Acknowledgement versus Invalidation

A basic and typical mistake has been isolated, labelled “invalidation”, and defined as: refusing, denying, derogating, etc. anything someone considers a fact. If one considers that the moon is made of cheese, that’s a fact to one; whether this is true or not, that’s a horse of a different colour. If one considers that one likes cheese, that’s a fact to one as well, regardless of what other people think about cheese.

To understand invalidation, a good starting point is saying that, since one exists, one has a right to one’s own point of view. That one’s point of view has to be based on truth and subject to comparison and debate does not undermine the fact that one has a right to have a point of view in the first place, just as one has a right to exist. Incidentally, this is one of those rights vitiated by the difficulty that you must learn not to depend on anyone else to find it out or have it acknowledged, but you must learn to acknowledge and assume it by yourself.

So, one thing is saying “it is my point ov view that your point of view may stand some improvement in that this and that, as you can easily observe” – wherever it’s a matter of facts –, or that “our points of view differ on the grounds of personal inclination” – wherever it’s a matter of opinions or taste –, quite another thing is saying “I deny you the right to have a point of view”, or, in other words, “you are not permitted to exist; you are not.”

Invalidation is even clearer when compared to what can be seen as its opposite: the acknowledgement. Acknowledgement has been isolated as a key vital part of communication, and defined as: anything said or done to inform one that one’s communication has been noticed, received and understood.