Negotiating Non-Negotiables

[MustardSeed]

I’ll take it to Social  

[manol]

15 hours ago, Navidad said:

How do you deal with it when confronted with other's non-negotiable, especially when different from your own.

We could respect others' non-negotiables as we would have them respect ours. 

Or to put it another way:

It's really hard to pull the skin off a snake.  That snake will fight you something fierce.  But if you just sit back and leave the snake alone, by and by he'll shed his skin of his own accord, all by himself. 

Edited May 1, 2023 by manol

[Tacenda]

37 minutes ago, manol said:

We could respect others' non-negotiables as we would have them respect ours. 

Or to put it another way:

It's really hard to pull the skin off a snake.  That snake will fight you something fierce.  But if you just sit back and leave the snake alone, by and by he'll shed his skin of his on accord, all by himself. 

Excellent analogy!

[pogi]

14 hours ago, Navidad said:

 Is thinking some beliefs are non- negotiable a good thing or perhaps inevitable?

I think they are inevitable, but I don't think they necessarily have any permanence.  Things may temporarily be non-negotiable based on our limited and current perspective, but further experience and thus broadened perspective, I have found, have a tendency to evaporate many non-negotiables.  We can't agree with what we can't perceive of or experience, and it is near impossible to doubt what we have experienced - and thus non-negotiables are formed.   I think that experience in evolving perspectives and understanding our vastly limited perspective helps soften these non-negotiables.   I have found that further experience often adds nuance to the interpretation of previous experience as we continue a life-long evolving negotiation with ourselves and with just about everything we once might have thought of as "non-negotiable'.   I do have some non-negotiables that seem to have sticking power, but my previous evolving "non-negotiables" gives me humility and pause as I consider them.  I trust in them so long as they work for me, but I have come to accept that they might not always work for me - so I follow what works/brings fruit (a current non-negotiable), and that is ever evolving it seems.    

Even principles which seem to have permanence/sticking power in my life seem to evolve.  Literally nothing seems to be static and permanently non-negotiable.  One example is love.  Love for me has permanence as a word, but the love I knew as a child is not the same love I understand and experience today.   In some ways I have evolved away and devolved from the simple and pure love of a child that I so dreadfully miss, but I can't trust it anymore through painful experiences.  In some ways I have lost something pure that I want back, but in other ways my love has evolved into something even better, more mature and less selfish.  Love is a non-negotiable, but it is something that I don't think I fully comprehend and am ever chasing to understand, so in that way I am always re-negotiating love, and hope to ever improve upon it, and hopefully undo some of the hardening that comes with age/experience/hurt.

11 hours ago, Navidad said:

"Certainty is a sin" - a popular one now in Evangelicalism. 

As a non-negotiable this is a paradox, one that I currently find myself in.  I guess it is less of a paradox under my perspective of "non-negotiables" as being fluid over time.  Hopefully, this perspective helps me have empathy for those I disagree with, understanding that each of our perspectives and non-negotiables are inevitable in the present, but that we may merge perspectives in time through further experience.   It helps me understand (sometimes) that being wrong is an inevitable part of life and thus not worth getting worked up about when I, or others, are perceived to be wrong.  For us, in our relative position, there is not necessarily anything wrong about it.  It is relative.  

Edited May 1, 2023 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

That's life 

Edited May 1, 2023 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

One of my favorite LOTR scenes.

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, Navidad said:

I have no point. It was just a question. I am terribly tired of being your punching bag.

Oh hey, you're not exclusive, don't worry about it

If you want to think of yourself that way, it's your choice.

Pointless questioning ? Why do that?

Life is too short!

[mfbukowski]

23 hours ago, Navidad said:

The idea that "Mexico is a dangerous place to live. We are fools for living here." - No debate about that.

Huh?

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, pogi said:

Even principles which seem to have permanence/sticking power in my life seem to evolve.  Literally nothing seems to be static and permanently non-negotiable.

Agree.

I don't even understand the idea of a "non-negotiable".

It's all definitions. If "murder is wrong" is a non- negotiable, then what happens to "manslaughter"?

And the alleged "right" to abortion?

It's ALL negotiable.

"Does God exist?"  What does that even mean? First define "God" and then "exists" and then put the two undefinables together and now the results are "non-negotiable"?

Do invisible alleged "things" "exist"? Is that the right word to describe their states? What state are they in, and I don't mean Colorado or New Jersey!

Two undefinables = certainty?

Certainly is a psychological state like every thing else in this world, so now we are attacking psychological states?   With other psychological states?

Oy Vey!! 

I just don't even understand the concept 

Pragmatism and Wittgenstein would not agree- now THERE is a non-negotiable!! 

"Unless of course...." there is always one of those!    

 

Edited May 1, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 4/30/2023 at 5:53 AM, Navidad said:

How do you deal with it when confronted with other's non-negotiable, especially when different from your own.

1. Don't have any non-negotiable yourself, because they are all just linguistic confusions

2. Explain to them why the entire concept makes no sense due the ambiguity of language itself.

[Rain]

55 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh hey, you're not exclusive, don't worry about it

If you want to think of yourself that way, it's your choice.

Pointless questioning ? Why do that?

Life is too short!

Not pointless questioning.  A question and no point. Two separate things. 

[Tacenda]

47 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Agree.

I don't even understand the idea of a "non-negotiable".

It's all definitions. If "murder is wrong" is a non- negotiable, then what happens to "manslaughter"?

And the alleged "right" to abortion?

It's ALL negotiable.

"Does God exist?"  What does that even mean? First define "God" and then "exists" and then put the two undefinables together and now the results are "non-negotiable"?

Do invisible alleged "things" "exist"? Is that the right word to describe their states? What state are they in, and I don't mean Colorado or New Jersey!

Two undefinables = certainty?

Certainly is a psychological state like every thing else in this world, so now we are attacking psychological states?   With other psychological states?

Oy Vey!! 

I just don't even understand the concept 

Pragmatism and Wittgenstein would not agree- now THERE is a non-negotiable!! 

"Unless of course...." there is always one of those!    

 

That's why IMO, do no harm, is how I would like to live, not saying I am 100% at it though. 

[Pyreaux]

On 4/30/2023 at 7:53 AM, Navidad said:

In another part of my life I deal with people who have strong beliefs with and about non- negotiables, especially those they find in scripture. Perhaps each of us, in our own belief systems have some. How do you handle your own non-negotiables or those of others when dealing with them or encountering them, especially when manifested in those close to you? I am especially interested in strategies that don't involve put-downs, sarcasm, or dismissal. Is thinking some beliefs are non- negotiable a good thing or perhaps inevitable? How do you deal with it when confronted with other's non-negotiable, especially when different from your own. Thanks so much.

We all have our own "Sacred Cows" (an idea, custom, or institution held, especially unreasonably, to be above criticism). Trinity doctrine is like that with Christians, its the most unforgivable sin by Restorationists that reject it.

I find that I tend to believe morality is universal rather than God being a moral authority, but it's clear in the Bible and in LDS scripture morality is actually relative. (Is it sin for Gentiles follow Mosaic Law? Is Polygamy moral?). Confronting this was not easy. God is good, but only according to his own definition of good, not necessarily my own. Whether I am good is by his whim, and even when I am not good, he gives me mercy by his whim. Brigham Young could be a saint if God deemed it, despite the selective moral outrage of ex-believers, who don't actually believe in morality.

Edited May 1, 2023 by Pyreaux

[pogi]

44 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Agree.

I don't even understand the idea of a "non-negotiable".

It's all definitions. If "murder is wrong" is a non- negotiable, then what happens to "manslaughter"?

And the alleged "right" to abortion?

It's ALL negotiable.

"Does God exist?"  What does that even mean? First define "God" and then "exists" and then put the two undefinables together and now the results are "non-negotiable"?

Do invisible alleged "things" "exist"? Is that the right word to describe their states? What state are they in, and I don't mean Colorado or New Jersey!

Two undefinables = certainty?

Certainly is a psychological state like every thing else in this world, so now we are attacking psychological states?   With other psychological states?

Oy Vey!! 

I just don't even understand the concept 

Pragmatism and Wittgenstein would not agree- now THERE is a non-negotiable!! 

"Unless of course...." there is always one of those!    

 

For me, non-negotiables are based on a closed state of mind of certainty which refuses to entertain other possible perspectives.  I think we all have them to some degree if only temporarily, but more fundamentalist black and white thinkers and those who see truth as absolute will tend to have more non-negotiables.   But I think they are inevitable as a state of mind that we all experience at some point.  The question I see him asking is what is a healthy way to engage with people who have conflicting non-negotiables from our own, and how should we view them in ourselves?  Are they a good thing?  Or are they limiting?  I think he just wants to explore the idea.    

Quote

Certainly is a psychological state like every thing else in this world, so now we are attacking psychological states?   With other psychological states?

True, but I think we can all agree that some psychological states are healthier and more useful than others.  Some are even viewed as sinful (lust) and we can do much to prevent/avoid such states.  I tend to agree with Navidad that certainty is something that we should be cautious of.  For me, certainty is absolute confidence in ones interpretation of experience.  It is absolute confidence in ones perspective without understanding or perceiving of all other potential perspectives and/or variables that could be considered.  In relation to the parable of the blind men and the elephant, certainty can look like the stubborn confidence in the perspective and interpretation of a blind man who can't see the big picture and yet is certain that he knows what an elephant is really like, as he disputes all other perspectives/interpretations of what an elephant is really like.  I think that certainties and non-negotiables are equivalent in that way - over confidence despite our blindness and limited perspectives.   I think it is much healthier and useful to maintain humility in our limited perspectives as we try and keep an open mind.  That is why I like the idea of provisional certitude that Navidad speaks of.   It gives us enough confidence to function in our day to day lives, but maintains enough humility to maintain an open mind.   

 

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Huh?

That is what our families and friends say to us - they won't even come to visit us because it is too dangerous - so they say (incorrectly by the way!)

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I just don't even understand the concept 

Neither do I! That is why I am asking for help in dealing with it.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

The question I see him asking is what is a healthy way to engage with people who have conflicting non-negotiables from our own, and how should we view them in ourselves?  Are they a good thing?  Or are they limiting?  I think he just wants to explore the idea.    

Yes, yes, yes. In my talks I tend to have to deal with conflicts and polarizing issues. Just this Saturday I was asked, not about Mormons, Lebarons, or Mennonites this time, but about Santa Muerte! The entire group gasped! That caught me off guard. How many of you supplement your retirement income talking about Santa Muerte? It was clear the questioner was certain that it is of the devil. Like most everything else in religious belief, Santa Muerte is complicated. It goes back to the 18th century as a system of belief and probably has its roots in Aztec and Mayan death ideation, deities, and so on enmeshed with syncretism with the 16th century Catholic church here in Mexico.

It seems to me that in my talks over the past eight years, the non-negotiables have increased.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Yes, yes, yes. In my talks I tend to have to deal with conflicts and polarizing issues. Just this Saturday I was asked, not about Mormons, Lebarons, or Mennonites this time, but about Santa Muerte! The entire group gasped! That caught me off guard. How many of you supplement your retirement income talking about Santa Muerte? It was clear the questioner was certain that it is of the devil. Like most everything else in religious belief, Santa Muerte is complicated. It goes back to the 18th century as a system of belief and probably has its roots in Aztec and Mayan death ideation, deities, and so on enmeshed with syncretism with the 16th century Catholic church here in Mexico.

It seems to me that in my talks over the past eight years, the non-negotiables have increased.

I don't know much about Santa Muerte, but having served my mission in the Philippines I have a sneaking suspicion that Santa Muerte comes more from the Spanish Catholic influence than from the Aztecs or Mayans.   I have pictures of a giant Santa Muerte skeleton complete with a grim reaper scythe being paraded down the streets in procession during holy week in the Philippines.   The Spanish ruled the Philippines from 1565 to 1898.  No Aztecs or Mayans ever made it to the Philippines as far as we know, although the sweet potatoes existence in the Philippines and South Pacific does give one pause.  

The Philippine link might give more context to Santa Muerte in your studies. 

 Found this online:

Quote

As I point out in my book, Devoted to Death, the Bony Lady is the result of the syncretism between the medieval Spanish Catholicism brought to Mexico and Indigenous beliefs, but this new evidence from the Philippines, where there were no Aztecs or Mayas, points to the much greater contribution of the Spanish Parca (Grim Reapress) to the genesis of Santa Muerte than Mexican Indigenous beliefs and iconography.  There is still much to be learned from the Filipino context, but what emerges so clearly is that the Spanish Parca is the sine qua non of Santa Muerte and her fellow skeleton saints.

https://skeletonsaint.com/2014/06/08/santa-muerte-in-the-philippines/

 

Edited May 1, 2023 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

Duplicate

Edited May 1, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 4/30/2023 at 8:56 AM, Navidad said:

"Mexico is a dangerous place to live. We are fools for living here." - No debate about that.

So it's certain Mexico is dangerous 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

That is what our families and friends say to us - they won't even come to visit us because it is too dangerous - so they say (incorrectly by the way!)

And now it's not.

Huh?

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So it's certain Mexico is dangerous 

Not for us it isn't. For friends and family it is! We love it here and feel safer than when we were in Old Town, San Diego!

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Not for us it isn't. For friends and family it is! We love it here and feel safer than when we were in Old Town, San Diego!

 

You didn't see the contradiction.

That is the sort of thing that makes you feel like a "punching bag."

Our minds work so differently

[Navidad]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You didn't see the contradiction.

That is the sort of thing that makes you feel like a "punching bag."

Our minds work so differently

Ok. I still don't see the contradiction. Differences are not contradictions. Differences are what makes the world go around in living color instead of monochrome. Non-negotiables are what make the world stop.

[Rain]

17 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Ok. I still don't see the contradiction. Differences are not contradictions. Differences are what makes the world go around in living color instead of monochrome. Non-negotiables are what make the world stop.

I don't think that is true.  Last week I and some others were able to interview some refugees. They get the choice of what is shared (face shown, name mentioned, content etc) and where (books, videos, social media etc). We encourage them not to share if they don't want to. At any time they can call us and say they have changed their minds for any reason and we pull it.  Our consent forms make it legally non-negotiable for us to do anything they don't want. 

It is amazing the number of ways their story can be told without telling what is non-negotiable for them.  We can use aliases, film the back of their head, show their hands only, paint a picture, use audio only or written word only.  We can skip stories that cause trauma or see them in a bad light, but show how they started their own business, or learned to write, or the art they create.  And if they pull it all, the story is still in our heads and it changes who we are. 

When people have non-negotiables it just means they have differences from us and we work around that. It is how they handle the non-negotiables that usually make it difficult, not that there are non-negotiables. 

For example one of your non-negotiables is you won't get baptized in our church and the church's non-negotiable answer to that is that you can't then be a member.  That hasn't made the world stop. It hasn't stopped your interactions with members and attending church etc  It hasn't stopped you from learning from and loving each other. It just means many of those interactions are different than they would be if you were a member.