What is Critisism? Critic vs Heckler

[Epiphany_Inspired]

So, in self reflection, of course I have ongoing criticism issues for sure (it's the worst toward myself internally, and worse toward others externally). How about you? I have some questions:

According to the definition, you must find "fault" or "mistake" to make something a criticism. Is this correct? Is there more to it? How does it function?

I am concerned, that in this 30 day challenge, I may inadvertently cause emotional repression in my quest to be a Manta ray. For example: Is it still a criticism whenever you have negative judgement? If the actions of another cause emotional upset in you, could you still talk about your emotional upset in relation to these actions without it being a criticism (if you put the responsibility for your feelings on yourself)? There is obviously "dislike" of the actions...does that equal "fault"?

Heckling seems to be the epitome of Hyena style criticism. Where an individual is intentionally trying to disconcert/ attack/ interrupt others. I am still so "attached" to criticism that I can perceive a sort of monocle- wearing-Manta ray-in-the-opera house- balcony being "justified" in some sort of "educated" critique...lol... but that is a heckler right there, monocle or not...lol...! 

Is it only once one has transcended judgement that one can make "educated" criticism? or does all criticism eventually go out the window? Is it possible to ever transcend judgement? Is that what we are tying to do? Or simply to become more mindful of the extent of our criticism and get it somewhat handled? 

If my inner-critic runs rampant with destructive and seemingly nefarious intent (ultimate nemesis), is it "ok" that this 30 day challenge is causing more internal criticism because of my external spoken or unspoken heckling? Is mindfulness enough?

I love the wiki image for Criticism: 

 

[Joseph Maynor]

Nice analysis.  Instead of clinging to rules we just need to maintain awareness.  A lot of time we go unconscious and that's where we get annoying.  So, simply being aware of the egoic tendencies inside of you is what you want to do.  Clinging to rules like "no criticizing" is gonna backfire because you're trying to control reality, which is the wrong approach.  This is the Ego trying to control the Ego.  What is happening here is the creation of the Humble Ego.  That's no good.  You're not really humble -- at least not all the time.  Just watch reality.  Try to accept and love all of reality, including the Ego.  That's the paradox.  This shit is tricky, and it takes a while to figure it out.

Edited January 19, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[Epiphany_Inspired]

@Joseph Maynor Thanks so much! I'm not yet capable of separating mindfulness from criticism... the mindfulness makes me more self-critical....yes, tricky shit indeed!

[Thanatos13]

The wiki image isn’t an accurate portrayal of criticism. 

The irony of his video of criticism is that he engages in the very act. Spirituality itself is born out of criticism for the material existence they take issue with. Ignore the nonsense of manta day or hyena, those don’t exist.

What I heard in philosophy discussions is that criticism is more like challenging your ideas with the intent to improve or to shore up weak points. Ideas are like ore and through criticism they are smelted. Without criticism you have dogma, and that is never good.

 

Heckling is just pointing out flaws with the intent to belittle someone else. It’s far from constructive. I guess the difference between heckling and criticism is intent. Just because you don’t like hearing criticism doesn’t make someone a heckler. 

[Joseph Maynor]

11 minutes ago, Epiphany_Inspired said:

@Joseph Maynor Thanks so much! I'm not yet capable of separating mindfulness from criticism... the mindfulness makes me more self-critical....yes, tricky shit indeed!

Watch this video

 

Edited January 19, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[Thanatos13]

It is the mark of a first rate intelligence to hold two opposing ideas in the mind and still be able to function. 

[Joseph Maynor]

12 minutes ago, Thanatos13 said:

It is the mark of a first rate intelligence to hold two opposing ideas in the mind and still be able to function. 

That's what enlightenment leads to.  Loose clinging to beliefs and suspension of beliefs.  And a greater appreciation for the reality of the present moment: sensing reality directly.  You don't throw your beliefs away or try to control reality.  You just watch these things and don't make them mean anything about a separate sense of self.  Let your beliefs and Ego do what they do.  Do not repress these things.  I think a lot of people make that mistake.  That's a creation of Ego because you're identifying with thoughts and value judgments about reality.

Edited January 19, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[Joseph Maynor]

Watch this one too if you have time:

 

[star ark]

You won't transcend judgement one day, over years and years you will reach a point where you are better than the average person but you won't be a god. 

A heckler wants attention, they think they are better or at least they think their criticism is somehow entertaining or clever. Some hecklers seem to come prepared while others are drunk and in the moment but it always someone with a big ego. 

Criticism is more along the lines of nit picking, not placing yourself in someone else's shoes and trying to understand why a fault is there in the first place. It hides your faults as you subconsciously build yourself up. It's a thought pattern that needs to be controlled just like any other thought and gradually killing off these criticisms can only open you up to your own faults and reminds you how you have reacted in the past when someone criticized you.

If a regular person started to criticize you for something out of your control you would feel wronged. "I can't help it" you would say. Maybe the people you criticize can't help it too. Maybe only the person you most respected in the entire planet could comfortably criticize you......like if Stanley Kubrik rose from the dead I would let him take a look at my screen play, but nobody else!

You can only be angry at someone if they committed a deed you yourself could commit. Are people angry about Hitler? No he's beyond anger. We are angry about people who are vain, lame, nerdy, ugly, pompous, greedy, seedy, lazy, back stabbing, manipulative etc So you are only ever criticizing acts you used to commit, even if you were a lame nerdy there was a lamer nerd and that wasn't you and you knew it. 

[star ark]

6 minutes ago, Mighty Mouse said:

Sorry but that's just not true, that's how criticism is often received emotionally, but that's not what it is.

Criticism is strictly speaking just an analysis or evaluation of a work, in any category, and can be positive or negative or any mix of the two. It's really the same as critique but we use the expensive word just because the other one has such an emotional bias to it in people's minds.

In the case of philosophy, "critique" is about determining the veracity of an argued position. When Leo says that all criticism is untenable, that's what he is talking about.

Since all positions are ultimately indefensible, it follows that no position can be opposed by another position. Because both of them are ultimately indefensible. And without opposing positions there can be no basis for criticism.

So none of this has anything to do with being judgemental or moralizing or bullying or whatever. That's a different topic entirely.

Yeah but that doesn't do anything other than offer food for thought......

If you view it as a means to an end then the end result is that you understand people more and you will not piss people off for not agreeing with what they do or believe. If you conceptualize it you can debate about it but you're not arriving anywhere but the claim that objective morality does not exist. Then you are staring at the chicken and the egg again which is an egg that cannot be cracked.

I agree with you but I disagree with any practical use of what you are saying

[SOUL]

Criticism it's just an expression of the duality mindset, it is merely the extension of the right and wrong dichotomy.

 If one seeks to transcend that duality mindset figuring out how to shape one's life without this judgment is  crucial to succeed.

[star ark]

3 minutes ago, Mighty Mouse said:

You call those "food for thought" with no practical implications?

The chicken and egg question can be cracked with just a little critical thinking, and it will instantly reveal your entire life for the fraud that it is.

The bottomless regression implied by the question of which came first actually betrays the groundlessness of duality, which is an impossible situation. This means that the real issue is not about there being no valid answer, but there being no valid question.

Crack.

So if it's not enough for you to discover that objective morality doesn't exist, how about discovering that objective reality does not exist.

Maybe you're not worried about practical implications so much as impractical implications ey?

That isn't a crack in the egg

You've cracked the chicken

You've held up a mirror and now you are on the other side LOL

[Joseph Maynor]

Why do people who criticize have to be drunk?  Isn't that a kind of demonizing of people who criticize?  Maybe they're criticizing because they want to.  So what.  We all do it.  Don't try to deny it.  

Edited January 19, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[Thanatos13]

31 minutes ago, SOUL said:

Criticism it's just an expression of the duality mindset, it is merely the extension of the right and wrong dichotomy.

 If one seeks to transcend that duality mindset figuring out how to shape one's life without this judgment is  crucial to succeed.

That’s incorrect. It’s nothing to do with duality but rather with challenging ideas to make us think about what we says.

The part about being indefensible is not entirely correct either. For if that were the case then Leo would be unable to make money of his site or videos, let alone be able to post videos. If every position (including non duality) is indefensible then what you are left is either paralysis from being unable to pick a side or people staying attached to what they know because you cannot convince them otherwise.

The chicken or egg question isn’t solved by nonduality, rather it just ignores the question. I mean it really doesn’t matter which came first. Duality is also not groundless for something is either A or not A. That’s simple logic, but unfortunate existence it a bit more complicated than that. Even existence and non existence are opposite ends, there isn’t a middle ground there.

Objective reality does exist, we just can’t know it. But that’s not really mind blowing, that’s high school biology. 

Criticism is tenable to a degree. Those who say otherwise don’t understand how much they benefit from its fruits. 

And positions are most certainly not indefensible for again, nothing spawned by humans would exist. Opinions and beliefs clash against each other. There is a reason that Skepticism didn’t flourish beyond Ancient Greece and why the munchausen Trilema isn’t insurmountable. Science is proof of that. No matter what you believe you must accept somethig on faith to get anywhere. Sadly people just assume nonduality to be truth, but it is ultimately as “indefensible” as any other position.

[Thanatos13]

Without criticism some ideas would likely dominate us and still be harmful, or at least the people acting on them would still exist. 

If every position is indefensible then why listen to Leo or pay for his course? 

[Thanatos13]

2 minutes ago, Mighty Mouse said:

Lol I don't...

It’s also ironic because how do you defend the position of every position being indefensible. 

Its almost comical.

[Joseph Maynor]

30 minutes ago, Mighty Mouse said:

Nonduality as a position is also indefensible, but strictly speaking it's not a position. It's what's left when all positions are determined to be (ultimately*) indefensible.

Including the position that there is an unknown and inaccessible noumenon behind our perceptions.

I put the asterix with "ultimate" because within a specific context certain positions are clearly defensible whereas others are clearly nonsense. But that may be rather the other way around in a different context. And what context is (ultimately*) defensible? i.e. is there such a thing as a true context?

 

Correct.  The map is not the territory.  That doesn't mean we throw the maps away.  We just pull our heads out of the maps and focus on the territory.  We are like a neurotic tourist with our face stuck in the map not noticing our surroundings.

Edited January 20, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[Thanatos13]

44 minutes ago, Mighty Mouse said:

Nonduality as a position is also indefensible, but strictly speaking it's not a position. It's what's left when all positions are determined to be (ultimately*) indefensible.

Including the position that there is an unknown and inaccessible noumenon behind our perceptions.

I put the asterix with "ultimate" because within a specific context certain positions are clearly defensible whereas others are clearly nonsense. But that may be rather the other way around in a different context. And what context is (ultimately*) defensible? i.e. is there such a thing as a true context?

 

I don’t think it’s the position that is left when others are indefensible. It can be argued that there are more than two halves to things. But non duality is the assumed position when others are done. It’s not what’s left, it’s just one of many. 

But something either is or isn’t, at least for some things. So that takes nonduality out the window. All nonduality is is a viewpoint, a judgment. It’s hardly the truth. 

[Thanatos13]

But Leo is conflating evidence with proof, a common mistake in epistemology. 

Its funny watching him fumble at philosophy. 

 

Absolute certainty is an impossible standard to meet. That’s why ancient skepticism had to evolve into fallibalism. Stating that all knowledge is, at best, approximate.

[Thanatos13]

4 minutes ago, Mighty Mouse said:

How does science surmount the munchausen trilemma?

If all your proof rests on faith then it's not proof at all.

If we grant the existence of Santa Claus on faith then the evidence suggests that my presents did not come from my parents.

Likewise the existence of an unknown and inaccessible noumenon has to be taken on faith. Only then does the evidence suggest that it is the cause of our perceptions.

That does not yet automatically mean it's false, but at the very least it's a belief masquerading as fact, which makes it fraudulent (self-deception).

 

I agree with both these assertions, but I reject it as evidence for duality.

To me duality is indefensible and nonduality simply the negation of duality (in every possible sense, not in the spiritual pop-nonduality sense).

And do note that to posit a noumenon of an inherently different nature than consciousness, is to posit at least one duality, because it still has to account for consciousness.

Actually it doesn’t have to account for consciousness for consciousness is itself an assumption we make, just like the existence of other minds. We can argue for a duality, an A and not A. That will always be true.

 

You are misinterpreting what knowledge is, which in this case is justified true belief. All that exists is evidence, proof is only for mathematics. It’s not self deception, for you aren’t actually deceiving yourself. 

The trilemna extends to any claim to knowledge not just science, but science works on evidence and not proof