|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 20, 2013 14:39:50 GMT -5
Andrew #1 hides in the corner with a blindfold while Andrew #2 sets a booby trap. But then we need an Andrew #3 to set a trap for Andrew #2. I don't think that will be a problem. There seem to be infinite Andrews available to carry out whatever doing plan of non-doing is required in order for the imaginary self to bring about his own actual absence.  Is this love in action? Again, I would say the choices you make or not congruent with the claims you make. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 20, 2013 14:43:40 GMT -5
You didn't know if it was a tar baby recipe. Even if you had said that all recipes are tar baby recipes by definition (which you didn't), it would have been assuming that I didn't incorporate that understanding into the recipe. The comment was a wee bit condescending. Not your responsibility though obviously. It's not rude or condescending to say that any and all recipes designed to bring about self absence are tar babies. C'mon, Andrew. It's not like you to go unconscious without being provoked. What happened to you today? You can talk to Dr Phil.  You didn't say, ''any and all recipes designed to bring about self-absence are tar babies''. If you had, I would possibly have argued it, but it is unlikely that I would have said you were a wee bit condescending/rude. |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Mar 20, 2013 14:49:14 GMT -5
Andrew #1 hides in the corner with a blindfold while Andrew #2 sets a booby trap. But then we need an Andrew #3 to set a trap for Andrew #2. I don't think that will be a problem. There seem to be infinite Andrews available to carry out whatever doing plan of non-doing is required in order for the imaginary self to bring about his own actual absence.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 20, 2013 15:07:30 GMT -5
There are a few different stories we can project back onto the post and any of them work. To the best of my recollection I could contrive an internal dialog that would have gone something like: "hmmm... the image is harsh, but was E being rude? ... hmmm ... it does refer to a very specific idea ... I know Andy's pretty knowledgeable, but is there a chance he didn't make the connection?" Also to the best of my recollection this is a major exaggeration of the thought process that went on ... I didn't consider your post but for perhaps a split second before replying as I did. In watching this play out, I've got to say, that making up these stories about motivation after the fact is major BS ... for one thing, there is a clock-time multiplier effect that occurs ... here, let's have some fun with it and take it all the way! Now the worst case scenario, the story that would place Laughter in the worst possible light and heap the maximum guilt and shame on this character would be to say that the reply was politically motivated and an obvious attempt to align with Enigma at Andrews expense, while the best case scenario is that it was an attempt to facilitate communication between Andrew and Enigma by offering Andrew an alternative perspective on what Laughter agreed was a "harsh image", an image that's got several alternative negative connotations, one of them being racial in nature. I'd have to say that given this Laughter fellow's propensity to give folks the benefit of the doubt that judgment should be rendered in his favor! (** takes a breath **) *** phew! *** whataloadof ... overhead .... Anywhere's Andy, the only answer to your question that makes any real sense is: (** skijump! **) I wasn't aware there was any racial connotation to the Br'er wabbit story, but given peeps propensity to use virtually anything as a weapon, I'm not shocked. not the story no, just the term ... really ugly semantic 'nuff said the story elaborates on the idea in a tragicomic way that both transcends the gruesome fate of the poor unfortunate bunny and is quite applicable to the dynamic I've seen on these forums |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 20, 2013 15:21:40 GMT -5
I take full responsibility for my actions. There's another question nobody ever asked me. However, if I were to take responsibility for your experience of rudeness, I would be judging myself unfairly, though I'm confident Figs would help me get to the root of that self judgment issue.  I would say that taking full responsibility for your actions includes taking responsibility for the responses you get to your actions. Turn the tables around. Enigma and Silence started talking about you instead of to you or with you, verging on what would be call Mocking. This was in response to your action of stating what you stated the way you stated it. Are you responsible for their mocking? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 20, 2013 15:25:17 GMT -5
I take full responsibility for my actions. There's another question nobody ever asked me. However, if I were to take responsibility for your experience of rudeness, I would be judging myself unfairly, though I'm confident Figs would help me get to the root of that self judgment issue. I would say that taking full responsibility for your actions includes taking responsibility for the responses you get to your actions. To some extent, yes. I do know I'm poking around in some sore spots and peeps are going to go unconscious and retaliate. It's okay, but you think that makes me a bad person, and that's your baggage, not mine. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 20, 2013 15:30:55 GMT -5
I would say that taking full responsibility for your actions includes taking responsibility for the responses you get to your actions. Turn the tables around. Enigma and Silence started talking about you instead of to you or with you, verging on what would be call Mocking. This was in response to your action of stating what you stated the way you stated it. Are you responsible for their mocking? Yes, I tend to be assuming at least some responsibility for the response I get, and I think that is reflected in the fact that I don't often just lash out in anger, and neither do I often engage in mockery/condescension. I see the idea of ''be the change'' as a good one. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 20, 2013 15:32:09 GMT -5
I would say that taking full responsibility for your actions includes taking responsibility for the responses you get to your actions. To some extent, yes. I do know I'm poking around in some sore spots and peeps are going to go unconscious and retaliate. It's okay, but you think that makes me a bad person, and that's your baggage, not mine. I don't think you are a bad person at all, I just don't think your behaviour is congruent with your claims, however I do think it is congruent with the pattern of stuckness that I see in you. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 20, 2013 15:37:06 GMT -5
It's not rude or condescending to say that any and all recipes designed to bring about self absence are tar babies. C'mon, Andrew. It's not like you to go unconscious without being provoked. What happened to you today? You can talk to Dr Phil. You didn't say, ''any and all recipes designed to bring about self-absence are tar babies''. If you had, I would possibly have argued it, but it is unlikely that I would have said you were a wee bit condescending/rude. Pulling out the linguistics pedantry.  The instance of a class when encountering class based consequences invokes the instance of the consequence. Person A says: "I have a recipe" -- instance of the class recipe Person B thinks: "All recipes result in punching a tar baby" -- class based logic Person B says: "The recipe person A has results in punching a tar baby" This is no different than this: Person A says: "I'm going to punch that tree over there" Person B thinks: "Punching any tree is going to hurt the hand" Person B says: "Punching that tree is going to hurt your hand" Your complaint as you state it was that E should have said what his reasoning was instead of his conclusion. In the second situation there doesn't seem to be a reason to need to state what person B thinks, likely because it is what person A thinks as well, meaning its "common knowledge". In the former situation, there could be an argument made that the class based logic is not "common" enough knowledge to warrant stating the reasoning over the conclusion, but that's no reason to call it rudeness. Rudeness implies being offended. There are two possible offenses that I see. (1) the term "tar baby" sounds racists if one doesn't have the context of the origin of the term. (2) There is a bit of Cain syndrome, Cain has brought forward the fruits of his labor, but it is rejected (for whatever reason), so Cain becomes resentful and offended at the rejection. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 20, 2013 15:42:09 GMT -5
Turn the tables around. Enigma and Silence started talking about you instead of to you or with you, verging on what would be call Mocking. This was in response to your action of stating what you stated the way you stated it. Are you responsible for their mocking? Yes, I tend to be assuming at least some responsibility for the response I get, and I think that is reflected in the fact that I don't often just lash out in anger, and neither do I often engage in mockery/condescension. I see the idea of ''be the change'' as a good one. I don't see "turning the other cheek" as accepting _responsibility_ for being slapped across the face. Turning the other cheek is a way of not propagating the drama. It's accepting responsibility for the present/future, not the past. Another's actions are the past. If you were to accept responsibility for their actions, you would be saying that their actions were a justified response to your own prior actions... I don't think that's what you're intending to say. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 20, 2013 15:45:15 GMT -5
You didn't say, ''any and all recipes designed to bring about self-absence are tar babies''. If you had, I would possibly have argued it, but it is unlikely that I would have said you were a wee bit condescending/rude. Pulling out the linguistics pedantry. The instance of a class when encountering class based consequences invokes the instance of the consequence. Person A says: "I have a recipe" -- instance of the class recipe Person B thinks: "All recipes result in punching a tar baby" -- class based logic Person B says: "The recipe person A has results in punching a tar baby" This is no different than this: Person A says: "I'm going to punch that tree over there" Person B thinks: "Punching any tree is going to hurt the hand" Person B says: "Punching that tree is going to hurt your hand" Your complaint as you state it was that E should have said what his reasoning was instead of his conclusion. In the second situation there doesn't seem to be a reason to need to state what person B thinks, likely because it is what person A thinks as well, meaning its "common knowledge". In the former situation, there could be an argument made that the class based logic is not "common" enough knowledge to warrant stating the reasoning over the conclusion, but that's no reason to call it rudeness. Rudeness implies being offended. There are two possible offenses that I see. (1) the term "tar baby" sounds racists if one doesn't have the context of the origin of the term. (2) There is a bit of Cain syndrome, Cain has brought forward the fruits of his labor, but it is rejected (for whatever reason), so Cain becomes resentful and offended at the rejection. I thought it was a wee bit 'offensive' though I wasn't a whole lot offended. I wouldn't have minded at all if Enigma had ignored the message (which could be seen as a rejection). If he had said ''all recipes are tar baby recipes'', I may have argued it and thought he was a little presumptuous/arrogant but really just typical Enigma. However, what he did was something a little different and I would say the intent involved a level of condescension/belittling. So, if anything, its not the rejection, its the subtle intent that I pick up on that I find a wee bit rude. The racist thing didn't cross my mind. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 20, 2013 15:48:15 GMT -5
Yes, I tend to be assuming at least some responsibility for the response I get, and I think that is reflected in the fact that I don't often just lash out in anger, and neither do I often engage in mockery/condescension. I see the idea of ''be the change'' as a good one. I don't see "turning the other cheek" as accepting _responsibility_ for being slapped across the face. Turning the other cheek is a way of not propagating the drama. It's accepting responsibility for the present/future, not the past. Another's actions are the past. If you were to accept responsibility for their actions, you would be saying that their actions were a justified response to your own prior actions... I don't think that's what you're intending to say. No, I am saying that their actions are justified to at least some extent, and the fact that I don't lash out in anger and respond with my own mockery and condescension is reflective of that recognition. However, I would say that turning the cheek does often come with the recognition that I am talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 20, 2013 15:50:30 GMT -5
Out of all the opinions expressed here, what's your motivation for wanting to know the motivation of that particular opinion? Primarily so I can understand Laugher's frame of reference. Secondly, so I can see more clearly (or discern) how to relate to him given his frame of reference. I can go deeper if you want me to.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 20, 2013 15:52:37 GMT -5
I don't think that will be a problem. There seem to be infinite Andrews available to carry out whatever doing plan of non-doing is required in order for the imaginary self to bring about his own actual absence. Is this love in action? Again, I would say the choices you make or not congruent with the claims you make. Mostly, it's me being silly while also trying to make a point, but if you wanna see it as loooooove in action, it's fine by me.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 20, 2013 15:57:14 GMT -5
It's not rude or condescending to say that any and all recipes designed to bring about self absence are tar babies. C'mon, Andrew. It's not like you to go unconscious without being provoked. What happened to you today? You can talk to Dr Phil. You didn't say, ''any and all recipes designed to bring about self-absence are tar babies''. If you had, I would possibly have argued it, but it is unlikely that I would have said you were a wee bit condescending/rude. How you interpret and how you react to how you interpret is your responsibility. You want me to ask you questions that you want to answer and phrase my responses your way so's you don't get upset. Take a little responsibility for yourself. |
|
The instance of a class when encountering class based consequences invokes the instance of the consequence. 
