Nearly 5am here and I can't sleep so it was nice to come back here to find another contibutor to the conversation and to read again what everyone has had to say. Gives me a reason to think about this some more.

It seems to come down to the fact for me that it is more about communication style than anything else. I like how Bloom followed up on the definitions that perna offered which took me back to those that Shadow offered and that sent me to the dictionary and thesaurus to get even more clarity for myself.

I like how Perna made a distinction between judgement and being judgemental because while it may not be accurate for us to put a negative spin on the word judgement (the capacity to assess situations or circumstances shrewdly and to draw sound conclusions; - definition provided by Shadow) I think most of us generally see the word judgement in a negative light. Advice on the other hand (proposal for an appropriate course of action; definition provide by Shadow) is more commonly recognized to be a gentler way to express an opinion. Judgement being the more authorititative opinion does not necessary recommend a course of action as advice requires but simply states a conclusion or a determined position.

Perhaps that is why it gets more of a negative slant. It is colder and less personable a word in our common use of it. Distinquishing between being judgemental and making a judgement reinforces that further. We generally interpret 'being judgemental' as a forceful expression of an opinion. The distance between judgement and advice then is more about communication style than any major differences in the definintions of the two words themselves. One in fact relies on making a judgement or holding a position before they offer advice.

As Bloom and Elliemay both suggested one's judgement or subsequent advice is influenced by his or her individual and collective references. As Bloom suggested it is sometimes a fine line between what is an absolute and what is a preference when basing a judgement. Social order depends on some absolutes but it can be tricky when too much pressure is exerted to impose too many absolutes.

As I have gotten older I have tried to view the world with fewer absolutes while I am coming to a judgement about things. I try to be more considerate of another's point of view than I used to be. No matter how radically different than mine. When I was younger I used to be very legalistic and dogmatic about what was right and what was wrong. I seldom held back my opionions and was pretty aggressive in how I expressed them. My advice was for the most part judgemental. Even demanding. My points of references growing up.... my dad primarily but other influences as well framed how I saw the world and thus what I expected of others in the interest of social order and a collective code of ethics.

For many years now I have saught a more peaceful co-existance with people whereby I can view the opinions and actions of others with more of an open mind. I think I have reduced my absolutes to simply one guiding principal, namely, 'do no harm'. Beyond that anything goes. It challenges me everyday because I still have the old references popping up with auto pilot like reactions. It requires me to step back to look for other points of view. To listen carefully so that I don't impose my own beliefs. I have to come back to my one principal and drop any other influences that might try to sneak in.

In practical terms that means when I am offering support I have to be very mindful of our individual right to our own opinion. Beyond doing no harm to self or others there are no absolutes of right or wrong, in my opinion. I can have an opinion about anything and everything but I haven't the authority to render a sentence along with my judgement and or advice. I can postulate a potential outcome to someone's actions based on my own frame of refereence and even offer some cautionary warnings again based on my own references but I can't render a determination of any outcome. I can't know with absolute certainty the consequences of someone's actions unless I percieve an action to lead to personal harm.

As Shadow suggests I can't know enough to judge. It reinforces for me that I need to be careful not to assume whomever I am offering advice to shares any of my frames of reference on a particular subject or situation. I need to be mindful that we are all different and those differences affect how advice is received. I find myself here on PC more and more checking where a poster is from to get a clue as to differences we may have because of geography and culture.

While it is up to the receiver to take or leave any advice given I think as other have expressed that it is still a responsibility of the giver to be respectful of the receiver's views before offering advice. Maybe that is where the perception of being judgement kicks in. Depending on the subject one may appear judgemental to some while being viewed as simply 'right' by another who may share the same point of view.

Have I not just gone full circle again? Or am I deciding the real determining factor is, as has been pointed out already more than once that it is about style and not so much about the substance. It is less about what we say then how we say it. Again, do no harm. Treat others as you yourself would like to be treated.

Thanks for indulging me once again to ponder these questions with me. My intention is to grow into being a more caring and compassionate person and to learn the art of doing no harm in word and in deed no matter the circumstance.