Dignity, and nothing else

Do you remember talking about relationships based on intimidation and fear?

I do. Your assessment was that some people are so used to the mode that they do not see it as anything bad.

It is convenient for many---which is rather scary, in my opinion---because it spares people from making judgments on their own. Some others have done the thinking for them, and they are willing to follow suit without careful consideration.

I'm afraid such people will always be with us. It does not necessarily have to be intimidation and fear; it could be crowd psychology which has its uses. Without it, we may never reach some kind of consensus.

I beg to differ. Every one of us can think independently, and still reach agreement through compromises. That is what democracy is all about. If we do not discourage crowd psychology, that amounts to allowing seedlings of totalitarianism to grow among us.

What about the problem of personality, though? You have implied that, in the end, what matters is personality, and that the strong ones dominate the others. We have to learn to live with that imperfection.

I agree. In other words, the problem is how to deal with strong characters which tend to steer the system to their liking. We should be equipped with penalties for dictator types.

Ah, that sounds like another avenue to totalitarianism, though, because in the ideal situation, nobody should be dominating or dominated, which suggests that everyone should be alike.

What we need is diversity and value criteria that do not favor the loud and the manipulative over the rest.

I can see that the loud is obviously so, but detecting the manipulative may not be as easy. It will be similar to asking a liar if s/he lies.

Talking about manipulative persons, I have noticed that most people don't mind being friends with them. First of all, manipulation requires intelligence, and that can be useful to the manipulated.

The manipulated is so, precisely because they are less cunning or smart than the manipulating. The manipulating can use their intelligence to the true good of the manipulated, if they wish so.

In other occasions, they use the intelligence to do damage. The interesting thing is that the manipulated count the manipulating as friends, even good friends.

Oh, s/he is sometimes not so nice, but other times s/he is. Is this how the thinking goes?

I presume so. They take it as a fact of life that people are not nice all the time.

But it is.

That may be so, but the problem here is that the manipulating is in total control of the emotional ups and downs of her/his targets.

Isn't that one of ignorance-is-bliss cases?

Could be. For me, it is painful and frustrating to see that some people's happiness is subject to the whims of the manipulating, who belong to the category of the wicked and the evil.

When you are smarter than others, it's difficult not to be manipulative, even if you are against such behavior. We know that one, right?

Children are manipulated by grown-ups, I think we can say that.

I'm not sure whether manipulation is a good term. We make use of child psychology, and that is different from manipulation.

On paper, they are not the same, but in the real world, there are many borderline cases.

Borderline cases... your favorite!

Think about a parent who wishes her/his child not to take up horse riding. The parent can complain about the bad smell---existent or nonexistent---after riding lessons until the child is totally convinced that s/he should stop going to the stable if s/he wants to keep her/his friends.

But then again, isn't the outcome dependent on the personality of the parent versus that of the child?

It is, but that does not take away the fact that there is manipulative element in what we call education and discipline. Recommendation alone can be used to encourage or discourage children to think in certain ways.

Well, education and discipline are, after all, imposing on children what adults think best; we cannot get rid of what could be considered manipulation.

We should, however, recognize that factor and try our best not to force any idea down the throat.

It sounds almost impossible. How can you teach ethics, for example? Usually, our minds are not negotiable when it comes to what is good or bad.

You could present your ethical values as the best possible system that you know, which could be improved upon. Certainly, it should not be taught as the universal truth.

Isn't that rather weak?

I think not. It is always good to know that your thoughts may have some unknown shortcomings. And, it is possible to openly admit so while maintaining firm belief in them.

Are you trying to tell me how to graciously change my ideas, if need be?

Not allowing leeway for yourself could put you in a quite awkward or ugly situation. Plus, it is difficult to trust people who go from one extreme to another, I think.

But extremes are attractive because of their simplicity.

Certainly. Extreme positions are often crowned with the adjective, 'pure'... Getting back to relationships, it surprises me that most people seem to think that slighting and hurting each other is a normal element in any relationship.

If people could stand psychological manipulation, it's not so surprising, is it?

True, the biggest surprise for me may be that people fail to recognize the manipulative and the abusive motives. They are also ready to go on as if nothing had happened after they hurt each other. That astonishes me as well.

Let me guess, you do not want any slighting or hurting, needless to say manipulating. That's not quite possible, you should know that.

In my mind, slighting, hurting, abusing, manipulating, etc. preclude close relationships if they know what they are doing. What if someone puts you down because s/he wants to feel better about her/himself?

That one again...

If someone is capable of doing so even once, trust for that person cannot be re-established, I would think. Consider a rather complicated case in which a friend of yours and you talk about relationships and you agree that such an act would destroy any relationship forever.

Good that we have like-minded people around.

What if that very person engages in that act of taking out her/his insecurity on you?

If we have talked about it explicitly, that is indeed serious.

What if s/he happens to be one of your best friends?

Does that change how wrong the act is?

It doesn't, but the impact is bigger, because it is someone whom you trusted. There is another case which happens, I suspect, more specifically to me.

Which is...?

They start with an assumption that I am ignorant and stupid.

What can I say---who can blame them?

In my mind, they have made an inexcusable mistake at that point already, namely, they have violated the rule of treating every person so as to preserve her/his dignity.

Tell me the next offense.

They are very aggressive toward or dismissive of my opinion, until one day, they realize that I am not that dumb and start treating me a bit more nicely.

Shouldn't they be forgiven then?

I would say this is a variant of intimidation and fear. Only after they learn that I have the mental capacity that is equal or superior to theirs, I emerge as a full human being in their world.

At least, they acknowledge it.

There is another problem. If they happen to put me in their very-smarty category, they start taking my views as the best without examining them.

From one extreme to another, eh?

We do more or less the same with the information that we have no means of verifying. We all have favorite television and radio programs, newspapers, and websites, and we take what they present as accurate, unbiased description of the topic, most of the time.

How can we be absolutely sure that it wasn't Bill's double who went to Pyongyang? The rumor has it that the one who talked to Kim Jong-Il did not crack a single joke.

Comrade, that is not worth pursuing... Anyway, if the concern is something to which we have roughly equal access in terms of relevant information, we should not cede our right and duty to think and make a judgment on our own.

I see, they turn unnecessarily submissive from being wrongly dismissive. In short, they commit three grave crimes.

There's more.

Oh, no!

What if they become frustrated because I do not want to be friends with them?

You may have to forgive, you know.

Forgive? Should I be friends with people who turn nice only after I was able to appear---and that in their eyes---not as a total idiot, and who are most likely to commit the same crimes against others?

Perhaps some of them have changed for good.

The soul of a three year old until a hundred. What is learned in the cradle is carried to the grave. Ce que poulain prend en jeunesse, il le continue en vieillesse. Lo que se aprende en la cuna, siempre dura.

Shhhh, calm down. Shall we talk about experience, learning and all that next time?

It's about dignity, the most important thing in our lives. How come that most people don't care, their own or others'?

That may be because dignity as the most important aspect in life is your universal truth, and not the universal truth, you see...

Spare me, I'm stuck-up

What is your immediate reaction in an instance of insolence?

I get terribly angry.

Do you express that anger verbally or physically?

Neither.

You bottle it all up?

I want to show anger to let the offending party know that their action is immoral. At the same time, I do not want to, because anyone---save the offender---should not suffer from my anger. In fact, I prefer not to get angry, because I don't enjoy it myself.

So, what do you do?

As I said, nothing. I don't slap or stab anyone. I don't blurt out anything on the spot. I don't start talking more because of it, or less, and keep my voice the same.

Hmmm, is that your honest assessment? I think your voice changes and you tend to talk much less. Plus, your face reminds me of how to draw angry cartoon figures.

Let's say I am much better than most people in controlling myself. But apparently, it shows quite a bit, because people around me become tense.

Wasn't humility your credo?

Somebody has to say the truth out loud, especially when... Anyway, it's inconvenient, because even when I contain myself, the gossip version would be that I became angry. And, I can get quite upset over what may be trivial matters to others.

Like people giving you the smallest piece of cake?

I got upset when one person gave me a huge piece, although I asked for a small one. It seems that he thought that was funny. When we talk about dignity, we tend to think that it concerns heavy-duty moral issues. However, we are capable of hurting others' dignity by ignoring, mocking or deriding their wishes, desires, gestures and thoughts.

Does that mean that our dignity could be hurt by reactions to anything we do in our daily lives?

Exactly. It can be as simple as a comment on where you are from, which languages you speak, where you live, etc. I am always amazed how little imagination people seem to have. Some of us have complicated lives, and even seemingly innocent questions should not be posed care-free.

Are we allowed to ask you anything then?

It all depends on how you ask. Talking about manner of presentation, many of the rumors we hear are stripped not only of context, but also of how each line was enunciated. No wonder gossips get juicy as they are passed on.

Incidentally, I heard that you blew up the other day when someone assumed that the weird tasting cookies in a bag with weird characters were your contribution.

I did not blow up, but certainly took offense. The question was, "Did you bring those cookies?", and that in a tone which would have been justified had I brought in a bag of cookies with worms crawling in and out. It looked like she was going to tell me how weird the cookies tasted, had I been the culprit.

It doesn't sound that bad.

I think she should have been appreciative faced with a person whom she thought had made the contribution. She showed zero respect for the good-will gesture. That is already pretty bad, but for me, it was offensive because the description of the package was in characters that she could not read.

Doesn't it mean that she values your linguistic skills?

I give benefit of a doubt, even after all these years of abuses related to off-the-mark assumptions based on my appearance alone. This incident was not an exception to that rule.

What made you think that it was an offense, rather than appreciation?

Her manner of presentation. You see, if this exchange travels along the grapevine, I am sure that it will soon become monstrous, because an important element will be inevitably left out, namely how she articulated the question.

"You know what happened? I simply asked if s/he brought in these goodies, and then..." Like that?

You have already used the more positive word 'goodies,' in place of more neutral 'cookies'!

It was for the purpose of demonstration.

I have my sense of morality, and it tells me that I should be polite to people, including her and the like. Politeness and friendship are two different animals.

Is that why you are considered stuck-up?

I suppose so, and I don't mind at all. What amazes me is that such people engage in hefty rounds of hurting and offending each other and still think they get on well.

For example?

They would lose temper over misplaced items and send nasty notes about it. They even get into a shouting and yelling match.

Isn't it shouting again that is bothering you?

As I may have said before, I don't know any good occasion for yelling except for asking for help in emergency situations. Another thing that I find incomprehensible is that they want some kind of a pecking order and that is established by intimidation and fear.

Isn't there an official hierarchy?

What on earth makes you think that this is all about my work place? Anyway, they follow what the more forceful one says at the expense of the other less forceful ones.

Don't they believe in collective decision making, a pillar of democracy?

Apparently, not. Mind you, if you ask them whether they believe in democracy, the answer would be an astounding 'yes.' Back to the issue of pecking order, if you don't intimidate them, they think you are not confident enough. Further, it amounts to self-acknowledgment on your part that you are not competent enough.

Don't they want to follow the one with the most reasonable opinion or strategy?

That used to be my question, too, until I found out that they don't want to think and they simply want to be told what to do.

They need a forceful person, who is even intimidating, because that is the only way to obtain reassurance that they are doing the right thing, and that without thinking on their own.

That's why I have very little tolerance for non-independent thinkers...

I'd say they have thought enough to realize that an intimidating person would defend them if they pledge allegiance to her/him.

They are so used to the situation that they are unaware of the intimidation-fear equation. The same kind of unawareness must be at work when they think they get along well, although they yell at and insult each other.

You know, ignorance is bliss, and they may be happier than you are.

Let them be!

Hey, it's a happy ending, did you know that? They are happy the way they are, and so are you!

Revealing the true nature of baby talks

In your opinion, a person who behaves nicely only toward her/his lover/s cannot be trusted. Correct?

Yes, and there are many such people!

Again, in your opinion, a person who behaves nicely toward her/his superiors, but nasty toward her/his subordinates cannot be trusted.

Absolutely not, and there are tons of such people!

Once again, in your opinion, a person who evaluates others' capability based on their looks cannot be trusted.

An emphatic no!

And, in your opinion, a person who manipulates others to her/his benefit unless they show resistance cannot be trusted, right?

I'm getting nauseous.

Also in your opinion, a person who assumes that others are idiots until they prove otherwise cannot be trusted.

No, no, no and no!

Oops, one more. In your opinion, a person cannot be trusted if s/he derives comfort from informing you of her/his judgment that you are inferior to her/him?

The scary thing is that someone who claims to care about you may engage in this very act.

Is that why you have been dwelling on this topic?

...

Tell me all about it!

In my opinion, a person who values satisfaction of her/his curiosity more than respecting others' sense of privacy, however strict that may be, cannot be trusted.

In my humble opinion, one is less convincing if s/he cannot provide the details.

I disagree. Thoughts in general terms are often more powerful than those on individual incidents. By definition, they are supposed to be about commonalities and not anomalies. Generalization also allows us to be less emotionally attached and more objective.

Sweeping generalizations can get quite absurd, though... Anyway, did I miss any case of no respect in everyday life?

Before we get into what has been left out, let me say that people who belong to any of the above category do not understand the concepts of respect and human dignity.

The principles of respect and dignity apply universally to all human beings. Is this what you mean?

Exactly. These are the concepts that should not depend on the characteristics of each person, but only on the fact that s/he is a human being.

But isn't it natural that we are nicer to people that we like?

In terms of being considerate and forgiving, etc., we should not treat people differently.

Are you sure about that?

I am. It is not on such moral issues that we should differentiate the ones whom we care for from others.

You wouldn't deny, though, that you are nicer to people whom you are fond of.

The problem lies in the word 'nice.' Suppose I know all the rock bands that my lover likes. I can keep an eye on all of them: when a new album is going to be released, which magazine interviewed them, and so on. I cannot do the same for others, simply because I do not know their music preferences. As a result, I end up being nicer to my lover than to others. This is an example of what you have categorized as 'being nice'; applying different sets of moral codes to various people is something else.

Put differently, save such actions that require specific knowledge of that person, your lover should be treating everyone the same, and that naturally includes you.

Only then, I feel I can trust my lover.

Really? How can you tell that a lover is actually a lover in such cases?

I can't, and I like it that way.

I knew there was something grossly strange about you!

What we are focusing here is morality. Remember, we should regard interactions that necessitate moral judgment separately from other interactions. On moral issues, we all should be treated the same. On other issues, such as taste and temper, people who are closer to us have more information about us and would interact with us differently.

Do you think your assertion above applies to forgiving as well? Proximity can make forgiving more difficult or easy. I have seen both cases.

When we see the same person day in and day out, her/his small habits can get on our nerves.

I know that I cannot stand certain ways of gargling.

You see? On the other hand, you are more likely to forgive someone who is close to you, because you do not want to lose that closeness.

In short, we should judge an awful way of gargling by the person who happens to share the bed with us as if it were someone whom we saw once a month. Do you also think that we should judge infidelity of our lovers as if it concerned some other couple?

In principle, yes. Whether we are capable of exercising such detachment is another issue.

Your attitude can be abused, I think. For example, my lover may stick to a particular manner of gargling, knowing that it drives me nuts, because I am supposed to tolerate it according to your principles.

Just like any relationship, efforts should come from both sides, and your lover should try to make it easier for you to stay in the relationship.

Lack of such efforts is a declaration of war, then!

It may not be that aggressive, but I agree that it amounts to admitting that the relationship is of little importance.

By the way, you had in mind another type of people who disregard dignity.

They are the ones who engage in baby talk.

I thought baby talks were signs of endearment.

You are wrong! The subjects are treated as if they were morons.

Isn't it true that children and pets do not understand adult conversation?

That does not mean that we should talk down to them. You shouldn't say anything to a child that you wouldn't to an adult.

What about the kind of encouragement that children need?

We praise adults for work that is sub-optimal for the purpose of encouragement, and we can do the same for children. That is, in a manner that respects children as persons.

What kind of attitude is of concern to you, then?

Exaggerated reactions that become condescending, including loud voice. I don't know why, but in some cultures, mothers jack up their volume when they talk to their children. And it's mostly non-sense that they babble.

Do you think they should discuss P = NP problem instead?

Honestly, I think that is far better than something like, "THERE GOES A RED CAR! WHEEEEEEE! THAT WAS FAST, HUH? DO YOU THINK THAT WAS FASTER THAN THE MINI CAR YOU HAVE AT HOME? ... WHAT DO YOU THINK? PROBABLY FASTER, HUH? A LOT FASTER, HUH?''

You know, I think you are more bothered by the loudness rather than the content.

There is an intelligent way to make an observation about the speed of a car, and as far as I am concerned, the monologue by a mother that I just reproduced for your benefit does not fit the bill. The real problem is not the lack of intelligence, but dumbing down.

Perhaps that mother is stupid.

If so, that is also a problem, because I see too many of them around. Anyway, I am more than certain that she would relate the same incident differently if she were with a friend of her age.

You think the world is filled with such mothers, simply because they annoy you.

In some other cultures, it is rather the opposite; mothers are dismissive of everything children do.

No carrots and only sticks?

In the extreme, indeed that is what happens. They believe that telling the children how clumsy and stupid they are is the most effective way to motivate them to acquire skills and knowledge. I'd say no respect in such cases, either.

In your world, it is awfully difficult to find people who are capable of respecting others.

Who said it was easy? I only said that respect and dignity are the most important aspects in our lives...

Familiarity poses a limit to Operation Mosquito Sting

Humiliation by a stranger is easier to handle than by someone we know.

I suppose you are thinking about a dirty look or name-calling on the street.

Most likely we will not see the "aggressor" again, so we don't have to worry about what to do then.

We tend to treat people whom we know with kid gloves anyway.

Are you sure about that? I'd say it depends on the culture. Some cultures mold people to be more polite to strangers and some other the other way around.

The rationale for each strategy is...?

For the former, you take the safest approach not to offend the person whose hotspots are unknown to you. For the latter, you take extra care, because someone is closer and matters more to you.

You said last time that we can maintain our dignity by acting as if the humiliating act were a mere mosquito sting; whether the "aggressor" is a stranger or an acquaintance should not matter.

The problem is a bit more complicated if we are more or less forced to have close relationships with the person in question. Neighbors, classmates, colleagues, friends, family members...

Relationships with such people can vary widely, but they are certainly closer than strangers are to us. You were of the opinion that people who are closer to us have a much bigger chance of hurting us, and we are also prone to hurt them more easily. Doesn't that depend on the culture, as you implied earlier today?

I think not. Even when culture codes instruct us to be more careful with people whom we know than with people whom we do not know, proximity makes hurting more of a profound nature.

You also said when someone hurts us badly or frequently, it becomes difficult to trust that person.

It is also very difficult to spend more than a few fleeting moments with a person whom you cannot trust.

I guess I can keep a courteous distance from her/him, if s/he were a neighbor, a classmate, or a colleague.

You guessed it right. It becomes a problem for a family member or a very close friend with a long history, whom we are obliged to see at family or social gatherings. If we skip such gatherings, there will be some blaming going around.

What if the personalities are such that, despite the legal and/or biological relatedness, the parties involved simply do not get along?

Ah, so you have noticed how much people complain about parents, children, spouses, in-laws...

What should we do when our dignity is damaged by one of those people? Your suggestion was to stick to the mosquito-sting interpretation.

I am beginning to think that it may not work with these super-close people. They think they know the other party so well in these relationships, while Operation Mosquito Sting works only if the "aggressors" are observant enough.

These relationships will endure come what may in the foreseeable future, and that makes us less careful and observing about each other. In some cases, people know that they have committed an offense but ignore it, because they know that the other party will come back.

You see that it is truly a toxic mix? Because we are closer, we have more information about each other. Because we are closer, our psychological barriers are lower. Because we are closer, our efforts to restore our dignity may not even be recognized. And, because we are closer, we have plenty of instances in which we are obliged to come face to face.

Do you think Bill ever apologized to Hillary?

Do you think it could have made any difference? Anyway, I do not want to be a serial victim.

Or a serial offender!

When we cough up the courage and finally tell the offender, who happens to be super close to you, that s/he has hurt our dignity, the reaction is usually to play it down.

Not only that. The offender can get angry.

Isn't that curious? Sometimes, we are even told that it is our problem if our dignity has been damaged.

Nobody likes to be criticized, and if a criticism comes from someone they felt comfortable with or they thought were "on their side," it becomes something like a proclamation of betrayal.

By the way, we tend to think that the smaller the number of members involved in the group, the more intimate and the stronger the relationships.

Why not? The vast majority of deep conversations is tête à tête.

We forget that there are occasions when we have to cool off. If it is a big group, we can turn to others whom we do not have conflict with, and that often prevents us from being driven to an irrevocable split. We can stay in the group for the sake of other members, even if we cease to communicate with the offender.

It is not good to belong to a big group that satisfies all our needs because we would stop trying to reach out to more different types of people---didn't you say that?

My focus here is a kind of group to which we have no recourse but to belong, e.g., family. As we all know, "[h]e who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god." It holds not only for society, but for family as well.

Good, old Aristotle.

When the membership is compulsory and for a lifetime, it is best if the group contains diverse members and has the capacity to let off steam. Even as a child, I could see that there are benefits to be part of a bigger family.

How so?

My parents, my siblings and I lived with my grandparents, my two aunts and my grandparents' housekeeper for a while. When my mother denied me ice cream on a hot summer day, I knew I could turn to my grandmother.

It's all about ice cream, then!

Not only that. I could tell that there does not exist anything like "the correct" way for anything, because when I posed the same question to different adults separately, they gave me various responses. I believe that it gave me a more balanced view of the world.

That may be true, but haven't you heard of Aunt We-Are-A-Good-Family and Uncle No-Arguing-In-the-Family-Please heading factions and dividing the big clan?

"Man is by nature a political animal."

Aristotle strikes again!

Treacherous trinity: trust, dignity and proximity

You've been suggesting that dignity is the most important aspect in our lives.

I'm not the only one to think so. The very first Article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations says, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."

The Declaration talks about human dignity, but it never defines what it really is.

We can say that it is about inherent worthiness of each person.

What does that mean? It surely shouldn't mean that an idiot deserves less respect than other people.

What is the respect that an idiot deserves? The concept of human dignity says that idiocy should not make a difference in how that person is treated.

Suppose that there is a person who is easily offended. Won't it be more difficult for her/him to protect her/his dignity than for others who are less easily offended? If so, it suggests that we are not uniform in terms of dignity.

You are talking about dignity in a sense slightly different from that in the Universal Declaration. The Declaration is more about how to set up social institutions so that human dignity could be systematically protected. Examples would be intolerance of torture, slavery and the like.

Dignity can be taken away by personal injuries and that is where our focus has shifted, I see. The shift probably suggests that we---you and I---do not see with our own eyes any systematic damage done to human dignity on a daily basis.

Are you sure that you do not witness dignity challenged in our everyday lives? It is possible that such instances are so prevalent that we have become blind to them. I think the kinds of discrimination touched upon by Article 2 of the Declaration happens everyday, everywhere.

That article is rather lengthy. "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."

Do you remember talking about forgiving---that the burden of coming to terms with what happened is on the victims? I'm afraid the same principle applies here.

That is...?

When someone does or says something that deprives of your dignity, you cannot obviously go back in time and undo the doing or the saying. Your dignity is taken away for the moment.

And, you are saying that the best is to forget about it?

We can restore our dignity by responding or reacting to the incident in certain ways. To act as if it were nothing may be indeed the best way in some cases.

We should not act as if the offense was effective. That is, we should not take their bait or play their game. Is this what you have in mind?

Yes. You may reveal that you have noticed the offensive action or remark, but never show explicit anger or shock caused by it.

That will be easier for a verbal one than for a physical one...

Certainly. It is again up to the offended whether something can be done to the damage. It is possible to protect our dignity by firmly believing that others cannot possibly do something like that to us, in other words, by staying calm.

It will be best if the "aggressor" admits or realizes that they have not succeeded in humiliating. Does it come so easily?

Most likely, it will take a several rounds or more. It is possible that it never happens. But compared to preserving one's dignity, establishing and maintaining trust may be more difficult.

I remember that you run away whenever someone indicates that s/he does not trust you.

I don't actually run away! I just feel like it.

You also said that trusting a stranger, or acting as if you did, is against what biology dictates us to do, and that is what civilization consists of: defiance of biology.

The trust issue is more difficult on that account than the dignity issue. After all, our dignity is about how we think about ourselves.

Can we say that safeguarding dignity is part of our biological mechanism to survive?

I think so. On the other hand, the most primitive survival instinct says it is best not to place trust in someone casually. Trust is more about how we evaluate other people; it depends much more on others' behavior than in dignity.

Didn't you say human relationships are based on reciprocity? If so, you do have control.

The reciprocity principle works in many cases, but not in all. Trusting others would not make them trustworthy, at least, overnight. I can think of many complicated examples.

For example?

A person may be very nice to you, but nasty to others. Should you trust that person?

I've seen such relationships. Some couples are like that; they are only nice to each other.

You have stepped into yet another territory. Even devils become angelic when in love.

Doesn't that suggest that we should all be in love with each other?

Fortunately, we can't be forced to be in love with someone. Anyway, you implied that closeness in relationships brings trust. I think you have mistaken predictability as trust.

Predictability comes from observed consistency of past events, and so does trust. However, you can also be untrustworthy and consistently so. I know that predictability and trust are not the same.

When we are close to someone, you have more opportunities to observe that person and s/he becomes more predictable than others. Closeness also means that you are more likely to say to each other what you would not to people who are less close.

And that includes all the bad things about each other, right?

Yes, I knew I could trust you!

Let's say you have become predictable.

Closeness does not necessary mean belittling each other, but the possibility of exposing dark emotions and thoughts is certainly larger.

The dark emotions and thoughts could be about your partner in the relationship, but also about yourself and everything else in the world.

The problem is that it is difficult to maintain dignity when you let out your fear, anger, jealousy in unedited forms.

Proximity is a difficult ground for dignity, then.

How can you have trust, if dignity is damaged, now and then? That means the sources of comfort can be self-destructive by their very nature. But we all need our own coterie, a group of people who, we think, understand us well.

I knew it! It's treacherous---trust, dignity and proximity.

Helping with the oxygen-mask

Pssst... Look carefully. Are they around?

Doesn't look like it. Phew, it was quite unexpected!

Certainly. It was beyond my wildest dreams that some people would be listening to us.

Approach us with their opinion to boot...

It's all your fault, you know. You're the one who gave the definition of civilization.

But you acknowledged it!

One said I should be telling him a joke because that's what civilized people do among strangers, you remember?

Another guy suggested that we stop talking like this altogether. "It's nonsense," he said.

And made a grin to say, "Trust me."

What I meant was that even when I have some doubts about the stranger in front of me, I prefer to behave as if I trusted that person. To prove that point, I didn't tell those guys to get lost.

I see, you're even avoiding the generic "you" today.

I emphasize that it is about respect and light-heartedness. I wish not to live among people who are so stressed out and horrified that they think anybody outside their circle is a con-artist or a terrorist. As for me, when someone shows lack of trust, be it in terms of intelligence or dependability, I feel like running away as fast as I can.

Or slapping his face...

It happens too often. After a few sentences, it becomes clear that the person I met a few seconds ago thinks that I am an idiot, a social misfit, or even a crook.

Hmmm, do you think that's their fault? I bet it depends on which country you are in, too.

You should hide such thoughts from the person if you can't suppress them. Most importantly, you should always maintain the flexibility to revise who and what s/he is.

Hey, we live to have fun!

Calm down... Don't look around nervously and shout like that.

Can we say that civilization is what separates us from other animals?

Yes, civilization is a fight against our instincts as animals that could be destructive.

Those that drain our energy from productive and creative activities, such as the desire to kill your enemy.

Jealousy, anger, hatred, fear, insecurity, resentment and so on, are emotions that could get out of hand and inflict harm on others, as well as on yourself. I remember talking about this a bit. When an animal sees another that does not belong to its family or clan, the best thing to do is to make a menacing gesture.

Unless it looks like a potential mate.

Please...! Nothing bad about being cautious, it is even required in most cases, but showing friendliness rather than hostility and contempt is more cultivated behavior.

I thought about your examples of civilized behavior from last time, and realized that it doesn't cost you much. Greeting hikers on the trails, wishing "bon appétit" to a lone diner on the terrace, helping an elderly lady with a large suitcase... I should have known!

You're right. We don't have to sacrifice much, or not at all, in those cases. It becomes challenging when it concerns allocation of limited resources.

I think the oxygen-mask rule applies.

What is that oxygen-mask rule of yours?

When the oxygen pressure in an aircraft drops, we need to wear the mask that supplies oxygen in order to avoid hypoxia. In such a situation, you must help yourself before turning to others who need your help. Otherwise, none of you would be saved.

I agree that it is counter-productive to go totally against our biological instinct to care about ourselves first.

What do you think about Mother Teresa, isn't she an exception to that?

Even she had to take care of herself first. She wouldn't have been able to help others if she let herself fall ill. It's your oxygen-mask rule at work.

But you agree that not all of us can and have to be a Mother Teresa?

One contentious point is how far should you go in helping others with masks. Should you go to the next aisle?

Not if there is another passenger who can put it on by her/himself and assist others in the next aisle.

Another is how much of what is, or could be, mine, should be given to others. What if the supply of oxygen is not enough for everyone on the plane?

Some people wait sharing until they reach their first five million in the bank...

They wouldn't have been able to make that five million if there had not been others paving the highway with asphalt, tending the hypermarkets, working on the factory floor, watering the lawn and the flowers of her/his office, cleaning the toilets, etc.

It is difficult to share when you think you earned it all by yourself.

We know that happiness is closely related to how you rank yourself with respect to the average. In fact, with all the progress in technology, the feeling of well-being hasn't become stronger.

Dignity for all necessitates redistribution...

Because you're doing what I'd rather not

So, it's all about me, me, me. I live in such a way that I have the largest influence possible in every conceivable way.

None of us wants to be treated like trash. We often talk about that simple biological urge with the word, dignity. Respect is a good word, too.

Some don't care about it, though.

Such people have experienced events that cost them their dignity. In order not to be deeply disappointed, they condition themselves that it does not interest them.

Deep down, they do care...

The me-me-me principle says that all of us are born with the desire to be treated decently by others.

Do you see that creepy looking guy at the table near the window? What if he comes here and offers a drink just like that?

... Anyone who accepts anything from him must be quite desperate in terms of attention, money, or both.

Ah, so isn't it more complicated? You're saying that his offer would offend you. His attempt to be nice would negatively affect your dignity.

We have different criteria for dignity. For example, some people cannot get themselves to cleaning toilet bowls, because they always had someone else to do it for them. For the rest of us, it has nothing to do with dignity. It's simply a matter of being responsible for your own living environment.

It makes a difference whether you do it for yourself, or for others and that for making a living.

Some tasks are unavoidable in any society. Public-toilet cleaning, garbage collecting, changing diapers of the elderly, to name a few. They need to be done by someone and we are collectively dependent on people who are in charge of them.

Other menial jobs, such as working on an assembly line and tending a convenience store, fit in that category as well.

Somebody's got to do what is considered menial, but everybody would rather do something else.

I'm sure some people prefer tending a store to lecturing computer science.

I agree, but consider the mix of financial rewards and social respect of the two jobs. Grosso modo, a professor scores higher than a store clerk.

What if the professor secretly generates and spreads computer viruses and the clerk is a jazz musician by night?

Oh, please, none of such exceptions! I want to keep our discussion simple.

I thought you wouldn't believe anything unless it's complicated.

Without denying that assessment in totality, let me say that...

You see? By the way, isn't the store clerk what he is because he slacked off in school? That is, by his own fault?

Shouldn't people who'd rather be professors be grateful because he is doing what they don't want to do?

Then, the clerk should be happy that the professors are doing what he doesn't want to do or can't do.

Think about an ideal society in which everyone studies hard and achieves the same level of education. Someone still has to clean public toilets. However, the respect for toilet cleaners would be lower than that for professors, as it always has been.

The cleaners' me-me-me desire would not be fulfilled... I think those with smaller me-me-me feelings become cleaners in any case.

Do you think they have absolutely zero of me-me-me?

That's possible.

I think not. They could be trained to be that way, but none of us is totally devoid of me-me-me.

What about the so-called saints?

As long as you are a living creature, me-me-me is in you. As if to make the point, offers for canonization are never declined.

That's because it happens after they're dead! What if we could train people to think that they are happy with cleaning jobs?

That's exactly what happens with class systems. Because people in power want others to do what they don't want to, they condition the lower class to think that they only deserve less desirable jobs.

I know that overt class-systems are out of fashion, but what is exactly wrong with them?

Their arbitrariness. If you happen to be born into an upper class family, you do not need to sacrifice your dignity, and if it is a low class family, you have to. You have no choice over it.

That happens even without class systems. If you are born into a rich family, you have better chances of getting better education and leading a more comfortable life. You have no choice whether to be born into a rich family or a poor one. The same with political connection.

Yes. The difference is that, with class systems, the entire society thinks that you are good for this, but not good enough for that. The labeling is rigid and has almost law-like status.

Forced changes in dignity criteria so that they fit the interests of the powerful...

Anyway, people who sacrifice their dignity for doing what needs to be done in the society should be rewarded for that.

I've read that you should observe during a dinner date how your date treats the servers, but it looks like you can substitute servers with garbage collectors.

In my opinion, that's the easy part. The difficult part is rewarding them financially. Undesirable, but necessary, jobs tend to be low skill, and hence, they command near minimum-wage. If we agree that it is impossible to have a normal life with such income, it means that they should be paid more.

What do you mean a normal life, here?

If you are healthy and work full-time in an honest job, you should be able to purchase a modest home, raise a family, give good education to the children, go on a vacation, and retire without serious monetary concerns. If you are sick, you should have access to affordable medical care and supplementary income; your children shouldn't starve simply because you fell ill.

That means relatively high prices of goods and/or taxes.

Just as I want to keep my dignity, I imagine others would want to do so as well. Cooperation is required to honor this fundamental desire for all, and that entails monetary adjustments.

Hmmm, I think you are particularly finicky about your dignity.

Ha, so much the better!