Why take a critical approach at all? For me it is about establishing 'Active Trust'. Trust based on Faith and Belief which are upheld by Proof of Value. Proof can certainly come from hard Evidence. It can also come from private inner Experience. The third form can come from models or proofs of a mathematical provenance, enshrined in recorded Education. Critical imperatives such as Reading, Listening, Seeing and Making, must examine apparent Reality to generate the right mix of Proofs, which will have proportions, or equities, that are unique to each content, context and circumstance. Some will need more Evidence, others more on Experience or Education. If the right mix isn't present, Reality will be doubted and Trust in what is presented will lack Integrity. Critical methods must serve to create aligned Integrity for what can be objectively, experientially and socially validated so the Holy Grail of Critique, Trust, can be established, moderated, sustained and evolved.
Thanks for this thoughtful perspective! I think we’re actually quite aligned. What you call “Active Trust” requiring different forms of proof seems very close to what I mean by critical engagement. You’re right that different contexts need different validation methods - sometimes empirical evidence, sometimes lived experience, sometimes logical reasoning.
The “critical” in my framework isn’t about being skeptical for its own sake, but about being thoughtfully engaged. This is exactly what you describe as examining reality to build integrity and trust. Perhaps “critical” has become a loaded term when what we’re really after is that active, conscious engagement that leads to justified confidence rather than blind faith. Would love to hear more about how you apply this Active Trust approach in practice!
Truth is a funny beast. Some people find it harsh and it disenchants them and demoralizes them. You can tell someone the truth that way and, as necessary as it may be, it wouldn't be compassionate.
The Tibetans consider Compassion as a powerful force in the Universe, because it can help bring someone to the truth in a way that doesn't collapse them, it brings them to life and elevates them, inspiring them to do something with it and act on it. It enables an experience that fosters a live form of Trust in the change they are called to enact. As long as they work with the truth that brings them to life, they don't just have trust in what they do, they have a sustainable commitment to it, motivation that doesn't fizzle out, constantly refreshed attention that serves an authentic intention. The ongoing Trust someone has in that lived path, is a living flow of Trust. My framing of that is 'Active Trust'.
'Active Listening' is not listening in order to respond but to receive. In a similar way, 'Active Trust' is not allocating trust for the sake of personal Security or in seeking clarity of alignment towards a personal agenda or motivation. It is an act of being, that can be about having the confidence in your own presence to recieve your own state of being. It can also be about having the confidence in another persons state of being to receive themselves or recieve your state of being, without decoration, yet in a mindset of full, dynamic discernment. Like Active Listening, Active Trust is a kind of Listening, except it is not passive reception, it also is something that is transmitted and radiated, and can be felt by everyone within its field, uplifting their felt sense of Trust for themselves, for you and the Context you are curating.
Why take a critical approach at all? For me it is about establishing 'Active Trust'. Trust based on Faith and Belief which are upheld by Proof of Value. Proof can certainly come from hard Evidence. It can also come from private inner Experience. The third form can come from models or proofs of a mathematical provenance, enshrined in recorded Education. Critical imperatives such as Reading, Listening, Seeing and Making, must examine apparent Reality to generate the right mix of Proofs, which will have proportions, or equities, that are unique to each content, context and circumstance. Some will need more Evidence, others more on Experience or Education. If the right mix isn't present, Reality will be doubted and Trust in what is presented will lack Integrity. Critical methods must serve to create aligned Integrity for what can be objectively, experientially and socially validated so the Holy Grail of Critique, Trust, can be established, moderated, sustained and evolved.
Thanks for this thoughtful perspective! I think we’re actually quite aligned. What you call “Active Trust” requiring different forms of proof seems very close to what I mean by critical engagement. You’re right that different contexts need different validation methods - sometimes empirical evidence, sometimes lived experience, sometimes logical reasoning.
The “critical” in my framework isn’t about being skeptical for its own sake, but about being thoughtfully engaged. This is exactly what you describe as examining reality to build integrity and trust. Perhaps “critical” has become a loaded term when what we’re really after is that active, conscious engagement that leads to justified confidence rather than blind faith. Would love to hear more about how you apply this Active Trust approach in practice!
Thanks Michael.
Truth is a funny beast. Some people find it harsh and it disenchants them and demoralizes them. You can tell someone the truth that way and, as necessary as it may be, it wouldn't be compassionate.
The Tibetans consider Compassion as a powerful force in the Universe, because it can help bring someone to the truth in a way that doesn't collapse them, it brings them to life and elevates them, inspiring them to do something with it and act on it. It enables an experience that fosters a live form of Trust in the change they are called to enact. As long as they work with the truth that brings them to life, they don't just have trust in what they do, they have a sustainable commitment to it, motivation that doesn't fizzle out, constantly refreshed attention that serves an authentic intention. The ongoing Trust someone has in that lived path, is a living flow of Trust. My framing of that is 'Active Trust'.
'Active Listening' is not listening in order to respond but to receive. In a similar way, 'Active Trust' is not allocating trust for the sake of personal Security or in seeking clarity of alignment towards a personal agenda or motivation. It is an act of being, that can be about having the confidence in your own presence to recieve your own state of being. It can also be about having the confidence in another persons state of being to receive themselves or recieve your state of being, without decoration, yet in a mindset of full, dynamic discernment. Like Active Listening, Active Trust is a kind of Listening, except it is not passive reception, it also is something that is transmitted and radiated, and can be felt by everyone within its field, uplifting their felt sense of Trust for themselves, for you and the Context you are curating.