I got to thinking about the situation I described in my blog a while ago, about my housemate who seemed to think it was perfectly normal to open a closed bedroom door without knocking. At the time it felt like a terrible invasion of my privacy, or a deliberate act of disrespect.

I later realised (when the door was again closed) that we simply had very different boundaries, and I had made the assumption that it was a self-evident truth that any (and every) normal human being would know the rule that you do not just open a closed door and walk through it without asking permission first. Thus I projected ill-intent of her behalf when she broke this 'rule'.

Thinking about it further, I realised that lots of things I assumed were self-evident truths are simply my own perspective that I assumed everybody shared.

Things like:
- reciprocal friendships; if I do something for you, you will at least vaguely try to do something for me in return if the opportunity/need arises. The value of the deed doesn't have to be equal, but at least meet me 10% of the way when I have been bending 90% for you.
- thinking about the impact on somebody else before you blurt out what's on your mind... and if you mistakenly say something that is hurtful or embarrassing to the other person, apologising for it.
- doing what you can to help yourself before asking someone else for help
- refraining from making out or showing PDAs (beyond a simple kiss, hug or hand-holding, respectful-like) in front of friends and especially older relatives
- not stabbing someone in the back or using friends in order to further your own cause, or if called out on something like that, owning up to it

Do any of you hold beliefs that seem so glaringly obvious and self-evident that when someone treads on those beliefs, they feel as if they are committing a huge and deliberate crime? And is anything actually self-evident or is it all a matter of perspective?

Uh... if someone deliberately breaks the lock on your door, it is an invasion of privacy for whatever reason. I don't think you have to be so nice about it, since it was your privacy that was violated...

I was watching a philosopher (on TV) talking about the subject of tresspass in relationships. It was several years ago, but I never forgot what she had to say about it. She had been married for decades to a fellow philosopher, and so naturally, as two married philosophers, they were inclined to reflect on the sacredness of subjectivity and the role of shared space in marriage. One of her pet peeves was him leaving the bathroom wet and messy after each bath. To her, it was self-evident that if you were sharing a bathroom with someone, it was common courtesy not to leave it wet and in disarray. She only had to tell him once, and after that, he took great care in making sure that even the cake of soap had been wiped dry after use! And she took notice of the effort, and praised him on national TV for it. She admitted that she was a sensitive person, and that from a moral point of view, it is better not to be so sensitive - particularly when it comes to non-essential things like keeping the shared bathroom dry after use. But coming from her husband's perspective, it is better to be sensitive about other people's sensitivities, and to learn not to trespass the sacredness of the other's space. And because both of them stretched beyond their subjective evaluation of private versus shared space (the wife learned not to be so sensitive, the husband learned to be more considerate), every act of giving became a moment of love, more profound than the simple act of being responsive to the other's needs and more enduring than the acknowledgment of the other's act of consideration. It was heaven in a little dry cake of soap.

A separate incident here... Just this afternoon, I went to the mall like I just threw on my clothes and dashed out the front door. One of the sales ladies at the mall gave me a once over and commented to her companion about how I looked. My ESTP sister wanted to sock the lady in the face for saying it - like it was her business to comment on my appearance, right? I didn't really take offense, because what she said was somehow true, but I ended up sitting by myself wondering why I didn't take offence at what she said, and then I reflected on my seeming insensitivity to social norms regarding how women of my age ought to appear in public (made-up and dolled up). There wasn't really anything wrong with my appearance, but I'm sure I could have improved it; still, other people - I'm sure - wouldn't have minded at all how I looked.

Now while I was reflecting, I hadn't noticed that someone had been standing right next to me all along - a toddler was staring right at me, with his nana holding both his hands above his head. I giggled. The boy giggled. The nana explained that the boy pulled her toward me to greet me (even if I didn't know him). And for some reason, the little boy was riveted on every move I was making, and wouldn't leave my side. And it suddenly dawned on me that there really was nothing wrong with my natural appearance if a little child should feel so secure in my presence and be visibly attracted to whatever I was doing or not doing (like staring into space). And I came to the conclusion that while the sales lady had every right to think what she thought about me, it wasn't her place to judge my appearance and gossip about it, but that her actions were largely forgivable, and if I should change my appearance, it might do me some good, although the simpler and more innocent members of society shouldn't mind so much how I looked on the surface.

So it was self-evident to me that people shouldn't gossip about how other people dress. But it was self-evident to her that I should have been more dressed up. I didn't have to apologize for my appearance to anyone - but upon further reflection, the win-win solution is to actually go to the mall better dressed, or to take it as a none issue and go to the mall looking like I sometimes do, while simply acknowledging that a difference in opinion existed.

And I know I'm rambling, but it's still related... coz I realized that the only way there will be peace when it comes to conflicting subjective or societal values (especially those which we hold to be self-evident) is to always seek win-win solutions that acknowledge and reward the efforts and sacrifices of the parties concerned. Dialogue and open-mindedness is important here because our awareness of each others' needs aren't always readily apparent to the other party. If dialogue is not easy, then maintaining a respectful distance can also be a win-win solution.

_________________

Oh, I was referring to the situation before it escalated. I already felt violated when she opened the unlocked door. The breaking of the lock was more to do with the fact that the lock itself was (relatively) flimsy, and I think she truly was clueless. Which is one of those mind-blowing, 'isn't it EVIDENT that I want privacy??' moments I'm talking about... because apparently, it wasn't evident to her. At all.






This is wise.

Thanks, sciski.



Oh, thanks for the clarification. The vivid image of her breaking the lock to enter your room just seared itself into my long-term memory and that's what I recalled when you mentioned the incident in your OP. So I will modify my position on account of that by saying that it was really nice of you to withhold judgment against your friend in trespass, while your friend still has to respect the boundaries you've set.

I don't know how relevant it is to the discussion, but I think that differences in MBTI types actually do play a role in determining what is a self-evident truth. I had an ISTP classmate who was so good at opening (picking) locks that she didn't consider any space "private" even if it was locked because a room may have been locked for purposes not counter to her need to open it. From my experience, INFPs are very sensitive about physical space in relation to psychological and affective proximity. Some (note adjectival qualifier) T's don't seem to get it that if the INFP doesn't feel "close," then you have to respect boundaries. But that can go for any type of person! You could be an F-type and not get it when you've crossed someone's boundaries. I could be guilty of it - anyone could. Also, I think it's also largely a matter of custom and culture. There is a village in Spain where neighbors are free to come in and go out of each others' houses and a locked door was taboo because it broke the custom of neighbors minding their neighbors and seeing to it that everyone's okay. But that is more the exception than the norm. Social norms are always tricky. Personal rules are even trickier.



I think that the term "self-evident" is a good thing to discuss, because while it carries with it the weight of shared values, whatever is "self-evident" goes much deeper than consensual choice or tradition. A truth is self-evident when it clearly aligns with the well-being of a person or of a people, but a specific situation that might be good for the majority, may not at all times be good for them or for others. So when we speak of "self-evident" truths, it is much easier to use it to describe the non-specific values that people generally wish to uphold - values like the freedom to pursue happiness, the basic right to life, etc. Such values or goods hold themselves to be "self-evident" because they manifest their inherent goodness with dependable consistency. And the inherent good is something that should relate to a clear understanding of what it means to be "a person" or "a people." We can only speak sincerely of what is definitively good or definitively true if we have a clear understanding of what is definitively human and personal.

_________________

I would actually have been more okay with it had it been the social norm (because then it would not have been so self-evident that a closed/locked door means someone wants privacy). That alternative perspective would have been part of my world view, so I'd be able to grasp that as a reason for my housemate's actions... "Oh, she must come from a Spanish village, obviously."



Yes, so some truths are self-evident and universal, and some are not. I guess the important thing is knowing the difference.

i've had roommates since freshman year of college, many many many many many years ago. (i like having roommates, it keeps me from being a hermit). a closed door always means "knock first". what if you're sleeping or changing clothes or masturbating or having sex? barging in is the sign of an unsocialized individual! your room is your space not shared space.

we had to teach that to a little kid at a festival last year. he must have been 6 years old or so. he would walk right into and through our canopies asking us for stuff. we made him pretend to knock at an invisible door and ask if he could come in.