Gah....
So, I had a conversation with someone (who will remain anonymous, since their end of this is embarrassingly idiotic) this morning about how we judge the worth of people. They sided with the conventional viewpoints of money, power, and achievement. I laid out my beliefs, about the worth of a person being decided by the degree to which their actions are deliberate and measured, and by being both the architects and followers of their own moral code.
This person required some additional explanation of my meaning. Eventually, I resorted to multiple examples to illustrate what I consider to be simple and basic concepts.
After the fifth of these, my anonymous conversational partner stopped me: "Well, it sounds like you're just great by your own standards", with a scoff of disdain.
As it was clear to me that this statement, in her mind, ended the discussion, I thanked her for the complimentary assessment and quickly finished my lunch so as to hasten my departure.
And the reason I post about this? Not the subject of the exchange itself, although I think it provides an excellent focus for what really engenders my interest, but the way in which I cannot agree with the underlying assumptions of her conclusion (and how they seem to be commonplace). This seems to be a massive disconnect between how I view the world and how millions of other people view it, so I'm going to lay out the logic, as I see it, and someone tell me if I'm wrong, and if so - where?
When weighing how to weigh others (and ourselves) we must decide firstly whether or not we choose to accept the standards of an outside source. We all do this, to a degree, but what I refer to here are those people who accept their data without weight or consideration, similar to the method by which traditional Catholics of the recent past were encouraged to accept the doctrine of the Church in all things. In my mind, the evaluations of people who do so hold no validity, since they are only that person's interpretation of a set of instructions. There is the opinion of the source of those instructions, and the opinions arrived at by a once-removed agent of that source. While I could be persuaded of the validity of the former, I remain convinced what is espoused by the latter cannot be classified as an assessment, since the stated method is to remove conscious choice from the action, rendering the application of equation.
Once we have decided that we will form our own standards, the field opens to an infinite array of possibilities. I considered, as a first principle, that one's standards must be consistent, so as to not be rendered invalid by unconsidered situational expression. As so often happens, this simple idea, once dropped into the mix, has produced considerably more ripples than intended. Firstly, it requires that all following criteria must be equally simple, boiled down to their core ideal, so as to avoid the misconstructions that grow exponentially out of accidentally mashing criterion together. To say that 'Human life is sacred', could not be sustained - What of situations where more life can be saved through death? Does 'sacred' mean that it must be preserved, or simply respected? Only human life? The idea which we are seeking to express through that sentence is, in actuality, exceedingly complex (I have pared at it for some time, and have come to what I believe is the best possible iteration, which I will gladly share but which does not impact the discussion at hand, and I am loathe to increase the length of this already lengthy explanation unnecessarily). And, even more surprising to me than the required simplicity of rule, I found myself required by the decision of consistency to restrain my rules from exerting primacy over the rules of others. As we are consciously directing our methods of self-assessment as individuals, it is unavoidable that we will arrive at different definitions. Should I expect my definitions to be sovereign over those of others? As I could not, considering my decision of consistency, both do this and temporarily modify my definitions when confronted by others who might hold the same ideal of primacy, it became necessary to establish 'A considered standard must hold sovereignty in the mind of it's creation'.
God, this is starting to take somewhat more time than I had intended. I'm most likely talking to myself, at this depth of page, so I should cut summarily to the point before it becomes so completely obfuscated that I might despair of catching sight of it again.
The point, I suppose, of my original assertion, is that we must all consider what makes someone their best, and should we not live up to our own definition, we are poor people indeed. To tell someone that they are a fantastic person by their own assessment, if it is evident that their assessment is deliberate and considered, should stand as a compliment in an imperfect world, or a statement of fact in a better one.
This person required some additional explanation of my meaning. Eventually, I resorted to multiple examples to illustrate what I consider to be simple and basic concepts.
After the fifth of these, my anonymous conversational partner stopped me: "Well, it sounds like you're just great by your own standards", with a scoff of disdain.
As it was clear to me that this statement, in her mind, ended the discussion, I thanked her for the complimentary assessment and quickly finished my lunch so as to hasten my departure.
And the reason I post about this? Not the subject of the exchange itself, although I think it provides an excellent focus for what really engenders my interest, but the way in which I cannot agree with the underlying assumptions of her conclusion (and how they seem to be commonplace). This seems to be a massive disconnect between how I view the world and how millions of other people view it, so I'm going to lay out the logic, as I see it, and someone tell me if I'm wrong, and if so - where?
When weighing how to weigh others (and ourselves) we must decide firstly whether or not we choose to accept the standards of an outside source. We all do this, to a degree, but what I refer to here are those people who accept their data without weight or consideration, similar to the method by which traditional Catholics of the recent past were encouraged to accept the doctrine of the Church in all things. In my mind, the evaluations of people who do so hold no validity, since they are only that person's interpretation of a set of instructions. There is the opinion of the source of those instructions, and the opinions arrived at by a once-removed agent of that source. While I could be persuaded of the validity of the former, I remain convinced what is espoused by the latter cannot be classified as an assessment, since the stated method is to remove conscious choice from the action, rendering the application of equation.
Once we have decided that we will form our own standards, the field opens to an infinite array of possibilities. I considered, as a first principle, that one's standards must be consistent, so as to not be rendered invalid by unconsidered situational expression. As so often happens, this simple idea, once dropped into the mix, has produced considerably more ripples than intended. Firstly, it requires that all following criteria must be equally simple, boiled down to their core ideal, so as to avoid the misconstructions that grow exponentially out of accidentally mashing criterion together. To say that 'Human life is sacred', could not be sustained - What of situations where more life can be saved through death? Does 'sacred' mean that it must be preserved, or simply respected? Only human life? The idea which we are seeking to express through that sentence is, in actuality, exceedingly complex (I have pared at it for some time, and have come to what I believe is the best possible iteration, which I will gladly share but which does not impact the discussion at hand, and I am loathe to increase the length of this already lengthy explanation unnecessarily). And, even more surprising to me than the required simplicity of rule, I found myself required by the decision of consistency to restrain my rules from exerting primacy over the rules of others. As we are consciously directing our methods of self-assessment as individuals, it is unavoidable that we will arrive at different definitions. Should I expect my definitions to be sovereign over those of others? As I could not, considering my decision of consistency, both do this and temporarily modify my definitions when confronted by others who might hold the same ideal of primacy, it became necessary to establish 'A considered standard must hold sovereignty in the mind of it's creation'.
God, this is starting to take somewhat more time than I had intended. I'm most likely talking to myself, at this depth of page, so I should cut summarily to the point before it becomes so completely obfuscated that I might despair of catching sight of it again.
The point, I suppose, of my original assertion, is that we must all consider what makes someone their best, and should we not live up to our own definition, we are poor people indeed. To tell someone that they are a fantastic person by their own assessment, if it is evident that their assessment is deliberate and considered, should stand as a compliment in an imperfect world, or a statement of fact in a better one.