A Crisis
This thought threw me for a bit of a loop.
Right. So. When you are sitting on the bus and someone boards, your eyes usually go to them because it is a movement, a change in your environment, etc. and eyes are naturally drawn to that. As they board, you clock some things. What they are wearing, appeared gender, if they are carrying anything, unique traits, etc. Maybe you clock one thing, maybe you clock a lot. You may make a judgment (different from judging): that person is carrying many things, are they heavy? That raincoat did a great job keeping them dry. What sensible shoes. That person is very beautiful.
Oh wait a second.
There's a sleazoid in front of me that is actively looking women up and down as they board and judging them and making that face that we all know when sleazy guys check women out.
I made a judgment about an individual's aesthetic appeal as well. How does that make me different from him?
I have also made a judgement about him and his actions so me categorizing him as a sleazoid is perhaps me doing the same thing to him as he is doing to others.
What is the distinction between our two actions and what makes one more "ok" than the other? IS one more "ok" than the other?
I found myself thinking about external perception. If your reaction is overt and the point of it is to be seen or you think that it is your prerogative to let others know exactly what you think of that individual, your opinions are in the ether. Visible and able to be reacted to. On the other hand, if the thoughts you have are kept to yourself and there is no externally visible reaction or indication about your opinion, no one knows anything about the thoughts that just went through your head. So what's the real question about? Having the thought itself or displaying your opinion on the thought?
I got some incredible feedback on this from The Commissioner and The Town Wig Snatcher. Interestingly enough, they both voiced similar opinions.
Let me start at the beginning.
First : What is the real question? The Town Wig Snatcher said that policing your thoughts is not useful. You will think the thoughts you think and trying to control/regulate that is similar to swimming against a swift current. Ultimately useless. Upon reflection, I think I have to agree. I am only human. If I attempted to control the thoughts I generate at the core level, I would probably end up severely limiting my own growth and exploration of how I see the world.
Moving on.
The second aspect arises with the external display of opinion. Here, both The Commissioner and The Town Wig Snatcher said that the distinction between my opinion of the individual and the sleazoid's is that for the sleazoid, the exertion of visible response is rooted in power rather than genuine appreciation, which we have established can be experienced internally. His display of opinion is giving him the ability to make this person, as well as others around him, very uncomfortable/angry/scared/a myriad of other emotions. Whether or not one wants to give him that power doesn't matter because the fact of the matter is he has it. I am not displaying my opinion therefore there is nothing to be reacted too. The other distinction between my my judgement of him and his judgment of the person is that I am making a judgement about a person based on their actions (in this case, the faces being made by this man), not of the person as a whole or simply on their appearance. Conduct yourself as a civilized human being and I will likely not have a 4 page bus thought expressing my dislike for your behavior.
I'm getting off track.
The Town Wig Snatcher had an interesting follow-up perspective to this, which was that NOT voicing the negative opinion of this behavior was worse than doing nothing and keeping your opinions on this matter to yourself. The overall impact of the sleazoid's actions are severely negative. If I can open my mouth and 1. condemn and curb this behavior and 2. call out an individual for exercising a power that is not their's to wield, perhaps I can help to generate feelings of support and empathy that could offset those negative emotions.
The Town Wig Snatcher also offered this (which I imagine will end up in another Thought as well): There is always going to be the energy of the essence of the thought seeping into the ether. It can be selfish to vocalize aesthetic appreciation. It imposes your opinion on the other individual (as we have established), but also, you are unaware of what that individual's relationship is with that thought. To oversimplify - if you tell somebody that you think they are beautiful, you are making an assumption that they will appreciate that or be flattered. How can you make that assumption? What societal expectations and standards are you playing into that, not only you are unaware of, but also unaware of that person's association with those expectations and standards? Circling back to the first statement of this paragraph, The Town Wig Snatcher offered that it is possible to send that energy and appreciation to that person without imposing the explicit statement upon them. How this is achieved, I am really not sure. But I like the idea so I'll run with it.
If you are still with me, I admire your commitment to reading this! As I said (wrote), this did throw me for quite the loop but I'm glad I had the thought and discussed it as much as I did. Who know what I will think about this in 5 years.
Thoughts, comments, questions, concerns, anything, I would love to hear it all!
Thank you!