Should you judge people on appearance?

[Princess Arabia]

30 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

So your definition is similar to @Princess Arabia in that it has to do with asserting normativity or a "moral condemnation" (a more charged way of putting it). I personally am more flexible with how these words are used: you can make a descriptive judgement, a moral judgement, a judicial judgement, a logical judgement, an intuitive judgement, etc.

I kind of resonated with most of what he said so I can agree that he does see it in the same light as I do, somewhat. Close.

Edited December 6, 2023 by Princess Arabia

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Princess Arabia said:

To me, just saying someone is fat, isn't judging. Example 1. She's fat - not judging. Example 2. She's fat and that's disgusting - judging. 1. He said some inappropriate things to me - not judging. 2. He's an asshole for saying some inappropriate things to me - judging. You're adding stories behind your observations. That's observing with judgement. Observing without judgement is observing something for what it is without making condescending remarks about what you're observing. It's hard to explain because of the subtle difference. 

Seeing something you call "fat" is just a description, but seeing something that you call "disgusting" is also just a description. In that case, your definition of judgement seems to depend on whether the two descriptions is presented in some kind of arbitrary temporal order. Likewise, "he said something inappropriate" is a description, and "he is an asshole" is also a description. "Disgusting" and "asshole" do seem to carry some implied moral weight though.

The real reason I think you distinguish the two descriptions is not their temporal order but their implied moral weight. For example, if I see something I call "fat" and then follow it with "and that means they carry a lot of weight", I doubt you would feel inclined to call that a judgement, but they do fit your definition of judgement based on temporal order. Conversely, if I were to only make one statement "they're a disgusting asshole" without any preceding or following statement, I think you would be inclined to call that a judgement.

You also mention "condescending remarks" as a qualifying criterion, which holds some implied moral weight too (the implication is that you should not be condescending).

Edited December 6, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Salvijus]

5 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Seeing something you call "fat" is just a description, but seeing something that you call "disgusting" is also just a description. 

No no. I am on Princess side. Calling something as disgusting is no longer a description of the situation. But a deep rejection of the situation. Whereas the first one was just a description. 

Like you can call someone a retard and that will be just an innocent medical diagnosis. And you can call someone a retard and it will be a rejection now. A judgement. A subtle condemnation. And no longer an innocent discribtion of the situation. 

Edited December 6, 2023 by Salvijus

[Carl-Richard]

8 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

No no. I am on Princess side. Calling something as disgusting is no longer a description of the situation. But a deep rejection of the situation. Whereas the first one was just a description. 

Like you can call someone a retard and that will be just an innocent medical diagnosis. And you can call someone a retard and it will be a rejection now. A judgement. A subtle condemnation.

Exactly, because you care about the implied moral weight of the statement, not whether or not it is preceded by another statement. @Princess Arabia makes it seem like a judgement is just when you make a second description about a thing after making an initial description. I don't think that is the real criterion she uses to call something a judgement.

Edited December 6, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Princess Arabia]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

Seeing something you call "fat" is just a description, but seeing something that you call "disgusting" is also just a description. In that case, your definition of judgement seems to depend on whether the two descriptions is presented in some kind of arbitrary temporal order. Likewise, "he said something inappropriate" is a description, and "he is an asshole" is also a description. "Disgusting" and "asshole" do seem to carry some implied moral weight though.

The real reason I think you distinguish the two descriptions is not their temporal order but their implied moral weight. For example, if I see something I call "fat" and then follow it with "and that means they carry a lot of weight", I doubt you would feel inclined to call that a judgement, but they do fit your definition of judgement based on temporal order. Likewise, if I were to only make one statement "they're a disgusting asshole" without any preceding or following statement, I think you would be inclined to call that a judgement.

You also mention "condescending remarks" as a qualifying criterion, which holds some implied moral weight too (the implication is that you should not be condescending).

Maybe that's the difference i'm indirectly referring to - condescending. I try so hard in my mind to analyze what I'm trying to say because I still stand by my stance on it. I use examples to try to clarify the minute, subtle differences between judging and, like you say, description. 

I see the differences now I think "condescending" is where my mind draws the difference. Even though I still think we can make observations without judging it because it's what is and i'm trying to train my mind to accept what is without interpretation and with full acceptance as my Signature suggests. But thank you for this and I will contemplate on it a bit more as I recognize some judgement is needed for us to maneuver our way around life - just not condescendingly.

[Salvijus]

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Exactly, because you care about the implied moral weight of the statement, not the fact that they were preceded by another statement.

Hmmm. 

There's a difference between making a statement. And an attempt to condemn something. It has nothing to do with morals. 

 

Edited December 6, 2023 by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Exactly, because you care about the implied moral weight of the statement, not the fact that they were preceded by another statement.

It's like you can see someone as fat and be neutral about it. Orrrrr it can provoke deep feelings of rejection inside you. And then you judge something as "not worthy to be approved of". A subtle condemnation. 

[Princess Arabia]

2 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

Hmmm. 

There's a difference between making a statement. And an attempt to condemn something. It has nothing to do with morals. 

 

This is why I add the word "subtle". The difference is so subtle. @Carl-Richardis making some good points, which I'm trying to make discernments on to see the differences, but the point you just made about description is also notable. Geesh, this subject is more complicated than I thought. Lol

[Princess Arabia]

3 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

It's like you can see someone as fat and be neutral about it. Orrrrr it can provoke deep feelings of rejection inside you. And then you judge something as "not worthy to be approved of". A subtle condemnation. 

Exactly

[Salvijus]

@Princess Arabia :) 

[Carl-Richard]

7 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

Hmmm. 

There's a difference between making a statement. And an attempt to condemn something. It has nothing to do with morals. 

I don't see how you can condemn something in a non-moral way in this situation. Morality is essentially about what you think should or should not exist, and that dovetails nicely with what you said about condemnation in your first post directed at me.

[Salvijus]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

Morality is essentially about what you think should or should not exist

Okei by that definition I agree then. That's what I meant. *ideas about what should or should not exist* I just didn't know this counts as morality. 

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

Maybe that's the difference i'm indirectly referring to - condescending. I try so hard in my mind to analyze what I'm trying to say because I still stand by my stance on it. I use examples to try to clarify the minute, subtle differences between judging and, like you say, description. 

I see the differences now I think "condescending" is where my mind draws the difference. Even though I still think we can make observations without judging it because it's what is and i'm trying to train my mind to accept what is without interpretation and with full acceptance as my Signature suggests. But thank you for this and I will contemplate on it a bit more as I recognize some judgement is needed for us to maneuver our way around life - just not condescendingly.

Sorry in advance for being unable to make this less painfully abstract: so if we were to pull back to when I was talking about a different way of framing how we should judge things, and also if we use the definition of judgement of "asserting how someone should act"; if I were to frame what you're now saying in my qualitative frame, judging something in a condescending way could be classified as a low quality judgement which you should generally avoid. It's not that we should avoid to judge as much as possible, but rather that we should avoid less appropriate ways of judging, like condescending judgements. So in the end, I think you also agree with my qualitative framing more (and you seem to be saying so yourself).

I think terminological discussions like these tend to get unnecessarily complex for what it aims to accomplish (clear communication), because you have to constantly signal when you're jumping between different definitions and framings. Sometimes it's just easier to concede to whatever definition of words that the OP has decided. The problem of course is if the way they are using the word is not consistent with the definition they themselves provided. But hey, what can you do?  

Edited December 6, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Salvijus]

The only appropriate way to judge reality is to see everything as beautiful, holy and wholy worthy of God's love forever. Anything other than that is a condemnation. "An attempt to kill what we believe has no right to exist"

Edited December 6, 2023 by Salvijus

[Carl-Richard]

13 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

The only appropriate way to judge reality is to see everything as beautiful, holy and wholy worthy of God's love forever. Anything other than that is a condemnation. "An attempt to kill what we believe has no right to exist"

Which involves ultimately not condemning your own judgements when they arise (the judgements of the separate self), because God doesn't even judge that. But you as a separate self should of course be vigilant with what judgements arise. But God is beyond that. You have to be clear when you're speaking from the perspective of God and when you're speaking from the perspective of the separate self.

Edited December 6, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Salvijus]

14 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Which involves not condemning your own judgments when they arise (the judgments of the separate self), because God doesn't even judge that.

Uuuh that's clever. But by the time somebody abides in perfect acceptance of everything. That being no longer experiences judgement arising in his/her mind. Such a one can experience a display of judgment and condemnation in other people and accept them for being judgemental but such energies no longer manifest in the one who abides in perfect embrace and acceptance. 

Edited December 6, 2023 by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

In other words. Mind can be free of judgements or not yet free of judgements.

You can't have a mind that is free of judgments and still have judgements and then be accepting of these judgements. It sounds clever but such case cannot exist.

Only two possible cases can exist. Mind free of judgments. Mind not yet free of judgements. 

Edited December 6, 2023 by Salvijus

[Carl-Richard]

33 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

Uuuh that's clever. But by the time somebody abides in perfect acceptance of everything. That being no longer experiences judgement arising in his/her mind. Such a one can experience a display of judgment and condemnation in other people and accept them for being judgemental but such energies no longer manifest in the one who abides in perfect embrace and acceptance. 

As long as you have a body and a mind, preferences, discernments and judgements will arise, even in the Enlightened person (albeit to a lesser extent). It has a specific name in Hinduism (Prarabdha karma).

Edited December 6, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Salvijus]

11 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

As long as you have a body and a mind, preferences, discernments and judgements will arise, even in the Enlightened person. It has a specific name in Hinduism (Prarabdha karma).

Dicernment is a useful skill for survival. But condemnation is not a mental skill. It's just a desire to kill what we believe has no right to exist. One who has come to terms with the entire creation doesn't lose dicernment skills of the mind. But such one will lose all desire to condemn any part of existence. 

[StarStruck]

Judgements are just thoughts. It is ok to have them as long as you are not identified by them and create an ideology/complex out of it. This is such basic stuff. 

Edited December 6, 2023 by StarStruck