Saywhut?
I promise to come back and address this once Iâve read the rest of the posts here, I just had to take a swipe at that one.
Stateful!
Well, then your ideas and behaviors are just something youâll have to accept responsibility for!
stateless meat-bag of logic or stateless bag of meat-logic ?
Maybe the latter. Although that obviously puts some limits on logic, making it meatful, whatever that is. Not perfect. Meaty. Beaty. Big. Bouncy. Fallible.
If one attains continuous stateless unity with reality, one may well become a blissed-out Zen monk or Catholic nun, no longer capable of achieving large-scale goals within the framework of time that permeates our consensus reality. Or you could end up like Godel, Cantor, or David Foster Wallace. So I try to remain mired in the illusion of time for most purposes.
Therefore, yes, I will physically accept responsibility for my own ideas and behaviors, and for those of the people I have taken into my household. Also, because of my religious beliefs I will philosophically & intellectually accept my responsibility for everything that does or doesnât exist, including all suffering and evil in the world.
O, thank g-d! Itâs all your fault!
You should go back and read the post by @Nelsie and read it not as a reply to you but as a shard of a mirror, and see what is reflected there, (As it is a report on how your comments were perceived)
You should then read your reply and ponder if talking back to a mirror changes whats reflected in it.
For the record, I donât think youâre a trolley and the BBS would be poorer without you. Iâm of the opinion that rebutting arguments is a useful technique for laying ground and getting your point across but not good at all at making your point.
Well, if were going to try and pick these things apart, havenât you?
It depends on how you interpret a reply like this:
âHeh, how droll. But come off it now.â
Iâd usually take a phrase like this to be a polite rejection of your point, not of your sincerity. Its an invitation to pique the interest of the other person fast if you want to continue.
Replying to the sincerity is an impolite rejection of that invitation and an insult to the other persons intelligence. (Since you donât realize he understood you in the first place)
But what do I know? i bearly speakâa the english.
But⌠whoâ s doing the thinking?
Are you trying to understand the other or are you trying to have the otherâs thoughts map to the world as you understand it?
Is the ability to understand what another person means, baggage?
Can you correct without understanding? Or is correcting without understanding causing more errors.
While identity is a construct, is it also meaningless?
But⌠they belong to you insofar as you act upon them. And the reply was in response to you stating that opinion. Isnât context relevant?
This approach could be fine sometimes when people might not spend much time or effort examining their most cherished assumptions, but itâs still not very dialectical. I think itâs perfectly useful for everybody to ask me or others about possible preconceptions - but not to tell people what they are. This is confusing of their subjectivity with mine, rather than simply agreeing, disagreeing, asking, probing, prompting, etc or any number of other interactions they can undertake honestly and are perfectly justified in doing. Reframing a topic can be thought-provoking, but I think using reframing to distort the input of other participants is an essentially dishonest process. This doesnât preclude anyone from asking âmight you be assuming X?â, or even positing âI canât accept what you are saying at face value.â Neither have the effect of striving to negate another participant. And no, it makes no different to me whether or not any of the participants might be me, versus anyone else.
I try to understand the other. But I know that honestly I cannot confirm whether or not I succeed in understanding them. Being aware that somebody misunderstands my accounts, and saying so, doesnât seem that it should be so controversial. Sometimes their feedback indicates a misunderstanding internal to my own attempts to communicate, but usually suggests a quite fundamental inter-personal misunderstanding, based upon presumptions we were presumed to share. So the practical thing to do then would be to make assumptions explicit, and this seems to be what people resist doing, to the detriment of communication for all concerned.
The ability is not generally baggage, although I would expect most of the content to be. This is why I distrust communication styles which demand the use of implicit assumptions. It decreases the personal risks of embarrassment, while drastically increasing the risks of people fundamentally misunderstanding each other.
I think âcorrectâ implies too much value judgement, Iâd prefer to think of conveying information in terms of âaccuracyâ. Knowing what a person says - and knowing what you think of what they are saying - seem to ideally be distinct processes.
It is meaningful, but only for the individual. Your construct of âidentityâ doesnât directly map to anyone elseâs models of you. Their model of you is likely to be dissonant in comparison. Which might be why people use implicit assumptions, and stave off identity crises.
Identifying too closely with oneâs own identity or behaviors seems to present many obstacles with regards to accurate self-assessment and inter-personal dynamics. The difficult balance I find is to be as aware of these as possible, while maintaining detachment. The context of refuting my opinion, if anything, should have been more relevant. Refuting me rather than my opinions presents a lazy argument, and serves only to alter how my person is perceived by others in the discussion, so it seems to function as a rhetorical device which strikes me as counter-productive and drastically altering the signal-to-noise ratio of a discussion. This is exactly how flame wars start, because people are too emotionally close to two or more âidentitiesâ, be they people, parties, positions, etc. This makes them into tokens in a game rather than information.
You know, I like you but Iâm not going to spend 10 minutes to intricately decipher a forum post by you on a website. Either your meaning is clear and I can reply or Iâm not going to bother. Life is too short and the individual posts here are too insignificant to invest a lot of time and energy into trying to parse. Writing for clarity and ease of reading is a skill worth developing if you want others to try to respond coherently to what you say. Make it too difficult and most folks will just move on.
This topic was automatically closed after 709 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
