Woop Woop, Morality Police

12/28/24

If you’re in an argument, one thing is always true, there must be a winner. 

Or, it wouldn’t be an argument.

If it was not,

it would just be all in good fun, 

humorous even…

We start arguments because we are looking for a behavior change. It’s the same reason abusive people are abusive. 

So you only win if your partner submits, no? 

Submission, then, is how you win the fight.

When we use arguments to fight, we falsely imply this is a battle of logic, and the winner is the one who is more “right.”

 But think about the word, “right,” without all the fake context society has put to it, the truth, morality, clutter. Right means this…

To fits a criteria.

If there is no criteria present,

one simply cannot be right, understand?

So essentially, when you’re fighting, what are you implying when you are saying you are right is:

That the desired behavior change fits a “better” criteria than any other available behaviors, or better than the behavior the plaintiff is currently accused of. 

If you want to do this, logically, you must consistently affirm this criteria, that is, if you want to be right in the first place. 

But if you do not do this consistently, 

you can never be right by definition, 

because you did not affirm the criteria to be right in the first place, 

especially with all the permutations of life…

You see my confusion?

In other words, you and your partner must regularly discuss and agree on what’s “right.” 

Otherwise, it would be very unproductive to any party to hold someone to

a standard they did not clearly agree upon, no? 

This is why contracts and laws are in place.

Before, this criteria was religion and (English) feudalism, for better or for worse. Whether it be a few decades, centuries or millenia ago, if there was a dispute in the household, one could just ask their priest.

 It was implied that the two members of a religion would both see the priest as the judge, mediator, or arbitrator. 

When you argue, who’s your judge, or your morality police that will decide, ultimately, who is in fact right? 

Who is the one that gives you the criteria and will also judge upon it?

You? According to who?

And who gave you such power?

I have been praying to Indra,

and he’s making me take lifetimes,

to earn it. What did you pay?

If so, logically speaking, you must assert to your partner that you are your own morality police, and the police of the behavior of others, before you commence your argument. 

Otherwise, an argument would be almost nonsensical. Definitely inadmissible, no?

But if it is not you, then who is it?

Who’s criteria of what is right and wrong are you arguing on the behalf of, if not your own?

Your friends? Your family?  Your mind? Your rule?

My challenge with those that use “societal standards” as a basis of what is right and wrong,

is that many who give society such authority are the same ones that believe society is deeply and systematically flawed. 

“This is what you do if you’re just a normal person in society!”

Oh, you mean the society that you want to discredit online? 

So, what are you logically arguing for when you argue?

It’s a very productive question to ask.

My wife and I rarely argue because what is “right” to us is what we both agree upon beforehand, and that is it. 

If the standard has not been agreed upon, we don’t fight. 

And if it’s agreed upon, and the standard has not been met,

what would be more productive, offense or offering?

And instead of fighting for what is considered right or wrong

(by who? Who knows..) we debate openly, inquisitively

as if we are students who know very, very little…

 as if we are not the epitome of virtue…

and focus more on learning each other’s perspectives, 

instead of playing priests. 

It’s not virtue, it’s just common sense. 

(But you want to be insane, truly be rid of “common” sense, do it correctly, and re-read this book. Or talk to the Saptarishis. They’re waiting for us.)

Here’s my second challenge of those arguing for what is right and wrong:

The more that someone argues that they’re right, the more they may be actively discrediting themselves.

This is why the smartest people you know act humbly,

not because they are modest, but because

it truly pays and it truly harms oneself if not done.

 To even have the right to be a patent lawyer and argue in front of a judge, you need to know U.S., business law, patent law, current patents, and previous court cases, rulings and precedents.

That’s just to step in to the arena, no?

I find in homes, to argue that you are right, all you need to read is TikTok and have a couple likes on your comment, if even that.

To be able to support that you are in fact right in your arguments regarding love and relationship theory, logically, you need to least read books (real books, that have more than 50K words) on philosophy, psychology, anthropology, finance and neurochemistry. And this is to walk in the room. 

And if you think that’s too much to read, then you’re in luck! You don’t have to.

You get to just be humble, which means you cannot be right.

And more importantly, in this case, you don’t need to be right.

So let’s say you agree, now what?

To start, anything you fought about in the past, you need to clearly agree on standards and what ifs. People have a hard time fighting against their word if it was not coerced under duress. 

TV and gossip are great for this. Don’t draw out arguments during such occasions like a loan shark asking “You wouldn’t…[insert scenario here], would you?”

That’s an attack. 

Instead communicate,

“what would you do…”

That’s a real question.

It’s easier to discuss a standard before offense is taken. Listen and learn their perspectives as if you will be tested. If it gets heated, good! This is the good heat, right here. Not when pain is inflicted, then that’s when cooling is in order.

With enough practice, such value-setting conversations will so happen so quick, the conversation wouldn’t even be able to draw enough heat, just excitement for the future.

When you truly know what little chance you have in actually “being right,” you’ll listen and your stance will blend.

The more of a student you are (ARJUNA!) with your perspectives, the more they will learn from you in turn.

If you follow up with “you don’t think that…” or “what if…” you’ll get sucked in from learning about one’s soul.

Be more interested in how they think, not what works for you.

With this energy, they’ll ask for your perspective. Why?

Curiosity is contagious.

Our electrical, neural

synapses and transmitters

make it so.

If you truly get this, you’ll find it very easy and even organic to forgive “offenses” that you did not agree upon beforehand.

This way. When they make a second offense, (or 76th like it’s me), no one needs to argue about righteousness. You can get straight to the karate, I mean, to problem-solving collaboratively.

To each their own.

And if something new comes up, and you fear a red flag, a lot of the fire will leave when you remember it’s society or your favorite friend, that painted it so.

Not life itself, or why would it have made it?

When you’re in fight mode, the phrase “according to who?”

will slow down any fighter.

But it’s best if it’s administered to oneself before administered to another.

Call out the morality police whenever they’re present.

It’s typical for those in our households to frequently say:

“To each their own…but I feel…”

“That’s how you may think, but right now, I don’t”

“Look at those people using the morality police, silly silly humans”

If you call it out when it’s out there, while are others using it and spoiling the expression of those around, you will be less likely to find it in your home, or even worse, in your mind.

[Time for some insanity, might need to clean up or delete all together]

Here’s where I think the magic is, and I have to share it visually;

Imagine if everyone has a diamond for their self worth,

and everyone told them the values of these diamonds depend on the 4C’s.

And every second you are together,

your lover hopes their sparkle is enough for you, man or woman.

When conflict arises, they feel as if they’re not shining enough for you,

even if you say it has nothing to do with them.

Their 4C’s are not high enough for you, or so they think.

So they defend their self worth, their 4Cs.

But the challenge is, most of the time,

we too quickly defend ourselves due to

our own insecurities and subconscious self-accusations,

not the accusations of others.

Why? Trauma and Drama.

Because other’s accused them before of not shining before.

And everytime they hear a challenge to their self-worth,

to the 4Cs of their diamond of self-worth, their fake report card

they hear mom and dad saying, “you’re too flawed to be put on the shelf.”

This is the true tragedy, do you see?

The real pain is from the knives we stick in ourselves. 

So when I tell my Rati, or she tells me,

that we don’t care about society’s right and wrong,

that we only care about what works best for us, it’s like saying…

Honey, I don’t care about the 4Cs,

just how it fits into the jewelry set that

will bloom and accentuate our self-expression,

where we wanted everyone’s eyes in the first place! 

For us, the 4C’s, this report card that we put

on the diamonds of our self-worth,

missed one measure…

Love. Warmth. And Refuge.

Once you eliminate right and wrong from your syntax, so does your judgment. And shortly, so will everyone’s defenses around you, like you truly are a goddess, a refuge for every pained soul.

With no defenses comes at least a small chance for a solution.

But definitely will connection and love blossom and bloom.

Because judgement as we know it now,

especially today and in the West,

(or the idea of right vs. wrong),

was meant to control and restrict.

When you shed it, freedom comes.

Try this Moksha first.