Mistakes and human error are the most common sense derived subjects we address in our day to day conduct. They are the observations we make of others failing, or direct criticism we bring to individuals to exact a point of change. Where it could be someone screwing up my coffee, or a pick-up truck nearly colliding with a disabled person, or that one politician that said something racist. To be philosophical, we live for rightness, but just as the sun inadvertently provides shade, we make criticism of the people around us for what things we believe make them inherently wrong. Where people provide advice, is the opportunity to help correct someone of their own fault, given it is human nature to err. Human mistakes, in general, invent our window of conversation and provide us with the goals we seek to make a difference.
How do you measure the practical severity of a mistake, and where do you draw the line on which mistakes are forgivable, memorable, jocular, or educational given they are even mistakes by that point? More importantly, how do you react to the issues you draw on people for? Do you ever feel lost in the attempt to make confrontation? Can it seem overly persecuting, and even conflicting with finding a means?
If you counted the number of mistakes your friend had ever made, they wouldn’t be your friend. In our own humility that is a part of human nature, we separate our higher and poorer conduct with our effort to do things rightfully or wrongfully. The degree to which one can take offense with another for an erroneous way becomes socially conflicting when the issue is personalized and most often not vocalized. People make wars on a vague stance of general human morality, which only seems trivial or trite to those not involved in the first place. As the human right of way remains central to the existence, we make right and wrong of both light and dark times, given our reasoning needs to provide us with an explanation to the confusion we may be disposed of too.
Back to the point, how do you measure the severity of a human mistake, an error, and what can you explain for the range of reaction you might make? Pain, sadness, grief, amusement, joy. You might feel like you lost an opportunity, or even that crazy side of you hit some relief to see another screw-up and temporarily dispel you of your jealousy. Mistakes can be painful, and admittedly we all have moments where we laugh to seeing another in pain. All of these reactions are what we make to witnessing or experiencing the fault line. If this is true, have we left with anything more for our amusement and reasoning then an observation of what a person failed to do, or fail to make as an action from their own point of view? Slips in conversation, unintended innuendoes, cynical double meanings, blunt honesty, while under the criticism of hindsight, asking for forgiveness may fall short if absent of witnesses. Do we still make our mistakes known to us as objectively huge? Or contextually apparent considering the reflection only arises from the perspective of a visitor? Given, it was only a point of view that decided there was a mistake, if absent of this, can a person guide themself reliably to the point of correctness given they might not even be aware they are at fault? Mistakes don’t always clean themselves up.
With regards to reasoning in subjects people have earned a sense of confidence with, the need to correct or direct those short on knowledge comes at a toll of patience first, and foremostly all understandings of the failings at hand are placed to the expense of the teacher and student. In some situations, given there is a lack of control and anxiety with the course at view, blame and misunderstanding arise, which is ironic, given the point of association is to provide knowledge and clarity. The need to use authority and define with scrutiny the exact nature and severity of conduct, action, or lack of action that had been discovered, is a result of a power craving authority, which nonetheless, reminds us of what can fail in teachings.
Would we rather notice what someone is doing? Or what they are not doing? Who knows what page anyone is on, and why do we ever feel the need to assert your own reasoning as the higher moral ground?
Repetitiveness is true to human nature, and what part of our mistakes inherently guide us through education, given the assertion of the social right, which is at times blinded by its own arrogance. The most common mistake anyone might make, is not allowing another to explain themself.
