--- In [email protected], Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry, but I'm not going to continue this discussion. > I've got to go have sex with a goat.
Thats a nice pattern. Drive by, skim a post, miss major points, argue loudly against points not made, then claim being to busy to even read a fairly careful crafted response clarifying the issues and pointing out where your quick skim has lead your assessments astray. Well, yes I have made a judegement about you (pertaining to decisions future action) -- not to be confused with judgemental views. All hail the monkey mind! > > --- 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/
