Is it ever okay to be negative, judge or label? If not then why do we do it?

[LightSun]

We have improved with written laws that were resisted. However we have not evolved spiritually or emotionally since recorded history 6,000 years ago and beyond. We can revert to savagery due to this lack of spiritual development and emotional maturity. We each walk a path independent and hopefully take the higher road in times of adversity.

As for those that elect to take the low road of subjective negativity and projections they are under the power of blind spots and the best way to handle them is to ignore them provided they don't cross boundaries or break laws. Then they must be held accountable by those in an authority position. But to repay negativity with more negativism only debases us.

 

[LightSun]

We react in emotion and we don't act in a proactive sense. We have not matured spiritually nor developed emotional regulation. It is so simple in a philosophical sense, "Stick with objective facts, use debate style format and refrain from human subjectivity."

As in statistics one can not have subjectivism so as in the use of reason. Human emotional reasoning is labeled a cognitive distortion. Those that fall under it's shadow do so unknowingly from blind spots of awareness and emotional lack of maturity.

 

[LightSun]

We have not matured generationally. It appears each generation must make mistakes in reasoning as their predecessors. We seem to have a blank tablet of emotional maturity. This is why as an idealist I proposed both cognitive mindfulness as well empathy to be taught in the school systems. It all starts with our children but the message falls on deaf ears as change is resisted.

 

[anticlimatic]

Judgements are like bullets. It all depends on what you do with them. At bottom they're just decisions, and the most important aspect of forward progress. At the same time no decision is infallible regardless of what it's 'based' on, fiction OR fact, so the best approach is simply to do your best, hope for the best, and stay open to the possibility (who are we kidding, the EVENTUALITY) of having to walk some of those decisions back in the face of fresh data.

 

[ilikeitlikethat]

Of course it is, how else will Commie Pinko Socialists know how I feel about them?
(They're Commie Pinko Socialists)..

At the end of the day, they believe everybody should be equal and nobody should be rich and nobody should be poor and if robots take our jobs, they'd want everybody out of a job to receive an allowance; when in reality, it's fair to say that NOBODY is stopping anybody from owning and profiting from a machine that replaces people, so why should we reward these people for not having the foresight to invest into a machine to get work done? Why should people made obsolete in the future receive money while machines do the work?

 

[Lark]

The thing about saying you should be non-judgemental? It is itself a judgement.

Really sloppy thinking involved in that sort of shite.

 

[Coriolis]

The thing about saying you should be non-judgemental? It is itself a judgement.

Really sloppy thinking involved in that sort of shite.

Sort of like being intolerant of intolerance, or prejudiced against bigots?

Is it better to encourage people to be judgmental?

 

[SurrealisticSlumbers]

I'm a feeler as well empath. I use the balance of reason and compassion as a compass point. Although I am primarily a feeler I utilize reason and fact. Negative emotions and acting out of them is 'emotional reasoning' and has cognitive distortions or fallacies of fact. So realistically I try to be positive, realistic and pragmatic but not act out in negative emotionalism.

Ditto....

 

[Mole]

Sort of like being intolerant of intolerance, or prejudiced against bigots?

Is it better to encourage people to be judgmental?

I notice they call me judgemental when I don't agree with their judgement.

 

[Mole]

Of course it is, how else will Commie Pinko Socialists know how I feel about them?
(They're Commie Pinko Socialists)..

At the end of the day, they believe everybody should be equal and nobody should be rich and nobody should be poor and if robots take our jobs, they'd want everybody out of a job to receive an allowance; when in reality, it's fair to say that NOBODY is stopping anybody from owning and profiting from a machine that replaces people, so why should we reward these people for not having the foresight to invest into a machine to get work done? Why should people made obsolete in the future receive money while machines do the work?

It's true automation, computing, and robots will in future do all work that can be defined, so what does that leave for us?

Those in demand in a robot economy will be those who are empathic and creative.

But notice, Typology Central provides no empathy training and its members don't want to do it. And here creativity, epiphany, and discovery evoke a visceral response. Creativity and critical thinking don't stand a chance.

Typology Central is like driving forward looking in the rear vision mirror.

Typology Central harks back to 75 years ago as the future is rushing towards us through the windshield.

 

[Lark]

Sort of like being intolerant of intolerance, or prejudiced against bigots?

Is it better to encourage people to be judgmental?

Nope, I dont believe that's the same thing at all.

I think people shouldnt be pussies about being judgemental and realise that everyone makes judgements, everyone discriminates, makes choices, exercises preferences and those that dont or appear like they dont they are having their options, choices etc. set for them by someone else who is more aware of what is happening and they are just going along with it for whatever reason, again a choice/judgement once it is brought to awareness and is no longer unconscious.

 

[entropie]

Being negative is a personal decision imo. One can be negative or be positive, its a personality trait.

To judge I see as my right of free will. I dont have to have the same opinion as someone else and if I find the other opinion dangerous, I will judge it openly.

To label I dont like. The World is a rather complex universe and only small thinkers label.

 

[ilikeitlikethat]

It's true automation, computing, and robots will in future do all work that can be defined, so what does that leave for us?

Those in demand in a robot economy will be those who are empathic and creative.

But notice, Typology Central provides no empathy training and its members don't want to do it. And here creativity, epiphany, and discovery evoke a visceral response. Creativity and critical thinking don't stand a chance.

Typology Central is like driving forward looking in the rear vision mirror.

Typology Central harks back to 75 years ago as the future is rushing towards us through the windshield.

 

[Coriolis]

Nope, I dont believe that's the same thing at all.

I think people shouldnt be pussies about being judgemental and realise that everyone makes judgements, everyone discriminates, makes choices, exercises preferences and those that dont or appear like they dont they are having their options, choices etc. set for them by someone else who is more aware of what is happening and they are just going along with it for whatever reason, again a choice/judgement once it is brought to awareness and is no longer unconscious.

But everyone also is intolerant of certain things, and prejudges certain things. I have not placed value judgments on any of it, so far, just made comparisons.

 

[Lark]

But everyone also is intolerant of certain things, and prejudges certain things. I have not placed value judgments on any of it, so far, just made comparisons.

I think it is better to be aware of judgement as a faculty and then to exercise that faculty consciously than to mistakenly persist in a belief that it can be transcended simply because, aware or unawares, some people use it wrongly.

I dont think that it is too extreme an analogy to make that society wouldnt consider it a good thing that everyone be blinded or rendered deaf or mute in order that we see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil.

 

[LightSun]

I think it is better to be aware of judgement as a faculty and then to exercise that faculty consciously than to mistakenly persist in a belief that it can be transcended simply because, aware or unawares, some people use it wrongly.

I dont think that it is too extreme an analogy to make that society wouldnt consider it a good thing that everyone be blinded or rendered deaf or mute in order that we see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil.

"Sticking to objective facts one uses sound reason. When human subjectivity comes into the fray it is a mark of one's blind spots, unresolved issues and lack of emotional maturity. As in statistics one can not have subjectivity so as in the use of reason. Human emotional reasoning is labeled a cognitive distortion. Those that fall under it's shadow do so unknowingly from blind spots of awareness, emotional lack of maturity and lacking spiritual development.

When one uses subjectivity, labels and judgment I dismiss it as pebbles and bam-bam talk of no consequence. I reason with those who wish to build bridges of dialogue and understanding. I ignore those who use white noise saying their projections with opinion saying in effect not anything."

 

[Lark]

"Sticking to objective facts one uses sound reason. When human subjectivity comes into the fray it is a mark of one's blind spots, unresolved issues and lack of emotional maturity. As in statistics one can not have subjectivity so as in the use of reason. Human emotional reasoning is labeled a cognitive distortion. Those that fall under it's shadow do so unknowingly from blind spots of awareness, emotional lack of maturity and lacking spiritual development.

When one uses subjectivity, labels and judgment I dismiss it as pebbles and bam-bam talk of no consequence. I reason with those who wish to build bridges of dialogue and understanding. I ignore those who use white noise saying their projections with opinion saying in effect not anything." bless

Who is this bless that you are quoting?

In any case, that all sounds to me like a rationalisation, either that person has a shit load of guilt themselves which they're not dealing with or they are extremely uncomfortable with the objective wrong doing of others and preferring to rationalise that and feel better about the world as a result.

Some you got to face up to reality though.

 

[Mole]

Critical thinking and free speech form the basis of western civilisation. And those who hate western civilisation, and their pusillanimous followers, take offence at critical thinking and censor free speech.

This is called political correctness, and with the collapse of marxism political correctness took its place.

 

[LightSun]

"The self being responsible: "Do not think negative thoughts, but be realistic with set boundary.

Another person if we give to negative energies,
" A. What is in us waiting to come to the surface in a testing moment.
B. Triggered or own unfinished childhood issues and emotions.
C. We are reacting in a lesser manner."

"Obviously this is what I personally aspire to. I don't always get it right. Also I am or can be a realist. I will defend myself, but I will use the least amount of energy/force/act necessary. A Path, TH Key and a Way are, is, is to follow the golden rule by:

Do not think negative thoughts, but realistically with the proper restraint even if negative energy is directed at you. Now we influence each other with positive or negative energy. In this universe for every action there is an equal reaction. So the natural tendency is to repay negative energy with more negative energy. This feels very good and we feel self- righteous about it.

After all the other is in the wrong and not us. In our mind the other is blind and does evil, immoral, wrong words or actions. But the key is that it is irrelevant to one's path. The key is that being negative in even the slightest is a true reflection of self and not the other. The other's path is their destiny. Perhaps they were sent here to test our mettle in the face of crisis or misfortunes, thus there is a chance with growth if we only but bend our own beliefs to embrace a truer reality.

Now this next part coming is partly from cognitive behavior principles. A key is that if we have a negative emotion, we are ruled by a distortion. The external even triggered:

A. What is in us waiting to come to the surface in a testing moment.
B. Triggered or own unfinished childhood issues and emotions.
C. We are reacting in a lesser manner.

We are reacting against ghosts from the past that this moment has triggered so that we can grow and move on to the path of self-actualization. That is if we choose the higher road and we need endeavor to act maturely and with restraint. If I hurt you, I hurt myself, perhaps not noticeably, but I missed an opportunity for growth. If we do not sink to the others level. Perhaps it will take longer for them on the path of life to mature, reflect, and with insight grow.

If we think, speak, or act in a negative manner then the opportunity is lost. The message is lost, but it will undoubtedly reappear until you learn the lesson about you. This moment in space and time was brought together for you to learn this valuable lesson of self, in order to grow and actualize. Do not throw this precious moment away by reacting with your baser instincts. Reach, grow, become. Reach for this inner learning. Grow with this wisdom and become what you were meant to be.”

 

[Zangetshumody]

I agree with your quotes, but in the context of the subject of this thread, they lose their greater meaning, I will try pick through how each quote deviates from the intended pertinence implied by this thread...

Quote:
“Everything you see and perceive is a reflection of yourself” Siddhartha Gautam Buddha 500 B.C.

Everything, does not then also include particular parts of that "everything" ('something', or the judgement of 'something', isn't a valid substitution into the "everything" referenced by that quoted phrase). Unless you are relating this quote to some kind of Unitarian philosophy (namely that anything, properly understood, is essentially part of the one-good), I think we can dismiss the quote as relating to the subject of this thread, since the basic Buddhist foundation is that life is suffering, so watch the thoughts that regulate, or leave the suffering unconstrained. Blame is only problematic if you expect a thought to deliver some resultant consequence by cosmic collusion with your own thinking, therefore no thought or even judgement is 'criminal' if it has no reasoning or purpose attached to the appearance of a consequence: thus actions are to be rooted into the instantiation of a principle, that must precipitate from a truth of a 'realized self'.

Quote:
"Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves." ~ Carl Gustav Jung

'can lead to', does not mean, 'should only be used to [achieve...]'

Quote:
"If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us." Herman Hesse

this point is somewhat extrinsic, and very unrelated to this whole thread's topic... Herman is somewhat embellishing on an idea, that already has the parameters sketched out from another quote which is certainly more related to the subject of this thread... so, I will substitute my focus on the more related quote that I found:

"If you hate a person, then you’re defeated by them." ~Conscious

this quote more starkly juxtaposes the truth of self, with the self-defeatism courted within defining a project (role for yourself) that involves opposition... internalizing opposition is to swallow some cognitive dissonance (within spirituality or the realm of deep psychology), that occludes and weighs down thinking that would amount to a fluid and effective treatment of the offending influence being considered. Either you will win or lose, or ideologically fortify yourself to maintain some sort of existential cowardice within a continuing unrealized sense of a self. The only way to win at all, is to win in action or inaction, assured by your own resolute determinations; which by their actualized behavior judges the world into a spiritual death with your victory over it, through your management by the quickening to that death.

When you are rebuked therefore, you might be changed, the rebuke might make room for choices, not ideological thoughts... behavior is not a vessel of judgement, except in some philosophical-objectivist accounting scheme: which is only a narrative of reference over immutable causality,— it is already to presume choice is impossible, displaced by a false-grail of ideological allegiance.