This conversation is closed.

If you could be me could you still judge me?

Well? If you could actually be someone and feel their subjective reality as your own through good or despicable choices and then return to yourself could you then deny empathy and maintain any judgement? Are we only separated by our separations or one and the same in all of our macro collective complex shame?

I am resubmitting this one as I did not realize I has closed it so soon last time thanks!

  • thumb
    Jun 24 2013: Hi Paul,
    I believe that we cannot give to others something that we do not have in and for ourselves. Often, when people judge others, they also judge themselves. Those who have empathy and compassion for themselves can generally give that to others.

    If we do not have understanding of how compassion, empathy and judgment works, we probably cannot give that to ourselves OR others. I believe we are all interconnected, however, if a person does not recognize the connections with others, it does not exist in that person's subjective reality.
  • thumb
    Jun 24 2013: Everybody lives in a subjective reality.
    Some of the everybody know and see that and can liberate themselves from being judgmental.

    But what is judgmental? Prejudging? Not asking the right questions? Ignoring cognitive dissonanse? Wanting to protect oneself instead of trying to understand how it may be to be in other's shoes?

    If I could be you, I would do anything to try to understand and use this understanding so that the collective self would understand better and not misjudge you or me being you.

    I judge myself all the time but at least I know myself. To judge you I would have to know you.

    Best wishes.
    • thumb
      Jun 24 2013: I agree Anna, that to judge someone, including oneself, we need to have certain information.

      You say..."To judge you I would have to know you.".......or perhaps.......THINK I know you? As you's all subjective?
      • thumb
        Jun 24 2013: It is subjective, reality and experience-wise. But some things are objective. Depends what you mean by judge. To pass a sentence as in law is one thing. To be an understanding human being is another.

        Information is important, reason is important but never forget that dialogue and asking the right questions and the ability to tell right from wrong must be there. Not based on the subjective thinking. Or thinking that one thinks. It's a complicated, wild world out there, as well you know.
        • thumb
          Jun 24 2013: I LOVE dialogue and asking questions Anna, which is why I asked the question build on your comment:>)

          I observe that judgments are sometimes based on one piece of information....gender, race, religion, sexual preference, etc. etc.

          So, one who chooses to judge, does not really KNOW the person, they are making a judgment based on that one piece of information, and because the one who judges cannot have compassion (put him/herself in that other person's shoes) s/he needs to judge?
          That's why I suggested "THINK" we know.

          I agree that to make a judgment regarding the law, is different than understanding a human being (our self or others). However, both require gathering adequate, appropriate information.....yes?
        • Jun 25 2013: Maybe subjective experience and judgement are completely codependent like time and space or matter and anti matter. Without the one could the other exist? I guess your would have to further define judgment? Benign, organic, intelligent evolutionary, mathematical? Isn't evolution predicated on judgments based on probability; if this then that. If human subjective experience is a function of biology then judging is a biological survival imperative. It seems that all organic systems use "judgment somehow" even if the epigenome is its conductor. So is the goal to be less judgmental or more judgmental? Put differently are we really supposed to be better judges?
      • thumb
        Jun 24 2013: I cannot say no :)

        Judgments should not be passed lightly. Prejudice should never be a factor.
      • thumb
        Jun 26 2013: Thanks, Colleen!

        "I LOVE dialogue and asking questions Anna, which is why I asked the question build on your comment:>)"

        I love it too. Unfortunately, there are people who mistake dialogue for negotiation. It's not the same. To build on my own and your comments even more - saying that you engage in dialogue whilst you are not really asking the right questions, or any questions really, is what I would categorise as 'wrong'. (I'm not saying you as you, CS, generally! :) Just for the record. I sometimes frustrate over the fact that people use nice words to disguise actions, use words that they do not really understand. Makes the words empty, makes them empty promises or just propaganda. That's what is happening where I live now at times. It's not only me that gets frustrated, I know, but still. Examples of this and other can be found in my short dialogue with Paul Lillebo in a different conversation.)
    • Jun 25 2013: Wow!
    • Jun 25 2013: Thank you for your deep considerations! I have loved reading your dialogue.
      • thumb
        Jun 25 2013: A quote from one of my favourite musicians:

        "So you've found a girl that thinks really deep thoughts, What's so amazing about really deep thoughts?"

        There's nothing amazing about thinking deeply and profoundly. There might be something amazing about putting your thoughts out there.

        A nickle for your thoughts :)
        • Jun 26 2013: My thoughts are that the iterative driver of all existing systems, where in everything manifest follows similar emergent self-reflective chaotic complex mathematical rules, is the Singular Consciousness reproaching a whole knowingness which then expands once more. More specifically, when humans interface intimately and fully, and quantum computing (eg. D-wave based in Vancouver) divides the second into trillions of calculations, what TIME will we as a species exist in? When we can simulate a universe of possibilities in a microsecond where will our segregations reside? Not in space not in time but only in unity trapped in the limits of our space-time. I think then as WE the oneness exist apart from the natural law In order to experience experience once more we will as we have into infinity simulate a universe of universes seeding with emergent feedback from beginning to end all the determined choices on the playground of real consciousness. We now, in time, riding the edge of the paradoxical "present" are a function of that complete system in which entropy and complexity evolve to begin again and again. Our necessary movement in time had to have been for everything to become. In short I think technology is organic, there is both free will and determinism, reaching the conscious singularity is our ultimate driver and emergent behaviour is as universal as the water drop of an idea in my grade 1/2 classroom. So........ If you could be me could you still judge me? I believe you are me and I love me so I love you too. After all, if all of our probabilistic paths are written for us to choose from how can I judge you when you choose the wrong one? Some people don't have many good probable outcomes.
      • thumb
        Jun 26 2013: Thanks for your reply and thoughts, Paul. Wow.

        I somehow feel an urge to add the following to your thoughts - since the collective self/we intelligent, the good probable outcomes and their probability can be consciously rendered more probable without any "I"s suffering. The bad probable outcomes can be rendered less probable.
  • thumb
    Jun 23 2013: If not the best, better judgement comes when one can put her/himself into other person's shoe.
    • Jun 23 2013: Who is to say we are not in everyone's shoes at the same time? Couldn't our perceptions of events simply be a function of a system. Is the complexity of behaviour reflective of all natural micro and macro systems? If so, then how is that function a driver of evolution?
      • thumb
        Jun 24 2013: If we all are judging others putting ourselves taking others perspective into consideration , there shouldn't be so much misunderstanding, miscommunication or even fight around us. Is not it?
    • thumb
      Jun 24 2013: On the other hand, am I not in the worst place to judge myself?
      • thumb
        Jun 24 2013: Can be. Did I say that one is the best judge of his/her own-self ?

        However One need not to be judgemental about own self but definitely need to be self aware that's why many years back Socretes advised to " know thyself"
      • thumb
        Jun 24 2013: Douglas,
        Whether we are in the worst place, or the best place may depend on how observant and honest we are with our self? Can we observe and evaluate our self objectively? Subjectively?

        I agree Salim, that we need not be judgmental about our own self if we are constantly evaluating with awareness for the purpose of learning. When we "know thyself", generally we can evaluate, change and adjust without judgment. Knowing our self tends to provide more confidence and acceptance of ourselves and others.
  • thumb
    Jul 5 2013: Any form of measurement is a form of judgement.
    We measure/judge by our own yardstick.
    When we judge "others" we judge our selves.
    The other is defined by the inner subjective means.
    Thus it is projected outwardly and seen as objective.
    The subjective is the objective, the observer is the observed.
  • Jun 26 2013: ummm yes? can you not judge your own self do you ever think that the decision you made was dumb and wrong? that's judging my friend.
  • Jun 24 2013: Yes,at least,I often do some reflection to myself,I judge myself in my mind:if I have done any wrong,I told myself I was wrong.But I seldom do judge thing but keep thinking,observing,doing...I often remind myself:don't go gossip any...
  • Comment deleted

  • thumb
    Jun 22 2013: Yes, as long as I do not loose my own experience to compare you with and 'return' to my former self exclusively afterwards and this by using your own mechanism of reflection, self-criticism and your superego. And you could do the same with me in return.

    As a matter of fact I could not deny empathy, as one could not get any closer than that 'emotionally', but I see no obvious reason why one should not be able for judgment, even though 'maintaining' the once 'before' may proof difficult by the level of 'insight' and 'detail' accessible afterwards.

    The old saying to walk 'Two Moons in Someone Else's Moccasins' is related to your idea, even though its intention or 'moral' is somewhat different, if you will, but heads in the same direction.