|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Nov 22, 2013 11:03:49 GMT -5
It's much simpler. The question is whether you repect the well-being (suffering) of others more than your own amusement. If words on a page are the cause of suffering, who is responsible? It doesn't matter who. Are you trying to be my spiritual doctor? What insanity.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 22, 2013 11:04:44 GMT -5
My take is that regardless of the motivation or intent of the content that caused the sting, the sting itself, which in my opinion is something that is always created by the reader, is always an opportunity for the reader. Andy's point about how that might do some real damage is, as I acknowledged not something to take lightly, and some people should obviously be treated with kid gloves ... but making ST.org safe for the most vulnerable doesn't internet-proof anyone's den. Anywhere ... and the cost is an environment that has the potential to result in authenticity ... IOW, in my estimation, priceless. My opinion is basically that I don't see overt mocking as doing anything helpful. Unconscious mocking can't be helped. Mocking that erupts like a fart may or may not be regrettable. It seems to me that the clearest, most carefully articulated message, sober and devoid of any mocking color, brings with it a whole host of landmines which may blow up at anytime, depending on the size of the feet of the reader. Those explosions can be helpful if there is a willingness to let the dust settle and see what happened. So intentional mocking muddies the water. Weeeelll ... "help" is an interesting word here maxy ... I can see how it might flow from my use of the word opportunity ... but really, it doesn't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2013 11:05:44 GMT -5
Then I'd have to stop being honest. It had nothing to do with honesty. Just stop mocking me. Can someone please explain to me why this guy just won't stop mocking me? What explanation can there be other than that he is totally possessed by ego? One explanation is that he is not mocking you. An amused reaction could be based on misunderstanding, lack of certainty. There is a thrill in not knowing the intended meaning.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 22, 2013 11:05:58 GMT -5
If words on a page are the cause of suffering, who is responsible? It doesn't matter who. Are you trying to be my spiritual doctor? What insanity. Oh, you have no interest in the source of the chagrin? You have no interest in investigating where the feeling of being stung arises or what caused it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2013 11:07:09 GMT -5
When I look at the screen I reflect on my immediate view, but I also will step back and contemplate differing perspectives. I have conversations so that others can inspire me to go outside the box of my immediate perspective - to walk around it, and explore it from different angles. The reflective question for you laughter, might be, why do you react to others with mockery? What point within yourself drives that ad what do you get back from it? I can't answer those questions for you. But if I was mocking somebody, I would be blocking the different perspective that they offered. There are times when I've looked at that perspective and see something ridiculous in it. But to have a default setting as mocking would surely make me blind to any new perspectives. Generally speaking it's when something I read seems to me to be so obviously stuck in a conceptual position, and usually one that is overtly related to self-image, as to find it very very funny. There's nothing to come back from it as by the time the mockery is up the mirth has come and gone. So how does the cardboard cut out fit here?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 22, 2013 11:11:07 GMT -5
Generally speaking it's when something I read seems to me to be so obviously stuck in a conceptual position, and usually one that is overtly related to self-image, as to find it very very funny. There's nothing to come back from it as by the time the mockery is up the mirth has come and gone. So how does the cardboard cut out fit here? Facially speaking, the cardboard cut out is all that we ever really have the opportunity to address.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Nov 22, 2013 11:11:49 GMT -5
It doesn't matter who. Are you trying to be my spiritual doctor? What insanity. Oh, you have no interest in the source of the chagrin? You have no interest in investigating where the feeling of being stung arises or what caused it? It's none of your business. I didn't choose you as my psychologist. It's the same old pattern on these spiritual boards. First comes the mockery. Then someone says that they don't like being mocked. Then the clown says that he was just trying to cure their ego attachment or whatever. Dishonest bs. The mockery was already ego, the dishonest defense was final evidence of pretty violent case of ego.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2013 11:11:59 GMT -5
This is a good project. If #1 is the case, perhaps the joke is a subtle form of mocking itself. And perhaps the mocking reply to that joke is a defense reaction. I'm thinking Tony Clifton right now. Reactions to Tony Clifton went from revulsion to discomfort to knowing laughter ('yes I'm in on the joke'). Great stuff. The folks that were disgusted became part of the joke to the folks that were in the room. It's much simpler. The question is whether you repect the well-being (suffering) of others more than your own amusement. If #1 is the case, there could be a perceived battle of wits going on. Maybe #1 is considered an unserious reply even if it is claimed to be serious. And so the response to #1 is a sort of tentative chuckle. That's how I would respond. Like 'are you kidding, hehe?' It's a form of self protection. And so you're right you could call it ego.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Nov 22, 2013 11:13:57 GMT -5
It had nothing to do with honesty. Just stop mocking me. Can someone please explain to me why this guy just won't stop mocking me? What explanation can there be other than that he is totally possessed by ego? One explanation is that he is not mocking you. An amused reaction could be based on misunderstanding, lack of certainty. There is a thrill in not knowing the intended meaning. I am not thrilled. I told him in very simple words that I just don't want to be mocked. Why on earth can't he simply respect that? Why? I don't get it. Think about his comment for a second. Of course it was mockery.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Nov 22, 2013 11:15:49 GMT -5
It's much simpler. The question is whether you repect the well-being (suffering) of others more than your own amusement. If #1 is the case, there could be a perceived battle of wits going on. Maybe #1 is considered an unserious reply even if it is claimed to be serious. And so the response to #1 is a sort of tentative chuckle. That's how I would respond. Like 'are you kidding, hehe?' It's a form of self protection. And so you're right you could call it ego. Usually if 1) is true then a little chuckle is all you get. If at all. But if 2) is true, then you create real suffering. So what is more important?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 22, 2013 11:17:36 GMT -5
Oh, you have no interest in the source of the chagrin? You have no interest in investigating where the feeling of being stung arises or what caused it? It's none of your business. I didn't choose you as my psychologist. It's the same old pattern on these spiritual boards. First comes the mockery. Then someone says that they don't like being mocked. Then the clown says that he was just trying to cure their ego attachment or whatever. Dishonest bs. The mockery was already ego, the dishonest defense was final evidence of pretty violent case of ego. Uhm, no, I've never claimed to be your doctor, and I disagree that there has been any overt mocking of you in this thread on my part. The OP had this sentence: I'm sorry but when someone puts up an image that is one that projects seriousness and sobriety ... it's funny. Now, I am well aware that this made the OP completely mock-worthy, and that's how I took the first three or so things that you wrote to me here, albeit entangled with what might have been some serious personal sentiment. I laughed at what I saw as the mocking and genuinely tried to untangle and respond to your complaints that I had been mocking you. It's the best I could do! Sorry if it wasn't enough! Really!
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Nov 22, 2013 11:18:47 GMT -5
It had nothing to do with honesty.Just stop mocking me. Can someone please explain to me why this guy just won't stop mocking me? What explanation can there be other than that he is totally possessed by ego? I disagree and I'm being serious -- I wouldn't be honest as it would be concealing the laughter. If you want to explore this seriously, please answer the question that went along with what you took as ridicule. No, it had nothing to do with honesty. If you meet a random fat person on the street, do you tell them that they are fat? Do you consider it a lie if you say nothing?
|
|
|
Post by silver on Nov 22, 2013 11:18:55 GMT -5
If words on a page are the cause of suffering, who is responsible? It doesn't matter who. Are you trying to be my spiritual doctor? What insanity. Now, this makes me *m.s.* - wheezy laughter escapes me. The thing is JB, you're insisting on playing the straight man in this type of episode, once again, and it's just dam.n funny. The insane clown posse over-the-top mocking is something that I find hard to witness, and evidently others here feel the same way -- I would venture to guess because it's on the extreme end of a scale of human behavior. This sh*t makes me feel like I'm in - or watching a play.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2013 11:20:39 GMT -5
So how does the cardboard cut out fit here? Facially speaking, the cardboard cut out is all that we ever really have the opportunity to address. We address our own interpretation of the words written by another person. If you assume that your interpretation is the same interpretation that the writer made, then you might mock the writer's conceptualisation. But if you are not able to see inside the writers mind, then what you are mocking is your interpretation of what is written. What if your mind is imagining what it needs to bring you the opportunity to mock?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 22, 2013 11:22:39 GMT -5
If #1 is the case, there could be a perceived battle of wits going on. Maybe #1 is considered an unserious reply even if it is claimed to be serious. And so the response to #1 is a sort of tentative chuckle. That's how I would respond. Like 'are you kidding, hehe?' It's a form of self protection. And so you're right you could call it ego. Usually if 1) is true then a little chuckle is all you get. If at all. But if 2) is true, then you create real suffering. So what is more important? This idea about the creation of suffering goes right back to what I said to Andy. There are plenty of venues available where the user is sheltered -- ie: where the team that runs the site takes the responsibility for the feelings of the users. This site has, in my estimation, a more adult tradition, in that, similar to a workplace or public space other than a school with children, it is the individual who is responsible for their reactions to what they encounter.
|
|