著者: Hendrik Boom 日付: To: dng 題目: Re: [DNG] OT: Mutuality and harmlessness
On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 05:14:44PM -0800, spiralofhope wrote: > 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.
It may well be a red flag that the postmodernists wave to induce
you to tread in the direction of meaninglessness (a direction I
choose not to take). But I've discovered it's also true, even on
a purely physical level. But it's a useful approximation, most of
the time.
Even binary bits, 0, and 1, aren't all that binary when you look
how they are represented physically. A big part of
low-level internet protocols are there just to achieve reliable
communication despite the presence of atrociously misformed ones
and zeros.
>
>
> > 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.
Everything in moderation. Even moderation in moderation.