Posts Tagged ‘justification’

Justification as pretense & denial of power

September 27, 2013

Justification as pretense & denial of power

A Chorus of Disapproval (play)

A Chorus of Disapproval (play) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I have done a long list of things that I expected other people to disapprove of, including obvious things like crimes (even just breaking the speed limit by 20 MPH is a criminal violation). Why would I knowingly risk disapproval?
In fact, it makes sense to me that I have done things specifically to attract disapproval. Why? Disapproval is attention. To someone desperate (as in terrified), then attracting disapproval can seem like an attractive survival strategy.
So, there may also be times when I wish to avoid disapproval though. Sometimes I might have no concern for disapproval at all.
Crime + Punishment in Suburbia

Crime + Punishment in Suburbia (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

But in regard to justifications, those may be all about avoiding disapproval. I do something that I expect people to disapprove, and, in anticipation of their disapproval, what is the obvious thing to do?
I list the reasons why my actions were justified. I may even make up some reasons or contrive some situations and entrap someone in order to justify PAST actions of mine. Why? Because that strategy can be quite rewarding! I can avoid punishment or reduce the severity of punishments.
However, there is a drawback to maintaining terrified justifications. Justifications tend to identify other people as the ones having power instead of me. I may claim that they are responsible, not me.
If I withdrew from a relationship or job, I could list justifications. Or, I could just say “I wanted out. I was open to something more attractive to me.”
I can claim to be a victim of other people. I can say that I only did what I did (or did not do what I did not do) in response to them, in reaction to them. I only left the job because of whatever reason I give to cover up what may be more accurate, but that I am afraid to just directly admit. I only sabotaged the relationship because she deserved whatever and because I was right because of why I was justified and so on. Circular logic proves the validity of the circular logic.
Representación del Razonamiento circular

Representación del Razonamiento circular (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

So now what? Well, all the stuff that I previously claimed to justify my actions, I now reserve the right to withdraw. Maybe I was covering what was actually attractive to me or distracting from what was really repulsive and bothering me. Maybe the justifications were just the pretentious statements of a desperately terrified liar. Maybe I wanted approval and wanted to avoid disapproval.

Maybe I felt guilty, but did not want to admit it. Maybe I felt grateful, but I needed justifications to create an extra repulsion for my own sanity.

Maybe I felt uncapable and wanted to withdraw, then used the justifications to hide my fear of failure. Before I failed miserably (as I expected to do), I justified withdrawing before things got too intense. I freaked out. I bailed. I flaked.
A Chorus of Disapproval

A Chorus of Disapproval (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

English: This is Dywane "Polyneon" T...

English: This is Dywane “Polyneon” Thomas Jr. in his “PolyNeon” attire. This is another image from the “Introspection of PolyNeon” album by Dywane “Polyneon” Thomas Jr. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

I had a tantrum. Tantrums are not signs of maturity and skill. Tantrums are signs of desperation.
I have been desperate. I have tenaciously clung to justifications and excuses and explanations. I have been terrified.
I have blamed others. I have harbored contempt. I have claimed victimhood. I have justified keeping my distance though now I could simply admit to keeping my distance without obsessively justifying it.
Do you disapprove? So be it. Do you approve? So be it. Do you recognize your own patterns in mine? So be it.
Consider that giving up your condemnations could be a relief. Giving up your justifications could end a huge drain on energy. I could keep justifying my actions by condemning other people and then justifying my punishment of them, or I could forgive them and have all that extra attention and energy available for other opportunities.
But I am grateful for justifications. When danger is perceived, justifications can reduce exposure to risk.
English: The Schoolmaster being blinded in pun...

English: The Schoolmaster being blinded in punishment for his numerous crimes. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

the way of heaven: cease blame and forgive your own condemnation

March 23, 2012

originally titled: “to heaven from… blame”

I question the presumption that there is anything wrong with the world, or any need to save it from anything. I borrow that idea from a fellow named Jesus, who is translated to have said: “I come not to judge the world, but to bring forgiveness to the world.” I am paraphrasing actually, but the verbatim saying is “not to judge the world, but to take away the sin of the world.”

Stained glass at St John the Baptist's Anglica...

Stained glass at St John the Baptist's Anglican Church http://www.stjohnsashfield.org.au, Ashfield, New South Wales. Illustrates Jesus' description of himself "I am the Good Shepherd" (from the Gospel of John, chapter 10, verse 11). This version of the image shows the detail of his face. The memorial window is also captioned: "To the Glory of God and in Loving Memory of William Wright. Died 6th November, 1932. Aged 70 Yrs." (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In churches, I was taught that Jesus takes away the sins of the world. He said sin, though, not sins (at least that is how it is translated in the actual printed Bibles even if multitudes of Christians misquote the translation written on the pages of their Bibles). Also, Jesus was not talking about sin the way that others were- like the pharisees who wished to stone a woman to death who was accused of being a criminal (prostitution was a capital crime) and so on.

Jesus did not judge her or even direct her to “do penance” to compensate and earn her way back to heaven. He simply did not accuse her and invited her accusers to repent, which they did. He took away the accusation of the world. He saved the world from… accusations!

Jesus also did not direct her accusers to do penance either. He had no judgment against them from the beginning. He just said things like “well, alas, they do not even know what they are doing” and “remove the barrier from your own sight, not from the sight of another.”

Sin is not just partly “in the eye of the beholder.” Sin is a way of looking. Sin is ONLY in the eye of the beholder. Looking out and seeing sin, that is sin. (Looking in and seeing sin is guilt, but heaven is the way of being in which there is simply no blame, no accusation, no judgment against evil or for good, no need to forgive for there is no condemnation.)

Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895-1986)

Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895-1986) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I invite you to consider a distinction to which I was introduced by Jiddu Krishnamurti: religion itself is not the problem. Religions, however- or at least certain human operations that go by the names of religions- sometimes seem to have a distinct absence of religion in their religions.

“…there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”

Shakespeare (spoken by the character Hamlet).

Good and evil of this world of duality are unreal,
are spoken of by words, and exist only in the mind.”
– Bhagavatam, XI, ch. XXII.

John 8:15 “You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.” (Jesus speaking to the orthodox religious leaders)

The one who judges other seeks to glorify (vindicate) himself. (See John 8:50)

http://niv.scripturetext.com/john/8.htm

First Published on: Dec 6, 2009

Related articles

humor: Winning Political Arguments

January 8, 2012
Winning Political Arguments
Have you noticed that every government in the world was started by heroes, at least according to the people who started any particular government? However, anyone who is trying to overthrow an existing government is a criminal, at least according to that existing government.
>
So, how does that work exactly? Anyone who is in the process of overthrowing a government is a criminal, but if they succeed then they grant themselves amnesty or a presidential pardon or their conviction is overturned by the supreme court and then everyone else labels them heroes. Isn’t that right?
>
Let’s take Nelson Mandela. To the government he was trying to overthrow, he was a terrorist, right? Then, eventually he was made in to a hero, right?
English: Nelson Mandela in Johannesburg, Gaute...

English: Nelson Mandela in Johannesburg, Gauteng, on 13 May 1998 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

>
In the US, there were a bunch of colonists who were terrorists to the British, who the colonists were trying to overthrow, and then when the colonists succeeded in overthrowing the British, the colonists were labeled heroes. Then, in the civil war in the US, the Confederate soldiers were either heroic or criminal, depending on who you asked and when you asked them.
>
If some Native Americans were fighting against the colonists in America, the Natives were obviously terrorists, at least to the colonists. To the Native Americans, the invading colonists were the terrorists.
>
So, basically, all governments are formed by criminal terrorists who eventually are considered heroes.  Anyone who is trying to overthrow an existing government is not a hero, unless they succeed. However, heroes are only heroes as long as no one overthrows them.
>
People who are trying to overthrow governments never actually call themselves criminal terrorists. That is just what the existing government calls them.
>
They call themselves things like freedom fighters and revolutionaries. Then, if they win, they call themselves heroes.
>
Every existing government is called corrupt by some people who call themselves freedom fighters and revolutionaries. If you call a government corrupt, especially if you also call yourself a freedom fighter or a revolutionary, then there is probably some existing government somewhere calling you a criminal terrorist or at least a thought criminal.
>
If some slaves are trying to escape slavery, they are criminals. If they fight for their freedom, they are terrorists, unless they win. If they win, then they are heroes. Of course, before long, someone may come along to call them corrupt and try to overthrow them or at least escape from their rule.
>
Now, what does justice mean? Justice is whatever rules that the existing government uses, when referenced by them.
>
However, when revolutionaries talk about justice, they mean some other rules or patterns besides the popular patterns of an existing government. So, justice means different patterns to different people. However, no matter who is using the word justice, justice is whatever pattern that those people want to promote.
>
So, if opposing sides in a war or in a political debate are both calling for justice, that would be predictable, right? One side says “our side should win because that is the only way to promote justice.” The other side says something very similar: “our side should win because that is the only way to promote justice.” Every side in every political conflict in human history has said: “our side should win because that is the only way to promote justice.”
>
In other words, justice always means “the reason that our side should win.” Justice is the justification for our side winning. Justice is justification.
>
For the revolutionaries, they want to promote justice by replacing the corrupt leaders of the existing government. For the existing government, they want to promote justice by preventing the revolutionaries from competing with the heroes of the existing government.
>
To an existing government, justice means keeping the old heroes as heroes and preventing any new heroes from overthrowing the old heroes. To a revolutionary competing with an existing government, justice means replacing the old victorious criminal terrorists with some new victors.
>
The victors are the heroes. The losers are the villains.
>
Maybe you have noticed that the good guys always win. Now you know why. The good guys always win because the winners get to tell the stories about who won and about why the victorious good guys defeated the bad guys.
>
It does not really matter if the bad guys were still revolutionary terrorist criminals or were an existing government of corrupt former heroes. As long as the bad guys lost, that guarantees that they will be labeled as the bad guys. The winners label themselves the heroic good guys and the winners label their competition the corrupt criminal villain bad guys.
>
So, in summary, the good guys always win. Why? Because they have justice on their side.
>
What’s justice again? Justice is the justification that the victors give for why the bad guys were bad and corrupt, as in why some heroes would have ever competed with them. In other words, justice is the word at end of the following slogan used by all politicians everywhere: “our side should win because that is the only way to promote justice.”
>
Maybe you want proof for the idea that the winners define who were the heroic good guys and get to tell their story of which kind of justice motivated them to compete and win. Great! How about this?
>
Imagine the following campaign speech: “I am an extremely corrupt aspiring politician, in fact, a criminal terrorist. Why? Well, my justification is that the existing government is extremely heroic and good. Therefore, I seek to overthrow them in order to promote injustice.”
>
Did you notice that there was something unusual about that campaign speech? Yes, right? Further, you may notice whether or not you have ever heard any politician say the following: “our side should lose because the other side winning is the only way to promote justice.”
>
Want more proof for the idea that the winners define who were the heroic good guys and get to tell their story of which kind of justice motivated them to compete and to win? Well, here it is. This is the final and conclusive proof. This will convince you.
>
When there is a sports championship, before the competition, both sides may get nearly equal media attention, right? There is at least some degree of balance, right? However, after the event is over, who gets more attention from the media, like more publicity, like almost of all of the publicity: is it the loser or… the winner?
>

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 754 other followers

%d bloggers like this: