|
Post by silver on Dec 6, 2013 2:10:21 GMT -5
But, we do ridicule all these people IRL. Lotta the time, it's much subtler than say here Or it's subtle ridicule plus other forms of manipulation along with. OK... I didn't realize we did ridicule people IRL. If this were a special st.org word, then that's news to me.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Dec 6, 2013 2:18:59 GMT -5
I'm using 'ridicule' as a general term -- I think that what we think we see when we look at an exchange such as the ones here (or anywhere), is easily misconstrued as to what's really going on. And as I said before somewhere, in effect -- if someone is using words to bully or appear to be bullying someone else, they are only words AND specifically, if the parties are adults, it falls on the receiver of the comments to take in what's being said, and assess them accurately. Then, depending on the assessment, they can ignore or return appropriate comments or act on them. Otherwise, it is putting on the victim mask. I'm using ridicule in it's common meaning. Words have a powerful effect. Here we have a person ridiculing another, but we seem to blame the victim. Blaming the victim is also a stage of mockery, and comes just before the betterment stage. You are identifying the features of it pretty accurately. Why do you you suppose ridicule is so common here, yet we don't behave like that in our real lives... ? No, it's not blaming the victim! There are a million and one scenarios that can happen where we would describe a portion of that scenario with that word, but there are various dynamics going on. Let's call your victim the target. The target doesn't have to take the ridicule personally, and the ones who are 'ridiculing' the target don't necessarily have malice in mind, and are therefore NOT really ridiculing, but rather they are (I can't think of the word I wanted to use - it just scooted right outta my head).
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 6, 2013 2:36:32 GMT -5
I'm using 'ridicule' as a general term -- I think that what we think we see when we look at an exchange such as the ones here (or anywhere), is easily misconstrued as to what's really going on. And as I said before somewhere, in effect -- if someone is using words to bully or appear to be bullying someone else, they are only words AND specifically, if the parties are adults, it falls on the receiver of the comments to take in what's being said, and assess them accurately. Then, depending on the assessment, they can ignore or return appropriate comments or act on them. Otherwise, it is putting on the victim mask. I'm using ridicule in it's common meaning. Words have a powerful effect. Here we have a person ridiculing another, but we seem to blame the victim. Blaming the victim is also a stage of mockery, and comes just before the betterment stage. You are identifying the features of it pretty accurately. Why do you you suppose ridicule is so common here, yet we don't behave like that in our real lives... ? Why do you beat your wife whereas most husbands don't? This is the kind of trick language can play. If you label it ridicule, there can be no answer to your question. Ridicule is already a judgment of the behavior and not a description of the behavior itself. I often talk about the insanity here, and some see that as ridicule also, but this insanity is much like the absurdity that L talks about, and there is humor in this absurdity. Sometimes we can laugh at ourselves when we see ourselves clearly. It would be good if the discussions here came from a more impersonal perspective. Maybe one question would be, is the ego in the humor, or is it in the insanity and in the reaction to the humor that results in labeling it mocking and ridicule? If we're interested in the truth, even the insanity should be brought to the fore, though the insane will object. It's a rather unique interest not common in 'reasonable community life'.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 6, 2013 2:39:24 GMT -5
I'm using ridicule in it's common meaning. Words have a powerful effect. Here we have a person ridiculing another, but we seem to blame the victim. Blaming the victim is also a stage of mockery, and comes just before the betterment stage. You are identifying the features of it pretty accurately. Why do you you suppose ridicule is so common here, yet we don't behave like that in our real lives... ? No, it's not blaming the victim! There are a million and one scenarios that can happen where we would describe a portion of that scenario with that word, but there are various dynamics going on. Let's call your victim the target. The target doesn't have to take the ridicule personally, and the ones who are 'ridiculing' the target don't necessarily have malice in mind, and are therefore NOT really ridiculing, but rather they are (I can't think of the word I wanted to use - it just scooted right outta my head). Revealing?
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Dec 6, 2013 2:43:19 GMT -5
I'm using ridicule in it's common meaning. Words have a powerful effect. Here we have a person ridiculing another, but we seem to blame the victim. Blaming the victim is also a stage of mockery, and comes just before the betterment stage. You are identifying the features of it pretty accurately. Why do you you suppose ridicule is so common here, yet we don't behave like that in our real lives... ? No, it's not blaming the victim! There are a million and one scenarios that can happen where we would describe a portion of that scenario with that word, but there are various dynamics going on. Let's call your victim the target. The target doesn't have to take the ridicule personally, and the ones who are 'ridiculing' the target don't necessarily have malice in mind, and are therefore NOT really ridiculing, but rather they are (I can't think of the word I wanted to use - it just scooted right outta my head). The 'playing the victim' places onus on the person being ridiculed, but ridicule is actually a hurtful behavior. If the person is targeted, then it's meant personally, so of course people will take personally, and they do. The people who do the targeting are seeking a reaction, which is why they prod at personal issues that are likely to be sensitive. When the targeted person reacts, mission accomplished... then we can blame the person who reacted and put forth our own very helpful intentions... then ok. After a while people don't speak as freely or express adverse emotion or expose vulnerability. It's like this... no one wants to be slapped on the back when they have a bad sunburn, but a slap on the back can be a kind gesture, but if the slapping continues after pain has been expressed, that's malice.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Dec 6, 2013 2:52:31 GMT -5
No, it's not blaming the victim! There are a million and one scenarios that can happen where we would describe a portion of that scenario with that word, but there are various dynamics going on. Let's call your victim the target. The target doesn't have to take the ridicule personally, and the ones who are 'ridiculing' the target don't necessarily have malice in mind, and are therefore NOT really ridiculing, but rather they are (I can't think of the word I wanted to use - it just scooted right outta my head). Revealing? no.......
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Dec 6, 2013 2:58:50 GMT -5
I'm using ridicule in it's common meaning. Words have a powerful effect. Here we have a person ridiculing another, but we seem to blame the victim. Blaming the victim is also a stage of mockery, and comes just before the betterment stage. You are identifying the features of it pretty accurately. Why do you you suppose ridicule is so common here, yet we don't behave like that in our real lives... ? Why do you beat your wife whereas most husbands don't? This is the kind of trick language can play. If you label it ridicule, there can be no answer to your question. Ridicule is already a judgment of the behavior and not a description of the behavior itself. I often talk about the insanity here, and some see that as ridicule also, but this insanity is much like the absurdity that L talks about, and there is humor in this absurdity. Sometimes we can laugh at ourselves when we see ourselves clearly. It would be good if the discussions here came from a more impersonal perspective. Maybe one question would be, is the ego in the humor, or is it in the insanity and in the reaction to the humor that results in labeling it mocking and ridicule? If we're interested in the truth, even the insanity should be brought to the fore, though the insane will object. It's a rather unique interest not common in 'reasonable community life'. Beating the wife isn't kind. Ridicule is the term used for the behavior. Mockery, bickering and so on. I'm sure everyone here recocognises the occurrence of these. I'm sure there are things that can be very beneficial to people in a properly protected confidential setting that are quite harmful to them in an unprotected public open environment. Humour isn't ridicule. Isn't a lot of this ridicule really intended to invoke a defensive personal reaction, and not actually intended in jest? The other thing is, if it is intended in jest, and it just gets carried away, and the person appears distressed be it, why does it continue thereafter if it's just humour? Insanity seems apt. teehee. If they don't think it's funny or they find it offensive, I think maybe just desist, maybe even apologize if it's taken pretty badly. What I'd like to see, is people speaking from where they are at, and not saying 'you this and you that' styled projections. It's like when you stand in front of the mirror and say 'you this and that' that image isn't actually saying anything, it just looks that way... and I think it's better to speak from where the voice is coming from, and not speaking from the reflection. (I'm like, did that just make sense) hehe.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Dec 6, 2013 3:03:51 GMT -5
No, it's not blaming the victim! There are a million and one scenarios that can happen where we would describe a portion of that scenario with that word, but there are various dynamics going on. Let's call your victim the target. The target doesn't have to take the ridicule personally, and the ones who are 'ridiculing' the target don't necessarily have malice in mind, and are therefore NOT really ridiculing, but rather they are (I can't think of the word I wanted to use - it just scooted right outta my head). The 'playing the victim' places onus on the person being ridiculed, but ridicule is actually a hurtful behavior. If the person is targeted, then it's meant personally, so of course people will take personally, and they do. The people who do the targeting are seeking a reaction, which is why they prod at personal issues that are likely to be sensitive. When the targeted person reacts, mission accomplished... then we can blame the person who reacted and put forth our own very helpful intentions... then ok. After a while people don't speak as freely or express adverse emotion or expose vulnerability. It's like this... no one wants to be slapped on the back when they have a bad sunburn, but a slap on the back can be a kind gesture, but if the slapping continues after pain has been expressed, that's malice. People can only try to make another person feel bad -- it is behavior that one is sometimes attempting to make it hurtful, but if the 'target' isn't the kind of person to allow themselves to react that way to the attempts, then the attempt falls short and as far as I'm concerned, doesn't reach the target, and therefore doesn't really matter what you call the attempt. Yeah, I understand what you're saying, of course. I was telling Laughter that when I first came to ST, I was very vulnerable and all that, and I sought out a couple or three people who I could ask questions in private, via pm's because I didn't want to take the chance of being ridiculed, but over time, with the help of those who were willing to answer questions and discuss nonduality, ata, and all that, etc., I became aware of my own reactions and a lot better at looking inside myself for answers to why I felt, responded and thought the way I did over this or that incident here.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Dec 6, 2013 3:27:32 GMT -5
The 'playing the victim' places onus on the person being ridiculed, but ridicule is actually a hurtful behavior. If the person is targeted, then it's meant personally, so of course people will take personally, and they do. The people who do the targeting are seeking a reaction, which is why they prod at personal issues that are likely to be sensitive. When the targeted person reacts, mission accomplished... then we can blame the person who reacted and put forth our own very helpful intentions... then ok. After a while people don't speak as freely or express adverse emotion or expose vulnerability. It's like this... no one wants to be slapped on the back when they have a bad sunburn, but a slap on the back can be a kind gesture, but if the slapping continues after pain has been expressed, that's malice. People can only try to make another person feel bad -- it is behavior that one is sometimes attempting to make it hurtful, but if the 'target' isn't the kind of person to allow themselves to react that way to the attempts, then the attempt falls short and as far as I'm concerned, doesn't reach the target, and therefore doesn't really matter what you call the attempt. Yeah, I understand what you're saying, of course. I was telling Laughter that when I first came to ST, I was very vulnerable and all that, and I sought out a couple or three people who I could ask questions in private, via pm's because I didn't want to take the chance of being ridiculed, but over time, with the help of those who were willing to answer questions and discuss nonduality, ata, and all that, etc., I became aware of my own reactions and a lot better at looking inside myself for answers to why I felt, responded and thought the way I did over this or that incident here. People try to make others feel bad and it works... sometimes a little humour can hurt someone's sensitivities, but ridicule is doing so purposefully. In private it's different because the confidentiality is protected and it's not like yer guts are put out there for the crows to pick at... but trust is the most important thing... and I have seen PM's and private email used in public arguments at st'org as well. I totally understand why you wouldn't want to take the chance of being ridiculed, and no-one does, and I dare say each of us has sensitive vulnerabilities that come up from time to time that need to be kept safely protected. I also believe that becoming aware of reactions is an important precursor to taking a calm look at the self and what you are describing there is what I call 'insight'.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 6, 2013 10:59:58 GMT -5
But, we do ridicule all these people IRL. Lotta the time, it's much subtler than say here Or it's subtle ridicule plus other forms of manipulation along with. OK... I didn't realize we did ridicule people IRL. heh ... here's another guy who never worked in a restaurant ... To some extent, this is a cultural thing. In the final analysis though, the subjective nature of meaning makes disentangling ridicule from humor a rather hopeless affair, so that the only way to make a forum like this free from ridicule would be to scrub it of all humor. This is where your admonition to be kind comes into play.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 6, 2013 11:07:08 GMT -5
No, it's not blaming the victim! There are a million and one scenarios that can happen where we would describe a portion of that scenario with that word, but there are various dynamics going on. Let's call your victim the target. The target doesn't have to take the ridicule personally, and the ones who are 'ridiculing' the target don't necessarily have malice in mind, and are therefore NOT really ridiculing, but rather they are (I can't think of the word I wanted to use - it just scooted right outta my head). The 'playing the victim' places onus on the person being ridiculed, but ridicule is actually a hurtful behavior. If the person is targeted, then it's meant personally, so of course people will take personally, and they do. The people who do the targeting are seeking a reaction, which is why they prod at personal issues that are likely to be sensitive. When the targeted person reacts, mission accomplished... then we can blame the person who reacted and put forth our own very helpful intentions... then ok. After a while people don't speak as freely or express adverse emotion or expose vulnerability. It's like this... no one wants to be slapped on the back when they have a bad sunburn, but a slap on the back can be a kind gesture, but if the slapping continues after pain has been expressed, that's malice. who is this "they", kemosabe? .. What you've written makes it seem as though any piece of personal information can and will be used against anyone who shares it here, which is obviously a distortion, and the idea of "blaming the victim" is a complete canard in the case of someone who has chosen to be obviously and deliberately offensive.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 6, 2013 11:44:54 GMT -5
Why do you beat your wife whereas most husbands don't? This is the kind of trick language can play. If you label it ridicule, there can be no answer to your question. Ridicule is already a judgment of the behavior and not a description of the behavior itself. I often talk about the insanity here, and some see that as ridicule also, but this insanity is much like the absurdity that L talks about, and there is humor in this absurdity. Sometimes we can laugh at ourselves when we see ourselves clearly. It would be good if the discussions here came from a more impersonal perspective. Maybe one question would be, is the ego in the humor, or is it in the insanity and in the reaction to the humor that results in labeling it mocking and ridicule? If we're interested in the truth, even the insanity should be brought to the fore, though the insane will object. It's a rather unique interest not common in 'reasonable community life'. Beating the wife isn't kind. Ridicule is the term used for the behavior. Mockery, bickering and so on. I'm sure everyone here recocognises the occurrence of these. That sentence (re-iterated later in the post) is an argument over the meaning of the word "ridicule", which is now equated with the word "bickering", which is, of course, rather ironic. It's one thing to state one's understanding of a word as different from another's, it's another thing to either take up their use to meet them where they are or to simply disregard that and continue to use the word on sees it. It's yet another thing to keep trying to wrest the word out of the other's grip. I'm sure there are things that can be very beneficial to people in a properly protected confidential setting that are quite harmful to them in an unprotected public open environment. There's no way to child-proof the entire internet, but this point is admittedly applicable to the admonition to be kind. What I'd like to see, is people speaking from where they are at, and not saying 'you this and you that' styled projections. If someone picks up a pronoun, they've picked up a pronoun. Sometimes whispering gets folks attention, other times not.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Dec 6, 2013 12:49:54 GMT -5
I often talk about the insanity here, and some see that as ridicule also, but this insanity is much like the absurdity that L talks about, and there is humor in this absurdity. Insanity, or unconsciousness, is the root of absurdity. We tend to marvel at how someone can be so blind as to not see the obvious. One does not have to be enlightened to see folly at work in another. It is quite easy to see the faults of others, even as one remains blind to his own. And it is precisely here that the temptation to puff up and judge the other becomes irresistible to the proud. If we're interested in the truth, even the insanity should be brought to the fore, though the insane will object. It's a rather unique interest not common in 'reasonable community life'. Not everyone is interested in the truth, even on a forum such as this, this is true. So what to do about those that throw your truthful words back at you? The answer to that is contained in ZD's cigarette man koan. And knowing that answer is what separates the Sage from the rest.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 6, 2013 17:30:14 GMT -5
I often talk about the insanity here, and some see that as ridicule also, but this insanity is much like the absurdity that L talks about, and there is humor in this absurdity. Insanity, or unconsciousness, is the root of absurdity. We tend to marvel at how someone can be so blind as to not see the obvious. One does not have to be enlightened to see folly at work in another. It is quite easy to see the faults of others, even as one remains blind to his own. And it is precisely here that the temptation to puff up and judge the other becomes irresistible to the proud. If we're interested in the truth, even the insanity should be brought to the fore, though the insane will object. It's a rather unique interest not common in 'reasonable community life'. Not everyone is interested in the truth, even on a forum such as this, this is true. So what to do about those that throw your truthful words back at you? The answer to that is contained in ZD's cigarette man koan. And knowing that answer is what separates the Sage from the rest. Is having solved the cigarette man koan something to be proud of? Is the Sage above the rest, or just separate, and separate in what sense?
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Dec 6, 2013 17:57:16 GMT -5
Insanity, or unconsciousness, is the root of absurdity. We tend to marvel at how someone can be so blind as to not see the obvious. One does not have to be enlightened to see folly at work in another. It is quite easy to see the faults of others, even as one remains blind to his own. And it is precisely here that the temptation to puff up and judge the other becomes irresistible to the proud. Not everyone is interested in the truth, even on a forum such as this, this is true. So what to do about those that throw your truthful words back at you? The answer to that is contained in ZD's cigarette man koan. And knowing that answer is what separates the Sage from the rest. Is having solved the cigarette man koan something to be proud of? Is the Sage above the rest, or just separate, and separate in what sense? No. In fact it is an opposite quality that makes the solution obvious. The only difference between a Sage and anyone else is the fact that the Sage made it through the mental barrier while the others remain there yet.
|
|