Marc Moini

Nice analysis indeed! I wish though it would have gone one more step, beyond this notion of good vs evil, beyond morality, to true care. No sacrifice needed then, because it's not win/lose anymore. In the real world we are all related, it is possible to stop seeing enemies, and truly care for one another, so that all interactions become win/win. Look up Marshall Rosenberg for details if you're interested

Why does it bother you that I call you dishonest? Hi Nathan, it seems to me you are trying to avoid answering my question about morality, and maybe derail this thread. Please prove me wrong by replying on topic. Best wishes, Marc Why should I concern myself with whether you think I may be derailing this thread? If you'll answer that question yourself, then you'll know what my answer is to your original question. Hi Nathan, I neither think you should nor think you should not, because that would be thinking in a moralistic manner and I try to avoid falling into that trap. I do believe you have a need for honesty, and a need for understanding and being understood, as well as other needs you can identify yourself from the list of needs at cnvc.org, and that in order to satisfy those needs, it makes sense for you to stay on topic. Do you agree therefore that answering your question myself does not necessarily give me your answer to my original question? (which is "If you think I am missing something and what I explained does use morality, please point out how, would you?") Best wishes, Marc

Hi ribuck, if you check the links I gave a few posts above, you'll see that these are not the sort of needs NVC talks about. The needs the aggressor might be trying to meet could be his need for self-respect (instead of the need to perceive himself as "top dog"), and his need for autonomy (instead of the need for money). The point of identifying the more generic needs, and confirming with person A whether it is indeed those needs that he is trying to satisfy, is that it makes it much easier to find other strategies for meeting these needs (because there is a much larger number of possibilities of meeting for example his need for self-respect than only through beating up people), and within that selection to select those that also meet the needs of person B or anyone else involved. With this additional information about the NVC approach, does it seem to you now that it could work to find win/win solutions? Best wishes, Marc

Why does it bother you that I call you dishonest? Hi Nathan, it seems to me you are trying to avoid answering my question about morality, and maybe derail this thread. Please prove me wrong by replying on topic. Best wishes, Marc

Hi Nathan, I'm disappointed that you are calling me dishonest, instead of trying to find out where and why we disagree on how the NVC approach does not use morality. But hey, everybody can make mistakes, it's OK. If you think I am missing something and what I explained does use morality, please point out how, would you? Best wishes, Marc

One might be tempted to call that "universal." One might refer to this subjective variety of needs as "preferences." One might describe the various strategies to meet needs as "behavior." Interesting... Hi Nathan, I'm glad you see the similarity. Do you also see the difference, that NVC is another way of achieving the same goal of meeting everyone's needs, without using morality? Best wishes, Marc

Hi ribuck, Thank you, I'm glad that you agree with the idea that labelling someone as morally "bad" is likely to lead to violence. I'm also glad that you found my explanation clear. About the two reasons you give for not adopting the view that it is possible to think of an aggression without using morality: 1) "it is useless to talk about maximising the meeting of needs when the strength of a need cannot be measured": even if this cannot be measured objectively, what matters for the person's satisfaction is whether they feel each of their needs is sufficiently satisfied or not. You know if your need for rest is sufficiently satisfied right now to stay up or not, in the context of the satisfied/unsatisfied status of all your other needs. Do you agree that there is no need for objective measurement here, because what matters is each person's own subjective assessment of whether their needs are met or not? 2) "is there hard evidence that every single person has a need for peace?": in Nonviolent Communication the need for peace is the umbrella term used to refer to the category of needs which also includes the needs for beauty, communion, ease, equality, harmony, inspiration and order. I guess it might be possible to find some people who have never felt like they have one of these needs, but all the experience of the thousands and thousands of people practicing NVC who after learning to identify and name their feelings and needs report that they do have a need for peace, is enough for me to think that this is a useful assumption to make when interacting with people. If a person then reports that they don't have a need for peace, then ok, no problem, there are other needs that an aggressor does not get to satisfy when choosing aggression as a strategy to satisfy whatever need they are trying to satisfy in this case. The point is that if the aggressor does not have any needs, in the NVC sense of things they need from the world in order to live and feel satisfied with their life, then they would not be alive. The fact that they are acting, that they are engaging in aggression, shows that they are trying to fulfill some needs, so we know these needs are real. If we are able to communicate with them to identify which needs these are that they have, and ask them whether all their needs are satisfied, and ask them if they also have a need for peace (order, harmony, etc.) that they have maybe not been aware of and which was not satisfied by their choice of using aggression, then we don't need any more evidence than this in order to help them find a strategy that meets all their needs better than using aggression does. Does this help? Best wishes, Marc

I don't see it that way, for me that's a choice you make, whether to bring in morality into it or not. Hmm. I think you might be saying that the moral aspect is not embedded in the aggression itself (i.e. in the initiation of violence), but arises out of the human context of that aggression. For sure I agree with that. For example, a volcanic eruption is violent but there is no moral aspect to it. However, in this discussion we are referring to things like the use of aggression to collect taxes to pay for food stamps. Within the implied scope of this discussion, I think there's always a moral aspect to aggression. Perhaps I have misunderstood you and you mean something else. In that case, I would find it helpful if you could give an example of the type of aggression you have in mind, where it is a choice whether or not to bring morality into it. Hi ribuck, I believe I mean something else. Since you asked for an example, I hope the following one will do: person A hits person B on the back of the head then steals B's money while B is unconscious. One choice is to think of what happened using morality, to think that what the aggressor did was immoral. Another choice is to think of what happened without bringing morality into it, and instead to consider whose needs have or have not been met by what happened (according to the definition of human needs used in Nonviolent Communication, http://happinesscounseling.com/NVC_Intro.pdf ). The advantage for me of the second choice is that we think of the aggressor as merely having chosen a tragic and inadequate strategy for meeting their needs, since this strategy most likely did not meet their need for peace nor their need for self-respect nor their need to make life more wonderful for everyone (in NVC view we all have these needs), and the focus stays on helping this person find other strategies that will meet everyone's needs, in win/win fashion. We don't think of the aggressor as deserving to be punished (regardless of the punishment method, whether it be shaming, ostracism, a fine, prison, or death), which would only cause more violence to occur (towards the aggressor initially and perhaps later other persons, if the aggressor does not learn better win/win strategies and ends up attacking more people in order to get their needs met in the future). I find it difficult to explain this in just a few sentences, if you're interested I suggest you read this interview: http://www.openexchange.org/features/Keep/rosenberg.html There are also YouTube videos on Nonviolent Communication, such as this one: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=The+Basics+of+Non+Violent+Communication I'm convinced that thinking in moralistic terms is the main cause of violence on this planet, because it justifies violence when someone does something we don't like. All we need to do is think of them as "bad", and the gate to violence is opened. Thinking in terms of finding win/win solutions that meet everyone's fundamental human needs avoid this trap. Please let me know if you find this explanation satisfactory or not! Best wishes, Marc

Hi ribuck, I don't see it that way, for me that's a choice you make, whether to bring in morality into it or not. I believe it's very difficult to realize that we are doing this though, since almost everyone of us is raised as if morality was the same to us as water is to fish. I know for me it was very difficult to step out of that box! It's only when I had been learning and practicing Nonviolent Communication for months, and therefore learning to think in terms of meetings needs instead of what is right and what is wrong, that it happened for me. Best wishes, Marc

Hi empyblessing, thank you for explaining that you are not condemning people, only the system. I am glad to hear this because I share the same need with you of caring about people's feelings. When you say that Obama is doing his best I agree to, if we take into account his knowledge and his life history. Do you believe though that it would be possible for someone in his position to do one thing differently, and that one thing would be to quit the job? I imagine if everyone elected president quit the job on their first hour, it might have a dramatic effect :-) Something like this could bring down "the system" in the mind of everyone, no? As to your question about the anarchist taking money from the government and writing books, and whether we (I suppose you're asking everyone) would still read any of his books, I guess I might do so even though his actions are inconsistent, if I hope to find something of interest to me in his books. I suppose you're asking about the morality of reading his books, but I don't think about whether something I might do is morally sanctioned or not. I judge actions by another standard I find serves everyone more effectively, which is whether these actions meet my needs or not (needs as defined in Nonviolent Communication, i.e. without regard to time or person or place). Is this answer satisfactory for you? Best wishes, Marc

Hi ribuck, Ah ok, I understood "condemn" according to another definition, the one I've always thought of as the primary meaning of this word: (here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/condemn ) "1. to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil usually after weighing evidence and without reservation <a policy widelycondemned as racist>" With your definition of expressing complete disapproval, I think the moral aspect is absent, and the moral aspect is what I think empyblessing is concerned with. What do you think of this? Best wishes, Marc

Hi Carlos, thanks for answering, i hear how you believe that condemnation and ostracization are useful in preventing people from harming others. Would you explain to me step by step how it works, from the point of view of the person who did the "immoral" behavior, and from your point of view as a "moral" member of society? Best wishes, Marc

Hi ribuck, this may be OT, I don't know, but why condemn anyone, even someone who uses aggression? I understand that your concern is in preventing aggression, and I share that concern, however it seems to me that the way in which you are trying to prevent aggression can only lead to more aggression, not less. Do you believe condemning people is going to somehow bring you or them or anyone else something? Best wishes, Marc

Hi empyblessing, why do you want to condemn anyone? I don't understand what that would get you, besides feeling miserable and depressed and thinking of yourself as unfit to live when you reach the point of condemning yourself, which I believe inevitably happens when you think there are things you "should" and "should not" do? Would you please help me understand what benefit there is to you of thinking that way, instead of judging people's actions (and yours) according to whether or not they fulfill needs from the set of human needs we all share? Best wishes, Marc

Hi empyblessing, I guess morality says that you should not associate with these people because that would be enabling them. Myself I think that thinking in this manner is not helpful, you know, waiting for some higher authority (the word of god, morality, objective reality, etc.) to tell you what you should and should not do in order to be good/virtuous. Far more satisfactory for you and me and everyone else to think instead in terms of whether some action fulfills or goes against the satisfaction of our fundamental human needs, such as for air, food, water, rest, sexual expression (the physical well-being needs), and other needs such as for acceptance, empathy, respect, trust, warmth (connection needs), etc. In other words, make your own choices rather than wait for someone else to tell you what you ought to do. That's a better way of reaching happiness and staying happy, in harmony with everyone else, in my opinion. Best wishes, Marc

Hi empyblessing, do I understand correctly from your quote of Willie Lynch (on another thread but I was asked not to post there) and the words you've highlighted that you believe this is what your mother has done to you? That you were raised to be mentally dependent and scared, and that you had the male image in you destroyed? That this is the reason you have these feelings of worthlessness and anxiety, and that as a result your need for connection with others, for warmth and trust and and security and support, as well as your need for spontaneity and independence and freedom, and also your needs for stability and ease and harmony, and for honesty and for joy, all these needs are severely frustrated to the point that sleep has become difficult? I would appreciate if you would correct me where I am guessing wrong, I would like to understand so I can then try to help you as much as I can. I believe you are not mentally ill, and that anyone with the same circumstances as you've lived through would be in pretty much the same mental state. It's not your fault! Take care, Marc

Hi emptyblessing, I'm sorry to hear you're desperate, and at the same time I'm glad that you are asking for help, because it tells me that you are still hoping, and that to me shows that you are on the road to achieving the lasting change you want, however many detours this road has been taking for you in the past. Some of the books I found most helpful for me were those by Nathaniel Branden ( http://nathanielbranden.com ), specifically The Psychology of Self-Esteem and The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem (both as audiobook). I don't know what it is that you are looking for help with however, it might be something else than self-esteem. Also, though it's not therapy as usually understood, I have found Marshall Rosenberg's Nonviolent Communication to be life-changing for me. I could have been mostly OK with just therapy, and live a relatively satisfying life that would have been I guess similar to what most "well-adjusted" people seem to me to have, but now with NVC I feel I've found what I really needed. Here's a YouTube video introducing NVC: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=The+Basics+of+Non+Violent+Communication Finally I recommend the Complete Liberty podcast, http://completeliberty.com, especially since episode 126. In episodes 165, 166 and 167, you can hear what went on during group therapy sessions that Nathaniel Branden led, which I find extremely interesting. Best wishes, Marc

Hi Joe, There's this article, which I hope you'll find interesting: http://en.nvcwiki.com/index.php/Restorative_justice Best wishes, Marc