Sorry, but I'm not going to continue this discussion. I've got to go have sex with a goat.
--- akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], Peter > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > --- akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I am jut a bit intrigued by the "expectations" > > > theme. See other posts > > > on this. (this one summarizes some of the > issues.) > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/64595 > > > > You appear, in my view, to be smearing > judgemental > > > critics and expectations with personal > preferences. To say, > > > "that decor is not for me" -- and then dropping > it, is a statment > of personal taste. To go further and say "thats > tacky" is judgemental. > > > > > > And there is a semantical razor's edge here. By > > > "judgemental views" I mean making assessemnt of > others or things > that are not required for > > > ones own decisions and actions. Its not decrying > > > using "judgement" aka IMO intellectual > discrimination, which when > applied to things one must make a decision about, > and actions one is > > > considering, is a good thing. > > > > > > A theme I am exploring is "are judgemental views > > > rooted in > > > expectations"? It seem to be a correct, and > useful, > > > hypothesis, but I > > > am still looking for exceptions to disprove the > it. > > > > I don't think that all judgements are rooted in > > expectations. Some obviously are, but many are > not. > > For instance I eat something that doesn't taste > good > > and I say, "Yuk, that tastes awful" and I spit it > out. > > > And of course, I just made a large distinction, > above, between > "judgments" and "judgmental actions" --- and posited > that expectations > are linked to the latter, not the former. Its funny, > becasue the > springboard for your example is on the former, on > jusgements, > something I did NOT link to expectations. Of course > you are free to > develop your own models, but your example has > nothing to do with > countering my point. You appear to be arguing > against my point by > suggesting I said the opposite of what I said. Not a > problem, but its > kind of hard to carry on much of a convo that way. > Either you didnt > read what I wrote, or my words were incredibly > obtuse. > > Carrrying on with your example, I would say your > judgement that > something doesn't taste good, and your decicion not > to eat more, is > what I consider appropriate use of judgement. You > found your personal > preferences were not consistent with the meal and > you made a decision > based on that. Bravo. Thats a good thing. > > What I am suggesting is that if you went on to say > something like, > "and poeple who like this are stupid, unevolved and > ugly!" then I > would hold that you are holding a "judgemental > view" -- per my > definition above, and this is not useful, and is > part of the monkey > mind chatter of irrelevance, frustration and cyclic > behavior. This > latter" judgemental view" had nothing to do with > personal decision and > action. Its just a vehicle for more crap to > circulate through the > mind, distort ones vision and make one a bit of an > ass. > > > You seem to be saying that > > expectations are bad or wrong. > > Again you appear not to have read my posts on this > and are jumping in > mid stream. Not a problem, but it makes your points > quite off target. > Unc and Irmeli were arguing that expectations were > bad. I went through > a number of counter arguments and examples that > expectations are the > foundation of science and technolgy -- in the realm > of things, we do > an action and expect a repeateable result. When we > turn the light on, > we expect it to go on. And that is fine, no foul. > > I did find some common ground to agree with them, > that, IMO, not > having expecations about outcomes over which we have > little control is > a good thing. In other words, expectation over > things which we have > little control is indeed bad. Examples: don't expect > a person to be or > act a certain way, don't expect the day to unfold in > a certain way. > > > > I really don't see a problem with > > saying it was tacky. I just didn't like it. If > someone > > else liked it I certainly wasn't going to argue > with > > them! I'd say, "Oh" and leave it at that. > > I was using the "tacky" statement just a > springboard for discussion. > It in itself was not any great sin. But I do hold > there is a useful > and instructive distinction between saying you don't > care for > something (a judgement pertainng to your own > decisions and actions -- > which is fine), and saying something is "tacky" -- > which by its > implication of who designed or lived in the house -- > begins to go down > the slippery slope of making a running commentary > and value judgements > about others, their tastes, natures, states, etc. > Monkey Mind Chute. > > > > > > So back to the examples, to say "that decor is > not > > > for me" is an > > > expression of personal taste, and may be quite > > > relevant if one is > > > considering buying or renting the property. To > make > > > a value judgement, > > > that is to be judgemental about it, particularly > if > > > its a disparaging > > > one, particularly if it makes disparaging > > > implications about others, > > > No disparging implication of others intended. I'd > > never say such a thing directly to the Dilbecks. > Why > > would I? > > I don't know why you would say this to the Dillbecks > since its the > Dimicks house. :) But that would be tacky, indeed! > > However, going down the slippery slope some degrees > beyond "tacky", > your comment might suggest its ok to rip people > behind their back, as > long as you don't do it directly. I don't think you > mean that, but I > do observe some make jokes (of a cutting nature but > funny) when > someone is not there, and would never do so to their > face. > > > > > then its unecessary, it serves no decision-based > or > > > action-based > > > service. It only serves to distinguish oneself > from > > > others, to subtly > > > disparage others, a habit of the ego to pump up > its > > > own superiority. > > > > Way, way off base here. > > I was making a generized observation, not commenting > on === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
