The Righteous Brothers - Gold: How They Conquered the Charts with Soul and Inspiration

Gold has been treasured since ancient times for its beauty and permanence. Most of the gold that is fabricated today goes into the manufacture of jewelry. However, because of its superior electrical conductivity and resistance to corrosion and other desirable combinations of physical and chemical properties, gold also emerged in the late 20th century as an essential industrial metal. Gold performs critical functions in computers, communications equipment, spacecraft, jet aircraft engines, and a host of other products. Although gold is important to industry and the arts, it also retains a unique status among all commodities as a long-term store of value. Until recent times, it was considered essentially a monetary metal, and most of the bullion produced each year went into the vaults of government treasuries or central banks.

The Righteous Brothers - Gold Gr

DOWNLOAD

As the size of the unit increased, seemingly with every passing day, the brothers sought better protection from the harsh winter weather. They organized the construction of large wooden living quarters known as zemlyankas in Russian. Dug into the ground, the structures utilized earthen walls to contain as much heat as possible. The brothers were soon watching over nearly 800 Jews, constantly moving the ragged band to new locations to keep one step ahead of the Nazis. In the summer of 1943, the camp was attacked by German forces and the entire group had to escape deep into the forest. Surviving the attack, the brothers relocated to a new spot in the dense forest and began work on a new camp.

Giorno is a teenage boy of average height and slim yet muscular build, far smaller in stature than previous JoJos. He has golden hair of moderate length tied back in a short, braided tail, with three distinctive oversized curls arranged in a row over his forehead. His hair was originally black and unkempt but transformed upon awakening his Stand.[3] His eyes, especially present in earlier depictions, sharpen at the ends similar to those of his father's.

Giorno wears a two-piece suit with a checkered coat tail and several ornate features, including wing-shaped emblems on the collars and a heart-shaped opening in the chest area. The most distinctive feature on his suit are the three ladybug emblems located on either side of his chest and directly below his zipper, matching the appearance of his Stand. Later on, his shoes also have the same ladybug emblem on them. The color scheme for his suit often changes in different depictions, but the most common colors are blue outlined with gold and pink outlined with green.

However, one day as Giorno was walking home, he came upon a man covered in blood lying in a patch of tall grass. After discovering the injured man, other men approached Giorno, asking him if he knew where the man had gone. Giorno lied to the men, feeling that the injured man was the same as him, and subconsciously activated his Stand's ability to mask the man's presence by causing the grass to grow taller and bloom flora. Around two months later, the man showed himself to Giorno again and told him that he would never forget what had been done for him. Things soon turned brighter for Giorno: his father stopped beating him and he became popular among kids his own age. It turned out that the man was a gangster who quietly watched over Giorno from the shadows. To Giorno, this was the first time someone else had treated him like a human being and showed him respect. The trust that Giorno should have learned from his father was instead taught to him by others, and ever since then something that can be described as a "cool breeze" blew inside his heart, marking his change from a cold and antisocial individual to a charming and righteous one. He subsequently forges a dream to make the corrupt Italian mafia like the man who had helped him, and strive to become a "Gang-Star".[3]

Finally, a radically different perspective is posed, depicting the golden rule as a description, not prescription, that portrays the symptoms of certain epiphanies and personal transformations observed in spiritual experience.

The golden rule is closely associated with Christian ethics though its origins go further back and graces Asian culture as well. Normally we interpret the golden rule as telling us how to act. But in practice its greater role may be psychological, alerting us to everyday self-absorption, and the failure to consider our impacts on others. The rule reminds us also that we are peers to others who deserve comparable consideration. It suggests a general orientation toward others, an outlook for seeing our relations with them. At the least, we should not impact others negatively, treating their interests as secondary.

If the golden rule is designed for small-group interaction, where face-to face relations dominate, a failure to reciprocate in kind will be noticed. It cannot be hidden as in anonymous, institutionally-mediated cooperation at a distance. Subtle pressures will be felt to conform with this group norm, and subtle sanctions will apply to those who take more than they give. Conforming to norms in this setting will be easier than usual, as well, since in-groups attract the like-minded. And in such contexts requiring extraordinarily helpful motivations and actions from others would be seen as unfair.

What agapeists may be onto is that the golden rule has a dual nature. At a common level, it is a principle of ethical reciprocity. But for those who use its ethic to rise above good and evil in a mundane sense, the golden rule is a wisdom principle. It marks the transcendence of interested and egoistic perspectives. It points toward its sibling of loving thy neighbor as thyself because thy neighbor is us in some deeper sense, accessible by deeper, less egoistic love.

For philosophers, however, even a clarified or unbiased depiction of the golden rule cannot overcome its shortfalls in specificity and decisiveness. Ply the rule in the handling of complex and nuanced problems of complex institutions and it is at sea. We cannot imagine how to begin its application. Exercise it within networks of social roles and practices and the rule seems utterly simplistic. (This said, the irony should not be lost here of critics setting the rule up to fail by over-generalizing its intended scope and standards for success.)

Both present and likely future philosophical accounts may be unhelpful in bringing clarity to the golden rule in its own terms, rather distorting it through overgeneralization. Still, the crafting of general theory in ethics is an important project. It exposes ever deeper and broader logics underlying our common rationales, the golden rule being one. (It is important for some to review these fundamental issues for treating the golden rule philosophically.)

These are serious problems for the golden rule. At a minimum, corollaries would have to be added to the rule explaining how roles and relationships figure in. Treat others as you would choose to be treated in the established social role you each occupy and its legitimate expectations, mother, father, or teacher to children and vice versa, spouses and friends to each other, peer co-workers, supervisor to rank-and-file employees and vice versa, and so forth. Alan Gewirth (1978) has proposed a rule in which we focus on mutual respect for our generic rights alone. This would leave all sorts of other choices to other rationales or to our discretion that the golden rule does not, placing restraints on the rule that it would not currently acknowledge.

Both of these alternatives have horrible consequences for the golden rule however. Rights simply do not cover enough ethical behavior to rule out forms of psychological cruelty, callousness, and interpersonal exclusion. The reciprocity they guarantee is compatible with most forms of face-to-face interaction that lack it, especially in public peer-relations such as the school or job site, but also in friendships and the family.

The golden rule enjoys the reputation of enduring wisdom, even if its lack of conceptual sophistication leaves philosophers cold. But its ancient origin should make us wonder if it is in fact perennial hot air, misleading even regarding the framework in which moral philosophy is done.

In classic lectures, compiled as The Varieties of Religious Experience (1901/1985) William James declares the golden rule incompatible with human nature (Lect. 11). It routinely violates the basic structure of human embodiment, the laws of human motivation, and the principles of rational choice of behavior based on them, as depicted above. (James may have confused the rule with sibling principles when making this blanket observation.)

The golden rule displays one algorithm for programming exemplary fair behavior, which can be habituated by repetition and even raised to an art by practice. Virtue ethics (habits) and deliberation ethics (normative ethics) fall here. What we are simulating are side-effects of a moral condition. We are trying to be good, by imitating symptoms of being good. 2ff7e9595c