And here we have a PRIME EXAMPLE of HOW it is ASSUMPTIONS, and/or ASSUMING itself, which can completely effect the ability of one to READ the ACTUAL 'message', which is being conveyed. If you can NOT even mention nor name what the 'various reasons' are exactly, let alone be able to explain how they affected the way you INTERPRETED the 'message' that I was conveying, then, maybe, the only 'thing' that is, intuitively, being perceived here were your OWN ASSUMPTIONS, or ASSUMING.Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:08 pmI think most human beings could be persuaded to change their behaviour to some extent under certain circumstances.
It seems to me that they couldn't do otherwise, but perhaps you know differently.So, to you, do ALL species of animal behave according to 'their natures'?
The main difference, I suppose, is the human being's ability to modify its behaviour through rational thought.Either way, what is the DIFFERENCE between the human beings animal's 'nature' and the hedgehog's 'nature'?
No, it wasn't only 'very sadly' that implied criticism. It was the general feel of the sentence, for various reasons, that implied it. I don't think I am able to satisfactorily explain what those reasons are, as I am only aware of them intuitively, rather than analytically.Was it only the 'very sadly' words, which 'implied' the 'criticism' here, or were there other indicators?
If the latter, then what were they?
Without CLARIFICATION you might have just been 'reading' from what I call APE thinking. That is; reading or listening from Assumptions based on Past Experiences, INSTEAD of obtaining and gaining CLARITY, FIRST. See, 'wisdom' itself lays and/or is found IN CLARIFICATION, whereas ASSUMPTIONS and/or ASSUMING can all to easily and simply lead to obtaining and/or having False, Wrong, or Incorrect knowledge, thus the very opposite of 'wisdom'.
With CLARITY one can NEVER be Wrong. However, with ASSUMPTIONS one can be VERY, VERY Wrong.
SEE, I could have just been stating facts without a value judgement attached, but as you suspect and assume most people reading what I write might infer criticism. But NONE of 'you' will EVER KNOW what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS WITHOUT GAINING and OBTAINING CLARITY FIRST.
BUT it does NOT HAVE TO BE a 'criticism', and IN FACT once one KNOWS HOW and WHY human beings ARE, the way they ARE, then that one ALSO KNOWS WHY that, perceived, 'flaw' is ACTUALLY 'there' AND KNOWS the EXACT REASON WHY that 'flaw' existed, back in the days when 'it' did, like in the days when this was being written.Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:08 pmFaults and flaws are subjective value judgements, and only have meaning as a comparison to something else. A fault is only a fault if it is contrary to a supposed preference. If your preference is for human beings to treat their environment with care, but they don't, then you will perceive that as a flaw in human beings.Also, is it possible to SHOW and REVEAL the FAULTS and FLAWS from the human being's 'nature' WITHOUT 'implying' a sense of 'criticism'?
If yes, then will you provide some examples of HOW TO?
See, that 'flaw' IS, and WAS, a VERY NECESSARY part of the VERY Natural evolutionary process.
So, then do you have ANY suggestions of HOW to help "others" to CHANGE, for the better, IF 'faults' and/or 'flaws' are NEVER talked about in the way that I am, SUPPOSEDLY, talking about 'them'?
HOW would you talk about the Wrongs that "others" and/or "yourselves" do WITHOUT talking about 'them' in a way that is PERCEIVED as being 'criticisms'?
Now, back to where you were saying, human beings have the ability to modify their behavior through rational thought, but HOW can they make that CHANGE if they are PERCEIVING ANY talk about the Wrong they do, or the 'faults' and 'flaws' they have IS A 'criticism'?
Would it HELP if I specifically spelled out from the beginning that 'this' is NOT a 'criticism' but is just an OBSERVATION, or is there some other way I could communicate BETTER, which you could help me with here?
What 'judgment' your comment about me being 'critical' and even 'so critical', as in your words, could be that I now perceive 'you' as being 'so critical' of 'me' and the way I write, speak, and/or am misbehaving or behaving 'wrongly' here.Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:08 pmI don't feel able to comment on the fairness of my perception that you were being critical. I have no idea what such a judgement should be based on.By the way, is it fair that you perceive that I am being so-called 'so critical' when, to me, I am just POINTING OUT and SHOWING the FAULTS and FLAWS in adult human behavior. Which, by the way, is just the VERY NATURAL WAY that Nature, Itself, WORKS.
Does it NOT seem UNFAIR to be 'critical' of "someone else", for 'them' being 'critical' of "others"? And, it might also be MORE UNFAIR of being 'critical' of one for being 'critical' of "others" if that one was NOT really being 'that critical' of "others" from the outset, or was NOT intentionally meaning to be 'critical' AT ALL.
Well it would be a Truly CRAZY and MIXED up 'world' if ANY human being layed 'judgments' on animals, besides 'you' human ones, for what the other animals did.Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:08 pmDavid Attenborough is just a TV presenter who tends to specialise in natural history programmes. He describes the behaviour of animals without projecting his own subjective feelings onto them.I wonder if, let us say "david attenborough" for example, gets 'criticized' for 'criticizing' what animals do, when maybe "david attenborough" is just stating the facts of what animals do, according to 'their nature', without value judgment?
I CERTAINLY hope "david attenborough" does NOT, as well as I hope ALL of 'you' "other human beings" do NOT come to moral or ethical conclusions about animal behavior. Except, OF COURSE, in regards to your OWN human being animal behaviors and misbehaviors. In fact I hope VERY SOON ALL of 'you', adult human beings, will WORK OUT and CONCLUDE what IS ACTUALLY Right and Good in Life.
It was, after all, not that hard to work out and AGREE UPON. That is; once one WORKS OUT and/or LEARNS HOW to find thee ACTUAL Truths in Life.
And do you find that being 'critical' and/or being 'so critical' ALSO. Or, is it ONLY when I say some 'thing' about the way 'you', adult human beings, mistreat children, each other, and/or the environment then 'that' is being 'critical'?
When "david attenborough" reaches moral or ethical conclusions about the way 'you', human beings, mis/behave is "david attenborough" ALSO being 'critical', or is it ONLY 'being critical' when I reach moral and ethical conclusions about 'you', adult human beings?
Yes, and I was wondering HOW LONG it would take someone to NOTICE the way I write like 'this'.Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:08 pm But I am now also wondering something: You have a practice of CAPITALISING entire words to give them particular emphasis. When you fail to give David Attenborough the capital D and A that English grammar would normally demand, are you making a statement about his significance?
If ANY one is interested for absolutely ANY and EVERY label for absolutely ANY and EVERY human being in this forum I have NOT used a capital letter, (EXCEPT I did make the MISTAKE of writing 'age' with a capital 's' when i registered here). So, "david attenborough", "harbal", or "jesus christ" for example or ANY other human being, to me, has the EXACT SAME 'significance', and/or is on the EXACT SAME LEVEL, as EVERY other human being. To me, absolutely NO one is more NOR less 'important' NOR 'special' than absolutely ANY other one.
I find the way 'you', "harbal", NOTICE a LOT MORE than "others" do VERY REFRESHING. And, that 'you' ask a LOT MORE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS is Truly 'awe-inspiring' ALSO
Okay, so is what you are doing here just presenting a 'subjective view' as an 'objective state of affairs' also?Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:08 pmI am suggesting that you are presenting a subjective view as an objective state of affairs, so yes, I suppose I am making a criticism.By the way, are 'you' stating the fact of what you ASSUME I am doing here, without value judgment, OR, with value judgement, and thus really just criticizing me here?
Either way, HOW can we IMPROVE this way of communicating, that is; IF it is Truly Wrong?
Or, is there ACTUALLY an 'internal KNOWING' of what IS ACTUALLY Right in Life, and which it might ONLY be through 'value judging' and some sort of 'criticism', through 'rational thinking' HOW, WHERE, and WHY CHANGING, for the BETTER ACTUALLY OCCURS?
I HOPE I can LEARN to communicate BETTER where I am NOT seen as being 'critical', as presenting just a 'subjective view' ONLY, and/or as seen as passing 'judgment', but, as I continually say, I am STILL just in the process of LEARNING how to communicate BETTER with 'you', human beings.
Okay thanks. This is GREAT to learn and become aware of.
I HOPE I WILL LEARN, and AM LEARNING, HOW to communicate BETTER.Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:08 pmI find that some human beings are better able to communicate with other human beings than some other human beings are. David Attenborough, as I mentioned before, is a TV presenter, so being an effective communicator is an important part of his job.Have some people been ABLE TO 'master the art' of communication BETTER, with 'you', human beings, than I have, like "david attenborough"?
This is what I have OBSERVED ALSO. And, I am pretty sure I KNOW the very reason WHY, as well.Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:08 pmHuman beings tend not to like being criticised by anybody, or, if you prefer, they tend not to like having their 'faults' spotlit.Or, could it be the case because "david attenborough" talks about, or states facts about, OTHER animals and NOT the human being animal, like I do, and adult human beings do NOT necessarily like to be TOLD the Truth about 'them', nor have the SPOTLIGHT SHINED UPON 'them', and so being 'so critical' is PRESUME FAR MORE OFTEN?
I thought you answered the EXACT QUESTION that I posed and asked you here, and answered 'it' VERY Openly and Honestly, I will add and thank you for ALSO.