what makes this pie "good"?

"how you doing?" "GOOOOD" "How's your day going?" "GOOOOD"

"How's that pie?" "GOOOOOOD"
Have you ever thought much about what makes something "goooood"? My last blog touched on this idea a little, but I thought it needed a bit more discussion.


I had an elderly neighbor recently (he has since died) that would correct me when I used "good" as an adverb. He would say "use 'well' as an adverb and 'good' as an adjective." So, I got a "good" (can't stop using that word) grammar lesson on the use of "good." However, the most important impact of the word "good" for each of us is the core assumption we have on what "makes something 'good'."

A core assumption is something we believe that we do not question but use to interpret everything else. Human nature tends to create in us a core assumption that "good" is a quality of an object that provides us a favorable experience. "Good" tends to be circumstantial evidence that the outcome of something is positive.

So, if we are hungry or happen to really enjoy pie, we might be given a piece of pie and say, "that is good pie." If we have just eaten or are really a cake person or prefer ice cream on our pie, we may not think the pie is so good. We may say it is good if we do not want to hurt the baker's feelings, but we will not think it is so good.

Suppose we had a different core assumption about what makes something "good." Suppose that "good" was really a quality of the baker of the pie, not the outcome we experience from the pie. Suppose a "good pie" was one in which the baker was skilled, was wise and had knowledge of ingredients that produced a high quality pie. Suppose the baker put a lot of love into the pie. Suppose the baker cared a lot about the people who would eat the pie. Suppose that is what made the pie "good." This core assumption would alter our knowledge of the pie and consequently our experience of eating the pie. No longer would "good" be based on how the pie met our needs, but on our admiration and respect for the baker.

The same with a building or a house. What makes it "good"? The circumstantial evidence of how it satisfies us, or the qualities of the architect who designed and constructed the building. Is a "good" building really about the knowledge, skill, vision, and purpose that went into the building. What we believe is "good" depends on our core assumption of what makes an object "good?"

The same applies to actions, what we or others do. Is the action GOOD because of how favorable the outcome is that the actor produced or because the actor contains the admirable qualities of the one who created him/her?

I plan to blog more on core assumptions next,
but this is enough for now.

Soooo, just do a little pondering........