, the claim about ice cream is implicitly speaker-relative. If Julie says 'Chocolate ice cream tastes better than vanilla', then what she is really saying is that she prefers chocolate to vanilla. Similarly, if John asserts this very same sentence, then he is saying that chocolate ice cream tastes better to him than vanilla does. So Julie and John are saying different things, despite the...
Do not really disagree there is not one proposition here that either Julie or John asserts, and that the other denies. They are not really disagreeing about the truth-value of the same proposition. That is, they do not dispute the facts of the matter their claims are simply expressions of different preferences. To continue to dispute such an issue would be a waste of time. Indeed, notice that (1) and (2) are no longer implicitly speaker-relative they are explicitly speaker-relative. So there should be no temptation to say that the truth of either (1) or (2) depends on who is making the claim. If you say 'Chocolate ice cream tastes better than vanilla', then you are implicitly talking about yourself, and the truth of what you say depends on facts about you (your preferences). If you assert (1), however, the truth of your assertion depends only on facts about Julie, not on facts about you.
Previous exercises have covered sight and sound telepathy. This exercise covers gustatory, olfactory, tactile and kinesthetic telepathic transmission. Using a partner of the opposite sex, assume a relaxed position facing each other. The sender focuses on an emotional feeling and holds onto that as a carrier wave. Experiment with positive and negative emotions and note the differences. Now visualize and transmit a certain taste -- sweetness of chocolate candy, sourness of a lemon, bitterness of strong, black coffee or the salty, crispiness of potato chips. Next, transmit a certain smell -- an odor of a septic tank, a fragrance of a certain flower, tobacco or herb. Next, transmit a particular tactile sensation -- being naked on an iceberg, handling a snake or a ball with sharp pins, being sat on by an elephant or petting a shaggy dog. And finally, transmit a kinesthetic feeling -- falling off a high building, being buried alive in a coffin, rowing a boat, doing a somersault or simply...
Decision-making is a systematic, conscious process that seems to leave no room for feelings. But you can probably think of many decisions you have had to make recently in which you had strong feelings that influenced your outcome. Perhaps you had to decide whether to order dessert when you were out for dinner. You ordered the cheesecake because it is a favorite, ignoring the fact that you were trying to lower your cholesterol level. Or, you left work early because you had tickets to a ball game even though you had a big project due the next day.
The success of this exercise lies in the smoothness of the rhythm and the simultaneous lifting process of the participants. Rehearse it a few times before attempting to do the lift, so your tempo is achieved. It might take 3 or 4 times to get everybody in 'synch,' but you'll do it. Sometimes dispensing with the hand stacking can be substituted with the affirming of a phrase several times in unison like Chocolate ice cream or Pumpkin pie or Lifting is easy. The content of the phrase does not seem to matter, but the rhythm does. Does the group thought process of a levitating intention reverse some inner polarity of the person to be levitated Does the repetition of a phrase over and over bring about a slightly altered state of awareness so that your intention to levitate is carried out
(D) Stress causes me to eat chocolate. It sounds like unpleasant and negative emotions an abstraction from 'stress' cause you to do things you don't want to do abstracted from 'eating chocolate' . So experiencing negative emotions really makes you a victim to your emotions An even higher abstract concept on the entire statement. (D) Stress causes me to eat chocolate. 'You seem to really believe that. Say, with that way of thinking do you tend to always eat chocolate when you feel stress And if you do, does that really work for you
Creativity is also an attitude the ability to accept change and newness, a willingness to play with ideas and possibilities, a flexibility of outlook, the habit of enjoying the good, while looking for ways to improve it. We are socialized into accepting only a small number of permitted or normal things, like chocolate-covered strawberries, for example. The creative person realizes that there are other possibilities, like peanut butter and banana sandwiches, or chocolate-covered prunes.
In considering this issue we focused on an argument of type (1), but the weighing of costs and benefits may enter into any of the eight types of practical argument. None of the eight patterns is valid as it stands. For example, consider type (7). It might be that the cost of not performing action X would be greater than the benefit of not increasing the amount of chocolate (that is to say, it might be that the benefit of performing it is greater than the cost of increasing the amount of chocolate).
But suppose now that Julie and John also disagree about the relative merits of chocolate and vanilla ice cream Julie contends that chocolate tastes better, while John is on the side of vanilla. As we have seen, in order to make her meaning perfectly explicit, Julie would have to say 'Chocolate ice cream tastes better than vanilla to me' John would have to say the same in order to be explicit. So what Julie is really saying is that chocolate tastes better to her, John that vanilla tastes better to him.
For chocolate rather than vanilla ice cream. But when we express our opinion on a matter - the best way of reducing crime rates, say - we are expressing our beliefs about the truth of a matter. It is really a kind of self-deception not to face up to this that when we express our opinion, we are making a claim to truth. So criticising someone's contribution to a conversation by saying, 'that's just a matter of opinion' is another attempt to hinder rational persuasion or debate, and unjustifiably denies that there is any such thing as disagreement.
For a beginning exercise, sit in your easy chair and relax completely all your muscles from your toes to your head. Now imagine that a sumptuous meal has been prepared for you. Sit down at the table provided for you and savor it. Mentally relish each morsel. Smell and taste each dish prepared for you. Feel the food being bitten and going into your stomach and filling you up. Eat your dessert, and drink your favorite drink. Now feel the full feeling of satiation. You will find that if you do this visualization just before you snack, you'll be less liable to overdo it and maybe even lose the craving altogether
A diet that is good for the heart is equally good for the brain. Foods that are low in saturated fats and high in fiber content and vitamins and minerals are ideal to prevent heart disease and stroke, and decrease free radical formation. The following table provides a broad overview of common foods and their relative nutritional content, and their potential impact on memory. Butter, margarine, and desserts are among the worst offenders, as is red meat. I strongly advise you to cook with oils high in unsaturated fats canola, sunflower, corn, or olive oil. Walnuts contain a lot of good cholesterol and unsaturated Desserts
According to the relativist view, when anti-abortionists say abortion is morally unacceptable and their opponents contradict them and say that it is morally acceptable, there is no real disagreement rather the two sides do not share the same moral preferences. Thus, for the relativist, value-statements are always speaker-relative, whether implicitly or explicitly. An apparent disagreement over a value is in this respect like that between Julie and John concerning chocolate versus vanilla ice cream. One reason why this relativistic view of moral issues is so tempting is that we feel uncomfortable about being seen to dictate morals to other people because we (rightly) value tolerance of different opinions.4 from them to living tolerantly alongside them. This is a very extreme example, but the point is well made. To adopt naive relativism about moral matters, to deny there can be a truth of the matter and to say that claims such as the claim that torture is wrong have a similar status to...
Implicit speaker-relativity An implicitly speaker-relative statement is one that is implicitly relative, where the implicit term of the relation is the person making the statement. Thus the statement is speaker-relative, but only implicitly so. For example 'Chocolate ice cream tastes better than strawberry ice cream' is implicitly speaker-relative because what it really means is 'Chocolate ice cream tastes better to me than strawberry ice cream does'. (Some might say that the implicit term here should not be 'me' but something like 'most people').
In fact, there are no fewer than eight different types of argument that concern a relation between action and outcome. Just for the purpose of illustration, then, suppose that the outcome is that the amount of chocolate in the world be increased, and the action in question is X. Then, using 'should', the eight types of practical reasoning can be sketched like this
Suppose you want to generate ideas for a new chocolate candy bar. First, list assumptions regarding candy bars May contain either peanuts or almonds in addition to chocolate, but nothing else Next, generate ideas by breaking any of these laws governing chocolate candy bars. Here are some possible ideas
You hear deductive arguments,both good and bad, made all the time. In magazines,you read, If you use Brand X detergent your clothes will not get clean. But our detergent works much better. Use our detergent and your clothes will get clean. On television, you hear a politician saying, High taxes are putting people out of work. Tax cuts are a better policy. Tax cuts will give people jobs. At home, most people can remember a parent telling them, if you do not finish your supper, you will not get dessert.
600 Chocolate Recipes
Within this in cookbook full of chocolate recipes you will find over 600 Chocolate Recipes For Chocolate Lovers.