All this appears to be so 'intellectual', so verbose, too many words ... 'pathos', 'ethos' etc ...smiileyjen101 wrote:This might seem 'off topic' but it's actually speaking to the quality of our thoughts and might be helpful for Danny - about what we think, what we feel, what we hear/read/see as well.
Okay, so you are taking it 'narrower' based on your honing into an interpretation of a single word in a statement - the word 'judge' is filtering the whole quote and experience of it for you - the whole quote would likely have already been a step down, limiting in expression and experience of what was being said.smiileyjen101 wrote:
The mind does indeed help us to understand the 'feeling', the effect of our actions and thoughts.
Phil said: Maybe, but the 'judgement' does not help us to understand, quite the opposite ... when we say something is 'bad' or 'should not be', it blocks understanding in fact ... it is a resistance to 'what is' which precisely means we don't understand what happens ... and we condemn it, saying it 'should not be' precisely because there is no understanding ...
If we widen our perspective out a little, use a little discernment of our own, and understand what happens in communication in terms of ethos, pathos, logos we might understand the different levels of acceptance and resistance in this specific communication, why yours is narrowing, and mine is widening. It's exactly the same process regardless of the speaker or content - including our own thoughts etcAs human beings we can transform ourselves by our good qualities and reducing our faults. Our intelligence enables us to judge what is good from what is harmful.
If we embed the quote in the DL's ethical appeal - (not our own interpretation) how does the statement stand?Ethos (Greek for 'character') refers to the trustworthiness or credibility of the writer or speaker. Ethos is often conveyed through tone and style of the message and through the way the writer or speaker refers to differing views. It can also be affected by the writer's reputation as it exists independently from the message--his or her expertise in the field, his or her previous record or integrity, and so forth. The impact of ethos is often called the argument's 'ethical appeal' or the 'appeal from credibility.'
What is the likely 'awareness, capacity and willingness' of the Dalai Lama when speaking of such things? Is it likely to be condemning or resistant or reactive, or is it likely to be more inclusive of the things that are 'good qualities' and the things that are 'faults'?
- from the DL's perspective are 'faults' blameworthy or just is? Having been in his company and heard him discuss such things before I would tend to think he neither denies nor condemns faults, but in the next sentence he does follow through with logos, again not 'good and bad' as polar opposites but as potentials for our choosing.
Good or harmful natural consequences of using either our 'good' qualities or our faults will have a different experience and outcome. Our good qualities used wisely are not usually harmful in use or in effect, our faults in awareness, capacity and willingness often are harmful, to self and others in both use, and effect.Logos (Greek for 'word') refers to the internal consistency of the message--the clarity of the claim, the logic of its reasons, and the effectiveness of its supporting evidence. The impact of logos on an audience is sometimes called the argument's logical appeal.
The use of our intelligence, whatever that is in capacity, allows us to know - recognise the difference.
[P]athos (Greek for 'suffering' or 'experience') is often associated with emotional appeal. But a better equivalent might be 'appeal to the audience's sympathies and imagination.' An appeal to pathos causes an audience not just to respond emotionally but to identify with the writer's point of view--to feel what the writer feels. In this sense, pathos evokes a meaning implicit in the verb 'to suffer'--to feel pain imaginatively.... Perhaps the most common way of conveying a pathetic appeal is through narrative or story, which can turn the abstractions of logic into something palpable and present. The values, beliefs, and understandings of the writer are implicit in the story and conveyed imaginatively to the reader. Pathos thus refers to both the emotional and the imaginative impact of the message on an audience, the power with which the writer's message moves the audience to decision or action.
The DL's pathos has not been illustrated in this quote, two minutes in his company though and you very much feel it, see it, experience the love and joy and humour of it. He holds a stern face in mockery of the thoughts that feed the emotions that create our sense of suffering. In our own minds and words we use Pathos very much to convince ourselves about things being as we are perceiving / expressing and experiencing - oh, woe is me, oh doom and gloom, oh fret and worry, or oh joy and bliss, oh love of my life, oh riches and abundance. Those statements of pathos 'convince' us that our thoughts are 'right'.
Phil you've used ethos, logos and pathos very much in your statements above, and I have in my reply.
Danny, see if you can become aware of using them in your own thoughts- pathos is the one that can over-rule logic and credibility, it is the language of the heart's appeal. It's the one that convinces you that you are 'helpless' when all logic and credibility suggest the opposite. The mind uses the other two more discerningly.
A 'good' communicator (even to oneself) will be aware of balance or not in the ethos, pathos, logos of a statement or even in our interpretations of them.
Shall we open our hearts and minds to just the words, a word, or the wider spirit of them? Phil do you not logically, reasonably and emotionally agree that faults that are harmful have a different expression and create a different experience to those that are born of good qualities? And that it is our intelligence that is aware and judicious about the differences?
Intelligence does indeed help us to distinguish the difference. If we had no intelligence we would just keep making the same mis-takes, instead of making new / different ones.
In context that it is our persepective that colours our interpretations, the DL did not say good and 'bad' as polar opposites, he said good qualities and faults as the basis for our choosing, and he didn't say bad in the second sentence either, he said 'harmful'. Where, when, how and by whom, did the word 'bad' come into it?
The word 'judge' has many connotations and energetic levels of expression, experience, the key of it for me is in the 'judge not lest you be judged in the same manner' - how can you not be?
The level of awareness, capacity & willingness in judging is your own.
Reminds me a joke:
Do you know what is a philosopher ?
It is a person when you ask him a question, not only you don't understand his answer ... but you don't even understand your question any more ...