I don't agree but I don’t make judgements is a simple statement. It is less simple when whoever saying so passes judgment in sourdine. I am reminded of my father's friend, a staunch communist advocating international mixing and solidarity until his daughter announced she would marry a refugee from some non-European country with whom he was institutionally in solidarity... but firmly opposed to in the quality of father. Of course I did not agree with him, tried not to judge him, but remember my father saying he himself was not only judging but also condemning.
A generation or two later, every year, close by friends walk down one of Lisbon's main avenues together with all kinds of pressure groups, claiming with great conviction their demand for everyone's freedom in every aspect. They amaze me with their inflexible condemnations of their own children when those announce they feel having a different identity than the one the normalising State defined on their identity papers by birth. I don't agree with some of my friends when they even ban their own children from their homes, but I don’t judge. I ask myself how to reflect on this with them.
Friends living more far of are promoting dialoguing education and school. They advise a couple of parents to opt for the simultaneous instructing model, because their child would not be mature for dialoguing education. I don't agree, but I don't judge. I know why I myself tried to build a dialoguing class within the walls of the instructing school.
Ownership, possession and paternalism are peculiar concepts. Even authors of sixteenth and seventeenth century utopian novels appear confused when denouncing the power and property of the Lords of their own time. In one work, property is being collectivised but individual families still have two slaves. Also confusing is when in another work everything is being collectivised including women and children. This sheds some light on how women and children were thought of even by some utopians of that time.
When reflecting about moneyless dialoguing societies one can get caught up in hierarchies based on another kind of foundations or paternalistic concerns. When I happen to be able to escape from such an entanglement, I search to judge my own naivety, trying not to do so on the attitude of others.
"Is that OK Pepe?" “If it's OK for you and you don't hurt anyone else, not even in feelings, then it might be OK for me.”
Not an easy start for a dialogue with grandchildren. I'm not judging who doesn't, but I agree it is quite a task to analyse the subtleties of being OK together.
A generation or two later, every year, close by friends walk down one of Lisbon's main avenues together with all kinds of pressure groups, claiming with great conviction their demand for everyone's freedom in every aspect. They amaze me with their inflexible condemnations of their own children when those announce they feel having a different identity than the one the normalising State defined on their identity papers by birth. I don't agree with some of my friends when they even ban their own children from their homes, but I don’t judge. I ask myself how to reflect on this with them.
Friends living more far of are promoting dialoguing education and school. They advise a couple of parents to opt for the simultaneous instructing model, because their child would not be mature for dialoguing education. I don't agree, but I don't judge. I know why I myself tried to build a dialoguing class within the walls of the instructing school.
Ownership, possession and paternalism are peculiar concepts. Even authors of sixteenth and seventeenth century utopian novels appear confused when denouncing the power and property of the Lords of their own time. In one work, property is being collectivised but individual families still have two slaves. Also confusing is when in another work everything is being collectivised including women and children. This sheds some light on how women and children were thought of even by some utopians of that time.
When reflecting about moneyless dialoguing societies one can get caught up in hierarchies based on another kind of foundations or paternalistic concerns. When I happen to be able to escape from such an entanglement, I search to judge my own naivety, trying not to do so on the attitude of others.
"Is that OK Pepe?" “If it's OK for you and you don't hurt anyone else, not even in feelings, then it might be OK for me.”
Not an easy start for a dialogue with grandchildren. I'm not judging who doesn't, but I agree it is quite a task to analyse the subtleties of being OK together.