RE: Is Everything Blindly About Balance?

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

Is Everything Blindly About Balance?

in philosophy •  7 years ago 

Putting something in a dictionary does not make it the most accurate understanding regarding the concept being defined.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Putting something in a dictionary is an accomplishment in it of itself. An established concept that has a LONG long long long history and understanding isn't "putting something in a dictionary". Bias, bro, that was the word you were looking, for, bias, prejudice.

Language is living and evolves along with understandings. If some people hold different understandings regarding concepts it is not right for them to be held back from updating definitions due to the rigid 'voice of authority' among those publishing books. Books can open the mind, but they are not much help if we are tied to them in a rigid way.

As you can see from the etymology of the word prejudice - prejudice is ultimately a word that means 'prior judgment'.

Bias refers to a similar form of judgement based thought that is closed and that denies aspects of reality as a result.

By noticing that prejudice IS judgement and that bias is essentially similar - we can see something more of the nature of judgements.

Similar but not the same, hence why it's not correct to say "nature of judgements" when you actually mean specifically NATURE OF BIAS, nature of PREJUDICE. Specificity. And words actually don't change. Mandela effect. It's not the authority of Books, their concepts are found in the most ancient texts, intact. Ideas don't Grow, ideas evolve through a morphing of human creation, the fact is that prejudice is a specific form of judgement, as is bias, which is why including the general concept as to mean the same thing is not correct, because that concept has not changed and will not change, but other concepts might be constructed on them. Language isn't anymore living than any other concept, it's static. Mandela effect again.

In the subject of definitions, what do you think is wiser to err on? the clear consensus as defined by a dictionary, or some new interpretation that has no establishment and as in this case, carelessly says one thing and can mean another, and without a doubt, it means another thing.

It's not possible for my reply here to have value while you are judging so heavily here ;)

You claim, but I don't believe you. What is the problem with prejudice and bias? What don't you like about them? Is there a problem with CTRL+R and replacing Judgement and Judge with Bias and Prejudice and the work actually SAYS what it means? Or you think that by convoluting and interpreting vaguely you're doing justice to anyone? O shit I included about 3 Trigger words, bet you won't reply now because after all, what value could I have, you can judge me as without value to my face because that's the entitlement of the new ages.

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

I guess there was so little room for Bias and Prejudice that Judgement had to be hijacked to describe the same fucking thing.

#PsIadmit

Do you have a problem with bias and prejudice and what their definition is?

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

I am concerned with the mechanical construction of thoughtforms and hold the intention of being as accurate as I can be. I therefore release judgments when I find them and so that includes aiming to be unbiased and unprejudiced.

Here's an example: If we look at a piece of wood and wonder how many centimeters it is in length, we could judge it to be 5 or we could measure it and find out it is 6. Given that judgments always deny an aspect of reality, I intend to not participate in their use or creation.

If I was invited to a 'beauty contest' and was asked to judge 'who is the most beautiful' - I would, through describing the causes of their beauty and why I personally prefer those forms of beauty, be maybe able to state a preference, but I would not need to judge that 'she is more beautiful than the others' - beauty is subjective and much more deep than can be assessed in a beauty contest, so I would not belittle beauty itself by guessing at who has the most.

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

You release biases and prejudices. Not judgements. Judgements are formed in the now. The meaning of words is what Law concerns itself with. Thought that would inspire even more hate for definitions so why not :D.

Here's an example: If we look at a piece of wood and wonder how many centimeters it is in length, we could judge it to be 5 or we could measure it and find out it is 6. Given that judgments always deny an aspect of reality, I intend to not participate in their use or creation.

You could also say that you judged kinda accurate, not that they deny an aspect of reality because their function is not to include all the aspects of reality is it? In the sense of judging, you might as well call it guessing, because that's what you did.

If I was invited to a 'beauty contest' and was asked to judge 'who is the most beautiful' - I would, through describing the causes of their beauty and why I personally prefer those forms of beauty, I would be maybe able to state a preference, but I would not need to judge that 'she is more beautiful than the others' - beauty is subjective and much more deep than can be assessed in a beauty contest, so I would not belittle beauty itself by guessing at who has the most.

Good luck releasing that judgment.