|
Post by silence on Aug 4, 2013 17:26:27 GMT -5
This conversation began with you inquiring how I know about what's going on with coma patients. And now it's arrived at you telling me what's going on with them. What makes you so sure coma patients can't dream? Unlike you, I don't believe stories about unconscious people recollecting conscious experiences... I only know that I have to be conscious to experience and be conscious to experience dreams... And one of those conscious experiences is unconscious perceptions pretending to know what consciousness is or isn't... You don't really make any sense to me, sorry.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Aug 4, 2013 17:31:02 GMT -5
Of course, but I can't help it. I can't choose what to imagine or believe in. You can't choose what to imagine or believe but do you believe you can solve your imaginary problems? Sure, why not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2013 17:39:58 GMT -5
Unlike you, I don't believe stories about unconscious people recollecting conscious experiences... I only know that I have to be conscious to experience and be conscious to experience dreams... And one of those conscious experiences is unconscious perceptions pretending to know what consciousness is or isn't... You don't really make any sense to me, sorry. No need to be sorry, it's perfect...
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 5, 2013 1:36:48 GMT -5
I understand your logic. It's quite crystal, but it's no argument for equating pity with compassion. In the latter there is an understanding of and a consideration of the other, while in the former there is this false sense of superiority that you take as actual. Pity is based on sympathy while compassion is based on empathy. The differences are marginal. All are voluntary and too emotional, i.e. he who is at a disadvantage and requires help is at the mercy of the compassionate. And the compasisonate is secretely and perversely enjoying his attitude, he feels like he is a better human for feeling the way he does. Solidarity on the other hand is an obligation, it's a dogma. And he who receives solidarity is entitled to it, it is not a gift, it is his fundamental right, that's why he doesn't need my compassion/pity/empathy/charity. Here there is no need for emotion, instead solidarity is the execution of a formula, a law. When I am in solidarity with someone else then, contrary to compassion, if I feel anything at all, then not like a better human for it, instead I feel like a lesser human for not being in solidarity. I can't be human being if I am not in solidarity with others. It's too much effort to all the time be invested in pity/compassion/empathy, nobody can be in that kind of state of emergency for too long. And if a civilized coexistence requires this kind of emotional investment then the situation is hopeless. In solidarity we do not act upon emotion, but rather upon law, I can hate you personally and still be in solidarity with you. If the right that you're entitled to is violated then it's the same as when my own right is violated. And if you violate this right then you will be put into at least the proverbial gulag even if I love you. I don't care. I don't care what Bobby says in the footnotes, the significant implicit structure in his narrative is all about the fundamental difference between enlightened and ignorant. The truth is that we normal folks feel incredibly inferior to the enlightened ones and Bobby at least has to acknowledge and respect this fact, and not act like we are foolish little children who misunderstand everything. Bobby can't make the implicit structure disappear just by inserting a couple of footnotes, if he disagrees then he needs to rewrite the entire narrative. Fúck you. Of course I was serious. The "betrayal of compassion" was the thesis for the start of the conversation. Don't look for compassion outside of yourself and don't deprive yourself of it. As far as the line between you and Bobby, the only factor that isn't something that you're creating out of whole cloth is the differential in experience. He's reported certain experiences that you report you've never had. One strategy for acquiring something that you don't have but that you want is to model a course of action after the stories of those who've already got it, and that strategy is at the heart of the narrative you're weaving throughout your arguments. The problem with this narrative is twofold: 1) No one experience is exactly the same as another because people are all unique, and there are whole classes of experiences that one group of similarly situated individuals might report that a different group will never (or at least be very unlikely to) encounter. 2) The premise of your complaint and the picture that you paint based on it is in direct opposition to the story that would serve the basis for the strategy for "becoming enlightened". Instead of turning away from the conceptual -- which is Bobby's story -- you're spinning a rather complex conceptual structure about the differences between yourself and this strawman of the "enlightened one" that you take Bobby to be. Assuming that you're sincere in this conversation, you've heard the prescription repeated over and over and what I'm telling you is nothing you haven't read in one form or another many times over already -- set aside your models, your ideas, your logic, you analysis. Just drop them. Don't look for a reason for this, don't try to justify it with a counter-argument -- and don't try to suppress the movement as it occurs either. Instead, if you think that Bobby's got something that you don't have and you think that you want it, then try trusting him. That would involve witnessing the movement of thought within, against and between these structures as it arises and simply letting it be ... simply exercising a little compassion for yourself and giving yourself a pass for having to pay any attention to any of it.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Aug 5, 2013 5:31:55 GMT -5
The "betrayal of compassion" was the thesis for the start of the conversation. And then I pondered about it some more and figured out that compassion is perverted at its core. The moment you start blathering about compassion is precisely the moment when solidarity is lost, it's the moment when you cease taking your fellow human seriously. I don't need your compassion and I don't want to be compassonate about you. Solidarity is the truly radical step because it is a principle and to be applied not only to those who are different from me, but also to both those who I love and those who I hate, from the perspective of solidarity I am not even sufficiently human before I am a solidary individual. In your stupid compassion the motivation is at best that you love all beings, or that you believe that all of them are actually aspects of yourself. Compare this to solidarity when it extends to precisely the other qua other, and precisely even to those that I hate. The difference is real, and you still seem not to understand its importance. It doesn't matter what sensations we share, the really important aspect is what cognitive constructs and illusions we don't share. If for me the illusion insists that I am a self separate from an external world and other people and for you this illusion doesn't insist then we are profoundly different. I can't and won't do it. You're trying to manipulate the discussion with this and I don't accept it. I'm a little dictator, I only discuss things on my terms. My point is a valid one and you can't run away from it by shifting the topic, you can try your tactic on someone less intelligent but it doesn't work for me. Either engage with me sincerely or walk away, I for one will certainly not back down. You say that I should trust Bobby. Why don't you trust me? You rehash the same old stupid stories that I've never accepted before, why do you think I will now? You say that you understand my logic, but it's obvious to me that you don't. My request is that you first plunge into my logic and then we can have a conversation where we're not just repeating the same old worn out topoi. I know what I'm talking about, I learned the hard way to think before I write. You have to respect this fact, otherwise you're wasting your time. I for one will find a way to get something out of this, even if it's just to insult you wherever I can.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 5, 2013 8:19:28 GMT -5
The "betrayal of compassion" was the thesis for the start of the conversation. And then I pondered about it some more and figured out that compassion is perverted at its core. The moment you start blathering about compassion is precisely the moment when solidarity is lost, it's the moment when you cease taking your fellow human seriously. I don't need your compassion and I don't want to be compassonate about you. Solidarity is the truly radical step because it is a principle and to be applied not only to those who are different from me, but also to both those who I love and those who I hate, from the perspective of solidarity I am not even sufficiently human before I am a solidary individual. In your stupid compassion the motivation is at best that you love all beings, or that you believe that all of them are actually aspects of yourself. Compare this to solidarity when it extends to precisely the other qua other, and precisely even to those that I hate. The difference is real, and you still seem not to understand its importance. It doesn't matter what sensations we share, the really important aspect is what cognitive constructs and illusions we don't share. If for me the illusion insists that I am a self separate from an external world and other people and for you this illusion doesn't insist then we are profoundly different. I can't and won't do it. You're trying to manipulate the discussion with this and I don't accept it. I'm a little dictator, I only discuss things on my terms. My point is a valid one and you can't run away from it by shifting the topic, you can try your tactic on someone less intelligent but it doesn't work for me. Either engage with me sincerely or walk away, I for one will certainly not back down. You say that I should trust Bobby. Why don't you trust me? You rehash the same old stupid stories that I've never accepted before, why do you think I will now? You say that you understand my logic, but it's obvious to me that you don't. My request is that you first plunge into my logic and then we can have a conversation where we're not just repeating the same old worn out topoi. I know what I'm talking about, I learned the hard way to think before I write. You have to respect this fact, otherwise you're wasting your time. I for one will find a way to get something out of this, even if it's just to insult you wherever I can. Q, you ask for solidarity but when have you given solidarity? What would it look like for you to give solidarity to Bobby? The trouble I see with solidarity is that it is an expression of alliance with a specific set of values. Solidarity doesn't end battles, it entrenches them. A person can have solidarity with a political party, social class, religious faction, etc. It's all about being attached to a specific identity, If you were going to turn solidarity on it's head and focus purely on what is common between all people, you would come into solidarity with existence/being. You can't just pick a subset of people to be in solidarity with, you would have to be solid with what is common and not with what is different. And that means not focussing on distinctions between this class and that class of person. Not focussing on a particular set of cultural values, or side of a conflict. It would also mean not standing with a person when they engage in solidarity with a particular group and not the whole. You are not standing against them, but simply not lending your support to their investment in conflict. You are focussed on one side of a distinction, Q. Where is your solidarity to the other side? To the Whole?
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Aug 5, 2013 8:49:49 GMT -5
And then I pondered about it some more and figured out that compassion is perverted at its core. The moment you start blathering about compassion is precisely the moment when solidarity is lost, it's the moment when you cease taking your fellow human seriously. I don't need your compassion and I don't want to be compassonate about you. Solidarity is the truly radical step because it is a principle and to be applied not only to those who are different from me, but also to both those who I love and those who I hate, from the perspective of solidarity I am not even sufficiently human before I am a solidary individual. In your stupid compassion the motivation is at best that you love all beings, or that you believe that all of them are actually aspects of yourself. Compare this to solidarity when it extends to precisely the other qua other, and precisely even to those that I hate. The difference is real, and you still seem not to understand its importance. It doesn't matter what sensations we share, the really important aspect is what cognitive constructs and illusions we don't share. If for me the illusion insists that I am a self separate from an external world and other people and for you this illusion doesn't insist then we are profoundly different. I can't and won't do it. You're trying to manipulate the discussion with this and I don't accept it. I'm a little dictator, I only discuss things on my terms. My point is a valid one and you can't run away from it by shifting the topic, you can try your tactic on someone less intelligent but it doesn't work for me. Either engage with me sincerely or walk away, I for one will certainly not back down. You say that I should trust Bobby. Why don't you trust me? You rehash the same old stupid stories that I've never accepted before, why do you think I will now? You say that you understand my logic, but it's obvious to me that you don't. My request is that you first plunge into my logic and then we can have a conversation where we're not just repeating the same old worn out topoi. I know what I'm talking about, I learned the hard way to think before I write. You have to respect this fact, otherwise you're wasting your time. I for one will find a way to get something out of this, even if it's just to insult you wherever I can. Q, you ask for solidarity but when have you given solidarity? What would it look like for you to give solidarity to Bobby? The trouble I see with solidarity is that it is an expression of alliance with a specific set of values. Solidarity doesn't end battles, it entrenches them. A person can have solidarity with a political party, social class, religious faction, etc. It's all about being attached to a specific identity, If you were going to turn solidarity on it's head and focus purely on what is common between all people, you would come into solidarity with existence/being. You can't just pick a subset of people to be in solidarity with, you would have to be solid with what is common and not with what is different. And that means not focussing on distinctions between this class and that class of person. Not focussing on a particular set of cultural values, or side of a conflict. It would also mean not standing with a person when they engage in solidarity with a particular group and not the whole. You are not standing against them, but simply not lending your support to their investment in conflict. You are focussed on one side of a distinction, Q. Where is your solidarity to the other side? To the Whole? Maybe it's too early in the morning and I haven't had enough coffee, but it seems to me that what Q is defining as solidarity is actually compassion.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 5, 2013 9:13:49 GMT -5
Q, you ask for solidarity but when have you given solidarity? What would it look like for you to give solidarity to Bobby? The trouble I see with solidarity is that it is an expression of alliance with a specific set of values. Solidarity doesn't end battles, it entrenches them. A person can have solidarity with a political party, social class, religious faction, etc. It's all about being attached to a specific identity, If you were going to turn solidarity on it's head and focus purely on what is common between all people, you would come into solidarity with existence/being. You can't just pick a subset of people to be in solidarity with, you would have to be solid with what is common and not with what is different. And that means not focussing on distinctions between this class and that class of person. Not focussing on a particular set of cultural values, or side of a conflict. It would also mean not standing with a person when they engage in solidarity with a particular group and not the whole. You are not standing against them, but simply not lending your support to their investment in conflict. You are focussed on one side of a distinction, Q. Where is your solidarity to the other side? To the Whole? Maybe it's too early in the morning and I haven't had enough coffee, but it seems to me that what Q is defining as solidarity is actually compassion. Q has been arguing against compassion, if he believed they were the same that would make him a troll. Q isn't a troll is he? Maybe his argument is reflective of his cultural/ethnic heritage. I believe he said he was part Russian, part German, living in Germany.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2013 9:15:02 GMT -5
Maybe it's too early in the morning and I haven't had enough coffee, but it seems to me that what Q is defining as solidarity is actually compassion. Q has been arguing against compassion, if he believed they were the same that would make him a troll. Q isn't a troll is he? Maybe his argument is reflective of his cultural/ethnic heritage. I believe he said he was part Russian, part German, living in Germany. I sense he's arguing against the label- compassion. Not the direct experience of it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 5, 2013 9:40:54 GMT -5
The "betrayal of compassion" was the thesis for the start of the conversation. And then I pondered about it some more and figured out that compassion is perverted at its core. The moment you start blathering about compassion is precisely the moment when solidarity is lost, it's the moment when you cease taking your fellow human seriously. I don't need your compassion and I don't want to be compassonate about you. Solidarity is the truly radical step because it is a principle and to be applied not only to those who are different from me, but also to both those who I love and those who I hate, from the perspective of solidarity I am not even sufficiently human before I am a solidary individual. In your stupid compassion the motivation is at best that you love all beings, or that you believe that all of them are actually aspects of yourself. Compare this to solidarity when it extends to precisely the other qua other, and precisely even to those that I hate. The difference is real, and you still seem not to understand its importance. It doesn't matter what sensations we share, the really important aspect is what cognitive constructs and illusions we don't share. If for me the illusion insists that I am a self separate from an external world and other people and for you this illusion doesn't insist then we are profoundly different. I can't and won't do it. You're trying to manipulate the discussion with this and I don't accept it. I'm a little dictator, I only discuss things on my terms. My point is a valid one and you can't run away from it by shifting the topic, you can try your tactic on someone less intelligent but it doesn't work for me. Either engage with me sincerely or walk away, I for one will certainly not back down. You say that I should trust Bobby. Why don't you trust me? You rehash the same old stupid stories that I've never accepted before, why do you think I will now? You say that you understand my logic, but it's obvious to me that you don't. My request is that you first plunge into my logic and then we can have a conversation where we're not just repeating the same old worn out topoi. I know what I'm talking about, I learned the hard way to think before I write. You have to respect this fact, otherwise you're wasting your time. I for one will find a way to get something out of this, even if it's just to insult you wherever I can. To investigate this notion of solidarity is to spin up more conceptual structure. You've gone as far as you need to with that in the past -- qualia, signifier/signified, etc. The only objective basis for a difference between you and Bobby is what I outlined in my last -- you can either trust him, or not. The question of why you should trust him is actually of no consequence but if you want to talk about that I'm game. The insults are o.k. MovieQ -- assuming sincerity, they are, by your own account, grounded in a deep frustration -- if the difference is real to you then it's real to you. In this I stand shoulder to shoulder with you, although I don't share in it. No disagreement here ... as I said: Don't look for compassion outside of yourself and don't deprive yourself of it.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 5, 2013 10:11:44 GMT -5
Q has been arguing against compassion, if he believed they were the same that would make him a troll. Q isn't a troll is he? Maybe his argument is reflective of his cultural/ethnic heritage. I believe he said he was part Russian, part German, living in Germany. I sense he's arguing against the label- compassion. Not the direct experience of it. The only two scenarios which make sense if that is the case is that either he is trolling or there is a real disconnect between the word and experience for him, meaning he can't recognize genuine compassion. I wonder if he is able to recognize the solidarity he has received and continues to receive. The vote to lift his ban was an act of solidarity. The support and encouragement he's received is solidarity with him. Even Bobby gives him solidarity, but he can't feel it or see it because it is not a personal solidarity, meaning it's not in support of his personal world view, it is in support of him, his essence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2013 10:26:02 GMT -5
I sense he's arguing against the label- compassion. Not the direct experience of it. The only two scenarios which make sense if that is the case is that either he is trolling or there is a real disconnect between the word and experience for him, meaning he can't recognize genuine compassion. I wonder if he is able to recognize the solidarity he has received and continues to receive. The vote to lift his ban was an act of solidarity. The support and encouragement he's received is solidarity with him. Even Bobby gives him solidarity, but he can't feel it or see it because it is not a personal solidarity, meaning it's not in support of his personal world view, it is in support of him, his essence. You have a penchant for relating to people with a different viewpoint from yours as trolls, Top. You and I disagree all the time. I really don't see you as a troll. I see you more like someone that wants me to buy into his viewpoint. Q made a point early on in one of the unmoderated threads about our simple state. I really do sense this is the foundation for his posts. All of us fall into a trap using labels. The labels are contrived, based on societal conditioning. The societal definition of compassion isn't even close to the direct experience of compassion. The direct experience of compassion is based on the quality of being. In my experience, it's a movement. It's instinctive. Intuitive. Not an orphaned, well thought out expression.
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Aug 5, 2013 10:26:24 GMT -5
Maybe it's too early in the morning and I haven't had enough coffee, but it seems to me that what Q is defining as solidarity is actually compassion. Q has been arguing against compassion, if he believed they were the same that would make him a troll. Q isn't a troll is he? Maybe his argument is reflective of his cultural/ethnic heritage. I believe he said he was part Russian, part German, living in Germany. I went back and read his posts again. "In charity the difference is asymmetrical, and the rich man's joke about the poor functions as an insult and not as an invitation for friendship." Essentially, he is saying "a rich man can never give me, a poor man, money because it's an insult" at the same time he is whining, "I'm a poor man and it is in the rich man's power to make me rich -- why won't he?" Meanwhile he's sitting on his own pile of gold but just doesn't recognize it. The thing about rich people is, they don't really work all that hard. All they do is invest the money and it attracts more money. In other words, to make money you have to give it away.
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Aug 5, 2013 10:32:20 GMT -5
I sense he's arguing against the label- compassion. Not the direct experience of it. The only two scenarios which make sense if that is the case is that either he is trolling or there is a real disconnect between the word and experience for him, meaning he can't recognize genuine compassion. I wonder if he is able to recognize the solidarity he has received and continues to receive. The vote to lift his ban was an act of solidarity. The support and encouragement he's received is solidarity with him. Even Bobby gives him solidarity, but he can't feel it or see it because it is not a personal solidarity, meaning it's not in support of his personal world view, it is in support of him, his essence. I don't think he's a troll. I do think he's touching on something pretty important, something I've also thought about a lot. I.e., what does genuine compassion look like? Sometimes the most compassionate response is to leave people alone and let them struggle. It is a matter of trust and respect that the individual is right where they are supposed to be, even if they are suffering. Lending someone a hand benefits the lender and makes the lender feel good. That is not compassion. Compassion is not in the "doing." Compassion may be more in the "seeing."
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 5, 2013 10:56:15 GMT -5
The only two scenarios which make sense if that is the case is that either he is trolling or there is a real disconnect between the word and experience for him, meaning he can't recognize genuine compassion. I wonder if he is able to recognize the solidarity he has received and continues to receive. The vote to lift his ban was an act of solidarity. The support and encouragement he's received is solidarity with him. Even Bobby gives him solidarity, but he can't feel it or see it because it is not a personal solidarity, meaning it's not in support of his personal world view, it is in support of him, his essence. I don't think he's a troll. I do think he's touching on something pretty important, something I've also thought about a lot. I.e., what does genuine compassion look like? Sometimes the most compassionate response is to leave people alone and let them struggle. It is a matter of trust and respect that the individual is right where they are supposed to be, even if they are suffering. Lending someone a hand benefits the lender and makes the lender feel good. That is not compassion. Compassion is not in the "doing." Compassion may be more in the "seeing." Excellent observation, SQ. You might be right on point, as far as Q is concerned too.
|
|