On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 09:27:20 +0100
Martin Steigerwald <martin@???> wrote:

At this point I'm trying to understand your perspective better, since
maybe there are things to learn. I did notice I can articulate myself
a bit better now. So even if it's a perspective either alien to you or
not useful to you, I hope you can clarify yourself if you need to.

Ultimately what I've learned is:

Sometimes it's pointless or harmful to engage in a contest of opinions


> spiralofhope - 24.11.18, 18:24:
> > The binary is real.
>
> For me it is not. It is just part of the illusion.

I had some time to think about this topic, and postmodernist
opinion-based reality came to mind. I'm not applying that to you, but
I wonder if that's what colored my earlier response.

I like the separateness you described for yourself. Do I understand
your perspective something like so?:

It's efficient and less egoistic (or just less stressful) to withdraw
from fighting to determine the very existence of a scale or axis that
has a binary perspective.

Though I am thinking of your perspective tentatively, as though you are
saying that "you don't participate" rather than you saying "it doesn't
and can't possibly exist". Your forest example shows that you can gel
into a solid opinion, ethic, and action.


> Or does that even mean I am not engaging with… what you called self-
> improvement? I do…

I get that now, thinking of your forest example.


> Looking into memory, whenever I attacked someone
> else in person all I received is: Resistance. Yet, resistance does
> not ever help to change anything.

A side note: This could spin off into discussing the value of
antagonism. For example, I think it says a lot that we now think of
"argument" negatively.


> Yes, even gender does not appear to be binary.

I'm leaving that alone, but I'm told that's a red flag indicating
postmodernist ideology.


> Actually when I attack some apparent other in person, all I do is to
> hurt myself. I opted out of the hurting cycle, cause it does not
> contribute to happiness.

That's wrong. Technically and objectively wrong. That's the toxic
feminine (and contemporary postmodernist) perspective.

Mothering and avoiding hurt is _not_ the always best way, it is _not_
always helping, and it does _not_ always contribute to happiness. Not
nearly in the long-term way. It's just neurotic dodging. (though the
opposite, whatever those things are, certainly aren't better)

There is the concept of helping someone face toward the outside of
their safe bubble, even pushing them toward it or out of that comfort
zone. This has been demonstrably successful for stronger, healthier,
happier people. That does begin with the very difficult problem of
resistance (a good description), and overcoming it (ethically).

Being pushed, or especially pushing one's self out of comfort is
terrifying but incredibly valuable long-term. I think this comment
still applies:

> Nobody loves you who withholds their opinion to save your ego.

Maybe I should also say things like:

- expressing love isn't always about comforting
- comfort isn't happiness
- improvement hurts now, but is rewarding later

I think these ideas are what I was getting at when I link a too-strong
concern for happiness or love with lacking self-improvement.