Says you. I’m not an angry person and don’t come at these conversations from anger. But the key difference between you and me is that I know where the lines are.
Yeah, you’re right:
I’m all about the @Brainspore s
2 Likes
Seems to me that people believe things with and without good reason, rightly and wrongly. Merely believing a thing is only enough to inform how to act when one must. Its too simple to say that believing prompts action.
I’m of the opinion that belief is many times, post hoc rationalization. If you’re hungry and steal to eat, you’ll likely tell yourself that its not morally wrong to do so,if you had thought it was wrong before being in that position, then your belief was untested and possibly not a real belief, but an intuition of whats supposed to be right based on previous experience.
And if you ask people to describe their process of socialization when they don’t have a process but instead just sort of feel things out, you might interpret rage wrongly. Having asked the wrong question, the right answer will be of no use to you.
That’s OK, I’m not interested in being audited.
3 Likes
That’s exactly what Xenu is counting on.
7 Likes
You dirty so and so, you beat me to it!
#By Vectrons Kindly Claw!
4 Likes
3 Likes
I have sufficient respect for you to know that the lines are where you and I mutually decide that they are. Where I think people fool themselves - and try to fool others - is guessing that such lines exist anywhere in nature or society by default. They don’t just happen, they are deliberately made. This is much of why I said that people get upset with me. People assume that their boundaries are some implicit thing which I don’t respect, when I think it is far more respectful to treat them as an explicit thing which we can communicate.
2 Likes
John Travolta? I wonder if John might be related to famous actor Joey Travolta!
That’s sad. Why can’t it be a fun and interesting question?
This feeling of continuity is a large part of the illusion. It takes a lot of discipline to be even somewhat aware of how the mind creates models based upon sensory input as it occurs. There is ultimately no way to be certain what artefacts of perception originate in the outside world, one’s sense faculties, or one’s perceptual models. Creation and recollection of memories is at least as uncertain. Sense of self-continuity is largely based upon dubious memory faculties. How much of this body was even here twenty years ago? Hardly anything, this self appears to be more of a pattern. Yet, my DNA changes as it is copied, and a clone doesn’t have my subjective memories or experience.
Even the brain’s awareness of its own existence doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny. This is what I think much meditation practice demonstrates. Your brain exists, and is aware, yet your brain might not be what it thinks it is. The subjective understanding of this can seem quite paradoxical, and difficult to remain mindful of as habitual patterns and models reassert themselves. The sense of internal consistency can itself be considered illusionary, since if you examine it for seconds, minutes, hours, days at a time - it often disappears. It could be that the brain quickly whipped up this image of self-continuity for you because you desired it, and then dissolved it again when you weren’t thinking about it.
There are also the seldom-considered “set theory” approaches to self as colony, self as gestalt, self as aggregate, internal society within the self, organism as fragment of larger collective/social selves, etc. A person can have numerous personalities in one body, or an organism can function as part of a larger self. Or any number of combinations of these.
3 Likes
This is where you are incorrect, and have been many times in past posts with me and other people. The lines, aka my personal boundaries require no mutuality, agreement, negotiation, explicit communication, etc. They exist totally apart from your participation. People who cross one find out how non-mutual they are.
5 Likes
How does this make me incorrect with other people? You claim that these are “personal boundaries”, so couldn’t you only accurately say this with regard to yourself, and your boundaries?
That’s pretty much how I define “anti-social”. But I think there is an element of delusion involved as well. You said that you would call upon police to enforce boundaries. Unless they are your own personal mercenaries, then this suggests that what you’d like to assume are your boundaries were in fact bequeathed to you by others. If they are in fact social, then they do rely upon mutuality, agreement, negotiation, and communication. Otherwise you have no police, and they have no care about your personal problems. You seem to be convincing yourself and others that this is personal, but functionally it appear to be social, but implicit. Social obligations being implicit doesn’t mean that they don’t exist - it only means that you get no say in what they are.
It’s not unlike relying upon some big monolithic “box store” for your material needs. What they have, is what they have, and if it’s not what somebody needs, then they are SOL. There are feedback loops where what the masses “need” conveniently/magically conforms itself to what suppliers prefer to offer, and consumers appear to be mostly unaware of this. People do something analogous with their social structures - after a few generations, what “everybody wants” has somehow become the same as what they are allowed to have. It is more convenient, and saves face to simply go along with this. But, of course, people aren’t obliged to this, and some of them make other arrangements.
Basically, you being able to negotiate with people directly is more respectful of your power and authority than having others implicitly do it for you.
1 Like
I notice behaviors, so there is no flaw in my logic. And for the second part, all of that is neither here nor there; it’s sophistry. You can talk all you want, and you can think you’re talking circles around me, but you’re not. You’re just doing donuts in the parking lot.
6 Likes
I’m pushing for home-schooling my kids, so they don’t get exposed to heresies like “set” “theory”.
2 Likes
Except that your feeling of continuity of awareness of noticing behaviors is largely an illusion, so there’s a fly in your logic ointment.
And can I just say that I absolutely love how this thread shows in my mobile notifications as :sparkles:? It just promotes such a warm, friendly, welcoming tone!
ME vs THE WORLD SOCIETY LEAGUE
:sparkles: ME vs THE WORLD SOCIETY LEAGUE :sparkles:
5 Likes
I don’t quite know what your internal logic may be. I was pointing out that what I could glean of it based upon what you wrote seemed to suggest some internal contradictions. So I discuss how and why, ask a few questions, and assume that if you like your views you might appreciate my interest and the invitation for you to expound upon them.
My experience has been that there are many inconsistencies and indeterminacies built into existence itself, so if none of these are reflected in my own logic, I immediately assume that a self-serving bias is masking them, and try again. YCUODMMV
You could always choose instead to simply ignore what I said, instead of formally dismissing it. What are your criteria for sophistry? Might this not represent a somewhat judgemental perspective on communication? Without knowing how or why you consider my comment sophistry, this doesn’t tell me anything about your opinions, nor my own possible conceptual or communicative shortcomings.
Do I need to want anything? What I was trying to do was get you to explain your protocols for social interaction. You tell me that they are not worth explicating, but they are worth killing me over? I think that sounds a bit conflicted and/or contradictory. You can casually dismiss what I have to say about this, but IMO that makes it no less weird why you dismiss your personal role in defining your societal or interpersonal interactions. Whatever you like to say about me does not really explain your thoughts and actions about how you live. And if you don’t want to talk about yourself and how you live, what are you doing here?
3 Likes
There is no discontinuity.
Your words, not mine. If any part of your donuts in the parking lot includes a violation of the law, with me on the receiving end, I’ll do what I can to make sure that you are stopped before causing any harm. That’s pretty darn clear on all fronts, as far as I’m concerned and needs no further explanation.
1 Like
So, do you just eagerly internalize any laws that people stick to you? Might some people not be taking advantage of your passivity be so doing? How do YOU, PERSONALLY decide who is worthy of deeming an authority? What about victimless crimes? Who gets to tell you what you are supposedly a victim of, or how you should be protected? What if you agree to a fair exchange with me that those same people and groups decide to not allow, for their own reasons? Would you still trust them to decide your affairs after this?
I guess. You sure post a lot of replies, for a person who claims they don’t have anything to say. So, your point is that your personal boundaries appeared fully-formed from nowhere, and people psychically know what they are, and you have weapons and armed goons to enforce them, and this is what you call “society”? Cool story, bro! I wonder where you are in that whole mess of other people’s obligations.
1 Like
Is that true? Stalin obviously thought so, the contemporary American capitalists seem to think that in everyone does their own thing then everything will work out for the best. Neither view is really working out very well in practice. Is it hard to believe that we have have a functioning large group where individuals do what they want but keep in mind the good of others around them? It’s kind of hard for me to believe we could have a functioning group of any size where that didn’t happen.
But they are both reality. It is like you are saying stones are real but water isn’t because water flows around all weird. Thoughts are made of meat, talking is made of meat and air, out society is made of stone, metal, meat, air, and a bunch of other things. It’s hard to draw a line around it but it is real.
This is the very basic thing that you don’t seem to take into account: To the majority of people, yes they are worth killing over, no they are not worth explaining.* You talk a lot about individuals, but you don’t seem very interested in the fact that this is what the majority of individuals really want. It might not seem efficient, it might not seem effective. Maybe they don’t care about efficient or effective. What if more than half of people just want to have faith in something because the idea of not having faith in something scares them? What’s wrong with 50% or 60% or more living that way if that’s their way of living?
We can regress back to absurdity if we want, but unless you backstop it with some kind of fundamental principles, there is nothing there. What difference does it make if this electron is here or there? If that’s all we are talking about, none of it connects to anything we find meaningful. Sure, we could marry five people (hands up anyone in this thread who thinks that shouldn’t be allowed), but what is marrying them? Is it what we choose to make it? That doesn’t answer the question, what are we, what is choosing, what is wanting? Nihilism is right there waiting for us.
But all of that aside, I just don’t think radical rethinking is very useful. That’s a pragmatic observation, not a feeling. We have thousands of years of human history where things have progressed from short, hard lives, many young deaths, and most of humanity living essentially in slavery to long lives, rare early death, and a huge chunk of humanity having significant self-determination, and we did it because that fluid mass of social structures lurched and heaved and reached in all directions. Slime mold grows tendrils to the highest nutrient food, it can’t accommodate a radical rethinking of that process.
* On these boards I see a lot of people who get the “We shouldn’t kill other people, even if we think it’s a good idea we have to realize that other people have thought it was a good idea and they end up being evil and wrong so we should just shelve our rationalizations and not kill people” thing.
10 Likes
Living Color?
6 Likes
