I just started reading last week, a non violent communication. I don't if youvever read that book. And hespecifically nails down and talks about this and deconstructs our language of of these exact things. H, there was one example in it where he goes in atis. He's doing a mediation between some teachers and the superintendent of a school. And he askd the teachers, ok, what is it that upsets you most about the superintendent? And they keep trying to go, well, he just talks too much, or he wants to be the centere of attention. And he's like, without your describing a judgment, can you do? Can you tell me what it is that you are frustrated about, without making a judgment about it? And these teacher slike, went around and around, and they couldn't do it, and they said, this as too hard. And so he walked them through some exercise to be able to pin point this thing. And then when they brought the superintendent and they were talking, they ow one of the teachers finally had enough courage, because they had broken it down to just the basic thing, like, you know, you tell us these stories that don't have anything to do with what we're talking about, and we're ending up late, and other things like that. And the principal went off into this big, long thing about it, when the teacher said, e ey, can you, can you stop? This doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about, and this is exactly what or what we're upset about, is that you take over and you tell us a story about your life, you tell a story about the war, all these things. And as i'm reading this, i'm like, oh, i kind of do that sometimes. So it was a little bit humbling, but for me it was really interesting, because he was just deconstructing it, of saying, what are the facts? Don't turn it into a personal thing. Dont make a judgment about this, about what he's doing. Just what are the facts. And it was so much more powerful, because you're able to get past the story that you have in your head about the other person, ah, and you can just talk about the facts. And when you can talk about the facts, then you can talk what each of you needs in your interactions, as opposed to jus making judgments about them.

This is also toto a large extent of something that we do an commen of behaviour, thepe by coming across the bold apinte as well, that it crops up in differet ways as different names for it. Bits are pretty common y recurring technique. And the stors refer to it repeatedly, ive tend the best expression of it is like a sa epictetus just telling his students, you know, if someone takes you to prison, you say, i've been taken to prison, you know, don't then ad all these valor judgments and inferences about it and stuff. But you find it in marcus aurelius as well. They think that, em it's more honest and t they think when we impose al judgment sits down on advance. We are always distorting things and in a sense, lying or deceiving ourselves in a way. And so the way that marcus aurelius expresses us. Marcus aureliuss nictname was veresimus, which means the true. Lit hadrian give him this nickname whn he was a small child, and it seems to have become famous. He's referled to by that name later in life as well. But the meditations he goes on about truthfulness are la. He actually says that there the truth is the most primordial of gods. At one pointit's almost a religion. Makes it sem like truthfulness is a alica religion. Tom. And it is in terms of stoicism that marcus arilius in particular, in the meditations, you can view what he's doing as building a philosophy of life around the almost the worship truth and truthfulness. And part of that he sees as requiring sporting a sophistry rhetoric fallacies and seeing through them, but also suspending valued judgments inasence m and learning to articulate things in a wore dantan objective mano m. Because he thinks that seeing alas, oh no, this is awful. His is a wheel caneof adding a filte to eur experienceanin distorting the facts.