Judge Not (Blog)

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by milly

ugh. i know steve doesn't like anyone to pollute his forum with "negativity" but i thought this was all about not judging others. here's a question, if steve judges someone who is judging him, does that cancel out all judgement or something? i guess i'm just a newb who gets confused easily. can someone tell me the rules again? i wouldn't want to get banned for dissent or anything.

but... since i disagree with this whole public polygamy thing... i guess there is no room here for me to discuss MY views.

you know, i don't even disagree with polygamy. i think if it works for a small group or threesome and they find someway to live in a culture or society that is accepting then by all means... but to put children and partner into a situation where they are publicly outed on facebook, twitter, etc.. is dangerous to their welfare. in a puritanical society that obviously has great reservation in the sexual and intimate relationship area, touting your rebuff of "norms" to the public will result in a lot more than criticism my friend. We're talking humiliation, being ostricized, and perhaps violent harm being done to your family.

perhaps it takes being raised by a loving and wonderful family to fully understand what it can potentially mean. not all people are so lucky. life isn't fair. people have to come up with their own map of life to live by. when it comes to the safety of the children (and even a loving partner who has stood by your side for years) ultimately, there's a responsibility there.

*disclaimer: the above poster also believes in child welfare laws... if that's ok here*

we do need activists to change such shallow social views, WE DO. i just don't think innocent children should be potentially put in harms way because of it.

who's with me.

You lost me at polygamy. You want multiple wives or something? Kinky.

If you're asserting that polyamory is harmful to children, please share your evidence that this is the case. To date I've seen no evidence of this whatsoever. On the contrary, I've heard some very positive reports from polyamorous parents.

Predictions of doom and gloom won't gain much traction if you can't offer anything of substance to back them up. With nothing to support your argument, it appears that you're sharing your fears for personal reasons that have nothing to do with the real-world practice of polyamory, in which case there's no incentive to buy into your frame.

[milly]

i never said polygamy was somehow harmful to children. it is the public announcement of practicing such "deviant" (and by deviant i obviously mean not accepted by society) acts in a culture that doesn't want to go there right now. im thinking more like what happened in the 50's if a black man tried dating a white woman. i know las vegas is pretty liberal about such things in comparison to much of the U.S. but still... people can get pretty ugly when their core beliefs are challenged in some way. srsly.

what is all this about my personal beliefs/fears now?

i was merely concerned about the physical/emotional safety of your family, which i take to be a serious matter, no? (especially in the case of your children)

[milly]

and for the record, lesbian marriages are now banned in CA

thanks prop 8!

---hey, i hate people's mindless judgments just as much as the next person.

[Chris_1977]

This post made me laugh and then think.

Truth is I incline to be judgemental in the case of my stepmother. I think that as a human being she is largely a failure and regularly the pain from being brought up by her comes up again and it still hurts. Does this mean I don't accept some part of me and what part would that be?

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by milly

i never said polygamy was somehow harmful to children. it is the public announcement of practicing such "deviant" (and by deviant i obviously mean not accepted by society) acts in a culture that doesn't want to go there right now. im thinking more like what happened in the 50's if a black man tried dating a white woman. i know las vegas is pretty liberal about such things in comparison to much of the U.S. but still... people can get pretty ugly when their core beliefs are challenged in some way. srsly.

what is all this about my personal beliefs/fears now?

i was merely concerned about the physical/emotional safety of your family, which i take to be a serious matter, no? (especially in the case of your children)

I can't imagine how terrible the world would be if everyone let their behavior be influenced by fear of violence like you're advocating.

The only way you break taboos is by breaking them. Even if it is true that it is dangerous, that is no excuse to cower in fear. The correct response is to courageously break the taboo, paving the way for others.

Having said that, I personally think your fear is totally and completely unfounded. I also think that by dwelling on fears like this you are attracting them into your life... what is the point of living if it's just to survive until you die of old age? That's living for death.

[milly]

i am definitely not suggesting at all that people should live in fear. i think of all the courageous people who have fought oppression and thank them for my current freedom. it wasn't long ago that women weren't allowed to vote. it wasn't long ago that people could even discuss another religion besides christianity or they would be burned at the stake. even today there are some things i wish i had the freedom to do publicly without fear of negative consequence but there are thousands and thousands of people fighting for those very causes right now. i am one of those people. i support people's right to live the lifestyle they choose as long as it doesn't harm other people.

but to put one's own children after a cause is just something i don't believe in. that's not living in fear, that is standing up for my own freedom to believe what i believe. to me, family (especially my children if i had any) would be the absolute priority given the fact that i chose to create them and therefore i have a responsibility to them.

but until then, i will happily continue to air my thoughts and beliefs on how i choose to live and to fight tooth and nail for the rights of the public to have said freedom. stating such a feeling is not an indication of my personal weaknesses and fears when it comes to societal issues. perhaps your judgmental attitude about taking practicality and REALITY into concern when it comes to issues of the safety of CHILDREN says more about your insecurities and angst against the world at large.

perhaps you should try thinking with a mindful attitude towards harmony and abundance and have yourself a lil meditative chill session. stuff happens, the world moves on, things align themselves in the correct order because we are a collective whole in the end. and ultimately, we still have personal responsibility to the smallest and most innocent souls among us.

[yossarian]

but to put one's own children after a cause is just something i don't believe in. that's not living in fear, that is standing up for my own freedom to believe what i believe. to me, family (especially my children if i had any) would be the absolute priority given the fact that i chose to create them and therefore i have a responsibility to them.

Every evil in the world has been justified with the phrase, "Think of the children"

It is the rallying cry of demons. Want to coerce someone into doing something against their will? Tell them their kids are in danger.

I don't think this is legitimate. I think there is a limit. I think that to truly be fair to your kids, to truly raise them properly, you need to show them an example of courage. I think it is child abuse to refrain from doing what you know is right just because there is a remote possibility of danger to you or your family.

Defending your family isn't the highest principle. Some things need to come before your family. How many people do you decline to aid in order to protect your children? Five? Ten? At what point do you act for the greater good, rather than to protect your own genes?

Take precautions, by all means, but abstaining from what you know is right for any kind of fear-based reason even when that fear is the biological fear of losing a child, is wrong to me.

Should Obama decline the Presidency because of the danger that his family is now in? That would be inauthentic to who he is, and inauthenticity is a huge disservice to his children.

Everyone dies. Not everyone truly lives. The greatest gift of all is showing someone - by example - how to truly live. And this means not being held back from your natural exuberance by vague uncertain fears. And the fear that you have outlined is extremely vague and uncertain.

(Honestly, this particular fear is downright ridiculous. Steve's kids are going to be violently assaulted because their dad is polyamorous? I don't see any logic or truth in this whatsoever. Not even black people in Alabama are this scared, and only 50 years ago they were being lynched, so they have good reason to be. Who persecutes polyamorous people? There is no KKK out there lynching the polyamorous.)

[Gregorz]

(this is a response to the article itself, not any of the posts in the thread)

I'm not so sure that the problem is us 'judging' other people, because I think it's natural to compare and contrast your own opinions and lifestyle with others. As you say, Steve, we learn the most from those who are most different from ourselves. It's natural to think about the way other people do things, whether it be positive or negative. And doesn't being honest entail always saying what we think, even if it's not good? I think it takes a lot of courage to disagree with people, especially those you care about.

Perhaps instead of discouraging others from judging us, we should learn to readily accept their judgements without getting upset. I personally encourage others to judge me. It's like getting a second opinion, and if I understand their logic sometimes it helps me grow. If I see a flaw in their logic, then I respectfully disagree. Worst case scenario, I get nothing, best case scenario, I learn a new area in which I need to grow.

To me, a bigger fear than getting judged is offending someone else with my judgments, even though I always offer my opinions as something to aid them. So I'm often afraid of giving my honest opinion because I'm afraid my intentions will be misconstrued, and maybe they'll think that because of a few flaws, I don't unconditionally love them. If everybody was able to accept criticism without getting angry, there would be no fear of offending your friends, and no reason to tell anything but the truth.

I think it's at ends to say 'be completely honest' and then just keep your mouth closed if you honestly think they could be living a richer life. If you're judging to ostracize or to make yourself feel better about your own life, that's one thing, and you should try to stop. But when I judge people, I do it out of curiosity and a desire to help them be their best. I don't think that's bad at all, though people might resent me if what I say hits home.

In other words, should we be trying to stop people from criticising, or should we learn to embrace the criticism as honesty, and stop seeing it as so bad? There's a quote which I love, that goes; "Free speech is not embodied by saying what you like; it's by hearing what you don't." We can either choose to judge nobody else and in return not be judged .... or, we can judge others and invite judgement upon ourselves. For me, the former choice is one of disconnection, and lets people go on making choices based on avoiding fear (in this case fear of judgement) rather than obtaining our desires. The latter path, on the other hand, takes courage ... and encourages growth.

I personally believe there is a 'right' and a 'wrong' in many situations, and I will always let people know what I think the right option is. If your friend was considering committing a murder, would you say "I can't judge, everybody's different"?

This isn't aimed as a personal attack; like I said, I just think it's important for growth that we should always be honest when we disagree, but without getting angry about it.

[milly]

Originally Posted by yossarian

Every evil in the world has been justified with the phrase, "Think of the children"

It is the rallying cry of demons. Want to coerce someone into doing something against their will? Tell them their kids are in danger.

I don't think this is legitimate. I think there is a limit. I think that to truly be fair to your kids, to truly raise them properly, you need to show them an example of courage. I think it is child abuse to refrain from doing what you know is right just because there is a remote possibility of danger to you or your family.

Defending your family isn't the highest principle. Some things need to come before your family. How many people do you decline to aid in order to protect your children? Five? Ten? At what point do you act for the greater good, rather than to protect your own genes?

Take precautions, by all means, but abstaining from what you know is right for any kind of fear-based reason even when that fear is the biological fear of losing a child, is wrong to me.

Should Obama decline the Presidency because of the danger that his family is now in? That would be inauthentic to who he is, and inauthenticity is a huge disservice to his children.

Everyone dies. Not everyone truly lives. The greatest gift of all is showing someone - by example - how to truly live. And this means not being held back from your natural exuberance by vague uncertain fears. And the fear that you have outlined is extremely vague and uncertain.

(Honestly, this particular fear is downright ridiculous. Steve's kids are going to be violently assaulted because their dad is polyamorous? I don't see any logic or truth in this whatsoever. Not even black people in Alabama are this scared, and only 50 years ago they were being lynched, so they have good reason to be. Who persecutes polyamorous people? There is no KKK out there lynching the polyamorous.)

first of all, not every evil has been justified with the phrase "think of the children". a lot of evils have been known to tout a "greater good" as the reason for blind faith.

secondly, obama's family is probably under the most severe security in the nation so i doubt it bears much resemblance to steve's situation.

and these "precautions" you speak of taking would be the one i listed. not airing sensitive information about yourself and your family is probably more common sense actually. seriously, how many porn stars do you know parade their children around like the two magically go together with no consequence?

and i SERIOUSLY didn't say that a person should decline anyone actual AID. what is that all about? talk about the rallying cry of daemons why don't ya you're attempt to inflate the "situation" of polyamorous people is what's lame. somehow, you managed to turn what i said into an attack by some backward notion that children somehow don't matter in the big scheme of things when this topic isn't even about the big scheme of things. its about social judgements (which is pretty shallow in comparison to REAL issues like the quality of life of your kids).

and what i posted was definitely not about lying to or being inauthentic with your kids. i am 100% sure that parents should be open about their poly relationships with their kids. poly can be a beautiful thing. i just think that at that point it should be up to the children to share it if they so desire. children first, your own self-righteous wish to be loud and proud second.

and finally, LOL, you don't think there aren't any hate groups that would love to stalk the sexually free people of the world in the night and beat them to death with a tire iron? what rock do you srsly live under? people are regularly burned alive for being homeless much less "perverted" (in the eyes of puritanical wing-nuts of course). why do you think ethnic people, poor people, polygamists communities, gay people, porn stars, and homeless people ban together in groups, intentional communities, and gangs??? it aint just to braid each others hair and give each other makeovers that's for sure.

dude, you are in serious need of a wake up call.. its a big world out there. maybe you should take a look sometime.

hey, i have a great idea! perhaps steve's plans for 2010 could involve moving to some kind of intentional community with a bunch of other raw, vegan, poly, early risers

i think i should collect some kind of fee for that lil nugget.

[Death Star]

Reading this blog post I was thinking how difficult is to escape from morality. Probably Nietzsche was right - we always have some kind of morals and it's inevitable part of human nature to be upset or rejecting conflicting morals of others.

Here Steve offers us part of his morality - being judgmental according to it is a sin. Maybe better title would be "thou shallt not judge" Actually part of it is already written in Gospel.

Nietzsche said also that it's better when we choose our morals not the others do it for us. And it's better to choose morals which are empowering and allowing us to grow than these which eventually will put us down or degrade. So in this part of his post Steve is definitely right

However here are two main issues for me with "non-judgmental" attitude.

1. Is it possible to be truly non-judgmental? Logically it would mean absolute Skepticism which, what was proved long ago, leads to not saying anything - because every statement is a judgment in itself. But OK, agreeing that we are only human beings - let's go more practical and down-to-earth - not to judge others actions merely.

I think it's next to impossible just as being a Christian saint. Because even when we say about the other people that they are judgmental - we do exercise judgment then. Actually whatever we say about the other people be it bad or good IS a judgment.

2. Is it part of empowering morals? It doesn't seem so - as any morals who put a severe restrictions on human nature can't be really empowering (again Nietzsche). It seems to me rather part of "slave morality" - the reason for making it unacceptable is that some weak cannot defend against it. It can seem empowering though - rejecting others' opinions as purely "judgmental" meaning that they are "bad" or "unworthy" definitely can make someone feel better. It seems also like a good weapon against all opponents, but not when discussion goes among people acquainted with logic. People of power don't fear judgment of others so they don't have to prevent or fight it.

[milly]

aha! canada! that's what i thought... (just kidding)

PS... Barak Obama is not even allowed to carry a blackberry. apparently that's really putting the hurt on him because he was quite partial to "texting". :P

[azzyboo]

Originally Posted by ellie

I just like that fact that I have learnt a new saying "kittywompus". He he

Nice post.

lol agree with this,


but seriously truely great post Steve.

[AlanFurth]

I think this is one of Steve's most important articles ever. Isn't our eternal drive to judge others and find fault in them (while failing to see ours) at the core of much unhappiness, not to mention wars, genocide and other atrocities?

By making his readers reflect upon the futility of judging others and its consequences, Steve is really doing a favor to our planet!

Here's a poem by early Chinese Zen master Sen-ts'an I'd like to share with you. It's one of my favorite pieces of wisdom on the whole "judging-others" issue:

The Perfect Way is only difficult for those who pick and choose;
Do not like, do not dislike; all will then be clear.
Make a hairbreadth difference, and Heaven and Earth are set apart;
If you want the truth to be clear before you, never be for or against.
The struggle between "for" and "against" is the mind's worst disease. -- Sen-ts'an 700 C.E.

[evacorges]

Aha! predictions on what I can expect as side-effects of letting myself out of hiding...
Thanks Steve, I am learning a lot from your experience, and it is making my path a little easier, or perhaps just more understandable, which boils down to much the same thing in my book.

[Gregorz]

Alan, I would argue that to close your mind to negatives is to close yourself off to positives, too.

In the case you just gave, yes, the search for truth and knowledge has led to conflict, war, etc. Does that mean we should give up entirely, and make decisions based on what we want to avoid, rather than what we want to achieve? For me, that's the comfortable and easy option, but not the courageous one. By constantly challenging our own beliefs, we're able to move forward.

To me it's similar to introversion. It's often borne out of fear of the new, a fear of rejection, and a fear of upsetting others. Extroverts take risks, they might get blown off or shot down, and their opinions might upset others from time to time. But in return they gain connections that would otherwise not be possible.

If you ignore the downsides of people and simply pander to their comforts, they'll never learn anything and they'll never grow. If you outright reject people, they'll be discouraged and stifled and they'll never grow. The trick is to find a happy medium between the two. Polarization is good in theory, but I find it never works in practice.

What if, like I said above, a friend of yours decided he wanted to commit a murder? This puts you in a rather awkward position if you wish not to judge people, since from the non-judgemental perspective, nobody is wrong, he's just doing his own thing.

I honestly believe the way forward is for people to listen and honestly hear the criticism, and learn not to get angry with it. It's the difficult path and the one which requires a bit of courage -- but ultimately it's the one which will provide the most growth.

[JeromeX]

Originally Posted by Gregorz

I personally believe there is a 'right' and a 'wrong' in many situations, and I will always let people know what I think the right option is. If your friend was considering committing a murder, would you say "I can't judge, everybody's different"?

In earthly term it is certainly morally and legally wrong to commit a murder.

Now imagine that the conciousness of the murdered will happily continue his journey and move on to next earthly life. Before the murdering, the consciousness already decided that he wanted to end this life since he had completed what he intended to complete in this life and had learned the lessons that he intended to learn. The way how to end this life does not really matter. Within this context, the murderer will not be considered wrong by the murdered.

I just want to show an example how your beliefs define your rightness and wrongness.

Some people believe that polyamory will hurt the spouse and kids. But Steve believes that it is good for children and Erin. Right or wrong is only to the extent that you believe it.

Few people in the world have the courage like Steve to share his unconventional beliefs. I agree with you that it also takes courage to face the criticism with dignity and respect. Criticism is like the medicine. It tastes bitter, however is good for health. But again it is only to the extent that you believe it is good for your health. All you realities are created by your beliefs. If you believe in polyamory, the reality may work out perfectly. No need to be worried by others with different beliefs.

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by milly

i never said polygamy was somehow harmful to children. it is the public announcement of practicing such "deviant" (and by deviant i obviously mean not accepted by society) acts in a culture that doesn't want to go there right now. im thinking more like what happened in the 50's if a black man tried dating a white woman. i know las vegas is pretty liberal about such things in comparison to much of the U.S. but still... people can get pretty ugly when their core beliefs are challenged in some way. srsly.

what is all this about my personal beliefs/fears now?

i was merely concerned about the physical/emotional safety of your family, which i take to be a serious matter, no? (especially in the case of your children)

Polygamy and polyamory aren't the same. Do you know the difference by any chance? It's hard to know what you mean when you're referring to polygamy instead of polyamory.

I appreciate your concern for my family, and I expect that polyamory will benefit all of us greatly. In many ways it already has.

Truth is not something that's subject to a vote. If I do something unpopular, it simply means there will be different consequences for myself and others. That doesn't make the path any less valid.

Think of the thousands of people who will benefit from this exploration.

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by milly

but to put one's own children after a cause is just something i don't believe in. that's not living in fear, that is standing up for my own freedom to believe what i believe. to me, family (especially my children if i had any) would be the absolute priority given the fact that i chose to create them and therefore i have a responsibility to them.

If you're willing to put your children first in your life, I would find it impossible to trust you. This implies you'd be willing to lie for them, harm others for them, steal for them, etc. It also implies that you'll raise your kids to do the same. IMO this is a violent, disconnected philosophy. This kind of attachment also produces a great deal of fear, which leads to irrational behavior.

My children are important to me, and I love them very much, but I would never put them first in my life. For starters, my dedication to truth is much more important, and I would want my kids to grow up with a similar principle-centered focus. If I was willing to sacrifice my ideals and values for my children, I'd consider myself unworthy of fatherhood.

[Gregorz]

Originally Posted by JeromeX

In earthly term it is certainly morally and legally wrong to commit a murder.

Now imagine that the conciousness of the murdered will happily continue his journey and move on to next earthly life. Before the murdering, the consciousness already decided that he wanted to end this life since he had completed what he intended to complete in this life and had learned the lessons that he intended to learn. The way how to end this life does not really matter. Within this context, the murderer will not be considered wrong by the murdered.

I just want to show an example how your beliefs define your rightness and wrongness.

That's a very conditional, dependent situation, though. How many murder victims get murdered in those circumstances?

Essentially, my question is what happens when someone's beliefs intrude in the way someone else wishes to live? For example, Hitler believed that murdering an entire race was the right thing to do. Otherwise he wouldn't have done it. Obviously, that clashes with the beliefs of others. If everybody's right, how do we resolve such a situation?

My argument is that it is impossible for all the wishes of all the various people currently in the world to come true. Some of them clash with others. So the "everybody's right" thing just doesn't work for me. I also disagree with it on principle, as I said before, because I see it as a path of stagnancy and disconnection. My solution is not to censor your judgements, but learn to accept the judgements of others.

The last part of your post was about polyamory, wasn't sure whether that was addressing me, since I haven't brought it up in this thread. I fully support Steve's polyamorism.

[gingembre]

This ia a great, thought-provoking post. Speaking out about some of the more "different" aspects of my life is one of those things I do that I believe in its own little way changes the world. Norms, and more importantly social acceptance, do not change fom people hiding their differences and practicing their "unaccepted" behaviors in secret. These changes only come about as a matter of people proudly standing up and showing these differences - not neccessarily in a pushy way (though that can be quite the catalyst, and I have some respect for those that act in a radical way), but just by showing people that this "normal" person that you work with and like, is in fact also in a polyamorous relationship (or eats only raw food, or nursed both her kids till age 3 or more, or...etc.) In this way you open peoples minds to the fact that really, we are more alike than different in many ways, and in any case "nice people" also do X.

Personally, I do not proclaim many of the unusual aspects of my life, but I am more than willing to talk about them should the conversation go in that direction, or of course if directly asked. And of course it's all on my LJ. At work I am a bit more discreet (yes, I still have an office job - and likely will for some time, as I have two small children and can't afford to "float" long whilst establishing something self-employed), though this is beginning to inhibit me as I try to figure out what my web presence should be with regards to my burlesque performing - I do work for a law firm after all - and I may soon just say f*** it and screw the consequences of "potential" discovery.

[gingembre]

Oh and for the record, some of the more unsual aspects that come up in conversation with people from all walks of my life include:
-my interracial marriage, and two "mixed" kids
-my young age at marriage and motherhood (at 29 I've been involved with my husband for 12 1/2 years, almost longer than my mother knew my father. It's a bit of an odd perspective at times...)
-my burlesque performances
-being poly and bisexual
-natural childbirth, long term breastfeeding, cosleeping and babywearing (no stroller at all with the second kid)
-sleeping in hammocks (the kids love theirs!)
-raw food (though not always vegan LOL)
-for that matter, even when cooking EVERYTHING is from scratch
-the importance of dance in my life
-D/s in my marriage (to an extent) and definitely kinky sex life
-desire to make a lot of my own things - including to build my own home and live off the grid, and my general hippyish tendencies

What's funny is, after a while, you forget these things are on the fringe...

[JeromeX]

Originally Posted by Gregorz

That's a very conditional, dependent situation, though. How many murder victims get murdered in those circumstances?

What if I tell you that it is not conditional, dependent situation? What if I believe it is the root cause of all crimes, wars, genocides, holocaust, even natural disasters? What if I say that no need to fix the world's and other's problems except helping others to raise their consciousness?

I know it is very unconventional beliefs and it is hard to swallow by you. It does not mean that I am judging you. I am just expressing my beliefs.

Actually I am very in favor of your posts. I just want to use your points to explain that different beliefs cause lots of confusion and arguments here.

[edith]

The only way we can learn and grow and improve is by deciding which ideas are better than others. That is judgment, but judgment about ideas. We need to separate the idea from the essence of the person.

I suggest that Steve does judge - but judges ideas. Some people believe that it is better to speak in hypotheticals so that your individual learning is private and the ideas are further isolated so it does not become about the person. Others think that this approach lacks authenticity. I personally like to remain private in my learning, while at the same time, I appreciate Steve's willingness to be open. He presents a raw and very real experience for all of us to learn from.

[Gregorz]

Originally Posted by JeromeX

What if I say that no need to fix the world's and other's problems except helping others to raise their consciousness?

I believe the same thing. My beliefs just differ about what the path to that higher level of awareness is

I understand what you're saying about unconventional beliefs being hard to swallow -- I know the lens argument, and I believe in subjective reality to some extent. And trust me, I've had trouble explaining my beliefs to others. I just don't get what you're trying to explain, or why you believe it. 'Why' is always the most important question for me.

Oh, and don't worry about offending me if your beliefs conflict with mine. Like I said before, I think that one of the best paths to growth is by having others point out your errors and flaws of logic. Since I'm not really bothered by criticism anymore (I'm a writer, so I'm constantly having my work torn to shreds), I actively seek out honest and courageous people out to do just that for me. Worst case scenario, I respectfully disagree with their opinions, best case scenario, I realise I'm wrong and learn something.


Edith -- could be that that's what Steve meant and I'm totally misinterpreting what he means by "don't judge". A lot of people mean literal good/evil judgement when they speak of judging others, which is something that's never occured to me to do (I'm a staunch believer that everyone is essentially good, just not necessarily smart).

[JeromeX]

Originally Posted by Gregorz

I just don't get what you're trying to explain, or why you believe it. 'Why' is always the most important question for me.

I am trying to explain that crash of different beliefs causes the confusion and argument in this forum, also in real life.

If people are able to realize that their beliefs are not necessarily the only truth as they believed, they will be more acceptable to the people with different beliefs. At same time, we will be more willing to examine our own beliefs against what others have to say about us, even it sounds judgmental or critical.

[The Wise Turtle]

I believe that brains function using the concept of judgment - looking out at the world and saying to oneself: "Is this something I want to move towards? Or is it something I want to move away from? Or, do I need more information about it before I can make a decision?". So, to me, trying to be "non-judgmental" isn't respecting our own natural and healthy brains. It's almost like being judgmental about how we process information. :-)

However, I think we can achieve the same extenal effect of being "non-judgmental" while also being honest about what we naturally feel about things, when we choose to use non-violent communication techniques to become aware of and clearly express what it is that we really want as we move into the future. And Marshal Rosenberg is the one to read/listen to when it comes to non-violent communication, for those who are interested. Taking our negative internal "away from" assessments/judgments and turning them into positive expressions of what we really want for ourselves and our environment allows us to remove the negativity from judgments entirely, allowing everyone to feel more relaxed and comfortable with the idea of our naturally judgmental minds.

And this "positive expression" of our thoughts and feelings goes a long way towards creating that environment of unconditional love, from what I've seen, with the other major component being a demonstration of wanting others to have the resources they need to grow and be healthy, with an understanding that the specifics of what those resources look like and where they come from are going to vary from individual to individual.

Peace, Love, and Bicycles,
Turil

[milly]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Polygamy and polyamory aren't the same. Do you know the difference by any chance? It's hard to know what you mean when you're referring to polygamy instead of polyamory.

I appreciate your concern for my family, and I expect that polyamory will benefit all of us greatly. In many ways it already has.

Truth is not something that's subject to a vote. If I do something unpopular, it simply means there will be different consequences for myself and others. That doesn't make the path any less valid.

Think of the thousands of people who will benefit from this exploration.

sorry, polygamy was a typo. im aware of the differences.

[milly]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

If you're willing to put your children first in your life, I would find it impossible to trust you. This implies you'd be willing to lie for them, harm others for them, steal for them, etc. It also implies that you'll raise your kids to do the same. IMO this is a violent, disconnected philosophy. This kind of attachment also produces a great deal of fear, which leads to irrational behavior.

My children are important to me, and I love them very much, but I would never put them first in my life. For starters, my dedication to truth is much more important, and I would want my kids to grow up with a similar principle-centered focus. If I was willing to sacrifice my ideals and values for my children, I'd consider myself unworthy of fatherhood.

putting my children first in my life absolutely does NOT mean i would lie, steal, and kill people for them. that would be like me saying that your dedication to the truth would cause you to lie, harm and steal for THAT as well. not much logic in that is there?

service to others and the greater good is just an extension of putting one's own children before your own self righteous needs. i wouldn't lie for children or steal or whatever because that would obviously be wrong. being inappropriately candid with the public about things that could put them at risk is what i'm talking about. doing the right thing by them, by respecting and protecting their privacy isn't something that will injure your ability to bring great things to the earth. You don't have to sacrifice any ideas or values to do this, unless by ideal and value you mean the desire to say every single thing that pops into your head.

serving the needs of your children is nothing to rally against people. srsly.

there are better ways of spreading the ideal of sexual freedom besides steamrolling the innocent and calling it great. if you are REALLY interested, join groups that support such rights. become a philantropist for the cause. support people who are living the life without endangering their young. move to a place where your actions are considered part of the norm and therefore a safe environment for kids.

[jayh]

I'm sorry, but I just can't help myself. Arguments that begin with capital letters always carry more weight in my opinion.

[-B-]

Originally Posted by milly

putting my children first in my life absolutely does NOT mean i would lie, steal, and kill people for them.

Ah, then it seems, if nothing else, you do not, in fact, put your children first in your life. Wise!