Look what you did! You made me de-cloak!!
Totally worth it. 
6 Likes
Spot. On.
And generous. Most people have to pay a lot for that kind of diagnosis.
6 Likes
Fixed that fer ya 
1 Like
That’s not at all what I said. I said that there are in fact people stopping me from doing what you suggested. But instead, you steamrolled through my reply and read what you wanted. I would never ask “why are some speakers more important than others” because I didn’t assume it in the first place. Many municipalities refuse certain groups permits to organize.
I do not believe in ownership. It might seem like I am caught in some kind of conflict here, but it is a concession towards being readable by people. I would be perfectly happy to say, more accurately, “ideas which seem to originate here”, except that I would spend hundreds of words explaining this every time I said it. So talking about “my” kid or one’s “own” toothbrush has to suffice. People find notions such as possession and territory so universal, that there is hardly any way to even communicate without dwelling in the same conceptual traps. “I” would be happy to make the effort, but others make plain that they would not appreciate the extra verbosity.
But aren’t you working from the assumption that there is a real unified personal identity which obfuscates its fickleness? It is easier to suppose that the alternative, that there only appears to be a “self” must be a mere thought-exercise which seems tired and sophomoric after some time, but that does not seem to be the case from my perspective. People working from a bias of assuming that they have a self, and that this sense of self matters more than the world or other selves might be just that - a bias. It might be completely pervasive, but this might also not make it less truly biased.
How else would “want” have any substance? How could a person be right or wrong, rather than an idea being so, if we were not presuming a connection which identifies the idea with the ideator? If a changing vantage through time always evaluates its best evidence, without attachment, what purpose does any belief serve?
Have you ever considered instead, participating in an impersonal exchange of raw ideas? Is anything improved by assuming that everything must be somebody’s personal problem?
1 Like
It’s not really fixed, the two statements are functionally identical.
Why is having a bias an unwanted quality? I honestly don’t believe it is.
1 Like
I know I’m going to regret asking this, but I’ve got a slight masochist streak. There’s a function in your brain that directly observes its own existence when it’s awake. It perceives continuity. It’s isolated from direct perception of others. What else are you attributing to the term personal identity that you think is illusion?
You mention persistence of vision. But that’s an illusion because what’s represented in the brain doesn’t necessarily correlate to the external environment. Identity has nothing to do with the external environment. It’s just the thoughts in the brain self-referencing some of itself.
3 Likes
Assumptions are a BITCH, I tell ya, because they make an ASS out of U and ME. Being an ass sucks. I would much rather be something else, like a Horse or a Bull or even a Giraffe. Hey, why not all of the above? I like aminals. They pretty. We can pet them and ride them and feed them and play catch. My friends had a goat up the street. If you believe in goats. This goat was nice. She loved grass. She loved grass so much that she would almost eat your fingers, too! So gentle. Her name was Hazel. Hazel would play catch. Once I tried to ride Hazel, but she kicked me. Right in the nards. I thought it was funny hahahahah so I laughed mercilessly when I put her in a sleeper hold so that I could give her a head-noogie. She loved that. We used to play and go to the movies together. One time, her owner came out there and saw us and started yelling. I don’t know why he was yelling. We were just having fun together! He was such a jerk, always spoiling other people’s fun with goats. Do you have any goats? I like goats. Did I ever tell you about the goat up the street?
&c.
Oh and one more thing:
If you show up at my house unexpected, I am calling the police and getting my gun. That isn’t a threat. That’s a reality you are going to have to deal with.
3 Likes
Is this an unpublished James Joyce novel?
5 Likes
I do often answer this. It the intersection between “making” and “social structures”. I see this as a positive thing. Not an evasion of or reaction to anything else. Because awakening at the start of the day, there are things to do, and people to interact with, so one might benefit from some structure.
There is no ultimate reason why what I, or what anybody else says should inspire you to care about it.
You are isolating me here. Money and gender are perfectly real social constructs, so they are as real as anyone makes them. What you do is make them a personal problem. If I try to do something with them, it’s somehow “vague airy nothingness”, but if others do so, it becomes “concrete reality”. Being a scientific, evidence-based person, how I interpret things is that if a process works, it works regardless of who uses it. Denying this in preference of relying upon some inherited roles is literally creating iniquity in your interactions with people. If you think you are just in doing so, then I don’t expect you to do otherwise, but likewise, there is no reason for you to expect others to accept you doing so. What obligation would they have to internalize your hierarchy? Or mine? Or anybody elses? I think that in a civilised culture, people can negotiate these things explicitly.
Why do you always seem to assume that you speak for others?
I am happy enough for people to disagree with my ideas or opinions, or put forth others. But I could also ask you: Why is it that so many feel invested, even compelled, to confront me? If you are content to live as you live, and I am content to live as I live, then why do you assume that there is any disharmony? It’s not as if I taunt you for your bourgeois sympathies! I don’t share them, but this presents no obstacle to respecting you and discussing our mutual views
You often seem to imply - whether or not you might be aware of it - that thoughts and actions which impress you as not being western enough are simply backwards. I bet you can easily conceptualize pre-industrial living, but perhaps not post-industrial. You seem to be intelligent enough to know that societies, cultures, communities do not remain static over time. Yet you deny people the ability to influence these. Your reliance upon hierarchy exists to obfuscate social technologies.
tl;dr: Because life is made of compromises. And each person or group needs to decide what compromises they are willing to live with. If people are forced to make social compromises which I think are anti-social, which require selfishness, then I think it’s beneficial and necessary for some to devise others.
1 Like
I am not trying to be obnoxious or annoying, but do you know what I mean? That some people essentially being more or less significant than others, is quite different from simply asserting this to be the case?
I feel as if how I communicate really bothers you somehow, but that is not intentional. I do try to be respectful of people here.
Fair enough! Don’t send any police who you might need later. But that’s not a probable eventuality anyway, so rather than making a violent reality for me in the future, you are stuck in it every day. Also, I wonder if your house knows that you own it, or if it’s just an idea you find fetching.
What an inspiring and compassionate society you must inhabit, that protects people’s fantasies with violence…
While you quote me using “I” repeatedly? Yeah…
When we get to a post-industrial space, I will. We’re not there nor do I think we will necessarily be there.
What some people would dismiss as meaningless insanity, others would call an unfortunate line of thought, does that affect the thought content itself or does it merely show that some people believe there’s a thought and a process behind it? The real problem of course ist that both these assumptions are clearly based on a perceived shared understanding of how people share ideas with the world and why.
Me, I’ll just dismiss the idea that because I can engage in post hoc rationalization and attempt to explain my actions with words, I have reasoned reasons for what I do and am able to have these reasons known/processed/understood the same as me by people who know themselves less than I claim to know myself.
1 Like
I acknowledge that I am a loose gestalt of impressions and organisms, but I don’t default to the extremes of “everyone”, “nobody”, etc. I happy that you at least threw a “most of us” in there this time.
I agree that it doesn’t seem to be an inevitability. But who gets to say where we are, or where we’re going? It is easier to assume the same circumstances for everybody, as an absolute. But even now one can live within hunting, agriculture, industry, information, or other systems.
And that is basically a wrap–we agree on the concepts, not the execution.
Too early to share a beer and a quesadilla? How about some jalapeños?
3 Likes
Not quite either. People believing that there is a thought and a process behind it would only serve as a form of needless “validation”. More to the point, people acting upon such a process yields a forum for social interaction. This is where many people rage at me, when I simply ask them to describe their own processes for socialization. Without some protocols, it seems unlikely that people could connect with others.
OK, I suppose you can do that, although I cannot audit your thinking processes based upon what I read here. What seems more interesting than post-hoc rationalization to me is how to actually deliberate actions and make plans. This is where I encounter most social difficulty.
Millie, if anybody likes to hear the sound of their own voice around it, it would certainly be me, you, and @japhroaig before popo.
You seem to like people agreeing with you, but you do not respond well to disagreement or challenges.
Me, I love agreement – I’m all about the 
.
6 Likes
I’m all ears. An example or two would help.
1 Like
I’m saving them up in case there’s a chalk shortage, OK??
4 Likes
