Judgement

[wesmorris]

If I judge you, as in "I decide that you are represented in my mind by this identity that exists in my mind" or "you are exactly what my mind tells me you are", do I not liken myself to "god"?

- it presumes flawlessness
- it presumes a relative omniscience
- close enough to relative omnipresence

So even an athiest in purporting strong judgement (e.g. "this is how it is") assumes what I think of as "unbound ego" in regard to the topic.

That's just how it is, undoubtedly.

Idnit?

Now by adding the idnit, did I reign in my ego (assuming it was an actual question)?

If we do not judge, do we die?

Should "thou shalt not judge"?

If we do judge, from where do we garner our authority to do so? What authority is provided by "my life"? What's its scope?

Can judgement be tentative or is "tentative judgement" better suited by another word like "I think" or something, rather than "I know".

I'd better stop there.

 

[Turduckin]

I'm not perfect - neither my memory, experience, mental discipline, emotional state, bias, ego etc, etc -

Therefore my judgement is not perfect.

In this one judgement I am certain.

I am also certain that I am equal to (not better than) all others in that all are equally imperfect. Therefore, should I not be able to extend this particular judgement and make it universal?

But if I extend it - "no one is perfect, therefore no one has perfect judgment" - that judgement takes on a god-like quality in its apparant universality.

If we do not judge, do we die?

So, what about necessity? Do we judge because we have to, or because we want to?

Can judgement be tentative or is "tentative judgement" better suited by another word like "I think" or something, rather than "I know".

How about an occasional "I feel"?

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

If I judge you, as in "I decide that you are represented in my mind by this identity that exists in my mind" or "you are exactly what my mind tells me you are", do I not liken myself to "god"?

I had a friend and she would occasionally say: Oh __________ is my favorite person.
or
The best thing is _____________.
The worst thing is ___________

She would say these things with great passion, despite the fact that the day before she said something else was her favorite.
I found this quirky and pleasant and inspiring.

I think you are taking language too literally. It can be expressive. It can serve a purpose - a little bit like Wittgenstein's meaning is use. We establish a new position in relation to something external, often in part with language. Someone treats me poorly, in my estimation, and I call him an asshole. Often I am reminding myself, in shorthand, of a lot or experiences, and am moving back from them. I am creating distance, I am unplanning contact.

Of course people, even those who are using language expressively or as a tool for adjusting their lives, may fall into the habit of assuming these words and judgements are like scientific descriptions of essences, in all cases, even. And I think some humility and a dose of flexibility is needed.

But I also think it would be silly for me to see some guy who has pushed me down on the street each day for a week and correct my thought 'he is a violent asshole' and see what happens. I think it is better to allow my very judgemental thought 'Oh, no here comes that violent asshole again' and cross the street.

If I am the editor of a magazine and I will 'go to press' with an article condemning the guy as 'a violent asshole' well that is a different case. Or his probation officer - who would need to do interviews - or his psychiatrist. But I think it is efficient and human to allow these kinds of judgements to be anything from known as temporary to relatively permanent descriptions of reality in our brains.

Your topic mixes ethical and epistemological issues. But the epistemological issues would hold for things also. Must I clean up thoughts like 'Fire is bad for my hair' and 'diesal fuel tastes bad' ? Because, well, perhaps my body chemistry or tastes will change - in the latter case - and diesal fuel tasting ice cream will suddenly be appealing. Or that that my judgement may dissuade others from trying out what they like?

I know. Nasty and manipulative choices for examples. But you get the idea.

If you had written the opposite post from the one you had, there is a good change I would have come in fighting for us to be aware of how temporary and ephemeral we should keep our judgements. I react to rules.

Your post could in essence be used as a foundation to judge those who make such judgements as 'thinking they are god' or being inflexible. When in fact, at least some of them, may very well be using language in ways that are fair, efficient and useful and/or expressive rather than something more scientific.

Whatya' think?

 

[greenberg]

If I judge you, as in "I decide that you are represented in my mind by this identity that exists in my mind" or "you are exactly what my mind tells me you are", do I not liken myself to "god"?

I stand for utilitarianism, pragmatism.
It is usually accurate and correct, although some might find it to be the mark of an overblown ego.

Some examples of statements based on an utilitarian/pragmatic outlook, with the "objectivist" counterparts in brackets:

"I do not like vanilla ice cream" (as opposed to "Vanilla ice cream tastes bad")
"The company of that person is not good for me" (as opposed to "He is an asshole")
"My favorite food is pizza" (as opposed to "Pizza is the best food there is")
"I like spending time with Mary and I enjoy her company very much" (as opposed to "Mary is a fabulous person")

If we do not judge, do we die?

Yes, I think so. Judgment is essential to making choices. If we do not choose carefully, this is detrimental for our wellbeing.

If we do judge, from where do we garner our authority to do so? What authority is provided by "my life"? What's its scope?

Our authority in these matters is primarily provided by our desire to be happy and not to suffer.

Can judgement be tentative or is "tentative judgement" better suited by another word like "I think" or something, rather than "I know".

Saying "tentative judgment" is like saying "I almost caught that fish!"

 

[lucifers angel]

If I judge you, as in "I decide that you are represented in my mind by this identity that exists in my mind" or "you are exactly what my mind tells me you are", do I not liken myself to "god"?

- it presumes flawlessness
- it presumes a relative omniscience
- close enough to relative omnipresence

So even an athiest in purporting strong judgement (e.g. "this is how it is") assumes what I think of as "unbound ego" in regard to the topic.

That's just how it is, undoubtedly.

Idnit?

Now by adding the idnit, did I reign in my ego (assuming it was an actual question)?

If we do not judge, do we die?

Should "thou shalt not judge"?

If we do judge, from where do we garner our authority to do so? What authority is provided by "my life"? What's its scope?

Can judgement be tentative or is "tentative judgement" better suited by another word like "I think" or something, rather than "I know".

I'd better stop there.

that is a load os crock!

poeple judge you by what clothes you wear! what you say! what you do!! all sorts

 

[greenberg]

I think you are taking language too literally.

I think it is important how we speak: it reflects how we think of things, how we conceive of them, what our "philosophy" of ourselves and of them is.

When we speak one way or another, that particular philosophy strenghtens each time we use it.

I also think that in some cases (like with a pragmatist outlook), it is possible to use language very accurately.

Your topic mixes ethical and epistemological issues. But the epistemological issues would hold for things also. Must I clean up thoughts like 'Fire is bad for my hair' and 'diesal fuel tastes bad' ? Because, well, perhaps my body chemistry or tastes will change - in the latter case - and diesal fuel tasting ice cream will suddenly be appealing.

To go even further with the pragmatist outlook, we could then make statements like "I don't like vanilla ice cream now".
In some regards, such accuracy might seem superflous and suggestive of other options and even misleading (ie. I don't like it now, but I might like it at some other time?).

We tend to generalize our preferences and imply they are true for us at all times or over unforeseeably long periods of time. It's an act of identifying with our preferences. Similar goes for identifying with our qualities as persons ("I'm an honest person") and other, like physical characteristics, social roles etc.

Your post could in essence be used as a foundation to judge those who make such judgements as 'thinking they are god' or being inflexible. When in fact, at least some of them, may very well be using language in ways that are fair, efficient and useful and/or expressive rather than something more scientific.

Of course, a case could be made that it is crucial to use language conventionally in order to be successful, whatever the conventions in a particular time and place might be.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

I think it is important how we speak: it reflects how we think of things, how we conceive of them, what our "philosophy" of ourselves and of them is.

When we speak one way or another, that particular philosophy strenghtens each time we use it.

I also think that in some cases (like with a pragmatist outlook), it is possible to use language very accurately.

I think it is important also, but I am not sure I want to imply by careful qualification that language is what it is referring to. If I must add to me at this time and I think, it implies that not saying these things in fact means I am making a permanent judgement of the world. I think in way this is a giving in. It also raises philosophical issues: how can we be certain we do not like vanilla ice cream now. How can we be sure we don't have that as an idea because we were punished once for wanting it or it's not cool to like it but we think it is our own taste. Once you open the door for qualifying things and localizing them I am not sure when one can really stop.

I think the whole trend towards taking language as very hard and fast can get reinforced if we make pains to qualify it to show 'we' don't mean it that way.

And what do we do with all the metaphors and concepts that are built into language. If we reduce the possible generalizations on a banal level by great effors to make qualificaitons and localizations I think this will also make it seem like we accept all the dead metaphors and implicit metaphysics in grammar, for example.

We tend to generalize our preferences and imply they are true for us at all times or over unforeseeably long periods of time. It's an act of identifying with our preferences. Similar goes for identifying with our qualities as persons ("I'm an honest person") and other, like physical characteristics, social roles etc.

I think this can be 'cared for' with intention. I guess I have had too much experience with people who have cleaned up their language - from different political perspectives - but the attitudes that run underneath run just as strongly. Political correctness, child rearing phrase changes - you're now in time out, that was inappropriate rather than you're in trouble, that or you were bad - and other attempts to reduce the damage done by language seems to me to often simply add another layer. The same judgements seething under 'proper' speech. AFter all it is often much easier to change he habitual ways we speak than what supports the urge to do so.

Of course, a case could be made that it is crucial to use language conventionally in order to be successful, whatever the conventions in a particular time and place might be.

And also to not demand a kind of internal editor. I think one can make what seem like very universal permanent judgements and not be coming from that place. The woman I mentioned in my first post here was able to do that. She was unbelievably opinionated and often sounded rather final, but I found her to be very flexible, forgiving and open to the changes around her and in herself.

Language isn't what it refers to. If we make pains to make sure it is not in anyway misleading or hard, I think we reinforce the idea that it is what it refers to and so we must be perfect with it.

If you close your eyes, perhaps you can remember and arguement between two people where one asserts
"I think......"
and he other responds
"Well, I think....."
and go thus back and forth, neither or them really thinking that they are merely thinking, but rather each knowing that he is damn well uttering the final truth on the matter.

If we sense that we or others are making permanent or general what is not, then we can react to that, see if it is, see what happens next.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

One last issue:
if we don't think or feel when we say a judgement out loud that it really only is about us or now
aren't we lying if we edit our sentence to be metaphysically correct?

 

[everneo]

- it presumes flawlessness
- it presumes a relative omniscience
- close enough to relative omnipresence

not necessarily.

- a crook can recognize a bit of his shade in a 'saint' and judge 'saint is not so saintly'
- he/she knows better about crookedness in someone than others who might miss the trait in the 'subject'

 

[greenberg]

I think it is important also, but I am not sure I want to imply by careful qualification that language is what it is referring to.

I don't see how careful qualification implies such?

If I must add to me at this time and I think, it implies that not saying these things in fact means I am making a permanent judgement of the world. I think in way this is a giving in.

From the perspective of the "objectivists", it sure is a giving in.


BTW, you often say how important it is to focus on one's feelings, associations, specifics. I suggested a way to take note of these also in the way we speak (not suggesting though that they can be fully verbalized, but they can be taken note of at least in pronominal form). Now you don't seem to approve of this?

It also raises philosophical issues: how can we be certain we do not like vanilla ice cream now. How can we be sure we don't have that as an idea because we were punished once for wanting it or it's not cool to like it but we think it is our own taste. Once you open the door for qualifying things and localizing them I am not sure when one can really stop.

All we have to go by, in each moment, is whatever is currently available - whatever thoughts, feelings, preferences etc. are available to us, in our minds and bodies at the time.
To hanker for more is a sign of some form of "objectivism" or "essentialism", IMO.

And what do we do with all the metaphors and concepts that are built into language. If we reduce the possible generalizations on a banal level by great effors to make qualificaitons and localizations I think this will also make it seem like we accept all the dead metaphors and implicit metaphysics in grammar, for example.

For one, a pragmatic outlook develops gradually, little by little. It's not like one will topple down into banality overnight.
For two, the pragmatist does not speak about just anything; many abstract debates are probably pointless to the pragmatist in the first place.

I think this can be 'cared for' with intention. I guess I have had too much experience with people who have cleaned up their language - from different political perspectives - but the attitudes that run underneath run just as strongly. Political correctness, child rearing phrase changes - you're now in time out, that was inappropriate rather than you're in trouble, that or you were bad - and other attempts to reduce the damage done by language seems to me to often simply add another layer. The same judgements seething under 'proper' speech. AFter all it is often much easier to change he habitual ways we speak than what supports the urge to do so.

True, but not inevitable.

For example, I rarely say "Jeez", "Oh God, that was so ..."
This isn't due to a simple clean up of language, but due to a deliberate effort of mine to rethink and remake my position on Christianity.

And also to not demand a kind of internal editor. I think one can make what seem like very universal permanent judgements and not be coming from that place. The woman I mentioned in my first post here was able to do that. She was unbelievably opinionated and often sounded rather final, but I found her to be very flexible, forgiving and open to the changes around her and in herself.

Perhaps she was going through a stage. Who knows for how long can she stay so flexible?

If you close your eyes, perhaps you can remember and arguement between two people where one asserts
"I think......"
and he other responds
"Well, I think....."
and go thus back and forth, neither or them really thinking that they are merely thinking, but rather each knowing that he is damn well uttering the final truth on the matter.

I think it is important to study social graces and forms of politness so that one isn't mislead by them or uses them blindly.

And secondly, the above example you give - I think the interpretation of such situations rests on what we impute the motivations of the participants are for having the discussion in the first place. Perhaps they actually intended to have a fight, but have dressed it up as a "discussion"?

If we sense that we or others are making permanent or general what is not, then we can react to that, see if it is, see what happens next.

Or we can in advance take care of predictable misunderstandings.

 

[greenberg]

One last issue:
if we don't think or feel when we say a judgement out loud that it really only is about us or now
aren't we lying if we edit our sentence to be metaphysically correct?

Yes, I would say this other way around is also true sometimes.

To make an explicit example - "I think all people are free to choose whether they believe in God or not. But those who do not believe in God are worthless pieces of shit, liars and deniers all of them!"

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Yes, I would say this other way around is also true sometimes.

To make an explicit example - "I think all people are free to choose whether they believe in God or not. But those who do not believe in God are worthless pieces of shit, liars and deniers all of them!"

lol
And the second part often unuttered so that the speaker can continue to feel both logical and loving.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

I don't see how careful qualification implies such?

If you have to carefully qualify, it means that unqualified language is hard, permanent and universal. It means that language contains truths, rather, than say, performing expressive functions, or is being used as a tool.

BTW, you often say how important it is to focus on one's feelings, associations, specifics. I suggested a way to take note of these also in the way we speak (not suggesting though that they can be fully verbalized, but they can be taken note of at least in pronominal form). Now you don't seem to approve of this?

I am not disapproving of it. I am resisting it as a rule. As something one should do. I think a lot of what you are trying to get across in the way you choose consciously to speak can be conveyed without the additions. And with the additions it can be exactly the same.

Also I don't think it is my feeling that I merely think certain things. In other words I am an essentialist and a constructivist - I find. If I modified my speech to just reflect one it would be a lie. My experience is also that when I try top down reforms I do not solve the problem.

All we have to go by, in each moment, is whatever is currently available - whatever thoughts, feelings, preferences etc. are available to us, in our minds and bodies at the time.
To hanker for more is a sign of some form of "objectivism" or "essentialism", IMO.

So if I am with people who don't really assume that my statements are meant to be universal and permanent, I see no reason to add on the tags that show I am aware of this.

If I am with people I do not know so well 1) they won't get it 2) they take advantage, sometimes of the tentativeness 3) I am not communicating flexibly. Again. I am not saying your approach is wrong. I just don't want a rule. If it's right for you in whatever way you determine that, I have absolutely no interest in talking you out of it. I felt like the OP was, in a sense, a moral manifesto about how we should use language. I resist that limitation.

And secondly, the above example you give - I think the interpretation of such situations rests on what we impute the motivations of the participants are for having the discussion in the first place. Perhaps they actually intended to have a fight, but have dressed it up as a "discussion"?

In the example I was thinking of I think they wanted to have their cake and eat it too. Their self-image: I am aware I have a limited perspective unlike other people. Their goal: crush the other person with ever stronger statements of fundamental truth.

Or we can in advance take care of predictable misunderstandings.

For me I think I will be more likely to be misunderstood if I take on the rule. A less likely to be happy and comfortable with myself. So for practical reasons I reject the rule in my own life. I do make efforts on many occasions to express things in the way suggested. I also use the ideas underpinning it as a way to point out things that are happening in specific conversations. But I don't want to do it all the time. Period.

 

[wesmorris]

I found this quirky and pleasant and inspiring.

Cute.

I think you are taking language too literally. It can be expressive. It can serve a purpose - a little bit like Wittgenstein's meaning is use.

Well sometimes it's literal, sometimes not. I was thinking of course of the literal part, but you're right in the case where what's said is not meant literally. Which I suppose brings up the intersting case that it is meant literally when said but the relationship that lead to the statement changes over time and the statement would not be meant literally any more.

We establish a new position in relation to something external, often in part with language. Someone treats me poorly, in my estimation, and I call him an asshole. Often I am reminding myself, in shorthand, of a lot or experiences, and am moving back from them. I am creating distance, I am unplanning contact.

This brings up the ideas from a thread from long ago "love and hate", wherein I posit the notion that from a utilitarian sort of evolutionary perspective, that love and hate in the 'mindscape' serve the utility of solidifying relationships between experience and behavior. It supports a predisposition without the mental overhead of having to recall all the precise details of ones encounter with whatever. Hate is percieved threat, love - a percieved asset. Emotion thus greatly improves processing time, but can of course be problematic.

Language helps too of course.

Of course people, even those who are using language expressively or as a tool for adjusting their lives, may fall into the habit of assuming these words and judgements are like scientific descriptions of essences, in all cases, even. And I think some humility and a dose of flexibility is needed.

But I also think it would be silly for me to see some guy who has pushed me down on the street each day for a week and correct my thought 'he is a violent asshole' and see what happens. I think it is better to allow my very judgemental thought 'Oh, no here comes that violent asshole again' and cross the street.

Hmm, yes i see what you mean but it's framed differently in my mind as I try to maintain consistency in my own gross rationalization of existence. To me, a choice arose and you chose prudently to avoid risk, no matter how you verbalize it interally or feel - the function is "scenario has choice, decision? -> minimize hassle" or something like that. Your "judgement" of him has no impact on him. While you may think of him as a "violent asshole", you may change your mind about it if you learned something that to you justified the other dude's behavior. Further, his behavior is almost surely justified to him (however poorly perhaps). So here we have a behavior that you deem negative, an encounter with that behavior and your choice to avoid that behavior. "asshole" really only serves for you to wedge that into your memory real good such that next time you encounter a similar scenario, your decision tree is as efficient as possible (conservation of mental effort (energy?) given the particular mental structure in question). I think it becomes "judgemental" if you were to perhaps decide to murder him, or somehow ruin him based on your assessment. Mind you I think sometimes such judgement is necessary (generally in situations involving a perception of mortal danger), but I find the only authority for such is subjective utility.

If I am the editor of a magazine and I will 'go to press' with an article condemning the guy as 'a violent asshole' well that is a different case. Or his probation officer - who would need to do interviews - or his psychiatrist. But I think it is efficient and human to allow these kinds of judgements to be anything from known as temporary to relatively permanent descriptions of reality in our brains.

So I suppose I've just bastardized the general term "judgement" to fit my skewed view of stuff. I think of what you're speaking of as "necessary assessment" that isn't necesarily carved in stone - but as you mention above regarding "going to press" and such -> that's judgement.

My funky view makes things terrifically inefficient sometimes, well that and not taking the time to be as clear as possible with terms involved. I just write what I'm thinking, pardon. It's kind of become funky to me to syphon my thoughts through my fingertips in this way.

Your topic mixes ethical and epistemological issues. But the epistemological issues would hold for things also. Must I clean up thoughts like 'Fire is bad for my hair' and 'diesal fuel tastes bad' ? Because, well, perhaps my body chemistry or tastes will change - in the latter case - and diesal fuel tasting ice cream will suddenly be appealing. Or that that my judgement may dissuade others from trying out what they like?

I know. Nasty and manipulative choices for examples. But you get the idea.

Rather than "cleaning them up", I think I segregate into "not really perma-judged".

If you had written the opposite post from the one you had, there is a good change I would have come in fighting for us to be aware of how temporary and ephemeral we should keep our judgements. I react to rules.

Hehe. Nice. That's good about you. I think it all fits together really but i'm not sure I have the language to clearly express how it does so. Shit I can't even remember the BS I spewed in the OP at this point anyway and don't feel like reading it at the moment.

Your post could in essence be used as a foundation to judge those who make such judgements as 'thinking they are god' or being inflexible. When in fact, at least some of them, may very well be using language in ways that are fair, efficient and useful and/or expressive rather than something more scientific.

Whatya' think?

I'm done thinking for the moment.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Well sometimes it's literal, sometimes not.

I don't think this distinction is easy to determine, given dead metaphors and the slant they give pretty much all language. At the risk of seeming to agree in some way with Coberst, the work of Lakoff and Johnson on the metaphorical bases, and therefore biases, of language, makes an interesting case about how much of our thought and therefore judgements is based on metaphor.

Hmm, yes i see what you mean but it's framed differently in my mind as I try to maintain consistency in my own gross rationalization of existence. To me, a choice arose and you chose prudently to avoid risk, no matter how you verbalize it interally or feel - the function is "scenario has choice, decision? -> minimize hassle" or something like that. Your "judgement" of him has no impact on him. While you may think of him as a "violent asshole", you may change your mind about it if you learned something that to you justified the other dude's behavior. Further, his behavior is almost surely justified to him (however poorly perhaps). So here we have a behavior that you deem negative, an encounter with that behavior and your choice to avoid that behavior. "asshole" really only serves for you to wedge that into your memory real good such that next time you encounter a similar scenario, your decision tree is as efficient as possible (conservation of mental effort (energy?) given the particular mental structure in question). I think it becomes "judgemental" if you were to perhaps decide to murder him, or somehow ruin him based on your assessment. Mind you I think sometimes such judgement is necessary (generally in situations involving a perception of mortal danger), but I find the only authority for such is subjective utility.

I think in some way, intuitively, I know this. I am, at root, flexible. I don't have to be conscious of the tentativeness of the judgement - not making any claims to perfection here, but yes, to quite a bit of flexibility. I could change that opinion tomorrow. I could also feel sympathy for the same guy in another context. I am not bound BY WHAT SEEMS in language like a hard and fast judgement.

So I suppose I've just bastardized the general term "judgement" to fit my skewed view of stuff. I think of what you're speaking of as "necessary assessment" that isn't necesarily carved in stone - but as you mention above regarding "going to press" and such -> that's judgement.

Navigation vs. Revenge, as one example. Though I do think one can go to press sometimes.

Rather than "cleaning them up", I think I segregate into "not really perma-judged".

For me it seems better to trust myself and pay attention to what I might not want to notice. Rather than trying to live up to an ideal in the acts. Act and then see. If I was a cop - ie. armed and dangerous - I might take a different tack, at least about when to pull out the piece. I don't want to restrict language because then I feel I am buying in to the idea that I must weigh my words so carefully BECAUSE THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE AN ACCURATE MAP. I don't think they are, expecially in speech or passing thoughts. Speaking to an assembly is a different matter, unless the topic allows me to keep on being free. But again. I want to trust the unseen hand of my intuition and adjust later.

I'm done thinking for the moment.

You wish.

 

[greenberg]

If you have to carefully qualify, it means that unqualified language is hard, permanent and universal. It means that language contains truths, rather, than say, performing expressive functions, or is being used as a tool.

A lot depends on whom one is talking to, of course. There are people who will understand me as I meant even if I use objectivist language; and there are those who won't, no matter what I do.

The main thing that bothers me about using objectivist - hard, permanent, universal - language is the position that the person addressed by such language is put into. If they would believe what is being said - the hard, permanent, universal -, where would that lead them? If someone is called "You're incorrigible!" - if they would believe it, where would it lead them? Despair and destruction. On the other hand, "You're great!" can easily lead the person to develop a false sense of security. And if they don't believe what they're told, the communication is unsatisfactory, pointless, paranoid even.


So it's not just about carefully qualifying what one says so as to not sound hard, permanent, universal, but just as much about the content intended to be communicated (whether that content really can be hard, permanent, universal – »I love you« how permanent can that be?), and the relationship between the communicators.

Perhaps it's just me, but I see a lot of room for casual evil and cruelty in simple everyday conversations.

If I am with people I do not know so well 1) they won't get it 2) they take advantage, sometimes of the tentativeness 3) I am not communicating flexibly. Again. I am not saying your approach is wrong. I just don't want a rule. If it's right for you in whatever way you determine that, I have absolutely no interest in talking you out of it. I felt like the OP was, in a sense, a moral manifesto about how we should use language. I resist that limitation.

Using hard, permanent, universal language can be an extremely good way both to create intimacy, and on the other hand, to create distance.

Part of my frustration with language is much broader, reflecting how in each communication moment we could be bearing huge burdens and responsibilities, how delicate and vulnerable human existence can be.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Perhaps it's just me, but I see a lot of room for casual evil and cruelty in simple everyday conversations.

No, not just you.
But changing the words and qualifying the sentences, I have noticed, has not reduced the damage, if damage is the goal, or denial is the goal. The English made an art of the indirect rapier comment or question. What sounds polite, can with a slight tinge of tone, or diction choice, be very damaging. And this can happen without conscious intent, even when the speaker is trying to be nice. Sometimes this latter project - trying to be nice - can create all sort of indirect messages that are quite damaging. And in all these scenarios the listener has an extra problem: to react with anger, disappointment, sadness, withdrawal, silence, defensiveness is harder. It seems like it is the listeners 'projections' or 'baggage' rather than what was, despite convolutions, masking or even care, rather insulting, horrible, condescening, patronizing, cutting....

 

[greenberg]

Agreed.