Something new to consider: RESPECT

Earlier this year I spoke with Rosalyn J and a couple of other people about adding a new guideline to the TOTJO's terms of use and rules: RESPECT. I'm pleased to be able to report that it has been added . What is RESPECT? It's an acronym used in my weekly Education for Ministry classes — an agreement that we must follow before we are able to participate in the course (which is primarily discussion-based.) I realized we could use it here, with one alteration, and this is the result:

R - take Responsibility for what you say and feel without blaming others
E - use Empathetic listening
S - be Sensitive to differences in communication styles
P - Ponder what you hear and feel before you speak
E - Examine your own assumptions and perceptions
C - be Civil in your interactions with others
T - Trust ambiguity, because we are not here to debate who is right or wrong

RESPECT, which is the creation of Eric H.F. Law, an Episcopal priest, has had an immensely beneficial effect where I have seen it implemented. My weekly class spans the age groups of late 20s to early 90s, and has people of different racial, cultural and political backgrounds. RESPECT is how we have been able to have debates featuring completely opposite points of view and come away from those debates learning far better things than who is "right." In my class, we acknowledge that we are not here to prove who is right, or preach a certain political or theological view: we are here to learn from each other. I think the same certainly goes for the TOTJO.

I have been rather poor at following this guideline whilst posting during most of my time in this community, but now before I hit the submit button on any post, I ask myself, "Does it meet the standards of RESPECT?" It requires a bit more time and thought before making a post, but I believe the investment is a worthwhile one. I hope you find it as helpful as I have.

as a matter of personal etiquette, this is great

as a matter of formal protocol, its very ambiguous

are there going to be police to determine when someone is or isnt following these guidelines, and punish or censor us for not meeting their (the police) personal standard?

That's a question for the mods, but the way I proposed it was as a guideline to follow, not a hard-and-fast rule.

Actually just made a couple of changes:

R - take Responsibility for what you say and feel without blaming others
E - use Empathetic listening
S - be Sensitive to differences in communication styles
P - Ponder what you read and feel before you speak
E - Examine your own assumptions and perceptions
C - be Civil in your interactions with others
T - Trust ambiguity, because it can be difficult to communicate meaning

when i read the original i felt more like it was saying "we shouldnt make claims about what is right or wrong" although i can see that the way it was worded was with the intent of saying something along the lines of "dont try to prove THE PERSON wrong"

when i read Akkarins adjustment, what i take from it is more like "if someone says something ambiguous, dont automatically assume the worst possible interpretation"

Adi wrote: I'd appreciate it if we stayed on topic. If you want to discuss respect (rather than RESPECT as implemented in the TOTJO's terms of use), I recommend starting a new thread.

@Akkarin - I don't agree with the change made to the last line. Are we really here, then, to debate who is right and wrong?

We aren't here to debate who is right and wrong, but while we here we debate who is right and wrong.

I don't know much about this .... :blush:

Alexandre Orion wrote:

Respect

As with Justice, the concept of 'Respect', though we all seem to think we know something about it, have been educated well to behave according to it, it has never been universally agreed upon as to whom or what we owe Respect, what are its scope and conditions. In the 20 or so generations that have followed 'humanism' and the popularisation of notions of Liberty, we have amplified our explorations of what 'Respect' could be as well as our ways of institutionalising dis-Respect. We have certainly all had time to memorise the litany of 'kinds' of Respect : Respect for Life, Respect for minorities (sic), Respect for gender and sexual orientation, Respect for diverse cultures, Respect for age, for religions, for economic status and for handicapped persons. There is also the Respect due to the environment, property and of course the law, codes of conduct and rules. Herein is also the underlying and over-arching necessity for self-Respect, without which really none of the other forms would be feasible.

Personally, I consider the Respect to be a meta-quality, just like Justice. We may forever be refining it, defiling it, categorising it in different and varying ways, but perhaps never having a comprehensive empirical knowledge of it. Like, say, 'Perfection', these will remain eternally beyond our grasp.

Before we go rambling on about 'Respect', we first need to get a starting point : what are we really talking about ? Is it a feeling or an action ? Is it a value, and how do we arrive at it ? What feelings, attitudes and kinds of behaviour are implicated ? Is it a duty ? Are there different kinds of Respect and what differentiates them ?

So, one quickly realises that we are not on about a very simple topic. Respect comes to us from Latin, 'respicare', which means to 'look back at' or 'to look again'. Thus Respect is a manner of recognition ; there is some quality of that which is Respected which is already known, either empirically or hypothetically. Moreover, 'Respect' is always transitive : it is the relation of a subject to an object*. Respect must moreover be a self-conscious and rational response, not merely instinct. It is, in some regards, a way of 'objectifying' that which is regarded, to perceive it as it is from outside of the influence of one's own desires or affinities – to appreciate the object in-and-of itself.

Respect is different from other ways of relating to others as it is not entirely self-generated. It is what we could call 'deontic' (or reflexive), as it is a response elicited from the recognition of the object commanding a particular relationship to it ; it is not a valuing solely from the perspective of the subject's (the one doing the 'Respecting') interests. Thus, since it is not self-generated it is voluntary ; we do not control whether we 'like' or 'fear' someone/something, but 'to Respect' is conscientious (though not necessarily a 'choice'). Respect then, could be a particular way of paying an oriented attention ; it is reasoned, not intuited, not 'felt'.

Unlike our feelings about things, Respect is as much objective as subjective. It is subjective in that it comes out of what we know about the qualities of the object Respected. Therefore, due to the subjective nature of the assessment of the object's qualities, one can very easily 'respond' inappropriately – not necessarily in disRespecting the object, but in perhaps purveying the wrong kind of Respect, or to a degree that is without proper grounding. On quite the other hand, Respect is objective in that the Respect-solliciting qualities of the object are independent of the subject. The object places limitations on our margin of action (we are not alone and cannot do as we please) ; Respect of the object takes as axiomatic that the object would be respectable for others, at least that the grounds for Respect be generally admitted. Also, the qualities of the object that are Respect-warranting are likewise Respect-warranting with regard to any other object bearing them.

Consequently, Respect is a value-judgement based behavioural commitment. It is the relationship-based negotiation of conduct according to subject-object qualitative abstraction. The relationships, whether they be dominance, reciprocity or communality, and each agent therein, determine (sometimes badly) the measure of Respect to be manifested in any given social situation.

From a personal standpoint, it is very irritating to me to hear another commanding respect or estimating the respect s/he is due from someone else or that others must exhibit. Given the very imprecise nature of Respect – not to mention that it has been matter for lively debate between moral philosophers and ethicists for at least a million years - it strikes me as unlikely that anyone could very genuinely arbitrate the respect that one owes another. Certainly there may be some tell-tale signs that considerable Respect is missing, but the form and manifestation of that Respect is not another's jurisdiction (as much in the case of dispensing Justice). We can only hope to teach better schemes of quality discernment whereby Respect can be refined. As was mentioned before, Respect is neither akin to “liking” nor “fear”. As it is the property of Reason, neither of these ways of commanding Repect can deliver it.

*Note : “Object” here does not denote a 'thing'. The “object” herein refers to the recipient of the 'act' of Respecting.

Akkarin wrote:

Adi wrote: I'd appreciate it if we stayed on topic. If you want to discuss respect (rather than RESPECT as implemented in the TOTJO's terms of use), I recommend starting a new thread.

@Akkarin - I don't agree with the change made to the last line. Are we really here, then, to debate who is right and wrong?

We aren't here to debate who is right and wrong, but while we here we debate who is right and wrong.

I've always viewed it as debating what is right and wrong. Ideas instead of people and all that. If we debate who is right and wrong things get personal and messy. If we debate what is right and wrong...well things can still get personal and messy but it's less likely to happen.

First, I'll quote my post that was mistakenly split off into the other thread but pertained to this one:

Adi wrote:

OB1Shinobi wrote: well, sorting out the right from wrong is important, and people come at the same issue from different perspectives, so its only natural that it takes the form of a debate from time to time

i think the distinction is somewhere around looking at conversations as a battles vs looking at them as creative, cooperative exploration

Too often there is no easy or "right" answer to a question, though, and pursuing one can be destructive vs. constructive. I left that line as-is for a very specific reason: rather than viewing our discussions as "creative, cooperative exploration", we do tend to view them as "battles."

With the current change, that meaning (which is one of the most important elements of RESPECT) is obscured at best, eliminated entirely at worst.

Moving on...

Akkarin wrote: We aren't here to debate who is right and wrong, but while we here we debate who is right and wrong.

Is what we do currently the way things should be? Are there constructive ends to debating who among us is right or wrong? Also, out of curiosity since I was told to ask: was this change decided upon by the Council or was it decided upon by you alone?

[quote="Adi" post=254753
Is what we do currently the way things should be? Are there constructive ends to debating who among us is right or wrong? [/quote]

Well for example if someone is coming here trying to advocate that one can be racist and a Jedi I would think it constructive to debate that they are wrong based on Doctrine.

Further debating ideas does generally come down to you believe your version of a view point is right and another persons view is incorrect or wrong. Such a debate while it may not change minds might open up new ways of seeing things. Diamonds do not shine or form in open air. It takes pressure and heat and cutting away at material to do that. So too do I believe it is with ideas. Unless we test them against competing viewpoints will we ever really get anywhere?