Judging Others

[Fujaro]

We seem to share some moral ground on this one :-)

What has public safety and social manners to do with morality?

Social manners are the implementation of morality.

[mikiel]

From OP:
"It seems to be the consensus here that judging others is a good thing to do. When I talk about judging others, it is in a moral sense, condemning them for actions such as...."

Samadhi,
I am in total agreement with you here. In spite of Dan's lame diclaimer that his is not "moral judgement," I have experienced persistent condemnation here as the all pervading tone of the site.
It is in fact a site which consistently promotes what I've been calling "hate mongering" in several different categories of discussion, including derision of women (and all things not based on logic, i.e., transcentental consciousness, etc.), any presentation of enlightenment not based on a srtictly ascetic moral code, etc, etc.

The latest personal attacks on me in the "slavedom" thread (based on no info at all) are the most fresh in my mind... that and the persistent "character assassination" attempts in the "cosmology" thread.
Tho this sounds whiny in print, I actually take it all with a grain of salt... As you know, equanimity prevails, even in the midst of my passion for what I share on these boards.

Just for what it's worth in support of your perspective.

mikiel

[samadhi]

Dan,

I made no moral judgements about cell phone use - I made judgements about the psychological status of certain behaviours. I don't consider them morally wrong -that would be like thinking a mentally ill person was morally "bad". I'm not interested in moral judgments; indeed, I'm not much interested in morality at all, save an understanding of its own psychological nature. Cell phone behaviour has relevance in any examination of ego-based herdly behaviour.

We can look at what was said on that thread if you want. Your condemnation of me for what I said was pretty straightforward. But it does appear that basically you are in agreement with me that judging others is not helpful behavior for those interested in enlightenment. Is this correct?

You have a serious, irrational obsession, Sir. See to it. Interpreting negative judgements about people and/or states of affairs as moral condemnation is fair enough when it's correct, but entirely stupid otherwise.

You basically judged me Dan for saying hello to you. Is that what you call rational behavior?

Was the Buddha condemning people when he described them as ignorant and deluded? You know a lot of people get upset when they hear that, right?

Let's not get into quoting others just yet. That can go both ways even with a single person. I'm more interested in what you think and what your approach is.



Philo,

I don't think anyone was saying that cell phone use is morally wrong. That's just the faulty interpretive net that you cast on the conversation, Sam.

We can have a debate about what was said on that thread but I'm more interested in what you think about judging others.

I saw people talking about how cell phone use has become something of a neurotic obsession for many people, and also quite an annoyance in public places. I didn't see moral judgments.

See Dan's comments to me.



Nick,

People like to practice philosophy, get over it.

That's what I'm doing right now! Besides, the forum is about enlightenment. Is judging others compatible with that? Why do you think so?



Sue,

Iolaus: This should be interesting, Samadhi. Once again, I agree with you.

Sue: A judgment?

Sue, you've missed the point with your post. Having values isn't about moral condemnation. Nor is discerning differences.

[samadhi]

Carl,

sam: Do you believe in the necessity of moral condemnation?

Carl: Yes.

Okay.

sam: Why?

Carl: That's how I am wired.

Does that mean it works for you or that you don't care to change despite its consequences?

sam: Do you believe it is useful?

Carl: Yes.

sam: In what way?

Carl: A little ass-kicking can set a person in the right direction.

Tough love?

sam: Do you believe it helps others?

Carl: Yes.

sam: How?

Carl: A little ass-kicking can set a person in the right direction.

What about making enemies, you are fine with that?

sam: Do you believe there is wisdom in condemnation?

Carl: Yes.

sam: Can you show it?

Carl: Yes. A little ass-kicking can set a person in the right direction.

So you think hurting others can be helpful. Where do you draw the line?

sam: How do you think others react to being condemned?

Carl: A frowny face at first.

sam: Do they enjoy it?

Carl: Later they do. A little ass-kicking can set a person in the right direction.

You seem willing to justify any action of yours based on how it affects you. Would you agree?

sam: Are they more or less willing to listen to you when you condemn them?

Carl: More or less, yes.

So you think it enables good communication?

sam: Do you think condemning others can be construed as egoic behavior?

Carl: Can, but is not in all cases.

Where do you draw the line?

sam: Does it encourage egoic reactions from others?

Carl: Can, but not in all cases.

You can get used to anything. Does that justify it?

sam: Is playing superior something egos like to do?

Carl: Maybe. I'm not a psychologist.

Trust me, they do.

sam: Can condemnation be seen as playing superior?

Carl: Can, but is not in all cases.

So would you be playing superior when you judge others? How do you decide? Would you simply justify playing superior as okay since it makes you feel good?

sam: If you decided not to condemn others, how would that be a drawback for you?

Carl: Less fun.

Bingo!

sam: Are there more skillful ways to demonstrate ideas other than through condemnation?

Carl: The art of condemnation does require skill!

In forums like this, it is the main game for sure. But this is also a forum for enlightenment. Does judging others go hand in hand with enlightenment for you?

[samadhi]

Diebert,

sam: It seems to be the consensus here that judging others is a good thing to do. When I talk about judging others, it is in a moral sense, condemning them for actions such as sexuality (BMcGilly07), talking about their past (Diebert), making a living by working (Rybaby), and even cell phone chatting (Dan).

Diebert: Sam, you keep on demonstrating some serious impairment in making judgments, even in judging, discerning what actually has been said in mentioned discussions.

Great, let's see what it is I am missing.

To me you are a unconscious liar, twisting every idea, every statement to mean what you need it to say. It's getting tiring and I wish someone would make an end to your suffering and ban you for a while. Your philosophy has nothing in common with the goals of the board and a prolonged stay with endless repetition of arguments over the months will not get anyone anywhere. It only spams the board right now.

So, you want me banned because we don't agree, that is your take on the situation? How enlightened of you.

Look, if you're not interested in talking about judgment, fine. I mentioned you in passing, not to judge you (we discussed and resolved the particulars of that situation already) but as an example of what goes on in many threads here. You are not required to discuss it if you don't want to. But please don't make your lack of interest MY problem. I get to talk about what interests me just as you and everyone else here does. This forum is about enlightenment and how judging others relates to that is highly relevant to me. That you would suggest banning me for discussing a perfectly relevant topic says a lot about your judgment right there. Why must you condemn me for our differences? What is it about me and my interests that you find not only unacceptable but worthy of vindicativeness and hostility? I don't actually think we're that different. I actually respect you, whatever your feelings for me are. However you tend to personalize disagreements and that reflects poorly on your judgment.

[samadhi]

Iolaus,

Once again, I agree with you.

Ah, with the calls for my banning, this is nice to hear!

It so happens that non judgment is a key component of my own path.

I'm interested.

Couple remarks. First, they think that if they don't judge it means they don't see things as they are. In fact, I think my vision of people as they are is actually clearer.

I think this is true. People see judgment here as "truth telling" in some way. And when it is pointed out how that isn't so, they get very angry, witness my friend Diebert. They don't seem to be willing to divorce interpretive opinion of others from others as they are, which is of course, as they themselves are.

It is more about a deep acceptance of everyone. Which, in my opinion, is harder to do when you don't believe in soul or spirit. In other words, no process, and no reason to have faith in the process.

Acceptance is not a popular spiritual practice here. It actually seems to draw a good deal of disdain. I'm glad to hear you value it.

When you understand - in fact see, that everyone has the same, identical core, that is pure and unsullied, you can then accept everyone as they are.

Indeed.

[samadhi]

mikiel,

I am in total agreement with you here.

I'm happy to hear that. I value your input.

In spite of Dan's lame diclaimer that his is not "moral judgement," I have experienced persistent condemnation here as the all pervading tone of the site.

Yeah, your treatment on the Slavedom thread was noted in that thread by me and was one reason for this thread. People don't want to look at their judgments. They always want to cloak them as some kind of "truth-telling" which is nonsense. I want to look at them straight up. Given the purpose of this forum, there is no reason not to do that.

It is in fact a site which consistently promotes what I've been calling "hate mongering" in several different categories of discussion, including derision of women (and all things not based on logic, i.e., transcentental consciousness, etc.), any presentation of enlightenment not based on a strictly ascetic moral code, etc, etc.

True.

The latest personal attacks on me in the "slavedom" thread (based on no info at all) are the most fresh in my mind... that and the persistent "character assassination" attempts in the "cosmology" thread.

I think there is a reason why you draw so much flak. You don't represent the image being sold here as enlightenment. In that sense you are dangerous to those who are invested in that image.

Tho this sounds whiny in print, I actually take it all with a grain of salt... As you know, equanimity prevails, even in the midst of my passion for what I share on these boards.

Let's see what judgments you draw down upon your head for it! All grist for the mill.

[Philosophaster]

Another thing that bugs me, Sam, is the way you equate "judgment" with "condemnation." A judgment is simply an assessment of a person or situation, and need not be condemnatory at all. I can see the point in trying to avoid mindless and self-blinding condemnation, but I don't see what you have against the act of judgment in general. You are after all judging many of the members of Genius Forum as "too judgmental." That is your assessment of the situation, your judgment, and yet even as you do this you say that you are against all judgment.

[samadhi]

Philo,

Another thing that bugs me, Sam, is the way you equate "judgment" with "condemnation." A judgment is simply an assessment of a person or situation, and need not be condemnatory at all. I can see the point in trying to avoid mindless and self-blinding condemnation, but I don't see what you have against the act of judgment in general. You are after all judging many of the members of Genius Forum as "too judgmental." That is your assessment of the situation, your judgment, and yet even as you do this you say that you are against all judgment.

I defined what I meant by judgment, that being moral condemnation. I have no objection to judgment as having values or discerning differences. I mentioned the threads where I saw moral condemnation being offered. If you think I have misread one of those threads, please point out where and we can discuss it if you are actually interested.

[Nick]

Nick,

People like to practice philosophy, get over it.

That's what I'm doing right now! Besides, the forum is about enlightenment. Is judging others compatible with that? Why do you think so?

If you think judging people is not a part of enlightenment then why did you judge so many people with your opening post in this thread?

I defined what I meant by judgment, that being moral condemnation. I have no objection to judgment as having values or discerning differences. I mentioned the threads where I saw moral condemnation being offered. If you think I have misread one of those threads, please point out where and we can discuss it if you are actually interested.

No Sam, it's up to you to show us SPECIFIC examples of where anyone has morally condemned anyone.

[Cory Duchesne]

Personally, I have no problem judging Sam as evil. As far as I'm concerned, being ignorant is being evil, while being conscious is being good.

Now does that imply I am condemning Sam?

The meaning of condemn, according to dictionary.com:

1. to express an unfavorable or adverse judgment on; indicate strong disapproval of; censure.
2. to pronounce to be guilty; sentence to punishment: to condemn a murderer to life imprisonment.
3. to give grounds or reason for convicting or censuring: His acts condemn him.
4. to judge or pronounce to be unfit for use or service: to condemn an old building.

If by condemn we mean Number 1 and 4, then I would say it's reasonable to condemn someone.

In Sam's case, I am simply saying that he is presently unfavorable or unfit to be the good that I value - and therefore, he is evil. This seems pretty reasonable to me.

But if by condemn we mean sentence to punishment, then of course nobody here is engaging in that. (although we may be inadvertently inflicting what Sam may feel is punishment)

Really, all of us have an idea of what good is, and thus our judgments have relevance according to this idea of good. We judge in order to preserve and strengthen the good (consciousness) - and diminish evil (ignorance). For instance, the desire to ban Sam (comparing him to Spam) is a desire to diminish evil or badness (and thus heighten the good).

[Alex Jacob]

I am a fan of bold assessments and judgments. I think people hold back from 'stating the truth as they understand it' much to the detriment of the community of ideas. Since I do not hold 'enlightenment' as something one can refer to as 'real', it is not a criterion for assessing the judgments (in both the positive and negative sense) of others. If there is such a thing as 'enlightenment' it is uniquely personal and is not some sort of universal moral or ethical code. What it demands of an individual is completely unique to the individual. But, if it turns the individual into a sort of intellectual Mr Rogers, what possible value is that? The term should be wiped out of discourse, especially here, because those who use it as a platform or as a shield or a sword are more often than not the ones who do not really seem 'enlightened'.

Now, 'judging' does have a very negative aspect. I think it was the Grandfather of Distorted Spirituality, Carlos Castaneda (who did include some nice philosophy in some of his books), who put in the mouth of Don Juan a statement that judging another is holding that other to a fixed idea in your mind. You have certain dealings with someone, they act in certain ways, you form an image, but your image is inflexible---indeed there is a kind of 'violence' (an invasion, an arrogance) insofar as you wilfully keep them in the mold you have established. It is a big power-game. You will never let them become something different, even if they have the desire to do so. You stand in judgment of them, and the fact that you have established yourself as their judge, you have interposed yourself on their path, and your judging activity actually mingles your karmic path with theirs. Most likely the reason why---for example quite expressly in Christianity---one is admonished so strongly not to judge others is because, truth be told, we are all so terribly implicated, so complicit in so many different levels of 'sin'.

But even if that is true, to navigate life you have to apply judgments and assessments all the time. The key is not to overstep a line where you act in such a way that holds someone, that locks someone, into some sick patterns they have established for themselves. But if we know ourselves we will know just how fucked up we are, how distorted we are, and that knowledge does help in gaining some 'compassion', but compassion and empathy should never be tolerance or indulgence, so it is all a very fine line, a difficult area.

That is why I always pray before I grab the battered 2x4 to belt someone right across the jaw when they say some shit I don't like. If I'm going to knock some looser's teeth out I do want it to be approved by God...

PS. Oh, almost forgot: I ban everyone from this forum for a 3 week cooling down period, for your own good. If Micky Eel is to be let back in again he has to wear lipstick and women's underwear for 6 months and has to sound like a female character out of a Tennessee Williams play...

[Carl G]

sam,

I was messing with you to hopefully make a point. Looks like I failed. The point was that your little questionnaire was over the top to the point of cartoonish. Nobody here condemns people. And nobody here needs to be led into your little self-help program via your 70's pop psychology.

You're such a supercilious fop.

Not a condemnation.

[Cory Duchesne]

Really, all of us have an idea of what good is, and thus our judgments have relevance according to this idea of good. We judge in order to preserve and strengthen the good (consciousness) - and diminish evil (ignorance). For instance, the desire to ban Sam (comparing him to Spam) is a desire to diminish evil or badness (and thus heighten the good).

I should have added that the good we try to preserve and strengthen is generally happiness (or as new agers like to say; vibrations) whereas the evil we try to diminish is unhappiness (bad vibrations). It's not very often that we judge goodness to be truth/consciousness. This is of course because truth does not often make for much happiness.

[Dan Rowden]

From OP:
"It seems to be the consensus here that judging others is a good thing to do. When I talk about judging others, it is in a moral sense, condemning them for actions such as...."

Samadhi,
I am in total agreement with you here. In spite of Dan's lame diclaimer that his is not "moral judgement," I have experienced persistent condemnation here as the all pervading tone of the site.

My "attacks" upon you have had nothing to do with morality and everything to do with trying to slap you out of your state of denseness - as I perceive it - which you are once again displaying with gay abandon. I don't think or function in moral terms - I think and function in "outcome" terms. That necessitates making practical judgements about people and states of affairs - and categorising them appropriately, according to my desired outcomes. If I saw fit to make a true moral judgement - and I frankly don't - you'd immediately be able to distinguish it from say, me telling you you're a twat. Perhaps you could explain how and why you see such a statement as a form of moral condemnation? Do you think my thinking you're a serial twat also means I think you're a morally bad person? That confuses me because I don't see what moral standard would be in play there.

It is in fact a site which consistently promotes what I've been calling "hate mongering" in several different categories of discussion, including derision of women (and all things not based on logic, i.e., transcentental consciousness, etc.), any presentation of enlightenment not based on a srtictly ascetic moral code, etc, etc.

There ya go - pure, unadulterated twattery. It's not immoral, it's just stultifyingly dense. But since there is so much of your own moral self invested in such views, there's basically no chance of ever getting through to you. You and Sam are cut from the same pastry dough. It's absurdly easy to get a rise out of you both, but it's all puff and air. The French would love you.

[Dan Rowden]

Dan,

I made no moral judgements about cell phone use - I made judgements about the psychological status of certain behaviours. I don't consider them morally wrong -that would be like thinking a mentally ill person was morally "bad". I'm not interested in moral judgments; indeed, I'm not much interested in morality at all, save an understanding of its own psychological nature. Cell phone behaviour has relevance in any examination of ego-based herdly behaviour.

We can look at what was said on that thread if you want. Your condemnation of me for what I said was pretty straightforward.

Yes, I was calling you a dill because you were being a dill. That really is pretty straightforward.

But it does appear that basically you are in agreement with me that judging others is not helpful behavior for those interested in enlightenment. Is this correct?

It is if you mean conventional moral judgments. I believe those are almost 100% delusional in nature. Our disagreement lies in the apparent view you take that making judgements about cell-phone behaviour is necessarily of this nature. I'm telling you your capacity for sound judgement in such matters sucks and seems to spring from automatic mode of functioning that resembles religious conditioning.

You have a serious, irrational obsession, Sir. See to it. Interpreting negative judgements about people and/or states of affairs as moral condemnation is fair enough when it's correct, but entirely stupid otherwise.

You basically judged me Dan for saying hello to you. Is that what you call rational behavior?

What do you mean, hello? Anyway, don't be ridiculous. I judged you for your obsessive need to impugn the motives of the judgement of others. Are you not aware that you express this knee-jerk response all the time? Dude, you do - it's like part of who people know "Sam" to be. I'm sure you think it's valid, but I put it to you that it's too automatic and lacking in discernment to be so.

Was the Buddha condemning people when he described them as ignorant and deluded? You know a lot of people get upset when they hear that, right?

Let's not get into quoting others just yet.

C'mon, that's an evasion! Are you suggesting that the Buddha may not have said people were ignorant and deluded? Give me a break if you are.

That can go both ways even with a single person. I'm more interested in what you think and what your approach is.

Well, as I said, I don't care about "moral" judgements. They generally don't make any sense to me and almost always spring from either false metaphysical constructs or unconscious herdly thought processes. I'm am interested in utilitarian judgements and categorisations and labeling. Their cognitive effect on others matters to me in that sense. No doubt we differ on the actual utility therein, but I'm not about to change my mind on that, so there may be little point in arguing that point.

[edit: I should add, for the sake of clarity, that whilst I don't think in moral terms regarding my judgements and categories etc, I know that others do, and I'm happy to exploit the moral frameworks in which others function if it helps to potentially cause them to think differently about matters.]

[xerox]

Making judgements is a natural mechanism of reason. Arguably its backbone.

The problematic rendition of judging or being judged by others is an ego thing. Theoretically, it should be possible to make such judgements as... you are fat, yes l am fat, its unhealthy, l could eat less and exercise more and not be fat... without the emotive contextualisations informed by deluded personal narratives.

Much the same way one can judge the difference between 1+1=2 and 1+green=tuesday. Without offending or bending one-self out of shape.

An individual reconciled to their ego or ideally, free of ego, can make and receive personal judgment in a purely logical and rational fashion.

Those who take offense at this process have much work to do. The work of comprehending and grasping the nature of reason, the work of understanding and grasping the nature of ego and self and the hardest work of all... accepting the rational truth and surrendering (detaching from) the self deceit.

At a guess, some can no doubt accept the truth by rigourous application of reason and trusting in the value of the logical process. Others (most?) need some sort of experiential/pyshical/emotive catharsis to accept what is true. Some can accept not putting one's hand in the fire based on reason, others need to nurse the burn and stroke the scar.

[David Quinn]

It seems to be the consensus here that judging others is a good thing to do. When I talk about judging others, it is in a moral sense, condemning them for actions such as sexuality (BMcGilly07), talking about their past (Diebert), making a living by working (Rybaby), and even cell phone chatting (Dan).

Sam, you keep on demonstrating some serious impairment in making judgments, even in judging, discerning what actually has been said in mentioned discussions.

To me you are a unconscious liar, twisting every idea, every statement to mean what you need it to say. It's getting tiring and I wish someone would make an end to your suffering and ban you for a while. Your philosophy has nothing in common with the goals of the board and a prolonged stay with endless repetition of arguments over the months will not get anyone anywhere. It only spams the board right now.

I pretty much agree with this.

In my eyes, Sam no longer contributes anything of value to this board and is essentially spamming the place with vacuous posts. He has repeatedly shown that he is incapable of listening to anything which is said to him; that he has no empathy for the values and thinking of this forum; that he has no connection, conscious or otherwise, with the ideal of enlightenment; and that he constantly rubbishes any action or idea motivated by such a connection in the most unintelligent manner possible.

This normally wouldn't be a problem (after all, 99% of the human race is just like this), but because he posts so much nowadays he is effectively ruining every thread that he goes on. Attention is constantly being diverted into his superficial game-playing, to the detriment of the quality of the discussions. And what's worse, its the same games over and over again, with nothing ever being achieved. This is no longer acceptable to me.

He's never going to change, so it's time to put the foot down. For the sake of the forum, Sam is now banned on the grounds of energetic incompetency.

-

[mikiel]

Dan:

My "attacks" upon you have had nothing to do with morality and everything to do with trying to slap you out of your state of denseness - as I perceive it - which you are once again displaying with gay abandon.

If you think I drink too much or fuck too much (?) or live a lifestyle generally unbecoming an "enlightened one," how is this *not* a moral judgement? (It is certainly a condemnation, whether you have a hair-splitting take on "moral" judgement or not.)
Then, how is it that your "take" is automatically true such that you need to "slap me out of" my "state of denseness?" (yes, I got the hedge, "as I percieve it".) Define, or give a clear example of my alleged "denseness" if you are interested in a real conversation beyond the obvious, 'I don't like you.' (I don't like you either.)

I think and function in "outcome" terms.... "according to my desired outcomes."

What outcome exactly in this context. You want to fix me to be more like you? It will never happen.

Do you think my thinking you're a serial twat also means I think you're a morally bad person? That confuses me because I don't see what moral standard would be in play there.

First, as above on how I see your self-righteous moral judgement of my 'indulgences' as a given, not to be questioned. (But I'm willing to grant you a "special" category where it is not, in your mind, "moral judgement" tho still obvious condemnation.)
I suppose if I were an old-timer here, I'd know your technical definition of a "twat" and could then guess what series of infractions constitute serial twathood. But I'm not and I don't have a clue to your meaning, tho it is obviously condescending without any mention of what establishes your superior position. (Being admin does not establish it.)
(Yes, I know the use of "twat" as any bigot calls a woman a "cunt", but I am very hardwired as a "big tough man," so that can't apply to me.)

(m: It is in fact a site which consistently promotes what I've been calling "hate mongering" in several different categories of discussion, including derision of women (and all things not based on logic, i.e., transcentental consciousness, etc.), any presentation of enlightenment not based on a srtictly ascetic moral code, etc, etc.

There ya go - pure, unadulterated twattery.

Maybe you are just more stupid than I have imagined, but do you really think calling the above "unadulterated twattery" is a clear criticism of what I said? You gotta be kidding! So full of yourself that no reasonable standards of debate, or commonly understood language is required... just your pet put-down phases as one of the three "on top" dogs here.

I expect your usual summary dismissal without addressing anything Iv'e said here. Any departure will be a suprise.

It's absurdly easy to get a rise out of you both, but it's all puff and air. The French would love you.

A "rise?" A response presenting 'truth as I know it? You have never actually made me angry, bud. You flatter yourself... habitually and continually. I see you as a very narrow minded bigot without a clue to what enlightenment really is. Not someone I take seriously in spite of your over-inflated ego and sense of top-dog-hood here.

mikiel

[maestro]

In my eyes, Sam no longer contributes anything of value to this board and is essentially spamming the place with vacuous posts. He has repeatedly shown that he is incapable of listening to anything which is said to him; that he has no empathy for the values and thinking of this forum; that he has no connection, conscious or otherwise, with the ideal of enlightenment; and that he constantly rubbishes any action or idea motivated by such a connection in the most unintelligent manner possible.

While I agree with the appraisal of Sam. I also would like to add that condemnation/Judgment is an affective act, and does not lead to anywhere but more delusion. Viewing the world as a phenomenon and using logic and intellect to grasp it is what is needed. That is: understand why people behave as they do using reasoning, rather than blaming them for their actions (causality anyone?).

[Dan Rowden]

Dan:

My "attacks" upon you have had nothing to do with morality and everything to do with trying to slap you out of your state of denseness - as I perceive it - which you are once again displaying with gay abandon.

If you think I drink too much or fuck too much (?) or live a lifestyle generally unbecoming an "enlightened one," how is this *not* a moral judgement?

If I judge a dog to be savage and dangerous, is that a moral judgement or a simple judgement of fact? Your drinking habit is an assessment I made based on your statements, which include more than one occasion of apologising for posting when plastered. I don't especially care how much you drink or fuck or comb your hair, but I can and will make assessments about that with respect to any claims you make of spiritual attainment.

(It is certainly a condemnation, whether you have a hair-splitting take on "moral" judgement or not.)

It is a statement designed to wake you up. But yes, it's a form of condemnation insofar as it's a statement that certain attitudes, mental states and behaviours are deleterious to spiritual attainment - or indicate a dearth thereof.

Then, how is it that your "take" is automatically true such that you need to "slap me out of" my "state of denseness?" (yes, I got the hedge, "as I percieve it".) Define, or give a clear example of my alleged "denseness" if you are interested in a real conversation beyond the obvious, 'I don't like you.' (I don't like you either.)

Almost every post you make is a such an example - but more specifically, as I have pointed out to you before, your perception of QSR philosophy as being an ascetic philosophy and one that denigrates women are profoundly stupid and indicate a shallow and conventional grasp of such matters, not to mention a serious lack of comprehension of what our point of view is. Our view on women has no real complexity beyond the simple fact that the feminine is a barrier to enlightenment (because it represents the unconscious). You have never, ever made a case for the opposite - you just condemn it in moral terms with morally and politically loaded verbiage. As for the asceticism claim - we reject such a philosophy. We do not promote abstinence as a means to spiritual attainment or "salvation". We simply argue that certain mindstates and behaviors cease when the mind becomes more rational and enlightened - and those include forms of worldly "pleasures" which are ego-borne. We could discuss this over a few beers sometime, expect that American beer and cat's piss are indistinguishable.

I think and function in "outcome" terms.... "according to my desired outcomes."

What outcome exactly in this context. You want to fix me to be more like you? It will never happen.

The desired outcome would be that you become saner. That would necessitate you developing certain views that are consistent with mine, but it does not involve you being "like me". I mean, dream on, stud.

Do you think my thinking you're a serial twat also means I think you're a morally bad person? That confuses me because I don't see what moral standard would be in play there.

First, as above on how I see your self-righteous moral judgement of my 'indulgences' as a given, not to be questioned.

Your indulgences - but more importantly, your defense of them - indicate a deluded mind. That's what I'm actually addressing. The specific indulgences don't really matter. As with most people they are merely an outward symptomatic expression of an inner malady. Of course, if you are disinterested in the "cure" that's on offer, that's ultimately ok by me, but it doesn't mean I'll stop categorising you as I see fit. You will, of necessity, represent the "enemy", so to speak. Such is life. It's no biggie - it doesn't mean I think you're a "bad" person as such - just a twat :)

(But I'm willing to grant you a "special" category where it is not, in your mind, "moral judgement" tho still obvious condemnation.)

You can judge things to be bad without that having a moral dimension. Is a flood that wrecks your home a moral evil?

I suppose if I were an old-timer here, I'd know your technical definition of a "twat" and could then guess what series of infractions constitute serial twathood. But I'm not and I don't have a clue to your meaning, tho it is obviously condescending without any mention of what establishes your superior position. (Being admin does not establish it.)

Your constant insinuation that I wear my admin status on my sleeve as a poster is one you can fairly shove up your arse. I do not. You seem to have some kind of authority issue - do the cops harass you or something? If you Google "twat" Wiki will tell you what it means. But, to save you the time and effort:

The word twat has various meanings, dependent upon regional dialect. The word's main meaning in British English is that of idiot or stupid/idiotic/tasteless, generally towards a male person.

(m: It is in fact a site which consistently promotes what I've been calling "hate mongering" in several different categories of discussion, including derision of women (and all things not based on logic, i.e., transcentental consciousness, etc.), any presentation of enlightenment not based on a srtictly ascetic moral code, etc, etc.

There ya go - pure, unadulterated twattery.

Maybe you are just more stupid than I have imagined, but do you really think calling the above "unadulterated twattery" is a clear criticism of what I said?

Yes, because that's what it was. I expect - or perhaps just hope - that such a criticism might inspire you to stop and consider it. I suppose you need me to spell it all out for you, though.

You gotta be kidding! So full of yourself that no reasonable standards of debate, or commonly understood language is required... just your pet put-down phases as one of the three "on top" dogs here.

When an attempt is made at explaining your errors, it is my experience that you ignore them or simply repeat the same errors. It's hard, actually, to correct those errors because they are plucked out of nowhere and therefore don't contain any cogent material to work with. How do you address statements that don't contain an argument or evidence? In my estimation the best one can do is spit on them as a symbolic gesture.

I expect your usual summary dismissal without addressing anything Iv'e said here. Any departure will be a suprise.

You didn't say anything. What in the name of all things sane makes you think you did?

It's absurdly easy to get a rise out of you both, but it's all puff and air. The French would love you.

A "rise?" A response presenting 'truth as I know it? You have never actually made me angry, bud.

Liar, liar, leathers on fire.

You flatter yourself... habitually and continually.

Gotta. No-one else will.

I see you as a very narrow minded bigot without a clue to what enlightenment really is. Not someone I take seriously in spite of your over-inflated ego and sense of top-dog-hood here.

Ooops, there's that authority neurosis again - you really should get that looked at.

[mikiel]

Awhile ago, in the "God vs Evil" thread, I exposed Dan's ignorance about enlightenment in the most direct possible way.
Here, for the benefit of those who are still cheering him on in his brutal and frankly stupid attacks on me, I will show "the error of his ways" point by point.

Dan:

My "attacks" upon you have had nothing to do with morality and everything to do with trying to slap you out of your state of denseness - as I perceive it - which you are once again displaying with gay abandon.

If you think I drink too much or fuck too much (?) or live a lifestyle generally unbecoming an "enlightened one," how is this *not* a moral judgement?

If I judge a dog to be savage and dangerous, is that a moral judgement or a simple judgement of fact?

Fact? "If I judge" is a good hedge, but the message is clearly that my lifestyle is comparable to that of a savage and dangerous dog.... "a simple judgement of fact." Anyone see a major judgemental distortion in this presentation?
Your drinking habit is an assessment I made based on your statements, which include more than one occasion of apologising for posting when plastered.
It was one, not "more than one occassion" on which I (radically honestly) confessed that I had posted after drinking a lot... not actually "plastered"... = unable to communicate. This was early here on the boards. Later, which Dan has conveniently ignored, I said (again, as always, honestly) that I have not since gotten drunk and have maintained moderation since then. Dan is either lying or ignoring the above for his own purpose of defamation... not, of course, to say, moral judgement!
I don't especially care how much you drink or fuck or comb your hair, but I can and will make assessments about that with respect to any claims you make of spiritual attainment.
And your "assessements" will not be moral judgements on how short I fall rel to the virtious life of an enlightened one, in your non-morally-judgemental opinion.

(It is certainly a condemnation, whether you have a hair-splitting take on "moral" judgement or not.)

It is a statement designed to wake you up. But yes, it's a form of condemnation insofar as it's a statement that certain attitudes, mental states and behaviours are deleterious to spiritual attainment - or indicate a dearth thereof.
This is extremely ironic coming from an obviously egocentric individual sitting in judgement upon one who is either a liar... well he insists that I am... or who has awakened and given true testimony of it here, beyond all pretense of good-boy-humility. (It's all about telling the Truth... again *at all cost.*)

Then, how is it that your "take" is automatically true such that you need to "slap me out of" my "state of denseness?" (yes, I got the hedge, "as I percieve it".) Define, or give a clear example of my alleged "denseness" if you are interested in a real conversation beyond the obvious, 'I don't like you.' (I don't like you either.)

Almost every post you make is a such an example - but more specifically, as I have pointed out to you before, your perception of QSR philosophy as being an ascetic philosophy and one that denigrates women are profoundly stupid and indicate a shallow and conventional grasp of such matters, not to mention a serious lack of comprehension of what our point of view is.
You clearly failed here to "Define, or give a clear example of my alleged "denseness", and instead just did the usual broad-brush-stroke generalization... "Almost every post you make is a such an example"... and then on to my alleged misunderstanding of " QSR philosophy as being an ascetic philosophy" ... tho it all points to that, over and over... with no argument yet against my challenge in that respect... judt more cryptic derision without substantial rebuttal.
And I really like this oblique admission of the dogmatic nature of this site... not an open dialogue at all but a doctrinal cult accusing me of "a serious lack of comprehension of what our point of view is."
Our view on women has no real complexity beyond the simple fact that the feminine is a barrier to enlightenment (because it represents the unconscious). You have never, ever made a case for the opposite - you just condemn it in moral terms with morally and politically loaded verbiage.
"The simple fact?"... That enlightenment is all logic with no intuitive component? How was this established as a fact about enlightenment? You deny the transcendental component of consciousness (half of non-dual awareness) and end up with 'flatlander" philosophy in denial of the whole passive half of reality... the non-active, eternally unchanging Witness aspect of consciousness... and present this as "fact." Pathetic and ridiculous from the universal perspective of actual enlightenment. And many women have a balance of wisdom and intuition that your shallow philosophy totally denies. "Our view" again is a give-away to the dogma here promoted as a "free thinking" forum. You are totally unconscious of your consensual robotic programing presented as a forum of genius-leve free thinking. And you have no idea what IQ really means on the extremely high end level.


It's late. I'm tired. If I feel motivated I'll finish this point-by-point deconstruction of your non-argument attack tomorrow.

Good night. Your nightmares are only your condemnation coming back up as a reflux since I ripped off your cover... in the other thread. I'll complete the demolition... maybe tomorrow.
mikiel

[Dan Rowden]

Can't wait -there's still nothing on TV.

[Cory Duchesne]

I think what Dan was getting at was that he isn't interested in any morality that hasn't truth at its core. And that would mean that he wasn't interested in most morality because most morality is seeped fully in irrationality.

No, I'm pretty sure he's trying to say that he doesn't value making moral judgments at all.

What about you Sue? Do think it's reasonable to morally judge someone as good or evil?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I think what Dan was getting at was that he isn't interested in any morality that hasn't truth at its core. And that would mean that he wasn't interested in most morality because most morality is seeped fully in irrationality.

No, I'm pretty sure he's trying to say that he doesn't value making moral judgments at all.

There's this issue of the actual existence of any difference between moral judgments like good & evil designations and more utilitarian judgments like what is beneficial in light of a certain purpose, will or functioning.

It appears to me there is no real difference. The only differences that could be asserted are playing on a way more detailed level like the question: for whom or what the benefit or utility is in the first place.

So if someones morality is based on certain beliefs, the judgments made will be serving those beliefs, and it will be utilized to enforce or confirm that morality. So like I tried to explain to Sam in another thread: one cannot offset utilitarian to moral judgments.

In general discourse I'd say that when people talk about morality, it's about faith, conscience, upbringing, manners - things that are not easy to pinpoint where they originated or which reasoning is behind it. Behavioral scientists, anthropologists, neuro-scientists and philosophers do explore these issues though and often point to the basic observable strategies underpinning much of our cherished morality.