GJM: "Bias" here and on OB generally refers to systematic errors in our truth-seeking and decision-making processes. For instance, confirmation bias: we notice evidence in favour of our beliefs much more easily than evidence against. AMA: Thanks, GJM, for talking to me an for the info on what bias means at the OB. But don't you want to know why there there is confirmation bias or any other bias?

GJM: Lots of important things happen in the brain without words. AMA: True, but we can't describe them without words.

GJM: (And, just in case that last sentence is meant to be anything more than a joke: there are obviously far more things than words, though it's not so clear whether or not there are more things than are adequately describable in words.) AMA: Hmmm Is Math English? Since all numbers are also words, and since numbers are infinite, and since there are non-number words and names, aren't there more words than numbers?

GJM: I would certainly prefer to be loved on such terms than to be hated on such terms, but in general I value someone's love and/or respect more when it is based on who I am and what I am like. AMA: And suppose you were! You cd only be loved and respected as such by another who did so for herself/himself, and you wd only accept such and be able to accept such if you already were loving yourself as such!

GJM: Consider a more specific kind of love: would you want to be married to someone who loves you exactly as much as s/he loves everyone else in the world, and whose love is entirely independent of who you are? AMA: Absolutely! Her choice of me for marriage would be honorable since she wd have chosen me in Love out of all the persons she loved, and NOT dishonorably by choosing me in Love out of all the people she hated!

To love only me while hating all the rest wd mean that she hated me or wd hate me if I were ever like all the ones she hated, and wd mean that I would be in the unenviable position of being threatened by her Love for any her dad and brothers and mom and sisters or anyone else: if she loved an old boyfriend, I wd think that she did not love me since she loved ONLY me and hated all the rest: so any Love for any of the rest wd mean NO Love for me!

To love me as all the rest, then to choose me out of Love for all the rest wd be the most reassuring choice ever: she loved us all and chose me out of Love! sigh I wd then never be threatened by her Love for anyone else!

GJM: I am skeptical; do you have any evidence that children spontaneously invent this idea themselves? I think the tradition of saying that is passed down from one child to another, and sometimes from parents to children (I don't believe that adults are completely consistent in not liking it) and the reason is not that there's any truth in it but that it's a good-sounding retort. If you're right then the idea should probably be found roughly equally in all cultures; if I'm right then it should probably be much less common in some cultures. I wonder which of these is so. AMA: I have spoken to tens of thousands of people from all over the world, and they all said so as kids! And it makes perfect sense: When you call me a name, me saying 'it takes one to know one' is more than a good-sounding retort: by ITOTKO, I am agreeing with you that what you say I am is who I am, and reminding you how you know that I am one! That's all I am doing when someone says I am chaotic or stupid or incoherent or nonsensical or any word! And as an adult, I can only do so because I have determined to love myself as all words and their opposites.

GJM: Perhaps you do, but I don't think you have enough information to know that you do. AMA: Being in-Love with all words gives us the insight and intuition to know without having any specific info!smile

GJM: It seems to me that there is a difference between having the (single, vague, abstract) thought "for all X, I love myself as X" and the (multiple, more specific and concrete) thoughts for all X: "I love myself as X". And while I can imagine (though I remain to be convinced) that the latter might turn out to be helpful in the project of loving one's neighbours, the former seems less relevant; but the latter seems to be what you're actually talking about here. AMA: As you think more about it, you'll see that each is a part of the other. Loving myself AS all words means the same as loving myself as much as any word and as much as all words, and as if I were all words.

Specific example: There is no difference or there is a difference with no distinction or there is a distinction with no difference between loving myself as a fool, and loving myself as much as a fool, and loving myself as if I were a fool.

There is no difference between a male fool and a foolish male.

GJM: I do not believe you. Would you care to explain why I should? AMA: Easy. And you already know this, but you filed it away since you were a kid.

First of all, there is nothing that is NOT a word.

2ndly: the brain cannot think without words: music is a word! Can you think of anything that is not a word? If so, please let me know what it is. smile All our words are stored in us and as us in our neurochemicals. So literally, we are words.

3rdly: Let's use the opposites Give and Take: To give is to take from yourself. To take is to give to yourself. So the opposite words, give and take, are inter-definable and mean each other, so that there has never been any giving without taking nor taking without giving in history. Therefore, any one who is really for only givers/giving and is against takers/taking, should not give in the first place since he is making others into takes by his giving; and no others should allow to give since his giving makes them takers. So in a world of only givers, there would be no 'takers.' Pun intended. This inter-definability applies to all words and their opposites.

Example: To succeed is to fail to fail. To fail is to succeed at failing. So? So those who hate failure must also hate success, or choke when it comes to the ultimate success of the exams, or in sports such as NFL or NBA and Baseball Championships.

So Love for all words and their opposites simply binds what's already bound, or rebinds them.

GJM: (Unless you mean something as limited as "one thing the brain does is to use words, and sometimes words remind us of their opposites", which is true but doesn't seem to me to offer any support for your claims.) AMA: Right, that is not what I mean.

GJM: Any and all preconceived ideas, of which most of us have far more than we care to admit. AMA: That is exactly what I am saying! Our Loves and our Hates were pre-disposed in us by teachers of all kinds so that those predispositions predispose us to certain preconceptions that explain why there is racial bias or sexual bias or confirmation bias. So by loving all words, we have one right Bias of Love which lends itself to both opposites or all angles to anything, and so eliminates the bias of Hate that favors one or the other! As above with giving and taking, it is only by applying the Bias of Love to both equally that we eliminate the unfair Bias of Hate which can only be for one or the other but never for both!

The reason Lady Justice is blindfolded is because she loves both opposites equally and so might as well be blind.

And because we justify hating others by hating ourselves, we don't want to admit our biases of self-Hate: that wd mean that we had to love those hated others because we now had to love ourselves AS them!

GJM: You can find (what I take to be) a less condensed description of the same idea in an OB post from 2007. AMA: Thank you. And thanks again for your fairness or attempted fairness: you will definitely get convicted for being fair!smile

Posts

Wikitag Contributions

Comments