The Dismantling of the Approval/Disapproval Mechanism

[xise]

I think a lot of people are getting confused on definitions. Often technical definitions are different than spiritual references (the technical definition of love versus the spiritual reference to love; the technical definition of light versus the spiritual reference to light). The technical definition of judgment is different to the spiritual reference to judgment.

The technical definition of judgment http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judgment:

judg·ment noun \ˈjəj-mənt\
: an opinion or decision that is based on careful thought

: the act or process of forming an opinion or making a decision after careful thought : the act of judging something or someone

: the ability to make good decisions about what should be done

The spiritual reference to judgment, based on the common usage in channeling and from people in this thread, including myself, is closer to judgment-condemnation. In closing, I don't see any evidence that peregine uses wisdom toward judgment-condemnation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Attack ? A bit paranoid aren't we. It was simply a question. One day the judgement's won't wash it away Wink.

He used the word attack, because you used aggressive (by common standards of both internet and real life in my personal experience) words, in particular:

So the confederation dictates your thought and judgment ?

Most people feel attacked when you state that they are being dictated to, whether it's a true statement or not. I say this without judgment-condemnation

p.s. Btw, stating that a person is paranoid, whether true or not, tends to further the feeling that one is being attacked. The choice of what you do with this realization, is of course, always yours.

[Sagittarius]

Not really judgement is judgement.

Judgement (or judgment)[1] is the evaluation of evidence to make a decision.[2][3][4] The term has four distinct uses:
Informal - opinions expressed as facts.
Informal and psychological – used in reference to the quality of cognitive faculties and adjudicational capabilities of particular individuals, typically called wisdom or discernment.
Legal – used in the context of legal trial, to refer to a final finding, statement, or ruling, based on a considered weighing of evidence, called "adjudication". See spelling note for further explanation.
Religious – used in the concept of salvation to refer to the adjudication of God in determining Heaven or Hell for each and all human beings.

We always judge, that is what we are here to do. How narrow or wide that is could be considered wisdom. Judging someone because there post was not perceived to be "warm" enough seams pretty narrow.

[xise]

What's interest, upon further research, I think that when many of us post of us judging others, or us judging ourselves, we're actually referring to being judgmental, whose MW definition happens to be http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judgmental:

judg·men·tal adjective \ˌjəj-ˈmen-təl\
: tending to judge people too quickly and critically

: of, relating to, or involving judgment

"too ... critically": Does this ring a bell?

---

We always judge, that is what we are here to do. How narrow or wide that is could be considered wisdom. Judging someone because there post was not perceived to be "warm" enough seams pretty narrow.

Ultimately, in for my understanding of judgment-condemnation, it's the emotional charge, it's the condemnation that is the less skillful part. I apologize if my words seemed to condemn, but I assure you that was not my intent. A mere observation can turn to condemnation, but also what seems to be condemnation can be a mere observation. One can make an observation of a heavy green ray interaction, one can make an observation of a heavy yellow ray interaction, and one only turns those observations into condemnations when the approval/disapproval mechanism attaches (for example, observing heavy yellow ray interaction and thinking or feeling it is "bad" I think would be judgment-condemnation).

The only true test of whether something is an observation or whether something is judgment is whether the one making the statement feels the emotional charge of the approval/disapproval mechanism. Perhaps there was some for me. It's something I will continue to work on!

[Sagittarius]

What's interest, upon further research, I think that when many of us post of us judging others, or us judging ourselves, we're actually referring to being judgmental, whose MW definition happens to be http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judgmental:

judg·men·tal adjective \ˌjəj-ˈmen-təl\
: tending to judge people too quickly and critically

: of, relating to, or involving judgment

"too ... critically": Does this ring a bell?

---

We always judge, that is what we are here to do. How narrow or wide that is could be considered wisdom. Judging someone because there post was not perceived to be "warm" enough seams pretty narrow.

Ultimately, in for my understanding of judgment-condemnation, it's the emotional charge, it's the condemnation that is the less skillful part. I apologize if my words seemed to condemn, but I assure you that was not my intent. A mere observation can turn to condemnation, but also what seems to be condemnation can be a mere observation. One can make an observation of a heavy green ray interaction, one can make an observation of a heavy yellow ray interaction, and one only turns those observations into condemnations when the approval/disapproval mechanism attaches (for example, observing heavy yellow ray interaction and thinking or feeling it is "bad" I think would be judgment-condemnation).

The only true test of whether something is an observation or whether something is judgment is whether the one making the statement feels the emotional charge of the approval/disapproval mechanism. Perhaps there was some for me. It's something I will continue to work on!

Yep quite easy for emotional dictations to cloud judgement. Once you make a judgement that all you interact with is self it makes it much easier to identify and ignore emotional nuances.

Getting straight to the meaning of any friction rather then creating fictitious dictations to avoid the responsibility of judgement.

[Sacred Fool]

Interestingly, the operant distinction may lead us back to the topic of this thread. Perhaps what's being discussed here is the observation of fact with or without approval/disapproval?

Perhaps to observe the temperature of an ideological construct may be one thing, but call that observation "pretty narrow" connotes harsh disapproval?

I might be a little too close to this particular example, but the point seems applicable, no?

[xise]

Perhaps to observe the temperature of an ideological construct may be one thing, but call that observation "pretty narrow" connotes harsh disapproval?

Under my above definition of judgement-condemnation, it's only the feeling and thinking behind the statement that determines it's approval/disapproval content.

However, there is something to be said about operating through a distortion (at least for the positive polarity) if one continues to use language that is commonly harsh or is considered harsh by the other selves involved in the conversation, when the same message can be conveyed with language known to be less harsh. Of course, between cultural and region differences, there are much leeway between what is "commonly harsh." However, often if there is a distortion present it will show through despite information from the progress of the conversation indicating that the other selves involved in the conversation consider the language use harsh. However, the other selves can use the harsh language for self-balance and self-acceptance themselves despite perceived or real harsh language directed at them from the outside. So it's a good opportunity for all parties involved to balance and continue to un-distort themselves:

(1) The user of perceived harsh language when the user knows it to be perceived as harsh by the receiver can use this experience to increase his or her compassion and understanding of the listener (and not use such language in the future unless absolutely necessary to convey information and being very honest about when necessity actually applies, usually by using softer language first to convey information)

(2) The receiver can use the perceived harsh language experience to increase his or her self-acceptance about receiving harsh language and to feel compassion and understanding for the user of harsh language and not judge-condemn them (and to no longer associate disapproval or sensitivity toward the using of harsh language)

It's a journey though, and we shouldn't beat ourselves up if we don't get there right away, but it's important to make real efforts to put into practice the realizations we have made along the way in order to solidify them into our being.

[Sagittarius]

Perhaps to observe the temperature of an ideological construct may be one thing, but call that observation "pretty narrow" connotes harsh disapproval?

Under my above definition of judgement-condemnation, it's only the feeling and thinking behind the statement that determines it's approval/disapproval content.

However, there is something to be said about operating through a distortion (at least for the positive polarity) if one continues to use language that is commonly harsh or is considered harsh by the other selves involved in the conversation, when the same message can be conveyed with language known to be less harsh. Of course, between cultural and region differences, there are much leeway between what is "commonly harsh." However, often if there is a distortion present it will show through despite information from the progress of the conversation indicating that the other selves involved in the conversation consider the language use harsh. However, the other selves can use the harsh language for self-balance and self-acceptance themselves despite perceived or real harsh language directed at them from the outside. So it's a good opportunity for all parties involved to balance and continue to un-distort themselves:

(1) The user of perceived harsh language when the user knows it to be perceived as harsh by the receiver can use this experience to increase his or her compassion and understanding of the listener (and not use such language in the future unless absolutely necessary to convey information and being very honest about when necessity actually applies, usually by using softer language first to convey information)

(2) The receiver can use the perceived harsh language experience to increase his or her self-acceptance about receiving harsh language and to feel compassion and understanding for the user of harsh language and not judge-condemn them (and to no longer associate disapproval or sensitivity toward the using of harsh language)

It's a journey though, and we shouldn't beat ourselves up if we don't get there right away, but it's important to make real efforts to put into practice the realizations we have made along the way in order to solidify them into our being.

Every word spoken could be considered harsh/smooth depending on the locus one looks through. All positive comments are negative and all negative comments are positive.

The need for approval/disapproval from or by self falls away when viewed in the light of enough adjectification from the lower chakra's or lenses. All cognition's can be traced back to lower energy center blockages.

[xise]

Every word spoken could be considered harsh/smooth depending on the locus one looks through. All positive comments are negative and all negative comments are positive.

Somewhat true, but it would incorrect to say that social norms concerning language are irrelevant - they possess informative, probabilistic value as to how others may interpret our words - this is why most do not use expletives in formal settings or with strangers. Similarly, you use different language when speaking to young children. There is a societal spectrum of negative/positive comments, and although one's social skill does determine one's adeptness in their use, I believe everyone has some general understanding of soft/harsh language.

However, notwithstanding an initial mismatch between the speaker and the recipient of soft/harsh language due to different norms, learning can occur by observing the other self's reactions in a given dialogue. If we truly believe that other selves are important and care for them via green ray, we observe and learn from interaction with this particular other self to be more compassionate and understanding of their distortions. Almost all interaction with other selves leads to catalyst. Giving another self a known perceived bad experience when it is not strictly necessary is, in my understanding, not congruent to positive polarization (which isn't a bad thing - negative and or confused entities are acceptable and part of creation!). The negative polarity (as well as the confused or the non-polarized being) does serve as a unique role of providing those experiences because they naturally vibrate a closed green (although not necessarily true for non-negatives), and thus are not understanding, caring, or compassionate of their actions effects on other-selves.

So while interpretations may be relative a priori, the resulting interpretations from other selves and resulting reactions once communication has begun fixes the perceived interpretation. Then, if we care about other selves, we try to communicate with softer language when we are able to do so. That being said, we all do confused and/or distorted things from time to time, regardless of our polarity, and there is great use in recognizing and learning from those experiences.

[Sagittarius]

Yeh and, doesn't have anything to do with what I typed. Smooth seas do not make a good sailor. I asked a few simple questions because I was drawn to the leading discussion of the situation. I'am working with children and am fully aware of adjusting to perceptions without toll. Maybe it's time to start coloring in your own book.

[xise]

The situation is this:

1. Person A makes a statement.

2. Person B makes a statement indicating that they feel "attacked" in some way by Person A's statement.

3. Person A then perceives Person B's interpretation. However, Person A makes another statement that is not softer than the initial statement and there is little external manifestation that Person A is concerned about Person B's feelings.

This interaction is catalyst. It is an opportunity for growth and balance for both parties A and B. I think we've all been A, and we've all been B. It's a common enough situation that I think it's useful to ponder. I think I basically see this sort of thing in a non-trivial amount of threads on bring4th and they can be used for useful learning if so desired. Probably the best example of this happening repeatedly is 12/21/2012: David Wilcock...

[Sagittarius]

Perhaps if one saw themselves as AB instead of one or the other this "problem" wouldn't manifest. Story of my life.

[Spaced]

Perhaps if one saw themselves as AB instead of one or the other this "problem" wouldn't manifest. Story of my life.

if this sort of thing happens to you often, maybe you should think about why.

[Sagittarius]

Perhaps if one saw themselves as AB instead of one or the other this "problem" wouldn't manifest. Story of my life.

if this sort of thing happens to you often, maybe you should think about why.

Perhaps you should take your own advice .

[Bring4th_Austin]

Mod note:

The discussion about Q'uo has been split into this thread. Some of the discussion was intertwined with the original topic discussion so it has remained here.

Also, I'd like to remind everyone to please keep in mind Guideline 1 in this discussion:

Respect. Compassion. Loving-kindness. Empathy. Trust. Goodwill. Desire to serve. Embracing each other. Opening our heart. Participants are asked to keep the thought in the forefront of their minds at all times that each on this forum IS the Creator. Please keep communication respectful at all times and in all ways. The participant may disagree to the bone with an idea without personally attacking the author of the idea. Please remember that we are all here to expand our knowledge, deepen our understanding, and support one another by reflecting our divinity to each other. We are One being -- we are not here to forget the real.

Please remember, when you disagree with someone, address the issue which you disagree with, and avoid criticizing the person themselves. And if you feel the discussion getting heated, take a step back, take a few deep breaths, and ask whether or not you are doing your best to maintain an open heart and seek harmony within the situation.

Thank you all.

[AnthroHeart]

It's Harmony Bear.



And Tenderheart Bear