I've been thinking about how to explain what I'm practicing and promoting in relation to dividing people into groups and categories, and the labeling associated with that. What I'm practicing and promoting is far from clear to me, and it looks to me now like it might take a lot more time, and a lot more practice, for me to find ways to explain it that will make sense to anyone but me.
For now I'll just put down some random thoughts as they come to me.
1. I think of people as being randomly scattered across a continuum of variations in personality and behavior, rather than being neatly divided into separate groups and categories, and I'm trying to learn to always keep that in mind in discussions of social issues.
2. I don't think any group or category label attached to a person, by herself or by others, tells me anything whatsoever about her personality, character, ideology, interests, motives, purposes or capacities, and I'm trying to learn to always remember that. I also want to learn not to use any group or category labels in my conversations to try to convey any of my ideas or impressions about anyone's personality, character, ideology, interests, motives, purposes or capacities.
3. I'm trying to learn to strictly avoid associating any kind of personality, character, ideology, interests, motives, purposes or capacities, with any group or category of people, even implicitly, in my conversations.
4. I'm trying to learn to never depreciate anyone, and to free myself from all ill will.
5. I'm practicing fellowship and collaboration with some of the people whose ideologies are most opposed to mine, in my view or theirs.
Two social issues that concern me most of all now are the ravaging that I see intertwined with global monopoly games; and animosities and hostilities between Christians and Muslims, which I see as part of the desperate dying convulsions of prejudices used to rally support for the ravaging, and threatening to blow up the world. Part of what I see facilitating all that, is associating personality and character defects with groups and categories of people.
What motivates me in these efforts is not any hope of ever seeing any results from them, in anyone else's behavior. This is just part of what I'm doing to try to help improve the world, even if I never get to see any improvements in other people's behavior that might result from it.
I want to say that I see some deeper and more urgent problems in the growing and spreading alarm and anger that are fueling the animosities and hostilities, and in the moral and spiritual vacuum in which any excuse will do, for people to indulge their most treacherous, cruel and violent impulses, but I won't go into details about that now.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
135 comments:
Hi, Jim ~
Thanks for inviting me to visit you at your blog.
I think a root cause for my uneasy disagreement with your remarks is that you and I do not have a definition in common of the word "label,"
This does not compute for me:
"2. I don't think any group or category label attached to a person, by herself or by others, tells me anything whatsoever about her personality, character, ideology, interests, motives, purposes or capacities, and I'm trying to learn to always remember that. I also want to learn not to use any group or category labels in my conversations to try to convey any of my ideas or impressions about anyone's personality, character, ideology, interests, motives, purposes or capacities.
"3. I'm trying to learn to strictly avoid associating any kind of personality, character, ideology, interests, motives, purposes or capacities, with any group or category of people, even implicitly, in my conversations."
-------------
Would these labels tell you things about the person? Or are they not "labels" in some way?
Personality -- labels himself "cripplingly shy"
Character -- labels himself "a criminal and gleeful scofflaw"
Ideology -- labels himself a Maoist activist
Interests -- labels himself "an avid stamp collector"
Motives -- labels himself "Avenger"
purposes or capacities (too vague to think of a label)
I am imagining that your idea of the word "label" is different from mine. Is that the case, do you think?
Ann, this is a wonderful, delightful surprise for me. It might be the first time ever, in ten years or more, that anyone has responded in such a friendly and thoughtful way to anything I wanted to discuss, on the Internet.
From your comments at Atheist Revolution, I realized that in discussing what I'm practicing with labels, I need to qualify "labels." I won't try to define it precisely with anything but examples, which I'll be trying to compile later. For now I'll just say that I'm thinking mostly of labels used in drawing factional lines between people, like labels for race, sex type, orientation, and especially ideology.
Actually, the example that comes most often to my mind is "gay." I can say unequivocally, from personal experience, that a person calling himself "gay," by itself, does not convey any information whatsoever about his personality, character, ideology, interests, motives, purposes, or even sexual attractions.
For now I'll just suggest that when you read what I say about labels, just think "some labels for groups and categories of people, that are sometimes used in drawing factional lines between them," to be clarified later with examples.
Actually, no, I would not presume to know anything whatsoever about the personality, character, ideology, interests, motives, purposes or capacities of the person in any of your examples above, without knowing anything about the context.
I'll try to think of some examples of when I might use a label to convey information about a person, or interpret one that way. That might be a very good exercise for me, and help me clarify for myself what I'm trying to do.
This is wonderful for me. Thank you so much for discussing this with me!
Actually, in any of your examples above, or in any other case, the person could be lying, or using the label in an entirely different way from any way I've ever seen it used. That isn't what I've had in mind, in saying that a label conveys no information, but it adds to my confidence in what I'm saying. The more I think about it, the more I think that what I'm practicing might apply to all labels.
I see some questions or objections you might have to that, which might be answered with examples of when I might use a label to convey information, and other ways of using labels, that I might agree with. Certainly I'm not thinking of never using labels at all. Every noun, verb, adjective, adverb, and possibly every word, is a kind of label. I'm certainly not thinking of never using any of those.
All this might obscure what I'm saying and practicing about labels, more than explaining it. Let's go back to the person who calls himself gay. I'm saying, with years of personal experience behind it, that a person calling himself gay conveys no information whatsoever about his personality, character, ideology, interests, motives, purposes, or even sexual attractions, and not simply because he could be lying, although that's far from a negligible possibility in my mind.
A person might wonder, so what? What difference does that make? Obviously it makes a big difference to me, for my purposes, but maybe it wouldn't really make any difference to other people, for their purposes. My purposes might be a lot different from most other people's purposes, maybe different from the purposes of anyone you've ever known.
I'll be thinking about what difference it makes to me, not to think I know anything about a person, from the ways she labels herself, or the ways other people label her.
One thing I can tell you now is that my first reaction, in a personal interaction with someone, if they tell me they're an atheist, or gay, or liberal for example, is to try to find out why they're saying that to me. Is it a political statement? Is it to facilitate our relationship in some way? Is it to warn me about possible trauma triggers? Not that I would interrogate them. I might try to encourage them somehow, to elaborate on that. If that doesn't lead anywhere, I might just drop it, and watch for more clues about it in what they say and do. In any case, I wouldn't presume that I know any more about them, just from them telling me that, than I knew before. At least, that's part of how I want to be.
In fact, it might be that in most or all cases when a person tells me how he labels himself, it actually is an invitation to some kind of dialogue.
1. Well, naturally labels cannot say anything about a person outside of the attribute being labeled, but I don't think anyone has ever said they can.
2. Or rather I should say that concluding things (beyond their membership in the category) about someone who is labeled as black, or a Jew or a woman is a classical act of prejudice.
So I do think that people have said that they can conclude things about the labeled person beyond whatever the label says.
3. So let me amend my first comment to this version:
> Naturally labels cannot say anything about a person outside of the attribute being labeled, but I don't think anyone has ever LOGICALLY said they can.
-----------
4.Yet maybe even that can be amended to
"Labels cannot ALWAYS say anything about a person outside of the attribute being labeled, but I don't think anyone has ever LOGICALLY said they can."
-----------
5. I acknowledge that a label can be incorrect (intentionally or not), and so even what it seems to convey is going to be incorrect. An example might be a woman who posts in a chatroom while presenting herself as a man.
But this is a trivial exception that should be dismissed as a serious thought.
------------
6. Of more consequence is the problem that people who label themselves may not actually fit into the label.
People are seldom strictly binary in every category.
A person's gender, sexual orientation, political position, education level -- these attributes and many more may be ambivalent, in flux, or only hazily defined. The apparent split between polarized positions on abortion (for example) is really a continuum.
Wasn't it John Stuart Mill who pointed out that many an argument grows from not recognizing that a lot of statements are "relative," not "absolute." I think he gave the example of "I have a big dog." Well, the statement really means "My dog is bigger than a lot of other dogs" or something like that.
The same is true for "I am tall, well-educated, a liberal, friendly, sick, angry ..."
Yet I think people really recognize this, and this aspect of labeling must cause very little trouble.
On the other hand, people do incorrectly think that some human conditions are binary: Race, gender, orientation ... the attributes that are considered to be biological and genetic.
------------
7. Yet there clearly are categories of people that are pretty strictly binary:
Dog owner, chess Grand Master, German citizen, licensed driver
-----------
8. I don't follow you when you say on the one hand that you are talking only about labels that can draw factional lines, but then you talk about "personality, character, ideology, interests, motives, purposes or capacities."
It seems to me that there are plenty of labels can describe all those attributes pretty accurately, and perhaps be used to make invidious comparisons.
--------
9. I am supposing that you want to eliminate divisive labels -- Muslim, gay, abortionist, suicide bomber, GI, American ...
Well, if that is the case, then you will need a really rigorous definition.
Otherwise your position is in danger of collapsing into a soft fuzzy cloud of content-free platitudes.
"Play nice!" or "Do unto others ... "
Or maybe if everyone just got high ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5-2-Xh0wxk
LOL!
Actually, what I'm saying might apply to everything we say, not only labels. I've learned that I habitually presume far too much from what people say, and it often gets me into deep trouble. So maybe this isn't really about labels at all. Maybe it's about the problem of presuming too much from what people say, and how to improve on that.
An addendum:
Before my comments can be posted, I must check a box saying "I'm not a robot."
That's pretty binary and quite label-ly.
Some day in the not-too-far future, it might be considered nasty and divisive too, like a drinking fountain labeled "Whites only."
http://www.dailystormer.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/concept-1024x774.jpg
But here it is in your very own house.
I was curious about this remark:
"One thing I can tell you now is that my first reaction, in a personal interaction with someone, if they tell me they're an atheist, or gay, or liberal for example, is to try to find out why they're saying that to me."
1. The number of times that you can't think of why someone tells you that he is gay must be vanishingly small.
It can scarcely ever happen that with no context, a person rushes up to you and shouts "I'm a liberal!"
------
2. But even if you don't know why someone is announcing a social category that is ordinarily personal and private, I urge you to consider how disrespectful it is to covertly peep people out instead of frankly stating your thoughts.
How I would hate having you pussyfooting around me because you fear that I have a trauma trigger and will melt down if you say the magic words.
I'd much prefer your saying, "I don't know why you just told me you are an atheist."
Then I could answer, "Because if you say the word "God" in my hearing, I have to go crouch under a table," or "Because I want to argue about religion with you" or "Because I thought you asked."
----------
Some people are habitually not frank with others, and harbor hidden conclusions or suspicions about them, or pursue secret agendas or covert programs in their dealings with them.
One trouble with that is that other people eventually sniff out something wrong, and eventually they just avoid the deceitful person.
Besides that, it's bad for people's spiritual development to habituate themselves to this patronizing false superiority, this surreptitious set of thoughts and suspicions about others, this lack of frankness, openness, and honesty.
This lack of openness is what spoiled the relationship between Emma and Jane Fairfax, and it will spoil other relationships too.
Also it's really kind of insulting to have you hold yourself out as this big "Head" who must look after the psychological well-being of others, apparently on the grounds that they are too wrecked to look after their own well-being.
At this point I'll just say that if you have any friendly interest in what I'm trying to do, just wait until I practice it some more, and post examples of what I'm practicing. That could be anywhere from a few weeks to a few months, or even years.
I have to click that stupid robot thing, myself, when I post a comment, and I'm the owner, signed in.
Yes, I must agree with you about the meanings of words.
(sigh)
The problem is compounded because it is not only the listeners who don't know what's being said, it is also the speakers who don't know what they said.
In fact, they don't even know what they mean.
(I've sort of accused you of that! LOL! Sorry!)
But that is the nature of language and of the transmission of language.
We do the best we can, and generally we do all right.
I think your core concept is not really even about labels.
But I think your core concept suffers from the problem I have described already concerning moral advice:
> The better it sounds, the less it means.
> The more it has a meaning, the less it is about morals.
> When its meaning is exact and specific, it is a procedural handbook.
The value of moral pronouncements is like the value of music:
It is in their emotional color, not their denotative content.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIB03fS179s
Okay, Jim ~
I'll stand down and await developments.
I can see for myself that your ideas are not ready.
Best wishes until we speak again.
~ Ann Worth
It's starting to look to me like the misunderstandings here are growing by leaps and bounds. I don't see how morals came into this. I did say something at one point about a moral vacuum, but that was about people indulging their worst impulses. In this discussion about labels, I haven't been thinking about morality at all. I have no idea what any of this has to do with what I've been saying about labels, or why you're saying it:
"But I think your core concept suffers from the problem I have described already concerning moral advice:
"> The better it sounds, the less it means.
"> The more it has a meaning, the less it is about morals.
"> When its meaning is exact and specific, it is a procedural handbook."
What core concept are you talking about? What have I said, that you're calling "moral advice" and "moral pronouncements"?
I'll think about what you're saying about moral advice, and about the value of moral pronouncements. Will you be interested in what I think about it?
I'll go back through what I've said, to try to see what might look like moral advice and moral pronouncements, to see if that helps me understand what you're saying about them, and why.
I'm using "moral" in its sense of right and wrong deeds, should and shouldn't.
I took your core concept to be that we should not use labels that are divisive.
That idea of yours is the one I am calling a "moral pronouncement" or "moral advice."
I don't see how you can think that any kind of prescriptive suggestions are not moral in nature.
--------
I would LOVE to hear what you think about my ideas about the value of moral advice.
I just don't want to forget my promise to show friendly interest by showing no interest at all. I am to be "interested" as long as it means "uninterested."
LOL!
Now I am poking fun at you.
(sigh)
I am so not funny that I have to alert people when I am being funny.
I am like Emma -- handsome, clever, and rich.
But not funny.
:(
Or you could respect me enough to ask ME what I mean.
Or even respect me enough to think I could withstand a full frontal challenge without being thrown into a seizure or something, like Joanne Woodward's mother in Rachel Rachel
--------
I used the word "moral" to refer to all statements that refer to right and wrong, should and shouldn't.
I will gladly replace the word with a substitute we can mutually agree on.
Any suggestions?
I'm not sure what you mean by "stand down." Maybe I misunderstood your intentions. I thought you were trying to understand what I'm thinking about labels. "Stand down" suggests to me that maybe you were trying to stand up against something you see me doing. If so, what? Have you already told me, in your comments above? If not, what else can you tell me about it?
I might have misunderstood what this is all about for you. If so, I'm sorry for the confusion. If you see any possible way to help me understand what this is all about for you, I would be glad for you to try.
If I don't see any answer to this, I'll go back through your comments to see what you might have been trying to stand up against, in what you see me doing, and I'll think about that.
Okay, your last comments have cleared some things up for me, I think.
My wife has been waiting for me, to have breakfast (It's almost noon here).
I'll be back. Maybe not today, but in the next day or two.
Okay, the soup is heating up. Patty's sick, and all she wants to eat is soup.
I thought you were trying to understand what I'm thinking about labels, and I was trying to explain it as well as I could at this point, without seeing it very clearly myself. Then I got confused about what the discussion was about for you, and I still am confused, but your last comments might have cleared that up a little for me. Whatever it's about, I'll be glad to continue, if you still want to. Sorry for all the things I keep doing wrong.
I probably misused the term "stand down."
I thought it meant no more than "leave off whatever you were doing."
I did not come here to be a student sitting at your feet, if that is what you thought.
I am interested in swapping views.
I think that this exchange might make you feel argued with and challenged more than you would expect from a student.
If you don't want to cope with challenges to your ideas, we certainly don't have to proceed.
Yes, I'd like to continue.
I was prepared to wait years.
Oh, let's not cast ourselves in the roles of humble and penitent little boy and castigating mother.
I am uneasy with some of your remarks.
I know you are unaware of it, but some of the things you say strike me as coming at me affectedly, or for effect, or dishonestly -- like the way a poseur would talk.
Are you a cleric, by any chance?
LOL! Maybe I'm finally catching on to your sense of humor.
There's no professional clergy in the Baha'i faith, but I see Baha'u'llah calling all of His followers to fulfill some of the functions of the clergy in other religions.
LOL!
A better answer than I deserved!
"I took your core concept to be that we should not use labels that are divisive."
No. I can't think of anything I might have said, that even comes close to that. Anyway, it helps me see what you might mean by "moral advice" and "moral pronouncement," and why you said what you did.
"But I think your core concept suffers from the problem I have described already concerning moral advice:
> The better it sounds, the less it means.
> The more it has a meaning, the less it is about morals.
> When its meaning is exact and specific, it is a procedural handbook."
"The value of moral pronouncements is like the value of music:
It is in their emotional color, not their denotative content."
None of that looks familiar to me, like anything I've noticed before. I'll ponder all that, and see what I think. I'll also watch the video.
I liked a lot of things you said about labels in some of your comments above. It didn't occur to me to say so, until now, but would you like to know what I liked, or what I disagreed with?
I'd like you to know what happened inside me, that ended in me saying that I was sorry for all the things I keep doing wrong.
I was feeling stung by what I saw as personal remarks and insinuations about me. I struggled with that for a while, then I was thinking about all the ways you seemed to be misunderstanding me. At first I was mostly blaming it on you, but then I start thinking about my poor communication skills, and feeling embarrassed and ashamed about that. Then I felt like a bull in a China shop, and incorrigible in spite of all my efforts for decades to improve. I was in tears. I was afraid you might be fed up with it all, and abandon the discussion. For a while I tried to think of what to say, to patch things up between us, but I gave that up. I just felt sorry that I kept doing things wrong, and I wanted you to know, so I told you.
When you said all that about casting ourselves in the roles of humble and penitent little boy and castigating mother, and talking like a poseur, it made me laugh, and washed away all my anxiety and distress.
You say that you can't think of anything you said that comes even close to
"I took your core concept to be that we should not use labels that are divisive."
I am referring to this remark of yours:
"For now I'll just suggest that when you read what I say about labels, just think "some labels for groups and categories of people, that are sometimes used in drawing factional lines between them," to be clarified later with examples."
I rephrased "drawing factional lines between [people]" to "using divisive labels."
I think that rephrasing comes really close.
You certainly are tender.
I never encountered such strong feelings arising from such little stimuli.
Well, it is going to be beyond me to temper my wind to your shorn lamb, so if you want to continue, you will have to brace yourself for more horrifying words from me.
I'm still not sure that I know what you mean by "moral advice," and "moral pronouncements," and I'm not sure I know what you mean by "meaning" or even "value," but I'll say what I think based on how I use them and how I've seen them used by other people.
"The better it sounds, the less it means." My first question would be, "The better it sounds to whom?" A lot of what sounds good to everyone else sounds repulsive to me, and some advice that everyone else despises looks good to me. In fact it's the meaninglessness of a lot of platitudes that make them repulsive to me, so if it's about how it sounds to me, I can't agree at all with "the better it sounds, the less it means."
I can make some sense out of it if you're talking about popularity. It seems inevitable to me that the more popular a platitude is, the less meaningful it will be.
For the rest, I'll list some examples of what I might call moral advice or moral pronouncements:
1. Be honest.
2. Be trustworthy.
3. Be fair.
4. Love your neighbor as yourself.
5. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
6. Don't kill anyone.
7. Don't steal from anyone.
8. Be kind.
9. Help relieve people in distress.
10. Help correct injustices.
12. Obey the rules of Moses restricting the use of penises.
13. Rule your passions instead of letting them rule you.
14. Don't malign people.
If I've understood you correctly, either you don't see those as very meaningful, or those are not good examples of what you mean by moral advice. If they aren't good examples of what you mean by moral advice, then I need you to give me some examples.
If you're saying that they're meaningless, I can agree with that if you mean that they're meaningless in the context of public debates about social issues. If you're saying that they're meaningless to you, well obviously I can't disagree with that. If you're saying that they're meaningless to me, I don't agree at all. They're very meaningful to me in the context of learning to follow Baha'u'llah.
I'm not sure what you're getting at when you say "When its meaning is exact and specific, it is a procedural handbook." Would some of the laws of Moses, like the procedures capsulized as "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," be an example of that? If so, then what you're saying makes sense to me.
I can see that part of the value of some of the best moral advice is in the effects of its poetry on our feelings, but I disagree if you're saying that none of it is in the denotative content.
"The better it sounds, the less it means."
> The better it sounds ...
By this I mean that it sounds correct. It would be hard to disagree. Everyone assents to the idea.
Most of the 14 items in your list are in this "That sounds good" category. Who could dissent from "Be fair" or "Be honest"?
-------------
> ... the less it means.
By this I mean to point out that those 14 statements of yours "sound good" because they have no actual content. When their believers are faced with actual cases, when they try to put them into practice, their emptiness becomes apparent.
Here's an example:
"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."
You hold with this idea, if I am not mistaken.
Unless you are on the jury.
Or work as a police officer.
Or are defending your country in WW II.
So you are right to say that I think the moral advice you list is not meaningful. Its denotative meaning evaporates when it comes to cases.
For example, what moral adage lets you decide if the genetic alteration of an unborn baby's personality and character is a moral obligation or strictly forbidden (or something in between, I suppose)?
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2013/01/22/genetically-altering-unborn-babies-personalities-a-moral-obligation-says-oxford-professor/
----------
Here's a contrasting example, where the specific and exact rule to follow sounds repellent, not nice and good like your vague moral advice:
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
------------
Here is what I mean by saying that the more specific the advice, the less it becomes about morals, and the more it becomes a procedural handbook.
Phase I: Don't wantonly harm others.
(This has a high "get with" vibe. Very few people would disagree.
But what is "wanton"? What is "harm"? Can I do XYZ act or not?
Phase II: Let's sharpen that up for the sake of giving guidance for specific behavior:
Don't block fire exits like they did at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory.
Okay, this sounds good. We can all get behind that.
But I am a building owner and I need specific details and definitions when it comes to exits, blocking, and "fire" exits.
Phase III: Spelling it out in detail:
Somewhere in this tome:
http://chestofbooks.com/home-improvement/construction/code/Building-Code-Boston/#.VfVkbpeB5T0
By now, the moral but vague "Don't wantonly harm others" has been made specific enough to follow in all cases. Our emotional willingness to support the moral value of the rule is irrelevant since it is enforced by the civil authorities.
But in its transformation into exact details that can be actually applied to specific exits, it has utterly lost its attribute of "MORAL advice."
The better a moral precept sounds as a piece of moral advice that all sane people can endorse, the less it has any specific meaning that can direct your behavior.
When it is crucial to have specific rules for behavior, then it is no longer moral advice,
That's what I mean by saying "When its meaning is exact and specific, it is a procedural handbook."
------------
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" doesn't sound all that moral (because it is sneaking up on being specific.)
But to the extent that it sounds like something we can endorse morally, it collapses as advice when it comes to hard cases.
~ What if a man rapes my daughter? Do I get to rape his daughter? Or to rape him?
~ If he murders my wife, should his wife go on the run?
~ If he steals my hens, do I get to steal his? What if he doesn't own any?
In fact, when that bit of moral advice is looked at even cursorily, it stinks when it is possible, and luckily is not often possible.
That all makes sense to me.
That might mean more to me if there's a story behind it, for example like what questions it has answered for you, or what problems it has solved for you, or what problems you think it could solve, if people were more aware of it and paid more attention to it.
In reference to this post of yours:
"That might mean more to me if there's a story behind it, for example like what questions it has answered for you, or what problems it has solved for you, or what problems you think it could solve, if people were more aware of it and paid more attention to it."
I don't know what this post is in reference to.
I don't know what "it" is.
You say,
"That might mean more to me if there's a story behind it ..." <-- what is "it"?
I can't tell which post of mine that one of yours is in response to, so I don't know what you are referring to.
You wrote "That all makes sense to me," referring, I believe, to my observation that when a moral preaching is vague enough to be endorsed, it is too vague to mean anything in specific cases.
But if it guides specific behavior, it it not moral, just legislative.
------------
Here's your examples of what you would consider moral advice.
Notice that they are like music:
> Very high in emotional color
> Empty of denotative content
For the rest, I'll list some examples of what I might call moral advice or moral pronouncements:
1. Be honest.
Even if a man with a gun runs up and says, "Did you see where my wife went?"
2. Be trustworthy.
If you are being tortured in a North Korean POW camp during the Korean War and you agree to make an anti-American film, you should not try to spell out "Just kidding" by blinking in Morse code, thus betraying your captors.
3. Be fair.
Too vague even to mock.
4. Love your neighbor as yourself.
Pay for his kids to have everything your kids have, even if it means that no kids can have bikes (you can't afford 8 bikes!) and even if it means that none of the kids go to college (You only have 2 kids, but you can't manage to send 8 to college!)
I bet your kids wished you loved them a little more than some random other kids.
And of course, the starvies all over the world are your neighbors too.
I don't know how much of your income you keep for yourself after you have divided it equally among every person in the world.
Actually, I don't even believe that you do.
In fact, I think it is absurd to think that you should.
5. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Unless you are on the jury.
6. Don't kill anyone.
Not even a Nazi pointing a rifle at a Jewish child. Not even a man with an ex raised over your daughter's head.
In every society there are cases where killing is condoned, excused, forgiven, recommended, or made mandatory. We even solicit professionals to kill people for us and pay them for it.
But maybe your entire nation (and the world) is filled with immoral people except you.
7. Don't steal from anyone.
When is it stealing? Are US corporations doing business in underdeveloped countries stealing? Some people claim that. Is buying a valuable book at the flea market for less than its resale value stealing? What about bidding for it at auction? Is eating food grown in a poor nation stealing? Or grown domestically by a poor man? Do you live on land that has ever been conquered? In the US, we are all living on land that had once belonged (sort or) to indigenous people. Are you? Are you stealing their property?
The very terms of this little bit cannot even be defined -- and it's only 4 words long.
8. Be kind.
Okay. Whatever.
(Continued)
9. Help relieve people in distress.
"Help" is a "weasel word" and this is a "weasel word fallacy."
It is so vague and uninformative that it adds no meaning to its sentence.
https://sites.google.com/site/skepticalmedicine//logical-fallacies#TOC-Weasel-Words-
10. Help correct injustices.
"Help" is a weasel word.
"Injustice" cannot be defined.
A man told me that he had just come from a trial of his Native American tribe's claim to some land -- a trial which his side lost. He was incensed, and said it was a serious injustice. What is an injustice? He had a fair trial. Is every loser the victim of injustice? Or is every case decided so perfectly that injustice never occurs? How would we decide if such-and-such were an injustice? Have a trial?
The courts have always recognized the impossibility of reaching an undefinable and unrecognizable condition called "justice," and they eschew seeking it (and "fairness" too.)
They have long said that no one can expect a PERFECT trial, but that everyone is entitled to a procedurally correct one. People cannot expect "justice" (because it is no more than a personal opinion), but they can have a correct-run trial and a verdict supported by the evidence.
That's all we got.
12. Obey the rules of Moses restricting the use of penises.
Really? Isn't that stoning adulterers to death? Bumping off homosexuals?
(But I'm not sure I know what you mean by "the rules of Moses.")
13. Rule your passions instead of letting them rule you.
Even if I am Paul Gauguin?
14. Don't malign people.
Can I caution my teenage daughter that the family she is about to hang out with has several police charges against them, including sexual assaults against teen girls, drug dealing, gun possession, contributing to the delinquency of minors, prostitution, posing children in a state of indecency, trafficking in child and teen pornography, forcible rape, kidnapping, and assault and battery against minors?
None of these accusations have been proved yet in a court of law. The accused adults and teens are out on bail.
Probably I should shut up and let her go unwarned with the sleazy kid who is picking her up on his code-violation motorcycle -- on the grounds that I am not to malign these people.
-----------
I have a low opinion of statements like these.
They are meaningless, so I am suspicious when people decorate themselves with them.
I think that very often they are not really moral standards that their endorser lives up to.
I think they are ways of anointing oneself with the appearance of virtue -- wowing the congregation without expending a penny or lifting a finger to achieve these glorious goals.
These moral precepts are like the assertion "Ill pray for you."
Like "I'll try," "I'll pray for you" is a specific non-promise.
It undertakes to do exactly nothing for you -- not even pray.
The world is already filled with so much nonsense and bullshit that I think it's morally wrong to add even more.
"Be kind" indeed!
"The world is already filled with so much nonsense and bullshit ..."
"Amen" to that.
That brings to my mind another problem I've been working on: How to fish out facts from the ocean of treacherous misinformation all around us.
I think I see what you're saying now, about moral advice and meaning. It still isn't clear to me what you're saying about the value of moral pronouncements being in their emotional color, not their denotative content. Hmm. As I was writing that, I almost wrote "emotional appeal," instead of "emotional color," and it gave me a new idea about what you might be saying. When you say "The value of moral pronouncements," it doesn't mean that you see any value in them for you. You're saying that it explains for you the appeal that moral pronouncements have for other people. Is that right?
"The world is already filled with so much nonsense and bullshit that I think it's morally wrong to add even more."
ROTFL! Good one! Beautiful! The more I think about it, the funnier it is. You really had me going for a while. I was sitting there, looking at that moral pronouncement, trying to see the possible emotional appeal, and finally it all came together.
Just now I was thinking about you labeling "help" as a weasel word, and then about uses and misuses of labels, and now I see better how what you said about a lot of statements being relative, and about binary thinking, is relevant to my thoughts about labels.
I am CHARACTERIZING moral advice as having emotional color only, but no denotative content.
I'm not sure that's why people like them. I think people would claim that these vague sayings DO have meaning, but this assertion collapses when it is challenged.
However, that is not enough to make most people begin sneering at sayings like yours, since they are lazy thinkers and besides, they don't particularly care.
I think the real appeal of these content-free, feelie-good sayings is that they anoint the person with a sense of virtue -- but without cost.
It is amazingly cheap to SAY "Do unto others ... " and it's even better because you are never expected to actually do it. (I think that is generally lucky.)
It's like the free and easy offer to "Pray for you."
Right.
That is the LEAST you can do -- literally.
Too bad it is entirely worthless, and not only that, the pious person won't even actually pray for you.
But saying that for free, entailing absolutely no work or trouble, gets you to look pious -- so it's far far better than giving the grieving person $50 for her unexpected expenses, or cleaning her house or minding her kids.
----------
Please do not persist in telling me what I mean, or guessing at it with so much self-satisfaction.
I am more than willing to tell you myself what I mean.
I am always trying to communicate directly and clearly, with no hidden meanings.
Naturally I do not always succeed in getting it right.
But that is not a warrant for you to give yourself permission to speak for me and to announce to me what I mean.
If I am ever accidentally unclear, please let me know.
I will be happy to try again.
-----------
It is tedious for me to correct your misjudgments as you guess what I mean and think and feel, so I won't.
I hope that my succinct statement of what I mean will work.
To repeat:
It is my claim that moral assertions do not have any denotative content, only (like music) emotional color.
The more some saying is "get-behind-it moral advice," that we all agree on, the less it actually means anything when you unpack it.
Conversely, the more it has specific content, the less it is moral -- ultimately becoming a procedural handbook instead of a Sermon on the Mount.
And that goes for the examples of moral advice that you printed.
I have two questions.
1. Does it matter to you if I understand anything you've said to me?
2. Does it matter to you if you understand anything I've said to you?
You wrote:
"I am interested in swapping views."
Does your idea of swapping views include anything that you would call communication, understanding, or learning? If so, what are your ideas about how any of that can happen between us?
Originally, in our discussion here on my blog, I was responding to this, that you wrote to me at Atheist Revolution:
"I am interested in finding out more about what you are thinking."
When you first commented here, I had that in mind as your reason for being here, so I was trying to help you understand what I was thinking. Then I became interested in finding out more about what you were thinking, so I tried to do that. What you've said all makes sense to me now, but to me that doesn't necessarily mean that I've understood it correctly. Is there anything you'd like to do, to find out if I've understood you correctly?
You said that you were interested in finding out more about what I'm thinking. Have you found out all you wanted to know about that? If not, is there anything you'd like to do, to find out more about it?
Is there anything else you'd like to do in this discussion?
Would you like to know anything about what I would like to do in this discussion?
1) I was (am) interested in your thinking on labels.
You shut that down, as I understood it, by saying that your work on that topic was unfinished.
2) But anyway, by that time, the conversation had shifted to a discussion about "moral advice."
3) In neither case, when I say "find out more about what you are thinking," do I mean to imply that your thinking will not be probed, challenged, questioned, or contradicted by me.
4) Possibly there is a better way to characterize my interest in your ideas. I am interested in your thinking about those topics, but not as a student at the feet of a guru. I'm interested in how they are the same and different from mine, and how the differences stand up to a challenge in either direction. (That is, I'd like to see if my ideas can withstand your challenges.)
6) What I'd like to do next in this discussion is to see how my ideas (about the meaning of moral sayings) have or have not impacted your ideas about the value of such statements.
~ Would you still publish a list like the one with 14 items?
~ Do you still think that "Do unto others ... " (for example) is a meaningful statement?
~ (questions circling around this topic)
7) I'd like to do something else too: Thrash our any additional or unresolved disagreements, not necessarily to the point of agreement, but at least to the point of everyone's having said all they can, and now are just repeating themselves, or the point where the remaining differences can be identified.
8) I would LOVE to know what you would like to do in this discussion, and I undertake in advance to cooperate with your getting it if I can.
Well! I like that response very much! All that looks good to me.
It's breakfast time for us now. We're not waiting until noon this time! Patty's feeling much better, but we're still not sure about what she can eat. I looked up some ideas on the Internet, and it looks like the Muesli and bananas we usually have on weekdays might work, although the fiber makes it a little questionable. Anyway, she says it sounds good to her.
Yesterday we thought we might go to the clinic today. Not sure about that yet, and there's housework and other work to do, so I may or may not be back in an hour or two.
I'll keep on checking my email for notifications.
I will surely respond as soon as I can.
Thanks!
* What I would like to do in this discussion
What I would like most to do in this discussion, is for each of us to talk about what we're doing to improve ourselves and help improve the world; and for us to encourage and support each other in that, and exchange ideas, experiences and information about it.
* How this discussion has impacted my ideas about the value of moral prescriptions
I don't see anything that has changed in my thinking about the value and meaning of moral prescriptions. I haven't seen you saying anything about that, that I didn't already know. I haven't seen you saying anything that has any relevance to the value and meaning that I see in some moral prescriptions.
It has stimulated a lot of thinking, about morality, meaning, value, arts, and what I'm trying to do; and it has helped me clarify some of my thoughts about all that, in my own mind, not that I would know how to explain it to anyone else.
One thought about meaning comes to mind. I see that people who publicly endorse the most popular moral prescriptions interpret and apply them in widely divergent ways, sometime even in contrary ways, and that a lot of them don't use them at all to guide their own actions. They're just empty words in the mouths of a lot of people, and even when they aren't, it's impossible to predict anyone's actions in any situation from the popular moral prescriptions they endorse. If that's what you're saying, then I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Earlier in our discussion I searched all over the Internet for possible examples of moral prescriptions, besides the Ten Commandments, and I never thought of the Sermon on the Mount! Just now I read that again, with your ideas in mind, and I don't see the relevance of anything you've been saying, to the value and meaning I see in the Sermon on the Mount. I do see both you and Jesus disapproving of pious self-serving hypocrisy and empty words.
* Additional or unresolved disagreements
Was your interest in my thinking about labels because you thought I was making a moral pronouncement? Apart from that, do you have any other interest in my thinking about labels?
* My thinking about labels
My thinking about labels changed while we were discussing it, and I wanted to practice it for a while before I said any more about it, but I can try to explain what my thinking is now.
It might not be about labels at all. I was saying that I wanted to practice two things:
1. I want to practice never associating any personality or character defects with any group or category of people, with possible rare exceptions in some kinds of discussions, which I won't take the time and space to discuss just now. That's only marginally related to labels.
2. I want to practice never imagining that an (x) kind of label that I see attached to someone tells me anything about them, and never using an (x) kind of label to try to convey any information about anyone. The (x) will be clarified later, after I practice some more.
That isn't really about labels, it's about words, language and anything else we use to represent anything else. It's an awareness of the limitations and side effects of using representations, and learning habits and reflexes that take those into account. Different kinds of representations might have different kinds of limitations and side effects, so the best habits and reflexes might be different for different kinds of representations. Think of flat map projections of the earth's surface. Currently I happen to be interested in some problems that I see associated with representing people as being divided into groups and categories, and labels associated with that, so what I'll be practicing will revolve around that.
One example that has concerned me is people being socially intimidated into labeling themselves as either "gay" or "straight," and reducing themselves, in their own minds, to the popular views of what those mean in their social circles.
Another example is people labeling themselves and others as "Christian," "Muslim," "Jewish," "atheist," "Baha'i," "freethinker," "skeptic," or some other label with ideological implications, and then projecting their stereotype of each label onto each person they label or see labeled that way.
I'm still not sure about this:
"The more it has a meaning, the less it is about morals.
When its meaning is exact and specific, it is a procedural handbook."
That might be true in many or most cases. I'm not sure it is. I'm not sure it isn't. I don't see why it would necessarily be true in all cases. I don't see why an exact and specific set of rules can't be about morals. Leviticus 18:6-23 looks pretty exact and specific to me, and it looks to me like it's about morals.
These look exact and specific to me, and they look to me like they're about morals:
Deuteronomy 14:28 At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates: 14:29 And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest.
Deuteronomy 24:19 When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hands.
Deuteronomy 24:20 When thou beatest thine olive tree, thou shalt not go over the boughs again: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow.
Deuteronomy 24:21 When thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean it afterward: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow.
My biggest question is, what's the significance of all that for you? What if exact and specific rules of conduct are never about morals? What if moral prescriptions never have any denotative content? What difference does any of that make to you?
The exact and specific commands that you quote are "about" morals in a sense, but only in the way that any statute has the intent to perform a social good.
They are not "moral precepts," however.
They are statutes, laws, data entries in a handbook of rules.
In fact, it is just these lists of laws and rules that makes religion experts describe Judaism as "non-spiritual."
It is all mechanical, all exact rules to be followed exactly, full of "sins" that you can commit unintentionally, required ritual behavior and acts, and mechanical cleansing of sin.
People incur guilt as a group, and are punished or forgiven as a group.
People don't have independent and personal moral careers, only corporate fault.
This is the consequence of life in a society that has developed only up to the tribal level. In those cultures, every person represents any other, and everyone is a stand-in for everyone else. That's why entire cities (or even the entire planet) can be murdered off, why you can murder your own brother, why you get to murder every single person -- ("the indiscriminate slaughter of every age, sex, and condition" as Jefferson wrote about another tribal culture)-- to steal their land.
This is actually a serious difficulty with Judaism, now and at the time of the introduction of Christianity. The non-spiritual nature of a mechanistic and corporate religion was becoming an important problem, and Christianity (along with the other mystery religions of the time) countered this problem with new ideas.
-------
The morality of Jesus is all spiritual.
Over and over, he says things like, "You have heard that you are not to commit adultery. But I tell you that you can sin by even thinking about sex with the wrong person."
The Sermon on the Mount is full of spiritual talk -- not a single procedural rule.
Accidental "sin" (really "ritual impurity") is not possible; "sin" now requires the full assent of the will, and the ritualistic behavioral rules have been overthrown.
A personal relationship with Jesus replaces a corporate identity, and every person (even women!) has a personal moral career and a personally-tailored fate in the afterlife.
(Continued)
... continued
The problem, however, is that this rejection of a non-spiritual list of procedures and rules, replaced with spiritual admonitions, comes at a significant cost.
Now there is a lack of specificity so acute that no one knows how to obey Jesus's wishes.
Now no one knows whether any specific act is moral or not.
The death penalty? Abortion? Euthanasia?
Is the prenatal genetic engineering of humans immoral or morally required?
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2013/01/22/genetically-altering-unborn-babies-personalities-a-moral-obligation-says-oxford-professor/
Can women morally limit their own reproduction?
http://www.theatlantic.com/personal/archive/2007/05/the-moral-obligation-to-have-children/54313/
------------
In a mechanistic and non-spiritual (not morally oriented) system, these conundrums cannot arise.
The EXACT and SPECIFIC number of birds that the priest must rip apart alive with his bare hands is spelled out in detail, and it automatically cleanses the filth of women who have menstruated. They don't even have to be sorry! They don't even have to pray!
All they have to do is buy some birds and get them ripped in half while alive, and BINGO! All clean and sin-free now.
--------
But under Christianity, no matter how many people we burn alive at the stake or how much slaughter we commit over the infinitesimal variations of this religion, we STILL don't know if women may morally limit the number of their children, or if we can transplant into Baby Fae the heart of a baboon.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1984/11/21/baby-fae-a-breakthrough-or-an/
------------
When the rules are all spelled out in a procedural handbook, you can just look it up to see if giraffes are kosher and to find the skinny on serving water buffaloes as a luncheon entree.
But that list of rules is hardly about "morality" -- it's only about regulations.
You ask what difference it makes to me if it is true that there is no denotative content to moral prescriptions.
It matters because if they DON'T MEAN ANYTHING, then no one should pay the slightest attention to them.
I can't believe I had to tell you that.
LOL! I think I get it now. Thank you!
I understand that you "got it" -- which I take to mean "I see your point."
But I am wondering why you don't AGREE with my point.
I would love to hear a view that contradicts mine.
I am uneasy talking to you for many reasons, but this eerie failure to engage is one of them.
I am not challenging you for the theoretical exercise, or hoping for no more than for you to "get it!"
I would like to change your mind -- or failing that, find out why you are staying stuck on your original position.
I say that these little adages are free of meaning.
I day that they are produced for their emotional tone only.
When you cite one, or think it, or refer to it, you are not really talking.
You are certainly not giving or getting information.
You are humming.
I would like to know
> if you still value those little sayings
> if you also (like me) think they are empty of meaning
> if you think we should give any regard at all to the illusion of a message that these instrumentals consist of
And I would especially love to hear you elaborate on any grounds for disagreement.
I'm working on a response to your last comments, but Patty will be getting up in a few minutes and getting ready to go to the hospital for some routine tests (not related to her recent stomach problems), so it might be another hour or two before I post.
yeah, okay.
I don't see any possibility that I will ever endorse everything you're saying, exactly the way you're saying it, or that I will ever give up using and propagating moral precepts in some ways, but I don't intend to try at all to justify that to you, or to convince you that anything you're saying is wrong.
I think I see some of the same things you see, when you say that moral precepts are empty of meaning, and I think I have some of the same objections you do to some of the ways people use them. I wouldn't say any of that exactly the way you do, for various reasons, for example because the words "moral" and "meaning" are too ambiguous.
It's possible that I sometimes misuse moral precepts, myself, and I'm planning to watch for that now, and try to correct any bad habits I might have in using them.
You said that the reason all this matters is because if moral precepts don't mean anything, then no one should pay the slightest attention to them. Earlier you said that the world is already filled with so much nonsense and bullshit that you think it's morally wrong to add even more. In the context where I saw it, I thought that the nonsense and bullshit you were talking about was moral precepts.
At one point you said that you use the word "moral" to refer to all statements that refer to right and wrong, should and shouldn't. As I understand it that would make these moral precepts:
"It's always morally wrong, under all circumstances, to use or propagate any moral precept, in any way."
"No one should ever pay the slightest attention to any moral precepts, under any circumstances."
I have some questions.
1. Do you agree with those statements? If I agreed with those statements, that would mean to me that it's morally wrong to use them or propagate them, and that I should not pay the slightest attention to them. Besides being confusing, to say the least, that might result in me concluding that what you're doing here is morally wrong, and that I shouldn't pay any attention to what you're saying.
2. If you don't agree with those two statements, why not?
Actually, now that I think of it, what I see you doing here does look to me like an example of some of the attitudes and behavior that I object to in the use of moral precepts. I really do think that the moral precepts that you want me to either endorse or refute, are as empty of meaning as any others, in a very restricted sense of the word "meaning."
That doesn't mean that your moral precepts don't mean anything to me. They do mean something to me, in a different sense of the word "meaning." I think I understand what you mean by them, and I agree with that in some ways that mean a lot to me
If you choose to answer my two questions above, that might help me see how to help you understand, if you would like to, why nothing you've said seems to me to have any relevance to the value and meaning I see in moral precepts.
1. I don't think that I ever said anything about the way people "misuse moral precepts." If anything I said suggested that, I retract it.
I think that promulgating moral precepts in itself is "using them incorrectly." They should be set to music and hummed.
-------------
If you think that I was not aware of the contradiction in saying "should" statements to assert that "should" statements are meaningless, then you had better revise your estimate of how stupid you think I am.
I went to a little trouble to phrase them to amuse you with my irony.
I was pleased when I made you laugh before, so I tried too hard to make you laugh again.
--------
But because I know to my sorrow that I am not funny, I will refrain.
Let me say this instead about moral precepts:
• It is senseless to propagate moral precepts because they are empty of meaningful content.
• Quoting them is useless because they don't mean anything.
• When you say them, you are not saying anything.
• You are humming, not transmitting an idea.
• The only rational response to a language product that has no meaningful denotation is to recognize and accept this fact, and to treat the sayings like the music that they are -- but not as concepts.
-------------
It makes me suspicious when I hear people claiming these precepts as their standards. I wonder if the user is attempting to anoint himself with false and unearned virtue for the purpose of shining others on, for getting over.
In fact, I often judge your remarks as attempts to get over, and the result is that I don't trust you.
I need to try to catch up on some things I've been putting off for two or three days.
Yes indeed.
It might even be years, like the dissolve you did on your stand on "labels."
I'll be glad to hear from you again, but I certainly won't be expecting it.
But thanks for an unusual and curious exchange. I found it invigorating.
~ Ann Worth
When you said that the world is already filled with so much nonsense and bullshit that you think it's morally wrong to add even more, I thought it was a joke, but from what you said afterwards, I didn't see any sign that you saw the irony in it.
I'm glad to know that you liked making me laugh, and I appreciate you telling me that and about your other feelings, and I want you to know that, even if it makes me look like a poseur to you. :p
And I don't want you to stop trying to make me laugh. (tears in my eyes :p)
A joke loses its savor if it has to be telegraphed.
The sorrow of my life is that I ALWAYS have to telegraph my jokes because I am SOOO not funny!
:(
(sigh)
I really think I should stop trying. I only make my friends anxious when I try to make them laugh.
When you said "It matters because if they DON'T MEAN ANYTHING, then no one should pay the slightest attention to them," was that a joke, or not? I don't want you to stop trying to make me laugh, but in this case I need to know. If it was a joke, then I'm asking you seriously, so please, for this time, answer me seriously:
1. Does it matter to you if moral precepts don't mean anything? If so, why?
2. Do you want to try to convince me of that? If so, why?
3. Do you have any other interest in me, besides that?
"The sorrow of my life is that I ALWAYS have to telegraph my jokes because I am SOOO not funny!"
Don't feel lonely. It's always been that way for me too, at least in Internet discussions.
I did catch on to one of your jokes, and I really would miss it if you never tried to do it any more.
I do need to try to catch up on some things, so it might be a day or two before I take the time I want to, to consider your last few posts and respond to them.
I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, but would you like to try to convince me to never use, propagate, promulgate or disseminate anything that I see as a moral precept, in any way, under any circumstances? If so, I'll try to imagine some ways that could happen.
In one way what I wrote was a joke -- in the attempted comical irony of saying " 'Should' statements should never be spoken."
The problem I kept on running into was the use of the word "should" in its completely non-moral use:
> There is road work ahead, so you should take a left on Maple Street instead of continuing ahead.
> You should not pull the silks too tightly if you want to prevent your needlework from puckering.
> In spite of what you often read, you shouldn't add soda to green beans while they are cooking.
------
I did a little work to defeat that use of the word "should," with imperfect success.
----------
Let me say what I mean as a straightforward assertion with no jokes with word play;
• Moral precepts are meaningless.
• When you look at them closely, they dissolve.
• They do not have coherent denotative content.
• So quoting them is useless. It is not communication.
• At the most, it is a broadcast of emotion (sometimes a pretended emotion.)
• Sometimes quoting moral precepts is not useless, but malicious.
• Sometimes people announce that they live by (for example) the Golden Rule.
• They don't.
• Or they might proclaim that the purpose of their lives is to benefit others, or
to "Be fair."
• It isn't.
• They might be trying to present themselves as something they are not
(trustworthy, for example.)
One of my students remarked that it's the "Jesus Jesus" people who cannot be trusted.
It is in your best interests to be suspicious of people who -- by doing nothing but quoting incoherent and meaningless platitudes -- try to create the (false) impression that they are spiritual or moral.
Moral precepts are blank slates, movie projection screens, Rorschach tests, white noise.
Naive people hear what they expect to hear.
This makes moral sayings a good tool for taking advantage of others. The listener does all the work of describing the perp. "Oh my! He's so nice, so fair! He only does unto others what he would want done unto him. That is so moral!"
~ Pay attention to empty words and meaningless expressions.
~ The users do not have your interests at heart.
Here are some examples of the use of meaningless language by people who are bigger experts than you:
http://home.olemiss.edu/~egjbp/comp/ad-claims.html
No. They're not.
But they're up to something all right.
You wrote:
" ... would you like to try to convince me to never use, propagate, promulgate or disseminate anything that I see as a moral precept, in any way, under any circumstances?"
I would like to convince you never to use a moral precept naively -- neither as a victim nor as a perpetrator of the fraud.
Other than that, I like to win arguments.
I'm not sure my interest in you is so deep that I care what you do. Maybe we can just be friends for now instead of taking moral responsibility for each other.
But I do like to win arguments.
I like to argue Christians to their knees, but I don't really care enough about some random internet guy to think about him ever again, never mind fervently hope that he never goes back to church.
I'm already convinced never to use a moral precept naively, either as a victim or as a perpetrator of the fraud. I was convinced of that long before we started this conversation.
I'm not volunteering for any arguments. If you call what we've been doing an argument, you're welcome to say you won.
Some time ago you said "I would LOVE to know what you would like to do in this discussion, and I undertake in advance to cooperate with your getting it if I can." Have you changed your mind about that? I've already told you what I'd like to do.
Everything I see you saying about moral precepts seems to me to apply to some ways of using them, but not all.
I don't want to discuss why I don't agree with everything you're saying.
I don't want to be in any argument.
If you've changed your mind about doing what I wanted to do, is there anything else you might like to discuss with me? Would you like me to try to think of some other things I might like to discuss?
Would you be interested in knowing how I use moral precepts?
Seeing how I use moral precepts might help you understand why I don't agree with everything you're saying.
Yes, I still want to know what you are aiming for in this discussion, and I still agree in advance to cooperate with your intentions if I can.
I am also interested in the various ways your ideas or practices contradict mine:
~ How you use moral precepts
~ In what specifics you don't agree with everything I am saying
My interest lies in my wish to perfect my own ideas.
I would like to expose their hidden defects, or to put them to the test.
So any countercases, any overlooked examples, anything like that -- the contrary ideas with make you disagree with me -- those I am quite interested in.
My loyalty is not to this stance I have taken.
My loyalty is to whatever stance is unassailable, most correct.
So if you had a chance to lay out your ideas for me, that would be grand.
In return, I will try to find the weaknesses of your ideas too.
Then we both will have good sound positions that can withstand strong challenges.
The positions don't even have to be the same.
Different people value different things, for example, so the end points of their positions may differ.
* What I'm aiming for in this discussion
What I'm aiming for in this discussion keeps changing, because I've been trying to work with you on whatever you're trying to do, and my understanding of that keeps changing.
- At first I thought you wanted to know more about what I was thinking about labels. I took that as trying to understand what I was thinking, the way I try to understand what other people are thinking. I was trying to help you with that, as well as I could with all the confusion about it in my own mind.
- Then I got interested in what you were telling me about your ideas, and I was trying to understand that, and how it might apply to what I'm doing. I thought maybe you objected to something I was doing because it looked to you like moral advice, and I didn't see anything in what I was doing that looked like that to me, so I was trying to find out more about that.
- You said you'd like to know what I thought about your ideas about moral advice, so I tried to tell you.
- Then I was trying to find out what the point of all this was, for you, why it matters to you, and why you were telling me. That's part of what I do to try to understand what a person is thinking.
- Then, in response to my questions, you said that you'd like to see how your ideas had or had not impacted mine, and to thrash out any additional or unresolved disagreements, so I tried to work with you on that. Also, you said you'd like to know what I would like to do in this discussion, so I told you. I also backtracked and tried to explain some more what I was thinking about labels.
- Then I asked you what difference it makes to you, if moral precepts never have any denotative content, and when you answered that question, it all came together, and I thought I finally understood what you were thinking. Then I thought you were giving me an ultimatum to either agree with everything you said, exactly the way you said it, without any qualification, and to never use any moral precepts in any way; or tell you my reasons for not agreeing, so you could try to knock them down. I chose not to comply. I'm not running a bowling alley. Sorry if I took that wrong.
- I tried again to tell you what I thought about your ideas, then I asked some questions, thinking that your answers to those questions might help me help you understand why I didn't agree with everything you were saying.
- Then I felt confused again about what you want to do in this discussion, so I asked you about that again. Now I'll be reviewing your latest answers to that question, and trying to work with you on those.
Yay!
Another over-the-top bizarre message.
I never saw anything like this in my life.
Jim, how about this:
1) You write anything you want on any subject.
2) I will respond with agreements or disagreements (and the reasons, and state my views.
3) Then you respond with agreements or disagreements (and the grounds for those), and state your views.
4) And then I will respond with agreements or the grounds for any disagreements, and state my views.
And so on until we run out of electrons (or interest LOL!)
At all times, the participants strive for lucidity, brevity, and a manly frankness, openness, and forthcoming-ness.
They are not overly interested in peeping out the other person because they wouldn't stoop to tailoring their responses anyway.
----------
The only other person I am acquainted with who doesn't know that conversation is a chain of links -- response-response-response-response -- has manic depression.
Your orientation is so strongly other-directed (or SOMETHING) that it is preventing you from conversing at all. You can't state your beliefs until you know what my motives are. Whaaat?
Do you have this much trouble IRL?
----------------
So that is how a conversation works in my experience.
But of course, in my conversations there are no hidden "get-over" agendas.
I suspect that there are such agendas in yours.
--------------
I'd like to continue.
You are a oner, and I feel mentally stimulated coping with your posts.
Wishing you well -- and a long, productive conversation with me ...
~ Ann Worth
I'll take that as another attempt at humor. I did say that I didn't want you to stop trying! Attempted humor or not, it did give me a good laugh, after I got over feeling insulted, and saw the irony in it. It isn't that your humor isn't funny. It gives me a good laugh when I catch on to it.
I'll take this as at least half serious:
"I'd like to continue.
You are a oner, and I feel mentally stimulated coping with your posts.
Wishing you well -- and a long, productive conversation with me ..."
Okay.
Do you want to start?
Say anything you want on any topic.
That means:
> Make and assertion
> Take a stand
I will respond.
"> Make an assertion
> Take a stand"
No. I won't. I've told you what I would most like to do, and I'm agreeing to some things you want to do, but that isn't one of them.
Coping with your posts is good for me, too. They give me good practice in some things I'm trying to learn to do.
Everything you're saying is so full of irony, that just now I was wondering if any of it is serious. Then I realized that I don't need to know. I can enjoy the irony, whether it's intentional or not, and treat it all seriously, at the same time. That might eliminate one distraction for me. So remember that if you see me treating your irony seriously, it doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the humor. I'm not going to telegraph my enjoyment every time!
You wrote:
"1) You write anything you want on any subject.
2) I will respond with agreements or disagreements (and the reasons, and state my views.
3) Then you respond with agreements or disagreements (and the grounds for those), and state your views.
4) And then I will respond with agreements or the grounds for any disagreements, and state my views."
I'll keep that in mind, as a possible explanation of what you might be trying to do, when you aren't trying to be funny, if that ever happens. I'll also consider practicing it myself, but at this point I'm not saying that I will.
"At all times, the participants strive for lucidity, brevity, and a manly frankness, openness, and forthcomingness."
I always try to follow those moral precepts. That's an example of where I don't agree with you about never using any moral precepts in any way. I do object to some ways of using them, which would include some of what I see you doing here, if I took it all seriously.
Some of my current aims in this discussion are:
1. To try to understand whatever you might be trying to tell me.
2. To try to work with you on whatever else you might be trying or agreeing to do, in whatever ways I can without defeating my own purposes. If that includes doing what I would most like to do, I'll be glad to do it, but only if you're really volunteering for it. I haven't seen any sign in your actions, to show that you are.
Pouring contempt on what I say and do, and depreciating my personality, character and motives, gives me good practice in learning not to be distracted by all that, but I don't see it doing anything for communication and understanding. In fact, it seems to me to detract from them.
I'll be reviewing what we've said in recent posts, then I'll post again.
It is my opinion that the purpose of communication is a series of revelations about the thoughts (or sometimes feelings) of the participants.
That means that it is your job to say what you think, and it is my job to say what I think.
This process works best without second guessing.
It is annoying and time-wasting for you to try to puzzle out what I mean.
Instead of that, kindly assume that I mean what I say (at face value.)
These are such elementary standards of conversation that I no longer believe that you intend to converse.
I don't know what it is, but there is something wrong here.
Are you a prisoner?
Are you a member of a group that others call a cult?
Are you selling a product or service?
Are you hoping to raise money?
Has anyone ever told you that you have a major mental illness?
You have already said you are not a member of the clergy.
-----------
Your turn.
If you have any thoughts you'd care to share, I would like to hear them.
ROTFL!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I decided to telegraph my enjoyment of the irony this time.
I'll respond to it seriously, later.
Right.
I've decided to try critiquing your position on moral precepts, if you'll agree to that, and to lay out a position of mine for you to critique, any way you want to, if you'll agree to that. I have some preparation to do, that will take some time.
Meanwhile:
* Comedy and communication
I'm learning to appreciate and enjoy the irony and farce in what you're saying, more and more. I'm not sure how well I can distinguish your comedy from what you're really trying to say, and I've decided not to try. After I've enjoyed the comedy, I'll treat it all as serious. As I said before, if you see me treating your comedy seriously, that won't always mean that I didn't get a good laugh out of it.
* Answers to some personal questions
- I'm not a prisoner, except metaphorically sometimes, in the words of Baha'u'llah, in the "prison of self."
- I've seen some people campaigning against the Baha'i Faith, calling it a cult.
- I'm not selling any product or service.
- I'm not hoping to raise any money.
- Sometimes in Internet discussions I've seen people saying or insinuating that I have a mental illness. I've never been told that by any mental health professional, if that's what you mean.
* How I use moral precepts
I'll be writing a new blog post, to start a separate discussion about that. I'll give you a preview here.
My moral precepts come mostly from Baha'i writings. It looks to me like the way I use them most often is by saying them to myself, and sometimes reading them. I like what I see and imagine that saying them to myself does to me, and for me. For example, I see that sometimes it helps put me in the right spirit for something I want to do; sometimes it inspires, encourages and strengthens me to be the way I want to be and do what I want to do; and sometimes it gives me moral support in the face of scorn and contempt for my values. I imagine that it helps me in other ways in trying to be the best person I can be and do all the good I can do.
Another way I use them is for ideas about ways to improve my character and conduct, and to help improve the world.
Another way I use them is saying them to other people sometimes, when I think they might have some good use for them.
* Critiquing your position
I'll be writing a new blog post, to start a separate discussion about that.
Before I try to critique your position, I'd like to know, seriously, no joking, do you see any potential flaws yourself, in your arguments? For example:
- Do you see any logical fallacies in your arguments?
- Do you see any words with commonly used meanings that vary widely, at the heart of your arguments?
- Do you ever see yourself switching between meanings of a word, in the middle of your arguments?
- Do you see any leaps of faith in your arguments? That is, where there's no logical imperative from one step to the next, but you expect the other person to agree to it anyway.
- Do you see any other potential flaws in your arguments?
Seriously please, no joking this time, if that's possible for you. :p
Also, I'll need you to write up the position you want me to critique, step by step, in logical order, from your premises to your conclusions, or point out to me where you've already done so. Or else, agree for me to write that up that myself, my own way, from your comments.
* Critiquing my position
You invited me to lay out my position, and to make an assertion and take a stand, on any topic. I don't do that, but I've decided that just to please you, I will. If you can make jokes to please me, then I can do something to please you. :p
I'll be writing a new post, to start a separate discussion for that. I'll give you a preview here.
My position is that I'm trying to learn to follow Baha'u'llah, and His Universal House of Justice. I can't think of any explanation of why I'm doing that, that really explains it, apart from it possibly being a gift from God, but for discussion purposes I'll say that it's because I've learned to love Him and trust Him.
One more I forgot: Do you see any ad hominem in any of your comments?
Okay.
That will work as a basis for a discussion, I daresay.
I will be away from my personal computer for a long time today, so I won't be on line until late tonight -- 10 pm Boston time, maybe.
Talk to you then.
------------
I wasn't trying to make a logic statement, so I think the expression "ad hominem" may not apply.
I do think that some of the things I write may be offensive or hurtful, if that is what you mean, but since you are affecting to take everything I say as a joke, I don't have to officially care, on the grounds that you tell me you are amused, not offended.
Thanks for answering my funny questions.
I keep suspecting you of hostile intentions. I've been stung so many times by people with hostile intentions that I thought were friendly, that it's hard for me to believe that yours could really be sincere and friendly, in spite of numerous signs that they are. The way that affects my posts might be part of what's making me look suspicious to you.
I'm not sure it will do any good for me to tell you that, but I'm not sure it won't, so I'm telling you. I'll be trying not to let my suspicions influence my comments so much.
I'm going to try really trusting you. If I get stung, I get stung.
I've published the new blog posts, to use for some of the topics we'll be discussing.
We can do it all on this post if you want to. Mainly I was worried about this thread getting too long. Also, I just like having separate threads for different topics.
Like I said, I'm going to try really trusting you.
When I imagine you having sincere and friendly intentions, I imagine you having a sympathetic interest in how I'm feeling, and in what I'm trying to do, in this conversation with you.
Would you like to know how I'm feeling, and what I'm trying to do, in this conversation with you? It's possible that you already know, from what I've said before, but the only responses I've seen to any of that looked scornful and contemptuous to me.
In fact, now that I think of it, I don't want to continue any discussions with you any more, without first resolving some personal issues that I see coming between us. I can't say any more now because Patty will be coming home soon, and I have a lot to do to get ready for that and for our trip to the doctor this afternoon. She's been sick for a week now. She's felt a lot better, but it keeps lingering on
Examples of the personal issues I'm talking about are you feeling uneasy and disrespected, and not trusting me, and insinuating that I have a serious mental illness. No matter how you meant that, as honestly what you're thinking, as an insult, or as a joke, there's something seriously wrong here. You've said yourself that there's something wrong here. I'm agreeing with that now, and I think it would be positively harmful to continue without trying to resolve it.
I forgot, some other issues are me feeling like you have hostile intentions, and that you're being dishonest with me.
I'll continue for now to try to imagine you with sincere and friendly intentions, regardless of the hostility and dishonesty, real or imagined, that I see in what you've been doing with me.
I don't want to continue any discussions with you, without first trying to resolve some personal issues between us. I think that would be positively harmful. When it gets to a point where you're thinking or insinuating that I have a serious mental illness; and I don't know if you're sincerely asking, joking, or just being malicious; then it's gone way too far already, for me. I'm not sure how to resolve those personal issues, and I'm not even sure it's possible, but I want to try, and I hope you will too.
For now I'll try describing the issues as I see them, and tell you some of my thoughts and feelings about them.
Issues that I've seen you mention:
- Feeling uneasy with some of my remarks.
- Feeling disrespected.
- Not trusting me.
- Feeling that there's something wrong.
Other issues that I see:
- Your depreciating remarks, insinuations and presumptions about my personality, character, behavior, motives and intentions, permeating your posts. I have a habit of ignoring those, but I'm thinking now that it isn't right to ignore them with someone who might have friendly intentions. If it's just a way of describing your own feelings, and not really about me, I don't want to trouble you about it, but otherwise, it might be something that needs to be discussed.
I'll be thinking about what I might be able to do, to help resolve those issues.
I forgot two issues:
- The hostility and dishonesty I've been seeing or imagining in what you've been doing with me.
- I think I should tell you explicitly what irony I've been seeing in your posts, if you agree for me to do that. Do you?
After I decided to try critiquing your position, I started looking forward to it, and preparing for it. The more I think about it, the more I think it will be fun. I'll be very disappointed if you abandon the discussion now. I also look forward to you critiquing my position.
I still don't want to do it, without first trying to resolve the personal issues that I see poisoning our conversation. I have some more ideas about how we might do that, which I'll post later.
I won't abandon our discussion!
Wait for me if you can.
I still have classes and a meeting today, but I should be free shortly.
School just started a couple of weeks ago, so things are not smooth yet.
I've been able to read your posts, but I haven't dared to commit to the time to answer them. O could tell that you remembered that I was going to be away from my personal email yesterday, so I was relaxed about not answering.
But then in this post, I saw that you were wondering if I had bailed, so I am DEFYING THE DEAN and writing this quick note!
LOL!
Talk to you soon.
~ Ann Worth
LOL! Thanks! You made me laugh again, from deep inside. :)
I still want to try to resolve the personal issues that I see poisoning our conversation, before we continue our discussions, but to give you a head start, if you'd like that, I'll give you an example of what I'll need, to critique your position. Also I've decided to offer you another position of mine to critique, about moral precepts.
* Critiquing your position
To critique your position, I'll need to see it stated, along with your argument in support of it, in logical order from premises to conclusions. For example:
Example of a position: That it's irrational to use moral precepts in any way.
Example of an argument:
1. Moral precepts are meaningless, meaning that they don't communicate any way to decide if any given action is right or wrong.
2. Therefore, they are useless.
3. Therefore, it's irrational to use them in any way.
* My position
My position is that I'm practicing and promoting some ways of using some moral precepts, that look beneficial to me.
----
I still want to try to resolve the personal issues that I see poisoning our conversation, but I've just been reviewing our discussions, and what you've been doing doesn't look as hostile and dishonest to me as it did earlier.
I've thought some more about how to try to resolve the personal issues that I see poisoning our conversation, and here are some of my ideas:
1. I'll go back through our discussions, to see what all I can find in what I've said, that could make a person feel uneasy, disrespected, suspicious, and make me look like a poseur, a cleric, a prisoner, a member of a cult, selling a product, hoping to raise money, or mentally ill. Maybe you can help me with that, if you want to.
2. If you want to, you might go through our discussions to see what you've said, that could look hostile, dishonest, or ironic to someone. I'll help you with that if you'd like me to.
I don't remember saying that I felt disrespected. Maybe in one specific case.
I am referring to
> the strangeness of your responses
> Your elusiveness
> Your pretense that anything I say makes you roar with laughter
> Your specious kinds of self-disclosure ("I felt so ashamed when ... ")
You tried that twice but dropped it after that.
> Your forced intimacy (Referring to your wife by her first name the first time I ever heard of her)
> An untrustworthy report on why you could not reply (Your wife had to go the the hospital for routine tests.
In what strange universe does a person have routine tests in a HOSPITAL?)
> Your blanket outright refusal to state your position in a frank and manly way, to make an assertion about your position that takes a stand
The most annoying thing -- and one of the most suspicious -- is your insistence that we must first resolve all kinds of nonsense before we can talk about the issues.
We have to unravel whatever it is that is poisoning the relationship between us, and so on.
No we don't.
You can say whatever you want, and I can respond no matter how many unresolved issues there are.
> Your absolute avoidance of conversing about the issues. Anything but! NO NO! No discussion of the actual topic.
That is a troll's tactic, and I would have just dismissed you as such but I had never seen anyone troll his own blog before, so I was (am) curious how it will play out,
-------------
That is a partial list of the things you said that are making me think there is some kind of hidden agenda or unrevealed factor.
In summary:
> False emotional tone
> Not addressing the topic
I am under-motivated to go back through our conversations for that (or any other) reason, especially since it sounds like a cult's self-criticism session.
Instead of my using my own imagination to fantasize about how you felt once upon a time, I encourage you to make a manly and frank disclosure of any feelings I make you have as soon as you are aware of them.
The best way to do that is this:
"Hi, Ann. I know you didn't realize it, but when you asked me if I have ever been diagnosed as mentally ill, it made me feel _____ "
--------------
You should not construe any of this as meaning that you should not say anything you want, just because I won't be bothering.
No matter what you say, I will respond to it.
If it is a topic to debate, I will debate it with you.
If it is an inappropriate emotive remark, I will say why it makes me uneasy.
I'm still trying to imagine you with sincere and friendly intentions, but my natural response to that seems to make you uncomfortable, and I'm seeing now that it might actually be wrong, so I will try learning to be more formal. That's a revelation for me, and could possibly vastly improve what happens in my discussions with people on the Internet, for me and for them. It doesn't mean that I'm feeling any more antagonistic than I've felt before. If my formality ever looks affected, it might be because it really is. That's all I see that it possibly can be, until I've practiced it enough for it to come naturally.
You suggested that I tell you about any feelings I might have, reading your posts, as soon as I have them.
When I first read your last two posts, I saw nothing but hostility in them, and nothing to dispel my impression that you've been dishonest with me. Some other thoughts and feelings that came to me, as I thought about them some more:
- Seeing more of the irony and farce that I've been seeing, in all of the depreciating things you say about me, and in your whole reason for being here.
- Seeing honesty, and a possible sign of friendly intentions, in explaining to me what is making you think there is some kind of hidden agenda or unrevealed factor.
- A new impression of you, as being imprisoned by your prejudices.
- Noticing your use of the word "manly," which I remembered you using before. That doesn't appeal to me at all. In fact, it arouses some contrary feelings, and the way you're using it feels manipulative to me. Anyway, I'm currently trying to learn to exercise my more feminine qualities and capacities.
- Seeing "If it is a topic to debate, I will debate it with you," and thinking, "What part of 'No' don't you understand?" Then I remembered that I've said "No," before, very firmly and decisively, and afterwards changed my mind.
- Seeing "I had never seen anyone troll his own blog before," and enjoying the humor in that.
After reviewing again what has happened between us, it's much easier for me to think your intentions as sincere and friendly, even with all the hostility I see in your posts.
You summarized what is making you think there is some kind of hidden agenda or unrevealed factor, as false emotional tone, and not addressing the topic. I disagree with you about the emotional tone, but at this point it seems worse than futile to me, to try to discuss that with you.
I do want to respond to the issue of me not addressing the topic. Not to try to explain it, but to try to clarify what my current boundaries are, especially since they have changed since we started.
Earlier I did not want to critique your position, and I did not want to try to role-play having some kind of position, myself. That is all it would be, is role-playing, because until now there hasn't been anything in what I'm thinking and doing that I have ever called "my position." All I can do is try to role-play having a "position," based on what I've seen other people saying about "positions."
Now I've decided to try to do both. At first it was only because you insisted on it, but after I started to prepare for it, it started to look like something I might enjoy. However, I will not be trying to prove that your views are wrong, or that mine are right. I will point out where I see room for improvement in what I see you saying and doing, including your critique of the position I'm role-playing.
However, I will not do any of that, unless and until something changes in the way we interact with each other, which I don't know how to explain any better than I already have. Maybe that can happen some day in the future, if we both continue to comment on Atheist Revolution, or we ever see each other anywhere else, but I don't see anything else for me to do about it now. If you don't even want to try, then I won't respond any more to anything you say about possible disagreements between your views and mine. We can try to find something else to discuss, that's agreeable to both of us, if you want to. There might be other things I won't discuss, but at this point I'm not sure what they would be.
Otherwise, I will just look forward to enjoying your comments at Atheist Revolution, now and then, and I will know better than to reply to any of them.
For information:
- If you search on this comments page for "wife," and for "Patty," you'll see that the first time I mentioned her, I referred to her as my wife.
- The strange universe where a person has routine tests in a hospital, is China.
And go ahead, ask me if I'm queer, if you want to.
Let's discuss the actual issues and just skip all the psychoanalysis.
An adult male can just man up and debate a topic even when he detects all kinds of bad vibes from a young woman who can't harm him in any way at all.
It's a weird digression from the actual topic.
It is inexplicable. In a different context, I would just dismiss it as low-grade trolling -- posting ANYTHING but some authentic content on the actual topic.
I will begin.
You did not correctly capture my opinion about the use of moral adages.
Let that be a warning not to volunteer to be the butt of the game of "Guess What I Am Thinking! You'll Never Get It Exactly Right!"
You foisted off on me something like "Moral prescriptions should never be used at any time under any circumstances."
This is not an accurate statement of my opinion on this topic.
You can either
> Guess again (volunteering to be the butt of the game)
> Try something else
Okay.
Suit yourself about conversing on this topic.
China! Are you guys missionaries?
That would account for some of the weird vibe you are giving off ... the persona of
> a minister who wants to be called by his first name
> a hustler, like all religious sales people.
I don't think any of your remarks have suggested any particular sexual orientation, nor do I think that being gay ("queer" as you call it) would be a part of this trollishness.
Any evidence that you have offered about your sexual orientation indicates that you are married to a woman.
Not that I care.
This is just another example of another red herring designed to not talk about "Labels" (which you hastily withdrew for many years to come) or "moral precepts" -- which you are avoiding like Africanized bees.
I'll put it this way: I don't feel safe with you.
I'm not blaming you for it.
I'm not resenting it.
I don't like you any less for it.
There might not be any way, now, for me to feel safe with you. I'm not saying I never will. I just don't see any hope for it, now.
If you try to argue with me about this, or anything else, on this blog or any of my other blogs, you will be trespassing.
You won't be doing me any harm, I don't think you can do me any harm, but you will be trespassing.
(Amazed)
What kind of unsafe?
Are you afraid I will hurt your feelings?
Arguing with you about what?
Your feelings?
I can hardly argue about your feelings.
I am amazed and more than a little amused, but that's not arguing.
I didn't mean to scare you; I had no idea how surprisingly easy it is to frighten you.
-----------
FYI:
> I don't care if you blame me for it or not. What conceivable difference could it possibly make to me?
> Whether you like me or not had never crossed my mind until you mentioned it, when I found that I think it is irrelevant and uninteresting.
> There is nothing you can say to me that would make me feel unsafe.
-------------
Jim, this has been one of the strangest conversations I have ever had on line, and that I have ever had anywhere with a sane person, as you want me to assume.
You are a oner.
What?
Now you're trespassing. If you keep posting, I'll approve your posts, if you want me to, but I won't respond to them unless and until I see you doing something besides trespassing.
If you submit a comment, I'll presume that you want me to approve it, unless you say otherwise, but I won't respond to you any more, unless and until I see you doing something besides trespassing.
Not only do I not know what you are talking about, I am pretty sure that this is not really intended to mean anything at all.
What the hell does "trespassing" mean?
Does it mean "Responding to your posts"?
Here are some examples of what makes me not feel safe with you:
- The scorn and contempt that I see in your posts, for my interests in this conversation, and for me telling you about them.
- The scorn and contempt that I see in your posts, for my feelings in this conversation, and for me telling you about them.
- The scorn and contempt that I see in your posts, for my wish to resolve those and other personal issues that I see poisoning our conversation, before we continue our discussions.
If you are not agreeing to try to help resolve those issues to my satisfaction, before we continue our discussions, anything you post here will be trespassing. Anything you post that does nothing but deny and excuse the scorn and contempt that I see in your posts, will be trespassing. Anything you post here, depreciating my personality, character, interests, motives, purposes, capacities or anything else about me personally, other than my views, will be trespassing.
Depreciating my views will *not* be trespassing. Depreciating anything else about me, personally, will be trespassing.
If you don't understand what I mean by any of that, and you'd like me to try to help you with that, I will.
To be honest and fair, I will say that I don't see any possibility any more, that there's anything you want to do here, that I would agree to do. I'm still willing to explore the possibilities with you, if you want to, and if we can resolve the personal issues that I see poisoning our conversation. I will not continue a conversation that looks poisonous to me.
If you say that all of the scorn and contempt in your posts, for my interests and feelings in this conversation, were only humor and not seriously intended at all, I'll take your word for it, but don't try that kind of humor any more, if you want to continue any discussions with me.
There might still be other issues that I would want to resolve, before we continue any of our discussions.
Responding to any of the above with uncomplimentary remarks or insinuations about my personality, character or anything else about me, personally, other than my views, would be trespassing. If you want to discuss possible defects in my personality, character, mental or emotional health, or anything else about me, other than my views, I'm willing to do that, but that would have to be a separate discussion, in a separate thread, and only if we can first resolve the personal issues that I see poisoning our conversation.
I said that I don't see any hope any more, that there's anything you want to do here, that I would agree to do, but that isn't really true. Obviously I do, otherwise I would have stopped posting. I really am very disappointed, not to be able to continue our discussions, and I'm still cherishing a hope that there is something that you want to do here, after all, that I would like to do.
Absolutely not without first resolving the personal issues that I see poisoning our conversation, to my satisfaction.
In case you don't understand any of that, I'll give you some examples of what you could say, without trespassing:
1. You might try to help me find ways to feel safer, or to resolve the other personal issues I see poisoning our conversation.
2. You might ask me questions, to try to better understand what I'm saying about not feeling safe, or about the personal issues I want to resolve.
3. You might tell me that all the scornful and contemptuous remarks in your posts have been attempts at humor, and that you won't try that kind of humor any more.
4. You might say that you would like to discuss some questions or issues you have, about my personality, character, motives, intentions, mental or emotional health, or something else about me personally, other than my views and interests, and suggest some ideas about where we might do that.
5. You might say that you have some other issues of your own, that you'd like to see resolved, before we continue any discussions.
Those are just examples, to help you understand what you can do here, without trespassing, if you want to, in case it wasn't clear enough from what I said before.
6. You might tell me that you don't see anything in any of your posts that looks scornful and contemptuous to you. At this point, I don't know what I would think about that, but it would not be trespassing.
7. You might offer some ideas about how to resolve the personal issues that I see poisoning our conversation, or ask for my ideas, and consider them thoughtfully and sympathetically.
8. You might say that it isn't worth it to you, to try to help me resolve those issues, and ask me to reconsider. I don't see any possibility that I would, but it wouldn't be trespassing for you to ask.
9. You might try to persuade me to give up resolving the personal issues. If you can do that without any uncomplimentary remarks or insinuations, humorous or not, about my personality, character, motives, intentions, mental or emotional health, etc., then it won't be trespassing. One problem I see for you with that is that, even if it's possible to persuade me to give up resolving those issues, it might take a lot more time and effort than trying to help me resolve them.
There might be some kind of conversation that we would both enjoy, but no amount of enjoyment can make it worthwhile for me to participate in a conversation that looks poisonous to me, or where I don't feel safe.
It is my opinion that you want to avoid discussing the issues
> What work labels do
> What moral precepts mean
I think those topics were never of interest to you.
(But I have a secondary hypothesis that you quickly saw that your initial positions were not valid, so you bailed.)
I think you have an agenda.
That hidden goal accounts for your efforts to turn an objective discussion about an impersonal topic ("moral precepts") into psychoanalysis.
Surely an adult male can have an objective discussion on an impersonal topic ("What moral precepts mean") without feeling this threatened by "personal issues" just by manning up to ignore his fears.
In fact, I doubt that an adult man is this afraid of what some young woman, a complete stranger, may think. It's like it paralyzed you.
In fact, I don't believe it, and that is why I have concluded that there is a REAL (but hidden) reason you want to re-direct the conversation.
How on earth do you play a pick-up game of baseball or hold a job?
Do you have to hold encounter groups first?
----
Only once did I point out that I was joking.
All the other cases were your pretending to be amused.
It is not impossible that you have overestimated how interested I am in your feelings.
I am moderately interested in your ideas about labels and moral precepts.
I would have been interested in
> Agreeing with any of your points I found to be sound
> Adopting any of your views that I had never considered before (and found to be sound)
> Debating the defects of any of your views that I disagreed with
But I'm not too interested in how you could possibly have come to feel unsafe.
> I think it is odd and amusing that you feel that way about the situation
> I don't really believe that you do feel unsafe
> I think it is possible that it's just a claim designed to forward some hidden agenda
I'm treating this now as a discussion about my personality, character, motives, intentions, and mental and emotional health. I'd like to know why all that interests you so much, if you don't mind telling me.
I've already told you that talking repeatedly about being manly doesn't appeal to my interests at all, and in fact it discredits you in my view. You're welcome to continue if you want to. I just don't see how it can possibly serve your interests here.
However, it might help me understand what you're thinking about me. In that case, it wouldn't be as irrelevant as I thought.
You say that you think I have an agenda that I'm trying to hide from you. That's one issue that needs to be resolved, before I'll agree to discuss any philosophical or social issues with you. Another issue is you thinking that I'm continually trying to deceive you about my thoughts and feelings.
If you don't mind telling me, I'd like to know what possible interest you could have in any kind of discussion with someone, if you can't trust him to say what he really thinks, and what possible interest you think he could have in such a discussion?
I'd also like to know what's sustaining your interest in this conversation, if you don't think I'm ever going to discuss anything you want to discuss.
Remarks like this discredit you in my view, and distract my attention from what we're discussing:
"How on earth do you play a pick-up game of baseball or hold a job?
Do you have to hold encounter groups first?"
You're welcome to continue if you want to, but I don't see how that can possibly serve your interests here.
I might have just answered my own question. Maybe you're ask curious about me, as I am now about you.
Can you think of any reason why you might want to have a discussion about philosophical and social issues with someone who is convinced that you're trying to deceive him?
I just realized how hard it might be for you, after all this, to face up to the possibility that you've been wrong about me.
You tell me: What possible, rational reason could there be for me to tell you what I think about anything, as long as you are so quick to treat anything I say as a deliberate deception?
What possible, rational reason could there be for me to tell you what I think about anything, as long as you continually treat what I say as a deliberate attempt to deceive you?
As long as you continually treat what I say as deliberate attempts to deceive you, I won't try to tell you anything any more, about what I'm thinking. I might ask questions, and I might tell you what I intend to do, and not to do, in this conversation. If you don't believe that, then you will just have to learn from experience.
Are you continuing in this conversation because you don't feel like you've won yet?
Do you have any other reasons for continuing in this conversation?
Can you think of any possible, rational reason for me, or anyone else, to continue in a conversation with you, as long as you continually treat what they say as deliberate attempts to deceive you?
If your reason for continuing in this conversation is because you don't feel like you've won yet, what is keeping you from thinking that you've already won?
How do you think you might feel, what do you think you might do, if you found out that you've been wrong about me?
More questions:
- If you think I have some hidden agenda, do you have any theories about what it might be? Do you have any ideas about how to find out what it is, without me telling you anything about what I'm thinking?
- What reasons can you think of that anyone might have, for continuing this conversation with you in particular, that could make it worth all this time and effort for them?
- If we ever have a discussion about moral precepts, would you like to try to convince me of anything else besides not using them naively?
- If we ever have a discussion about moral precepts, would you like to look at the ways I use moral precepts, and constructively criticize them?
- If we ever have a discussion about moral precepts, would you like for me to tell you some ideas I have, for improving your views and ways of thinking about them, and how you promote those views and ways of thinking?
- If we ever have a discussion about labels or moral precepts, would you like for us to tell each other about our experiences in learning to use them in beneficial ways, and to avoid using them in harmful ways?
- Do you have any other discussions in mind, to have with me, about labels, about moral precepts, or about anything else?
The only issues I'll be trying to resolve now, are about you not trusting me. For example, continually seeking to fit everything I say and do into your view that I have hidden agenda, and persisting in that even after seeing some of the mistakes that leads you into.
I've asked you some questions about that, and I might ask you some more. I might wait until I see answers to those questions, before I say any more.
I am not interested in your psychology.
Being "wrong about you" does not apply.
You have made this the weirdest conversation I have ever had, and clearly I cannot be wrong about what my own perceptions are.
What is causing this weirdness is speculative. I have a mild and diminishing interest in it, but I never cared enough to take a stand.
----
I don't care if you tell the truth about your stand on the topic.
It's all the same to me.
It would be identical to saying, "Let's suppose that a person said that moral precepts are valuable for XYZ reason."
It is the content of the idea that interests me, not what you personally think. That's something I am not interested in.
-----------
You certainly want to kidnap the discussion about "moral precepts" and make it a discussion all about you.
But even you can see that it's a topic too boring for me to sustain.
-------------
Unless you post something on the topic, I will unsubscribe from the thread.
Your obsession with yourself is a terrible bore.
You were comical for a while, but now you're just a bore.
I think you are having a manic episode.
Bye now.
Be well.
Do you ever have discussions about philosophical and social issues with people whose supreme purpose with you is to try to win an argument, who continually and proudly display their scorn and contempt for you, and who are continually seeking excuses to accuse you of lying? If not, can you imagine ever wanting to? If so, why? What possible benefit do you see in that, to you or to anyone else?
Bye.
Post a Comment