1. Well-Well Variations

"Well" is a deep subject. - American

On this page is a lite battery of well-well reservations taken from a larger set of reservations. A well-chosen bundle of them are presupposed to be aligned with anything here, at least by the site owner - for safety reasons. But using reservations as is done on the site, can have additional advantages also. It can be good to learn to add a little "ahem" or "well -" to many sorts of claims, for example.

But first, the site's General Disclaimer says something about attempts at improving health:

One had better consider faith-ideas in the light of Buddha basics (the Kalama Sutta). They are against being taken in by dogmatic talk and rhetorics and whatever. In line with Buddha's guidelines, the site is furnished with many subsumed reservations, adjusting to what Bertrand Russell says about "qualifications":

If you want to make a statement with a great many qualifications, put some of the qualifications in separate sentences. - Sir Bertrand Russell, (1961)

This is done throughout. Apt, well chosen reservations are presupposed additions to whatever is shown, and they are not to be done away with. The idea is that careful, presupposed, subsumed qualifications (reservations) can ease communication by making it simpler, fairly accessible also.

Thus, Plain English may be had by a design that presupposes deft use of an array of supportive, well chosen reservations. Supportive means, ideally, supportive to the owner of this site and the site itself, first and foremost. That is for safety reasons.

But ideally, 'supportive' does not end there at all; it is preferably supportive to both me and others in win-win deals to go for. A fit array of reservations consists of fair, supportive, cogent, well united reservations chosen from a "Grand Platter" of reservations, as further explained: [Reservations -].

It works like selecting for example four or eight horses from the stable, harness them and let them pull the carriage (main content) ahead.

An example of subsumed qualifications (reservations, or "horses") to harness and adapt well to any statement throughout:

Presumably ᴥ maybe eventually under fit conditions ᴥ to the degree it is correct ᴥ to some degree ᴥ in some/a savoury, sound, rewarding, profitable, and satisfactory (ie, good) way or sense  ᴥ if seen from certain angles  ᴥ under so and so conditions ᴥ to be statistically verified later on, hopefully ᴥ maybe never. [More presupposed qualifications]

OBSERVE: The ᴥ in this sample stands for 'and' and 'and/or' or 'or', depending on what parts are picked out and used. For horse lovers: "The ᴥ is put between the horses to pick among and harness to the carriage you want to drive -"

Other ways and means of reserving oneself is the use of 'so-called', the use of quotations marks, and ways of reporting, like 'they claim'. These are typical features of reporting, so there is hardly much need to go into it here. Just one example may do:

An exercise: Add profitable and to some degree fit qualifications to the essence of this:

Can there be such a thing as a true story that never happened? . . . The Gospels of the New Testament contain stories kind of like that," writes Dr Bart D. Ehrman in his book, Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (2001:30, 31).

Here is one go: "The gospels of the New Testament contain "true" stories, but bible research grants they most likely did not happen, some of them."

The reservations are " ", "most likely", a little added ("some of them") to limit the statement clearly, and an added reference to bible research, granted that Professor Ehrman is a biblical scholar and author of many books about the New Testament, including findings of scholar and archeologists in some of them, as is the case with the book the citation is taken from.

2. What is called "good" or "well"

"Good" and "well" are strongly influencing words, often taken to in rhetorics. One should probe into or clarify what these words may mean in any statement where they appear. "Good for whom?" is one such probing question. There are many others. We discern between three main types of "good", and each may serve as motivations in different settings:

1. Good in relation to sensible "we-aims" (at least), aligned to "What's good for the goose needs to be good for the gander."

2. Good with regard to dealing with opponents - There is a lot of competition with its opponents in the human realm, and among animals and downwards.

3. Good in relation to looming common goals to serve in a decent setting - if you are friends, or by common or large agreement (consensus). These also serve as conformity-ensuring standards.

Ad 1, Good in relation to we-focused aims and dealings: Some examples: We had better foster the more complete fare. We need to be well enough guarded. We have to remain culinary as to the mainframe. We're fond of yielding to better knowledge.

Ad 2, Good in relation to dealing with opponents: Other souls should get sound and tidy and need to keep it up that way. Other souls need to know or be told a good "thing" must be well enough nuanced and tidy to look at. What is called good and worthy needs to be impressed on others; then they can stick to it. - And so on.

Ad 3, Good in relation to common goals: Is handy to look at, or as handy as can be - decent all over is preferred. Not heart-breaking, and hardly scarring innocent bystanders.

There are many more nuances of what "good" - and "well" - may be taken to mean on a separate page. Remaining careful, guarded and polite comes in addition. And as with the "supposed reservations", the suitable selections of 'good' at any time serves this site first, next others. [More on 'good']

Also, something is good if it is: Dedicated to basic usefulness and not rueful in itself - Dedicated to a decent fare - Serviceable in the long run - Decent all over is preferred - And not without inner consistency. [Good, thoroughly understood]

3. A standardised structure yields meaning to statements within it

In order to better understand the meaning and scope of a statement in our standardised essays, see their settings there. Their placement tells a lot, as indicated in the categorical mainframe. [Standard mainframe] It serves as an all-round scheme.

Learning and misunderstanding

There are cognitive schemas at the bottom of many pages with quotations, renditions and proverbs. Selecting and joining and sometimes shuffling phrases, abridged phrases and renditions from larger units, might give an impression that what is left out from the source(s), is of the same standard. That might well be a mistake. If extracted, joined material gives a superficially attractive appearance or impression, then, the omitted source parts may or may not, and some omitted parts could be better . . . Besides, to arrive at superficial gloss in such ways is not intended. The learning method of lojong helps wise discernment too. [More]

Quotations, abridged phrases and renditions that are taken out of context, may be even grossly misunderstood by that feature alone. With proverbs and many precepts that may not be a problem, but with cited and rendered authors it could be. Among the reasons for it is that shortened phrases may get more ambiguous for being shortened, or get a different spin, intended or not. Hence there might arise other impressions than intended by any other. However, the source references - if there are any - may clear up doubts related to rephrasings.

[Read on]