"To Judge or Not to Judge?" A conversation on Moralistic thinking, The lonliness of some FDR members, and learning new tools for rehabilitating poor relationships

[LovePrevails]

Hello, I think the conversation I link to in this post is very worthy of the attention of FDR board members
Please spare the time to listen to it it gets progressively more into the nitty gritty as it goes on
I did not just ask soft-ball questions

 

Further to this discussion:

 

 On Moralistic thinking:

"Take
any action allowed to be vicious: Wilful murder, for instance. Examine
it in all lights, and see if you can find that matter of fact, or real
existence,
which you call vice. In which-ever way you take it, you find only
certain passions, motives, volitions and thoughts. There is no other
matter of fact in the case. The vice entirely escapes you, as long as
you consider the object. You never can find it, till you turn your
reflection into your own breast, and find a sentiment of disapprobation,
which arises in you, towards this action. Here is a matter of fact; but
it is the object of feeling, not of reason. It lies in yourself, not in
the object. So that when you pronounce any action or character to be
vicious, you mean nothing, but that from the constitution of your nature
you have a feeling or sentiment of blame from the contemplation of it.
Vice and virtue, therefore, may be compared to sounds, colours, heat and
cold, which, according to modern philosophy, are not qualities in
objects, but perceptions in the mind"

- David Hume

in light of what Hume says there is every reason to
say "When you ...commit such and such an action.... I feel..... such
and such a feeling..... because I need..... such and such a condition to
thive..... therefor I'd like you to..... comply with such and such a
request..... so that each of us can better thrive",

and it is cetrainly an effective approach when it comes to people who are interested in pleasing you,

however,

when someone does make a judgement that something is "evil" say, or any moralistic judgement,
they are doing it according to certain criteria which perhaps they have not defined or outlined

So when I say someone is kind, it means I have seen
them give of themselves for others and I have enjoyed the feeling I
have felt when I have

that leads me to conclude they are kind

if I say someone is evil

I am saying that too often have I seen them putting their own self interest before that of others
and when called upon to examine their behaviour they refuse to do so, and I find the experience very unpleasant

If we are agreed that these are ways of saying the
same thing, are we better then to discuss which of these ways promotes
greater hapiness

 

Hi LovePrevails, thank you for the David Hume quote, yes, morality
like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Except one brings pleasure
while the other only brings sorrow.

And I completely agree with your reasoning and your conclusion.

Best wishes,

Marc

 

In the following conversation I quiz Marc on why he thinks that FDR could benefit from trying out some new tools before turning their back on certain relationships:

http://marcmoini.com/fdr/Antony_Marc_1mar13.mp3

I was very satisfied with the conversation, please feedback.

 

[LovePrevails]

On this subject:

[MrCapitalism]

Moral Relativism?

[LovePrevails]

 

Moral Relativism?

 

You could cut it that way, I guess, since essentially what is being said is that only human consciousness ascribes "wrongness" to things, it doesn't exist in nature

something is only good or bad in relation to someone - if I die tomorrow sucks to be me, but it's party time for the little worms who get to feed on my corpse - Yay!

Still, I don't think moral relativism would be the best way to describe it because it's not really proscribing morality or even a lack of it

it's not saying there is "no such thing as morality" - it's just saying that thinking of people in terms of whether they are good or bad may be a very inferior way to getting your needs met than thinking in terms of "are they meeting my needs, if not how aren't they meeting my needs, how can I request that they meet my needs without using language (such as moralisitc language) which is likely to put them on the defensive."

I think this way of thinking is actually compatible with UPB because you could very well say "When you do such and such I find myself feeling a bit angry because I think when people say such and such they should live by the principles the are prescribing themselves, so I'd like you to do such and such" -> that isn't a very elloquent example, but the idea is there I hope.

 

Tell me if this is a helpful clarification or not.

[MrCapitalism]

In your example, how do you know that their actions are the cause of your anger, and not because of some other cause?

How do you know that the solution to your anger is for them to change their bahavior in some specified way?

Why do you believe that your desire to be free from anger, which you attribute to ther actions, should be superior (in their judgement) to whatever it is that they're choosing to do?

[LovePrevails]

 

In your example, how do you know that their actions are the cause of your anger, and not because of some other cause?

How do you know that the solution to your anger is for them to change their bahavior in some specified way?

Why do you believe that your desire to be free from anger, which you attribute to ther actions, should be superior (in their judgement) to whatever it is that they're choosing to do?

 

again none of the approaches you ascribe to RTR are mutually exclusive

 

one ought not to ascribe their anger to anyone because people don't cause our emotions, our emotions arise as a combination between what happens to us and our own schema and whether we think something is "for us or against us" as Nathaniel Branden put it in The Psychology of Self Esteem

 

you can say you felt angry when someone did such and such and request that they change their behaviour

it is up to them to decide whether to follow our request or not

or maybe your request is jsut to talk about it and investigate

or maybe they will suggest an alternative solution

the point is you just express what you are feeling and what you want without ascribing "wrongness" to people as it tends to get their hackles up and makes you less likely to negotiate what you want in a situation

 

 

[Jose Perez]

Morality and moralistic thinking is in the eye of the UPB breacher.

[Marc Moini]

Hi everyone,

An article by Scott Swain I hope you'll find interesting and relevant to the discussion here:

 

ClearSay.net - Do We Really Need Labels?

 

Best wishes,

Marc

[Jose Perez]

Hi Marc. The article is itself a judgement about behaviour, not people, and yet the writer starts saying what's "wrong" with judging in quotes. This is relativism, and doesn't say a lot of the thesis put forward.

"I really enjoy looking at you", well, the same parts/child-training analysis goes for the person who says that. We are also trained to be manipulative, dissociated or to lack self knowledge.

Judgement is a basic function of the mind, same as thinking and empirically validating judgement. If people - flexible as they may be - are part of reality then surely people can and should be judged for your own benefit (not that they are not being already judged anyway). I would encourage those who think this is "wrong" to look in the same way at the (childhood) reasons why it is hard for some to process external judgement, or to act upon the fact that certain judgement accurately describes and predicts the behaviour of ourselves or certain people in our lives - which is what judgement was ever for. You might even find that this causes the judgement to have to be changed!

[Marc Moini]

Hi Joseito, thanks for your feedback. I'm not sure I correctly understand everything you wrote, please let me know where I don't.

 

You're immediately repulsed when you see the writer put "wrong" in quotes in an article about judgment, because judgment is universal. Saying judgment is not universal is relativism, a perspective you find contemptible and dangerous, and therefore you're put off from the article right from the start.

 

Your comment about "I really enjoy looking at you" is the one I have the most trouble understanding: would you please explain what you mean by the same parts/child-training analysis? Are you talking about IFS? I don't get how this would apply to saying "I really enjoy looking at you" versus "you're beautiful". Do you mean the writer is wrong, and a person is actually objectively beautiful or not, that this is not a matter of personal preference? That we're trained to see some physical characteristics as beautiful and others not, the same way we are trained to be manipulative, dissociated or to lack self-knowledge?

 

Then you point out how judgment is necessary, a basic function of the mind, needed to apprehend reality. That we judge people whether we want it or not, and it is necessary that we judge. And that you wish people who believe judgment is not necessary would reflect on why they think they shouldn't, because you think this is a sign of the toxic training they were subjected to in order to make them blind to the abuses of people who want to exploit them. Is this what you mean?

 

I think the writer is saying there is another kind of judgment which we have the choice to use instead of moralistic judgment, which works just as well for helping us make sense of the world and for protecting ourselves and for achieving our goals in life, and that other kind of judgment is value judgment. I think he's agreeing with you that we need to judge, but one type of judgment (value judgment, saying "I like your looks" or "your looks match my preferences") leads to taking more responsibility for our preferences and choices, and to being more authentic, and to being more objectively in accord with reality, more true, than the other type of judgment (moral judgment, "you are beautiful") which risks obscuring our choice and responsibilty.

 

I'm interested in knowing what you think about this.

 

Best wishes,

Marc

[STer]

Loveprevails,

This is why I try to reframe moral terms into objective terms having to do with values about health and sustainability.

We can somewhat effectively use words like "evil" if we define them in certain ways. I usually tell people that when I use that word I mean someone who purposefully and unnecessarily harms others through action or neglect without any corresponding benefit to the others. This may not be a perfect definition but you can see a direction for a useful definition there. But often I'll just refrain from using this very charged word,, "evil," and use the more solid words malice or malicious instead.

I think it is very important for people to realize that there is nothing inherent that says what is "good" or "bad" in nature. We are viewing things from the perspective of our own value system. But there are those of us who value healthy and sustainability of ourselves, other people and creatures and the ecosystem as a whole. The are others who value none of this. And there are others that value some of those and not others. These are very real and consequential differences.

[Jose Perez]

 

You're immediately repulsed when you see the writer put "wrong" in quotes in an article about judgment, because judgment is universal. Saying judgment is not universal is relativism, a perspective you find contemptible and dangerous, and therefore you're put off from the article right from the start.

 

 

Not really because "judgement is universal" – I did not say that anywhere – but because obviously the intention of the writer, and yours I suppose, is to express your preference that people not be judged a certain way, which is universal. I do not consider this intellectually honest.

 

 

Your comment about "I really enjoy looking at you" is the one I have the most trouble understanding: would you please explain what you mean by the same parts/child-training analysis? Are you talking about IFS? I don't get how this would apply to saying "I really enjoy looking at you" versus "you're beautiful". Do you mean the writer is wrong, and a person is actually objectively beautiful or not, that this is not a matter of personal preference? That we're trained to see some physical characteristics as beautiful and others not, the same way we are trained to be manipulative, dissociated or to lack self-knowledge?

 

No, I meant that the same argument the writer uses to question the validity of "you are beautiful" can be used to question the validity of "I really enjoy looking at you", which he imagines to be foolproof when he says "who can disprove that?". Does this clarify what I said before?

 

 

Then you point out how judgment is necessary, a basic function of the mind, needed to apprehend reality. That we judge people whether we want it or not, and it is necessary that we judge. And that you wish people who believe judgment is not necessary would reflect on why they think they shouldn't, because you think this is a sign of the toxic training they were subjected to in order to make them blind to the abuses of people who want to exploit them. Is this what you mean?

 

 

Yes.

 

 

I think the writer is saying there is another kind of judgment which we have the choice to use instead of moralistic judgment, which works just as well for helping us make sense of the world and for protecting ourselves and for achieving our goals in life, and that other kind of judgment is value judgment. I think he's agreeing with you that we need to judge, but one type of judgment (value judgment, saying "I like your looks" or "your looks match my preferences") leads to taking more responsibility for our preferences and choices, and to being more authentic, and to being more objectively in accord with reality, more true, than the other type of judgment (moral judgment, "you are beautiful") which risks obscuring our choice and responsibilty.

 

 

First, I don't see the reason for labelling "you are beautiful" as a moral judgement – morality is not about that – but I can see the connection with it being a universal judgement, etc.

My opinion of that kind of judgement the writer universally prefers is that it is used to diminish the individual, their integrity and their understanding and connectedness to reality, in order to perpetuate dysfunctional relationships – especially that with oneself – and precisely to obscure individual choice and responsibility, as you say. The function of the mind is to universalize and conceptualize the world, and this is experienced as something universal regardless of the words used to express it. Responsibility and authenticity come from our ability to think and validate or invalidate our concepts and judgement according to reality – as well as from the actions that follow – not from changing the words we say. 

I don't see how changing the wording of these "value statements" (I would call them aesthetic) implies one is more authentic, objective or responsible, can you explain that? It seems to me the responsibility you are talking about is that of protecting the feelings of others, which is another way to say that the function of one's mind is less important than that of others'.

[LovePrevails]

 

Hi Marc. The article is itself a judgement about behaviour, not people, and yet the writer starts saying what's "wrong" with judging in quotes. This is relativism, and doesn't say a lot of the thesis put forward.

Don't judge the point by how it's articulated, substitute "wrong" for "not in the best way of..." or something similar,
you're a smart guy, you can get the meaning of something without picking apart flaws in how its communicated. 

"I really enjoy looking at you", well, the same parts/child-training analysis goes for the person who says that. We are also trained to be manipulative, dissociated or to lack self knowledge.

 

Loveprevails,

This is why I try to reframe moral terms into objective terms having to do with values about health and sustainability.

We can somewhat effectively use words like "evil" if we define them in certain ways. I usually tell people that when I use that word I mean someone who purposefully and unnecessarily harms others through action or neglect without any corresponding benefit to the others. This may not be a perfect definition but you can see a direction for a useful definition there. But often I'll just refrain from using this very charged word,, "evil," and use the more solid words malice or malicious instead.

 

This I admit

 

when someone does make a judgement that something is "evil" say, or any moralistic judgement,

they are doing it according to certain criteria which perhaps they have not defined or outlined

 

So when I say someone is kind, it means I have seen them give of themselves for others and I have enjoyed the feeling I have felt when I have

that leads me to conclude they are kind

 

if I say someone is evil I am saying that too often have I seen them putting their own self interest before that of others,and when called upon to examine their behaviour they refuse to do so, and I find the experience very unpleasant

 

on the other hands:

I think it is very important for people to realize that there is nothing inherent that says what is "good" or "bad" in nature. We are viewing things from the perspective of our own value system. But there are those of us who value healthy and sustainability of ourselves, other people and creatures and the ecosystem as a whole. The are others who value none of this. And there are others that value some of those and not others. These are very real and consequential differences.

This can only be "realised" if it's true - and there is some dispute over this

Some cultured DON'T use and "good" and "bad" language at all - only "pleasurable" / "unpleasurable" or "Favourable" / "Unfavourable
and these tend to be less violent cultures - when the christian missionaries came along to try and convert one such people to christianity (I have heard) they found it impossible because when they tried to say things like "Sex before marriage is bad" the tribespeople were like "No it's not" because their only approximation of "bad" was "unpleasurable" which they clearly found empirically invalid. 

The question is not whether expressing things in terms of good and evil, our judgments according to criteria  we have defined, is right or wrong!

 

That is a contradiction in terms!

 

The question is whether doing it this way is the best way to get our needs met, or get what we want out of life, or have harmonious relationships, etc.

I do use terms like these (particularly virtues and vices) in situations where I think they are "short cuts" or appropriate

but I'm increasingly coming round to the view that in any sort of confrontation situation (bringing someone up on something in the hope of getting our needs better met or improving the relationship or asking them to change their behaviour, or explore our feelings, etc.) they are deleterious to us getting the results we want,,

because they are in a sense antithetical to self-empathy 

we are focusing on the other person and labelling them and talking about what is wrong with them,

instead of foucuing on ourselves, our feeling, our needs, what underlies them and then how are we going to get them met most effectively?

By a request? By a conversations? By an exploration to the ends of attaining more self-knowledge? whatever

if we're focussed on the otehr persons flaws real or perceived our point of emphasis is not the most wffective point of emphasis for getting our needs met in my experience

 

[STer]

 

 

This can only be "realised" if it's true - and there is some dispute over this

Some cultured DON'T use and "good" and "bad" language at all - only "pleasurable" / "unpleasurable" or "Favourable" / "Unfavourable
and these tend to be less violent cultures - when the christian missionaries came along to try and convert one such people to christianity (I have heard) they found it impossible because when they tried to say things like "Sex before marriage is bad" the tribespeople were like "No it's not" because their only approximation of "bad" was "unpleasurable" which they clearly found empirically invalid. 

The question is not whether expressing things in terms of good and evil, our judgments according to criteria  we have defined, is right or wrong!

 

That is a contradiction in terms!

 

The question is whether doing it this way is the best way to get our needs met, or get what we want out of life, or have harmonious relationships, etc.

I do use terms like these (particularly virtues and vices) in situations where I think they are "short cuts" or appropriate

but I'm increasingly coming round to the view that in any sort of confrontation situation (bringing someone up on something in the hope of getting our needs better met or improving the relationship or asking them to change their behaviour, or explore our feelings, etc.) they are deleterious to us getting the results we want,,

because they are in a sense antithetical to self-empathy 

we are focusing on the other person and labelling them and talking about what is wrong with them,

instead of foucuing on ourselves, our feeling, our needs, what underlies them and then how are we going to get them met most effectively?

By a request? By a conversations? By an exploration to the ends of attaining more self-knowledge? whatever

if we're focussed on the otehr persons flaws real or perceived our point of emphasis is not the most wffective point of emphasis for getting our needs met in my experience

 

 

I think we're talking about two different issues here - what is the case and what is the most effective way to communicate about it if your goal is to get your needs met.

I think what I said is accurate that some people value health and sustainability for themselves, others and the ecosystem, some partially do and others don't at all. Now the question is, given that, if you want to optimize the situation how should you communicate?

This also goes back to your values. If you mostly value avoiding conflict, your NVC type approach may be optimal in some situations. If you mostly value expression for its own sake, not for achieving secondary consequences, you might choose differently. Also which approach works best for any goal may depend on which value set the other person holds as well as yourself.

I think the important point is to realize that strategizing is going on here and to be conscious of your choices. I don't think any one approach will consistently work in all situations.

I am a big fan of NVC on several levels. In many situations it's extremely helpful. And I think it's almost always useful to at least think in NVC terms when trying to make sense of what's going on inside you. But in my writing on NVC I've also put in sections about the difficulties that serious personality disorders pose for the effectiveness of NVC. By definition, if another person doesn't value your feelings or needs, expressing them is not going to be very effective in motivating them to be compassionate with them.

So in the end, while I wish there was an easy answer like "Just use NVC and things will always go better" I don't think that's the case. It's more difficult, but I think it is the case that what is important is choosing the most effective approach for each particular situation with each particular person or group depending on what your goal is. And I don't see any way around having to deal with that complexity if you really want to optimize things.

[Marc Moini]

 

 

Hi Joseito,

 

 

 

You're immediately repulsed when you see the writer put "wrong" in quotes in an article about judgment, because judgment is universal. Saying judgment is not universal is relativism, a perspective you find contemptible and dangerous, and therefore you're put off from the article right from the start.

 

Not really because "judgement is universal" – I did not say that anywhere – but because obviously the intention of the writer, and yours I suppose, is to express your preference that people not be judged a certain way, which is universal. I do not consider this intellectually honest.

 

Ah I see, it's because I'm expressing how I prefer to judge people's actions and how I prefer others would judge people's actions, and to you this is expressing a universal preference, right?

For you, what I'm saying amounts to "everyone should use value judgments instead of moralistic judgments (and if they don't then they're doing something morally wrong)", is that so?

 

I don't think of it this way, this is only my preference and I only wish that others would do the same, I'm not using moralistic judgment on what people do or don't do, I'm not thinking that they should or shouldn't. It is my own preference and I don't consider anyone else bound to have the same preference, although I would like that. Does this still sound dishonest to you?

 

 

 

Your comment about "I really enjoy looking at you" is the one I have the most trouble understanding: would you please explain what you mean by the same parts/child-training analysis? Are you talking about IFS? I don't get how this would apply to saying "I really enjoy looking at you" versus "you're beautiful". Do you mean the writer is wrong, and a person is actually objectively beautiful or not, that this is not a matter of personal preference? That we're trained to see some physical characteristics as beautiful and others not, the same way we are trained to be manipulative, dissociated or to lack self-knowledge?

 

No, I meant that the same argument the writer uses to question the validity of "you are beautiful" can be used to question the validity of "I really enjoy looking at you", which he imagines to be foolproof when he says "who can disprove that?". Does this clarify what I said before?

 

I understand what you mean by parts/child-training now, it's a reference to the argument in the article which claims that part of our mind interprets the statement "you are beautiful" literally and disagrees because it is not universally true (since people have different ideas of what they find beautiful, or the person receiving the compliment knows that sometimes they look different than how they look now), while another part of our mind has been trained since childhood to resolve differences between literal meanings and commonly accepted meanings. I guess I'm more rested today

 

However I still don't understand how this argument can be applied to "I really enjoy looking at you", because here the literal meaning is the only one, at least the only one I am aware of. Which other meaning are you thinking of for "I really enjoy looking at you", if what you are saying is that there is another meaning?

 

 

 

Then you point out how judgment is necessary, a basic function of the mind, needed to apprehend reality. That we judge people whether we want it or not, and it is necessary that we judge. And that you wish people who believe judgment is not necessary would reflect on why they think they shouldn't, because you think this is a sign of the toxic training they were subjected to in order to make them blind to the abuses of people who want to exploit them. Is this what you mean?

 

Yes.

 

OK, thanks for explaining. We agree then, judgment is necessary in order to apprehend reality, and we need to judge in order to live. What I think is that we have a choice of which type of judgment to use, and I linked to this article because I find that it clearly explains the existence of this choice and the advantages of choosing value judgment over moralistic judgment. But this gets us to your next comment:

 

 

 

I think the writer is saying there is another kind of judgment which we have the choice to use instead of moralistic judgment, which works just as well for helping us make sense of the world and for protecting ourselves and for achieving our goals in life, and that other kind of judgment is value judgment. I think he's agreeing with you that we need to judge, but one type of judgment (value judgment, saying "I like your looks" or "your looks match my preferences") leads to taking more responsibility for our preferences and choices, and to being more authentic, and to being more objectively in accord with reality, more true, than the other type of judgment (moral judgment, "you are beautiful") which risks obscuring our choice and responsibilty.

 

First, I don't see the reason for labelling "you are beautiful" as a moral judgement – morality is not about that – but I can see the connection with it being a universal judgement, etc.

 

My opinion of that kind of judgement the writer universally prefers is that it is used to diminish the individual, their integrity and their understanding and connectedness to reality, in order to perpetuate dysfunctional relationships – especially that with oneself – and precisely to obscure individual choice and responsibility, as you say. The function of the mind is to universalize and conceptualize the world, and this is experienced as something universal regardless of the words used to express it. Responsibility and authenticity come from our ability to think and validate or invalidate our concepts and judgement according to reality – as well as from the actions that follow – not from changing the words we say.

 

I don't see how changing the wording of these "value statements" (I would call them aesthetic) implies one is more authentic, objective or responsible, can you explain that? It seems to me the responsibility you are talking about is that of protecting the feelings of others, which is another way to say that the function of one's mind is less important than that of others'.

 

I like how you explain your perspective, I find your explanation very clear, although I disagree with your conclusion. Let's see if I understand your point correctly: first, to you "I really enjoy looking at you" is just a change of wording, the meaning is still just as universal as "you are beautiful", and both formulations still convey the same moralistic judgment (it's a moralistic judgment because it is universal, it applies the same for everyone everywhere at any time). Then, you look at this change of wording as a dirty trick intended to hide the universality, so that a difference can be established between what some people deserve versus what some other people deserve. And then, this difference is used to exploit the people who have been put into the "lower" category, because through this trickery they have been made to believe that they are less important than other people, and that they cannot or should not trust their own mind but instead they should obey the exploiters, if only to avoid hurting the exploiters' feelings. The result of all this is that the people who are exploited end up in dysfunctional relationships, especially with themselves, and their capacity for individual choice and authenticity and responsibility is degraded, they are no longer able to validate concepts and judgments according to reality and hence they are not able to choose the rational course of action that would serve their life best. Am I understanding correctly what you expressed?

 

To me it is not merely a change of wording, going from "you are beautiful" to "I really enjoy looking at you". I see in "you are beautiful" the assumption that this a something in "you", independent of me or anyone else but "you", a universal truth. I agree with the article writer that this is not a universal truth, because I think that value, in this case beauty, is assigned by the mind of the valuer (as the Austrian economists explain) and thus can vary according to whom is doing the valuing. Because of this, I find that it is "you are beautiful" and not the other formulation which denies individual choice and responsibility, through this mistaken (in my opinion) claim of universality. Whereas when I say "I really enjoy looking at you" I make it clear that it is my choice to do so, and thus I affirm my responsibility, rather than impersonal submission to an external standard. For me the reality is that it is me who enjoys looking at "you", and by saying it this way I state what is objectively true, and I am being authentic, rather than hiding my feelings behind a statement that implies I have no part in the process.

 

I'm curious to read your response to this! Thanks for the discussion so far, I'm enjoying it.

 

Best wishes,

Marc

 

 

[Jose Perez]

 

Hi Joseito,

 

 

 

You're immediately repulsed when you see the writer put "wrong" in quotes in an article about judgment, because judgment is universal. Saying judgment is not universal is relativism, a perspective you find contemptible and dangerous, and therefore you're put off from the article right from the start.

 

Not really because "judgement is universal" – I did not say that anywhere – but because obviously the intention of the writer, and yours I suppose, is to express your preference that people not be judged a certain way, which is universal. I do not consider this intellectually honest.

 

Ah I see, it's because I'm expressing how I prefer to judge people's actions and how I prefer others would judge people's actions, and to you this is expressing a universal preference, right?

For you, what I'm saying amounts to "everyone should use value judgments instead of moralistic judgments (and if they don't then they're doing something morally wrong)", is that so?

 

I don't think of it this way, this is only my preference and I only wish that others would do the same, I'm not using moralistic judgment on what people do or don't do, I'm not thinking that they should or shouldn't. It is my own preference and I don't consider anyone else bound to have the same preference, although I would like that. Does this still sound dishonest to you?

 

 

 

Yes. Your wish that (all) others would do the same is a universalisation of preference = moralisation. Just because you leave enforcement or blame out of your conscious picture does not mean you do not have the intention to exercise them. Would you also let your own child moralise others and simply communicate your "wish" for the contrary? Children are very prone to universalising... I am really curious to hear what you would do (or have perhaps already done).

 

[/font]

 

 

Your comment about "I really enjoy looking at you" is the one I have the most trouble understanding: would you please explain what you mean by the same parts/child-training analysis? Are you talking about IFS? I don't get how this would apply to saying "I really enjoy looking at you" versus "you're beautiful". Do you mean the writer is wrong, and a person is actually objectively beautiful or not, that this is not a matter of personal preference? That we're trained to see some physical characteristics as beautiful and others not, the same way we are trained to be manipulative, dissociated or to lack self-knowledge?

 

No, I meant that the same argument the writer uses to question the validity of "you are beautiful" can be used to question the validity of "I really enjoy looking at you", which he imagines to be foolproof when he says "who can disprove that?". Does this clarify what I said before?

 

I understand what you mean by parts/child-training now, it's a reference to the argument in the article which claims that part of our mind interprets the statement "you are beautiful" literally and disagrees because it is not universally true (since people have different ideas of what they find beautiful, or the person receiving the compliment knows that sometimes they look different than how they look now), while another part of our mind has been trained since childhood to resolve differences between literal meanings and commonly accepted meanings. I guess I'm more rested today

 

However I still don't understand how this argument can be applied to "I really enjoy looking at you", because here the literal meaning is the only one, at least the only one I am aware of. Which other meaning are you thinking of for "I really enjoy looking at you", if what you are saying is that there is another meaning?

 

Well, "I really enjoy looking at you", when, now or always? Could it be because of something else other than me is causing you pleasure? Which part of you is saying that; or is the person who says that always a fully integrated and consistent whole unlike the person who universalises? This is what I mean about how completely detached and unconscious this perspective is, and I say this in all sympathy. Clearly, you and the writer fail to attribute the same qualities to themselves in the (wrong) assumption that reporting on your feelings is always a fully conscious act.

 

Yes, thanks for the chat. I'll reply to the rest later

[LovePrevails]

This parenting podcast, I think, bears some relevance:

Alright you wonderful, wondeful people! Here is the new podcast!

[Jose Perez]

 

This parenting podcast, I think, bears some relevance:

Alright you wonderful, wondeful people! Here is the new podcast!

 

That is how to "free" children from situations in which they are not free or respected to begin with (home, school...), and nevermind the causes they are "bad"...

Of course judgement doesn't work with them, since it can only be hypocritical, particularly with attention seekers; it's funny that a teacher, who represents a person the child is forced to listen to (seeks attention) should think that the child seeking attention is somehow an anomaly that came out of nowhere and all... 

Same old, same old unconsciousness...

[Jose Perez]

 

I like how you explain your perspective, I find your explanation very clear, although I disagree with your conclusion. Let's see if I understand your point correctly: first, to you "I really enjoy looking at you" is just a change of wording, the meaning is still just as universal as "you are beautiful", and both formulations still convey the same moralistic judgment (it's a moralistic judgment because it is universal, it applies the same for everyone everywhere at any time). Then, you look at this change of wording as a dirty trick intended to hide the universality, so that a difference can be established between what some people deserve versus what some other people deserve. And then, this difference is used to exploit the people who have been put into the "lower" category, because through this trickery they have been made to believe that they are less important than other people, and that they cannot or should not trust their own mind but instead they should obey the exploiters, if only to avoid hurting the exploiters' feelings. The result of all this is that the people who are exploited end up in dysfunctional relationships, especially with themselves, and their capacity for individual choice and authenticity and responsibility is degraded, they are no longer able to validate concepts and judgments according to reality and hence they are not able to choose the rational course of action that would serve their life best. Am I understanding correctly what you expressed?

 

Yes, somehow. There is no clear distinction between exploiter and exploited (apart from the parent-child relationship) as you seem to have interpreted, but I like how you label it as trickery. It is trickery that people use against each other to disable each other's minds and capacity to accurately judge – fundamentally to immobilize, since judgement leads to action. This is how slavery takes place and is perpetuated, and it is all an appeal to seeds planted in childhood, of course.

 

 

 

 

To me it is not merely a change of wording, going from "you are beautiful" to "I really enjoy looking at you". I see in "you are beautiful" the assumption that this a something in "you", independent of me or anyone else but "you", a universal truth. I agree with the article writer that this is not a universal truth, because I think that value, in this case beauty, is assigned by the mind of the valuer (as the Austrian economists explain) and thus can vary according to whom is doing the valuing. Because of this, I find that it is "you are beautiful" and not the other formulation which denies individual choice and responsibility, through this mistaken (in my opinion) claim of universality. Whereas when I say "I really enjoy looking at you" I make it clear that it is my choice to do so, and thus I affirm my responsibility, rather than impersonal submission to an external standard. For me the reality is that it is me who enjoys looking at "you", and by saying it this way I state what is objectively true, and I am being authentic, rather than hiding my feelings behind a statement that implies I have no part in the process.

 

 

 

But, you see, to say that one does not "submit to external standards" is to say that the main funtion of the mind (apprehend reality = external standards) is disabled, which is exactly what I am denouncing yours and the writer's universal preference would promote. There is no claim of universality in aesthetic judgements like "you're beautiful" – other than "my mind is connected to reality"; this idea that the claim implicates others and its accompanying offense is all in the mind of the person being judged, who would be the exploiter if trying to invalidate it. If this person's mind was connected to reality, and thus able to discern anyone's judgement, it would make little sense that it had a preference for how this judgement was expressed to them – other than a desire to control the other.

 

Think about it. It is no revelation that people have separate minds, so why would anyone be invested in stating the obvious? Why, because they lack self esteem and are sensitive to external judgement themselves as a result of a broken mind that is disconnected from reality and thus cannot put another person's judgement into perspective. There are different degrees of this of course, but that is the pattern. Children will judge their reality in a universal fashion and demonstrate the quality and connectedness of their minds, and the narcissistic parent will take offense at that and try to disable it in various ways...

 

We have these 2 sources of judgement: objective reality and people's words. A healthy mind is concerned with the former, and a broken (abusive) mind is concerned with the latter. 

 

Look forward to hearing what you think, or if what I said is clear. 

 

 

[LovePrevails]

There is no clear distinction between exploiter and exploited (apart from the parent-child relationship)

 

Alright, great point

 

The cotention is that all behaviour is a manifestation of undelying needs and preferences, and by focussing on behaviour rather than needs we are more susceptible to deemphasising practical solutions in lieu of entering debates on a persons morality (real or perceived) that escalate into non-productive conflicts.

By focussing on needs and preferences underlying behaviour we have a greater chance of helping others find ways of meeting those needs in ways that are more socially constructive.

 

Just like the kids in my video who found they got a better quality of companionship from relating well to others than putting their restless impulses before the preferences of others

 

There is no clear distinction between exploiter and exploited, perhaps, in this paradigm, because it holds that "exploiter is in the eye of the preference-holder"

One says "he's being exploitative" the other says "he's following his rational self-interest" the other says "he's being assertive" the other says "he should ask politely"

 

this form only suggests that individuals express themselves in terms of their observations, feelings, ,needs and requests - and the evidence seems to suggest that this is a much better form than labelling

"you exploiter"   - because it doesn't put people on the defensive and shift people to debating whether the judgement is true or false instead of focusing like a lazer on discovering what all parties needs and preferences are and if they can be met or not

 

You may well use UPB as a measure of who you really want to be friends with and who you don't,

but I don't imagine it really is more effective in practical conversation then leaving the moral judgments out and focussing on having our goals met : "win/win or no-deal"

 

 

[STer]

 

There is no clear distinction between exploiter and exploited (apart from the parent-child relationship)

 

Alright, great point

 

The cotention is that all behaviour is a manifestation of undelying needs and preferences, and by focussing on behaviour rather than needs we are more susceptible to deemphasising practical solutions in lieu of entering debates on a persons morality (real or perceived) that escalate into non-productive conflicts.

By focussing on needs and preferences underlying behaviour we have a greater chance of helping others find ways of meeting those needs in ways that are more socially constructive.

 

Just like the kids in my video who found they got a better quality of companionship from relating well to others than putting their restless impulses before the preferences of others

 

There is no clear distinction between exploiter and exploited, perhaps, in this paradigm, because it holds that "exploiter is in the eye of the preference-holder"

One says "he's being exploitative" the other says "he's following his rational self-interest" the other says "he's being assertive" the other says "he should ask politely"

 

this form only suggests that individuals express themselves in terms of their observations, feelings, ,needs and requests - and the evidence seems to suggest that this is a much better form than labelling

"you exploiter"   - because it doesn't put people on the defensive and shift people to debating whether the judgement is true or false instead of focusing like a lazer on discovering what all parties needs and preferences are and if they can be met or not

 

You may well use UPB as a measure of who you really want to be friends with and who you don't,

but I don't imagine it really is more effective in practical conversation then leaving the moral judgments out and focussing on having our goals met : "win/win or no-deal"

 

 

 

The thing that poses a serious challenge to this whole framework is sadism/aggressive dominance in all its varying degrees. These are people that at least believe or perceive a need for others to suffer or be inferior to them. The NVC framework is a great one with those who value win-win solutions. But there is a whole category of people that do not and actually emphatically value win-lose. So I think it's important to know which situation you're dealing with. With someone who values win-win, focus in on the needs and find strategies for mutual benefit. But with those who value win-lose, it's important to be able to recognize that that is the case and that NVC, or at least certain forms of it, are unlikely to be effective.

[cherapple]

The problem with non-judgment lies in childhood. A child must be able to judge who is good company for him, and who is bad, and he must be free to get away from those who are bad for him. If a child has bad parents, he cannot escape. If his parents do not teach him that it is perfectly right and good to be able to escape bad people, due to their own insecurity about being bad people, and also by forcing their child to be around other bad people, this teaches the child an obligation to not judge. This  "obligation" potentially paralyzes him for the rest of his life from knowing and finding good people who will love and support him. Non-judgment paralyzes children from knowing how to love and support themselves. They become paralyzed adults, living in limbo land where "everyone is good."

[STer]

 

The problem with non-judgment lies in childhood. A child must be able to judge who is good company for him, and who is bad, and he must be free to get away from those who are bad for him. If a child has bad parents, he cannot escape. If his parents do not teach him that it is perfectly right and good to be able to escape bad people, due to their own insecurity about being bad people, and also by forcing their child to be around other bad people, this teaches the child an obligation to not judge. This  "obligation" potentially paralyzes him for the rest of his life from knowing and finding good people who will love and support him. Non-judgment paralyzes children from knowing how to love and support themselves. They become paralyzed adults, living in limbo land where "everyone is good."

 

Very important comment. It reminds me of one of Stef's podcasts where he talked about his daughter having a bad reaction to another kid and where many parents would have shamed her for "not being nice" and told her to play with this other child, Stef validated her response and respected her desire not to be around him.

And to add to what you've said here, I think when you keep suppressing a child's reactions to people in this way, it really disturbs the entire development of their sense of self.

[LovePrevails]

The thing that poses a serious challenge to this whole framework is sadism/aggressive dominance in all its varying degrees. These are people that at least believe or perceive a need for others to suffer or be inferior to them. The NVC framework is a great one with those who value win-win solutions. But there is a whole category of people that do not and actually emphatically value win-lose. So I think it's important to know which situation you're dealing with. With someone who values win-win, focus in on the needs and find strategies for mutual benefit. But with those who value win-lose, it's important to be able to recognize that that is the case and that NVC, or at least certain forms of it, are unlikely to be effective.

 

I don't disagree with anything you are saying - you would simply conclude that it is not this persons preference to respect your preferences, or even work out a consistent set of principles on whose preferences come first and therefore your preference is to dissassociate.

There's no moral implication but the results are the same.

The problem with non-judgment

Can I just make this perfectly clear again -

No One is arguing for non-jugdement - value judgments are inherent in the human condition - all that is really being said is ascribing a moral tone to those judgments you are adding something which does not inhere in them that you could probably do without.

 

For the rest of your point is really redundant in that light, no one is "teaching the child not to judge"

they
are actually teaching the child to self-empathise and connect with
their feelings, preferences and needs rather than focusing on the other
person and their story about what their qualities are. With that sense
of self-empathy the child can just as easily, perhaps even more easily,
choose associations.

 

[STer]

 

The thing that poses a serious challenge to this whole framework is sadism/aggressive dominance in all its varying degrees. These are people that at least believe or perceive a need for others to suffer or be inferior to them. The NVC framework is a great one with those who value win-win solutions. But there is a whole category of people that do not and actually emphatically value win-lose. So I think it's important to know which situation you're dealing with. With someone who values win-win, focus in on the needs and find strategies for mutual benefit. But with those who value win-lose, it's important to be able to recognize that that is the case and that NVC, or at least certain forms of it, are unlikely to be effective.

I don't disagree with anything you are saying - you would simply conclude that it is not this persons preference to respect your preferences, or even work out a consistent set of principles on whose preferences come first and therefore your preference is to dissassociate.

There's no moral implication but the results are the same.

Yes you can frame it that way. I'm mostly pointing out that this preference is a meta-preference which makes it more important than other preferences. It determines the entire framework in which the interaction takes place and all of the other preferences play out.

 

The problem with non-judgment

Can I just make this perfectly clear again -

No One is arguing for non-jugdement - value judgments are inherent in the human condition - all that is really being said is ascribing a moral tone to those judgments you are adding something which does not inhere in them that you could probably do without.

 

For the rest of your point is really redundant in that light, no one is "teaching the child not to judge"

they
are actually teaching the child to self-empathise and connect with
their feelings, preferences and needs rather than focusing on the other
person and their story about what their qualities are. With that sense
of self-empathy the child can just as easily, perhaps even more easily,
choose associations.

 

 

I understand this desire to take morality out of it. But as I've pointed out, you can argue it's subjective to call someone "bad" but it isn't subjective to call them "malicious." So if we assess that another person is malicious, should we refrain from accepting that assessment? Is determining that someone is malicious a moral judgment or not?

[Marc Moini]

 

 

The problem with non-judgment lies in childhood. A child must be able to judge who is good company for him, and who is bad, and he must be free to get away from those who are bad for him. If a child has bad parents, he cannot escape. If his parents do not teach him that it is perfectly right and good to be able to escape bad people, due to their own insecurity about being bad people, and also by forcing their child to be around other bad people, this teaches the child an obligation to not judge. This  "obligation" potentially paralyzes him for the rest of his life from knowing and finding good people who will love and support him. Non-judgment paralyzes children from knowing how to love and support themselves. They become paralyzed adults, living in limbo land where "everyone is good."

 

Hi cherapple. The title of this thread is misleading I find, it is about the merit of using value judgment instead of moralistic judgment, not about doing away with judgment (right Antony?). I agree with you 100% that many children who unfortunately find themselves with parents who punish them, however indirectly, for exercising personal choice or even voicing their preferences and opinions, do learn to become paralyzed adults for whom it is extremely difficult to know how to love and support themselves.

 

I think I get a sense of how important this subject is for you, how much you want to warn people about the danger to children who find themselves in situations like this, and how much you want to support those who have been abused in this or other ways. It is because I share this concern that I want people to know how judgment based on needs (as described in Maslow's hierarchy of needs*) can help them to recognize and satisfy their needs in win/win fashion, instead of using judgment based on moral rules (whether universal as in UPB or relative as in religion or statism) which the way I see it only leads to more disconnection.

 

I'm saying you (and Stef) are not going far enough, you're still staying in the realm of moralistic judgment even though your kind is more rational, whereas what is far more beneficial for you I think (and for Stef and me and everyone else), is to use value judgment. I hope you'll tell me how this sounds to you.

 

Best wishes,

Marc

 

* http://sfhelp.org/relate/keys/maslow.htm Note how there is no "need to harm others" or "need to control others", these would be tragic strategies for meeting these needs and not needs themselves.

 

[STer]

 

* http://sfhelp.org/relate/keys/maslow.htm Note how there is no "need to harm others" or "need to control others", these would be tragic strategies for meeting these needs and not needs themselves.

 

 

I understand that this is Marshall Rosenberg's explanation for any destructive behavior. But I'm not sure it holds water. There are sadistic people who commit acts that inflict suffering on others where I think you'd have a hard time finding any alternative need that they are trying to meet but failing to meet. Maslow sometimes talked about an "aesthetic need" and used the experience of having to straighten a crooked painting as an example. I think for some sadistic people the suffering of others meets some kind of aesthetic need for them.

Make no mistake, there are many - if not most - people who do harm because they are indeed using faulty strategies to meet needs and thus failing to meet those needs. But if you look at the case of a psychopath, for example, they are often quite satisfied by their actions and do not find their needs being unmet. Rather, they find their needs indeed met by their destructive actions. They are only frustrated when others try to stop them from satisfying themselves.

I think the NVC crowd - in which I find a great deal of value - have not sufficiently contended with cases of these sorts and their implications.

[LovePrevails]

 

 

The thing that poses a serious challenge to this whole framework is sadism/aggressive dominance in all its varying degrees. These are people that at least believe or perceive a need for others to suffer or be inferior to them. The NVC framework is a great one with those who value win-win solutions. But there is a whole category of people that do not and actually emphatically value win-lose. So I think it's important to know which situation you're dealing with. With someone who values win-win, focus in on the needs and find strategies for mutual benefit. But with those who value win-lose, it's important to be able to recognize that that is the case and that NVC, or at least certain forms of it, are unlikely to be effective.

I don't disagree with anything you are saying - you would simply conclude that it is not this persons preference to respect your preferences, or even work out a consistent set of principles on whose preferences come first and therefore your preference is to dissassociate.

There's no moral implication but the results are the same.

Yes you can frame it that way. I'm mostly pointing out that this preference is a meta-preference which makes it more important than other preferences. It determines the entire framework in which the interaction takes place and all of the other preferences play out.

 

The problem with non-judgment

Can I just make this perfectly clear again -

No One is arguing for non-jugdement - value judgments are inherent in the human condition - all that is really being said is ascribing a moral tone to those judgments you are adding something which does not inhere in them that you could probably do without.

 

For the rest of your point is really redundant in that light, no one is "teaching the child not to judge"

they
are actually teaching the child to self-empathise and connect with
their feelings, preferences and needs rather than focusing on the other
person and their story about what their qualities are. With that sense
of self-empathy the child can just as easily, perhaps even more easily,
choose associations.

 

 

I understand this desire to take morality out of it. But as I've pointed out, you can argue it's subjective to call someone "bad" but it isn't subjective to call them "malicious." So if we assess that another person is malicious, should we refrain from accepting that assessment? Is determining that someone is malicious a moral judgment or not?

 

 

regarding your first comment, great point, I see you're saying UPB or morality is a framework from which we can judge all cases etc.

I'm still not sure it's necessary

 

Regarding the second comment ah - I see where we're going wrong here - I would say "malicious" is a moralistic not a value judgment just the same as "bad"

maybe you could give some eamples of "malicious" activitiess and we can show the difference more clearly

 

a value judgment would be like, "When you told Andy what I said, I felt really sad, frustrated and vulnerable. I know you were angry at me, but even still, I value my privacy, so I'd like you to tell me that in future I can trust you not to be indiscrete about private information - even when we've had a falling out." -> I know that's long winded, but it's just an example to get the point across,  ----> that is a value judgment

 

as opposed to "Telling Andy what I said was really malicious!"

[STer]

 

regarding your first comment, great point, I see you're saying UPB or morality is a framework from which we can judge all cases etc.

I'm still not sure it's necessary

 

I'm not sure I'd put it that way. I'm just saying that some preferences have more far-reaching implications than others. And preferences about the very nature of preferences and how different people's preferences should interact have more implications than others. So they should be given extra attention and other preferences should be seen in light of those meta-preferences.

 

Regarding the second comment ah - I see where we're going wrong here - I would say "malicious" is a moralistic not a value judgment just the same as "bad"

maybe you could give some eamples of "malicious" activitiess and we can show the difference more clearly

 

The dictionary defines malice as:

"desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness"

Do you deny there are people who have such desire? If so, calling them malicious is simply an accurate assessment. If someone says correctly that another person has malice and you tell them they shouldn't say that because it's moralistic, it seems to me you're simply refusing to accept reality or an expression of it.

 

a value judgment would be like, "When you told Andy what I said, I felt really sad, frustrated and vulnerable. I know you were angry at me, but even still, I value my privacy, so I'd like you to tell me that in future I can trust you not to be indiscrete about private information - even when we've had a falling out." -> I know that's long winded, but it's just an example to get the point across,  ----> that is a value judgment

as opposed to "Telling Andy what I said was really malicious!"

 

Like I said before, you have to separate two topics here. There is the assessment and then just practical communication strategy. I mean even when dealing with a clinical psychopath it may not serve you to let on that you know what they are. You may be better off communicating in some more strategic way. But what I'm talking about here is the assessment itself. If a person is malicious I think it's worth accurately assessing them as malicious. Then you can decide if you should call them malicious to their face or not, which may or may not be useful or wise.

[Jose Perez]

 

There is no clear distinction between exploiter and exploited (apart from the parent-child relationship)

 

Alright, great point

 

The cotention is that all behaviour is a manifestation of undelying needs and preferences, and by focussing on behaviour rather than needs we are more susceptible to deemphasising practical solutions in lieu of entering debates on a persons morality (real or perceived) that escalate into non-productive conflicts.

By focussing on needs and preferences underlying behaviour we have a greater chance of helping others find ways of meeting those needs in ways that are more socially constructive.

 

Just like the kids in my video who found they got a better quality of companionship from relating well to others than putting their restless impulses before the preferences of others

You are getting all confused and overcomplicating things because you are unwilling to look at the whole situation from a UPB perspective. As I said, the children in your podcast are already in a situation of non-freedom and everyone there is trying to compensate for the fact that their preferences mean buggerall to start with; which is as hopeless as trying to find a way to behave or talk to each other "productively".

Similarly, you are cherry picking on what I said about exploiter/exploited. I think it is clear that I am generally appealing to people's capacity to get out of these dysfunctional relationships (even in the case of children) and did not say that as a way to excuse them.

[Marc Moini]

Hi Joseito,

 

 

 

Hi Joseito,

 

 

 

You're immediately repulsed when you see the writer put "wrong" in quotes in an article about judgment, because judgment is universal. Saying judgment is not universal is relativism, a perspective you find contemptible and dangerous, and therefore you're put off from the article right from the start.

 

Not really because "judgement is universal" – I did not say that anywhere – but because obviously the intention of the writer, and yours I suppose, is to express your preference that people not be judged a certain way, which is universal. I do not consider this intellectually honest.

 

Ah I see, it's because I'm expressing how I prefer to judge people's actions and how I prefer others would judge people's actions, and to you this is expressing a universal preference, right?

For you, what I'm saying amounts to "everyone should use value judgments instead of moralistic judgments (and if they don't then they're doing something morally wrong)", is that so?

 

I don't think of it this way, this is only my preference and I only wish that others would do the same, I'm not using moralistic judgment on what people do or don't do, I'm not thinking that they should or shouldn't. It is my own preference and I don't consider anyone else bound to have the same preference, although I would like that. Does this still sound dishonest to you?

 

 

 

Yes. Your wish that (all) others would do the same is a universalisation of preference = moralisation. Just because you leave enforcement or blame out of your conscious picture does not mean you do not have the intention to exercise them. Would you also let your own child moralise others and simply communicate your "wish" for the contrary? Children are very prone to universalising... I am really curious to hear what you would do (or have perhaps already done).

 

 

OK, so you're saying that I have an unconscious intention to exercise enforcement and blame. Maybe I do, but it doesn't get manifested in my actions in any way that I can observe. Yes, I would let my own children moralise others, in fact I do, and yes I do simply communicate my wish for them to focus on their needs instead. Sometimes I don't even do that, when I get the impression that they would hear it as me saying they're doing something wrong. I talk with them the same way I do here on FDR or anywhere else, i.e. I try my best to refrain from moralistic thinking. This is also what anybody else who practices NVC aims for, once they understand how essential it is in order to get needs met. 

 

But maybe you still think that I do, if for you my wish that (all) others would do the same is a universalisation of preference = moralisation. Me, I don't see how this is moralisation. For me, it would be moralisation if I said "Everybody should do the same, and they're bad if they don't", and this is not what I'm saying, as I wrote in the quote above. Maybe I'm missing something here, I'd appreciate if you would help me see what it is.

 

 

 

 

 

Your comment about "I really enjoy looking at you" is the one I have the most trouble understanding: would you please explain what you mean by the same parts/child-training analysis? Are you talking about IFS? I don't get how this would apply to saying "I really enjoy looking at you" versus "you're beautiful". Do you mean the writer is wrong, and a person is actually objectively beautiful or not, that this is not a matter of personal preference? That we're trained to see some physical characteristics as beautiful and others not, the same way we are trained to be manipulative, dissociated or to lack self-knowledge?

 

No, I meant that the same argument the writer uses to question the validity of "you are beautiful" can be used to question the validity of "I really enjoy looking at you", which he imagines to be foolproof when he says "who can disprove that?". Does this clarify what I said before?

 

I understand what you mean by parts/child-training now, it's a reference to the argument in the article which claims that part of our mind interprets the statement "you are beautiful" literally and disagrees because it is not universally true (since people have different ideas of what they find beautiful, or the person receiving the compliment knows that sometimes they look different than how they look now), while another part of our mind has been trained since childhood to resolve differences between literal meanings and commonly accepted meanings. I guess I'm more rested today

 

However I still don't understand how this argument can be applied to "I really enjoy looking at you", because here the literal meaning is the only one, at least the only one I am aware of. Which other meaning are you thinking of for "I really enjoy looking at you", if what you are saying is that there is another meaning?

 

Well, "I really enjoy looking at you", when, now or always? Could it be because of something else other than me is causing you pleasure? Which part of you is saying that; or is the person who says that always a fully integrated and consistent whole unlike the person who universalises? This is what I mean about how completely detached and unconscious this perspective is, and I say this in all sympathy. Clearly, you and the writer fail to attribute the same qualities to themselves in the (wrong) assumption that reporting on your feelings is always a fully conscious act.

 

Ah, thank you, I understand now, you're saying that I might have unconscious going-ons that cause me pleasure, so that "I really enjoy looking at you" is not guaranteed to be a truthful statement because the pleasure might not be caused by looking at "you", it might be caused by something else, right? And do I understand you correctly if I think that you bring up this point in order to establish balance/fairness, because you think that I already am using this argument of unconscious motives (or the writer of the article is) in order to claim that "You are beautiful" is not strictly speaking a true statement?

 

Where the writer of the article does mention "part of your brain" and "your conscious brain", I don't understand this as claiming that the reader is not a fully integrated and consistent whole person, only that there is the literal meaning of "You are beautiful" and then there is also the commonly understood meaning of this being a compliment even though the statement itself is not strictly true (because value is assigned by the valuer, because "you" looks different at various times, etc.). And when he suggests saying "I really enjoy looking at you", my understanding from the article is that this is intended to reflect the reader's feeling in the moment, since the point of saying this is to reveal what goes on inside right now, to take responsibilty for our feelings and to be vulnerable.

 

I hope I've explained this to your satisfaction, please let me know if that is the case or not!

 

 

Yes, thanks for the chat. I'll reply to the rest later

Thank you to you too! And likewise

 

Best wishes,

Marc

[Jose Perez]

Marc, when you have solid reasons and evidence that a certain course of action is preferable (with all your good intentions) do you also say "I wish..."?

Before I reply, could you tell me what yours and the writer's reasons are for this preference? What are the reasons it is important to avoid judging or saying "should"? Do you realise 'reasons' are indeed judgements grounded in reality?

[Marc Moini]

 

 

Marc, when you have solid reasons and evidence that a certain course of action is preferable (with all your good intentions) do you also say "I wish..."?

Before I reply, could you tell me what yours and the writer's reasons are for this preference? What are the reasons it is important to avoid judging or saying "should"? Do you realise 'reasons' are indeed judgements grounded in reality?

 

Hi Joseito,

 

Yes, I understand that 'reasons' are judgments grounded in reality. I hear how being grounded in reality is important to you, and it is very important to me as well. I want to base my judgments on reality, not on wishful thinking or illusion, and I think this is what I am doing when I make value judgments instead of moralistic judgments.

 

It's important for me to use language that makes it clear what my choices are and what I am responsible for, when these choices and this responsibility exist in reality. When I say "I wish everyone would make value judgments and not moralistic judgments" I think I am being more truthful than if I say "People should make value judgments and not moralistic judgments", because the first formulation more clearly states that this is my choice and that I am the one responsible for making it, whereas in the second one this choice and the associated responsibility are invisible (when I used to think moralistically, I actually was not aware that I had a choice here!). This is why for me the first statement is more grounded in reality than the second one. And then there are all the other advantages the writer details in the article.

 

Does this answer your question?

 

Best wishes,

Marc

 

[Jose Perez]

Thanks for that, Marc, but could you answer my questions more specifically? 

 

It's important for me to use language that makes it clear what my choices are and what I am responsible for, when these choices and this responsibility exist in reality. When I say "I wish everyone would make value judgments and not moralistic judgments" I think I am being more truthful than if I say "People should make value judgments and not moralistic judgments", because the first formulation more clearly states that this is my choice and that I am the one responsible for making it, whereas in the second one this choice and the associated responsibility are invisible (when I used to think moralistically, I actually was not aware that I had a choice here!). 

 

What does it mean that the choice and responsibility is yours/invisible? I find this very unclear. How does "moralistic" judgement not assign responsibility to yourself and others accurately? Why is it even preferable or more truthful to only assign responsibility to yourself with regards to these choices – or isn't this what you are saying?

So you and the writer have reasons (you say "advantages") that are objective, which is why you write and elaborate about them. You wish to convince people of the validity of these, supposedly because you recognise that reason and "advantages" are preferable for all, no? 

[Marc Moini]

 

You're welcome Joseito, thanks for telling me that my explanation didn't answer your question. I'll try to be more specific:

 

What I mean when I say that in the sentence "People should make value judgments and not moralistic judgments" my choice and responsibility are invisible, is that at best they are implied, whereas in the sentence "I wish everyone would make value judgments and not moralistic judgments" it is more clear that it's me who wishes this and not some unnamed entity. I wonder if the reason this difference is apparently not clear to you is that for you, "People should make value judgments and not moralistic judgments" does strongly imply that you actively choose to live according to this rule. Is this so? For me it doesn't, and I remember how in the past I was not aware that I had the choice of not obeying this rule, I considered this rule a part of how things work in the world (it was just like gravity to me).

 

The reason I find it preferable and more truthful to assign responsibility to myself with regard to this choice, is that it frees me to make the choice one way or another, and thus have more power over my own life, power which I can then use rationally in order to improve my happiness. If I am not aware that I have this choice, I am a slave to this rule and potentially other rules which people might give me to obey.

 

Yes, I wish to convince others of the validity of my reasons for choosing value judgment over moralistic judgment. I get the impression that you understand this as being a moralistic judgment on my part, i.e. "everyone should use value judgment over moralistic judgment", when I am careful to not write it that way because the way I see it, I am not making a moralistic judgment here. It is only a wish on my part, I do not think anyone is "bad" or doing something "wrong" if they choose otherwise, and I don't want to blame or shame or guilt or punish anyone for making moralistic judgments. I don't want to, and I don't, and for me this is evidence that I am not making a moralistic judgment here.

 

Please let me know if this is satisfactory for you or not!

 

Best wishes,

Marc