|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 22, 2014 23:15:55 GMT -5
I've noticed that most of the food fights that are going on here refer in one way or another to a rather strict moral code which most are obviously not aware of or else they wouldn't be so surprised when they are called moralists.
To all who are interested in WIBIGO in that regard I suggest to take a look into one of Nietzsche's books, "On the Genealogy of Morality". In that book he describes how morality has become a weapon over time, a weapon of control for those who perceive themselves as less fortunate against those who they perceive as more fortunate. And I've noticed that this scenario also applies to this forum. It's a common phenomenon here on the forum to resort to moralism in a debate when one has run out of valid arguments. Some debates are even started without any valid argument to begin with and are based on pure moralism alone.
So, in order to translate that model into this forum environment, the less fortunate in this case would be those who don't understand what's been talked about (or don't care to understand for whatever reason) and who orchestrate and perpetuate the style discussions based on moralism; the more fortunate would be those who know what's been talked about and who orchestrate and perpetuate the content discussions. Those who understand what's been talked about don't have any need for moralism. But some of those who don't understand (or don't care to understand) what's been talked about do have that need for moralism. Probably because they don't have any valid arguments, so they won't be taken as seriously as they intended. And if they want to be taken seriously they either have to come up with a valid argument or they have to find other means to that end. And moralism seems to be the preferred one, it's easy to use and easily understood. So, content discussions about valid or invalid arguments easily turn into discussions about good or bad arguments and from there it escalates into good peep vs. bad peep dramas.
If it could be pointed out as early as possible that someone starts a discussion that is solely based on moralism, I think there's a chance to prevent a full blown drama from happening. The question, however, is: Is drama maybe wanted? And I think there's a handful of members here who really want drama to happen. Some of them just seem to come here for exactly that, they want to express their frustrations and vent. And usually this is happening on the expense of the entire forum. How often has it turned out at the end of a drama that what triggered the drama had nothing to do with what actually happened on the forum but only with what happened in the mind of the dramatist?
So, I think by shining a spotlight on the role of moralism as the source of drama creation, it could be possible to reduce the number of dramas or at least the size of dramas by pointing that out right from the start and so prevent unnecessary collateral damage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2014 23:37:48 GMT -5
Whats WIBIGO?
|
|
|
|
Post by silver on Apr 22, 2014 23:42:57 GMT -5
W = What I = In B = Blazes I = Is G = Going O = On What in blazes is going on.  |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Apr 22, 2014 23:48:54 GMT -5
Maybe this 'thing' you call moralism / morality is something a little different than what you're portraying it. You're fighting something that defies a real lexical definition because it involves humans in the flesh, in their 'real worlds' just as yours is. I don't think it's any different, really.
I wonder how different people would act / would be, if they didn't have a dictionary, language may be 'different' somehow, but nothing was 'written in stone' as it were...I'm trying to get at something here, and I know I'm running the risk of not being understood or being off mentally perhaps. Our only tools in this medium are the words we type, but don't you think that there are some real connections being made between some people here on the internet? Connections that go...reach beyond the printed words? Understandings that go beyond any conceivable moral code or anything like that?
It's all I can say right now, but it is an important issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 23, 2014 0:01:48 GMT -5
Maybe this 'thing' you call moralism / morality is something a little different than what you're portraying it. You're fighting something that defies a real lexical definition because it involves humans in the flesh, in their 'real worlds' just as yours is. I don't think it's any different, really. I wonder how different people would act / would be, if they didn't have a dictionary, language may be 'different' somehow, but nothing was 'written in stone' as it were...I'm trying to get at something here, and I know I'm running the risk of not being understood or being off mentally perhaps. Our only tools in this medium are the words we type, but don't you think that there are some real connections being made between some people here on the internet? Connections that go...reach beyond the printed words? Understandings that go beyond any conceivable moral code or anything like that? It's all I can say right now, but it is an important issue. What does that have to do with the OP? The OP is about 1) how thoroughly moralism has been assimilated to the degree that most don't even notice when it shows up and 2) moralism as a tool to club others over the head and how it applies to WIBIGO on the forum. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2014 0:03:27 GMT -5
I've ways assumed that most of the drama that happens here, is because one or more parties REALLY want to be heard, and then, not disagreed with, though that last bit is secondary to just 'being heard'.
People then 'fight' for attention when they do not feel adequately acknowledged or listened to.
Seems like most arguments and dramas could probably be avoided if the devil's advocate simply acknowledged the speakers desire to be heard by saying something like, "I hear you and respect what you are saying, but here is my take on it"....instead, fuel gets added to the 'I need to be heard and acknowledged' fire, when someone just says 'you are wrong and here is why'.
In those instances, the one wanting to be heard and acknowledged seems to usually just assume that the only reason you disagree with them, is because you have not 'really' listened to them. Maybe that one could be bit more open minded too.
They then try harder to be heard, and drama ensues.
Just my 2 cents.
People pop in here all the time just wanting their big new thing to be heard, folks like that one who wrote the text wall about infinity, most leave when they are disagreed with, or not feeling like their big thing is not getting the attention they want it to, and very occasionally, one sticks around and fights to be heard, like Tzu.
I sometimes shake my head at the close mindedness and outlandish things that people will sometimes do to 'be heard' here, but I don't have an issue with someone wanting to be heard per se....is a bit of a natural human instinct in a way....some people are just ran by that need more than others.
As an aside, I'm not a big fan of Nietzsche by the way...raging narcissist with just enough clarity mixed with that narcissism to be attractive to the idealistic teenage boy in all of us, the one that wants to be both a philosopher and a rockstar lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 23, 2014 0:12:13 GMT -5
I've ways assumed that most of the drama that happens here, is because one or more parties REALLY want to be heard, and then, not disagreed with, though that last bit is secondary to just 'being heard'. People then 'fight' for attention when they do not feel adequately acknowledged or listened to. Seems like most arguments and dramas could probably be avoided if the devil's advocate simply acknowledged the speakers desire to be heard by saying something like, "I hear you and respect what you are saying, but here is my take on it"....instead, fuel gets added to the 'I need to be heard and acknowledged' fire, when someone just says 'you are wrong and here is why'. In those instances, the one wanting to be heard and acknowledged seems to usually just assume that the only reason you disagree with them, is because you have not 'really' listened to them.They then try harder to be heard, and drama ensues. Just my 2 cents. Well, everything that has been said is still there. So it can actually be shown if the other one was actually listening or not. Is your opinion based on first hand knowledge, i.e. have you read any of Nietzsche's works? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2014 0:14:59 GMT -5
I've ways assumed that most of the drama that happens here, is because one or more parties REALLY want to be heard, and then, not disagreed with, though that last bit is secondary to just 'being heard'. People then 'fight' for attention when they do not feel adequately acknowledged or listened to. Seems like most arguments and dramas could probably be avoided if the devil's advocate simply acknowledged the speakers desire to be heard by saying something like, "I hear you and respect what you are saying, but here is my take on it"....instead, fuel gets added to the 'I need to be heard and acknowledged' fire, when someone just says 'you are wrong and here is why'. In those instances, the one wanting to be heard and acknowledged seems to usually just assume that the only reason you disagree with them, is because you have not 'really' listened to them.They then try harder to be heard, and drama ensues. Just my 2 cents. Well, everything that has been said is still there. So it can actually be shown if the other one was actually listening or not. Is your opinion based on first hand knowledge, i.e. have you read any of Nietzsche's works? I feasted on him in my late teens and a bit in my early 20's, loved it all, ate it up, but when I revisited him a few years ago, what seemed so deep when I was younger, seemed sorta pedestrian later in life. I think he appeals to folks with one foot on the philosophers stone, and the other on the winners podium, i.e. those who relish competition to some extent, but who are also interested in what lays deeper....again, just my 2 cents. To the former bit, proving documentation cannot replace a feeling of being heard and acknowledged for most folks, that feeling is a basic need of most humans, if you deny it, drama will ensue almost as surely as dram will ensue if you deny someone food or sex for too long, unless the one transcends these basic mind/body drives in some way. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Apr 23, 2014 0:19:13 GMT -5
Maybe this 'thing' you call moralism / morality is something a little different than what you're portraying it. You're fighting something that defies a real lexical definition because it involves humans in the flesh, in their 'real worlds' just as yours is. I don't think it's any different, really. I wonder how different people would act / would be, if they didn't have a dictionary, language may be 'different' somehow, but nothing was 'written in stone' as it were...I'm trying to get at something here, and I know I'm running the risk of not being understood or being off mentally perhaps. Our only tools in this medium are the words we type, but don't you think that there are some real connections being made between some people here on the internet? Connections that go...reach beyond the printed words? Understandings that go beyond any conceivable moral code or anything like that? It's all I can say right now, but it is an important issue. What does that have to do with the OP? The OP is about 1) how thoroughly moralism has been assimilated to the degree that most don't even notice when it shows up and 2) moralism as a tool to club others over the head and how it applies to WIBIGO on the forum. I think the intent of some you see as your combatants aren't necessarily 'using moralism' as a weapon per se, to battle against you. It's something else -- maybe along the lines of what empty just said -- I'm having trouble finding the words. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 23, 2014 0:21:31 GMT -5
Well, everything that has been said is still there. So it can actually be shown if the other one was actually listening or not. Is your opinion based on first hand knowledge, i.e. have you read any of Nietzsche's works? I feasted on him in my late teens and a bit in my early 20's, loved it all, ate it up, but when I revisited him a few years, what seemed so deep when I was younger, seemed sorta pedestrian later in life. Cool. I've read his major books and I have to say I'm not a fan either because mostly it's just about belittling others in a rather polemic way. But I think he has some good points about morality and how it developed into what we have today and what we use as some kind of compass to guide our interactions with others. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 23, 2014 0:24:14 GMT -5
What does that have to do with the OP? The OP is about 1) how thoroughly moralism has been assimilated to the degree that most don't even notice when it shows up and 2) moralism as a tool to club others over the head and how it applies to WIBIGO on the forum. It's something else -- maybe along the lines of what empty just said -- I'm having trouble finding the words. What are you reading into my OP?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2014 0:41:49 GMT -5
I feasted on him in my late teens and a bit in my early 20's, loved it all, ate it up, but when I revisited him a few years, what seemed so deep when I was younger, seemed sorta pedestrian later in life. Cool. I've read his major books and I have to say I'm not a fan either because mostly it's just about belittling others in a rather polemic way. But I think he has some good points about morality and how it developed into what we have today and what we use as some kind of compass to guide our interactions with others. I get what you're saying, and surely moralism is used round these parts, but it also seems that underneath that is this basic need to be heard and acknowledged that some are driven by more than others. A smart guy once said that above all else, women crave security, and men crave validation. I've found that if you deny a woman a sense of security, drama will invariably ensue until that need is met, and if you deny a man validation and respect, drama will ensue until his needs are met. Many marriages, indeed most relationships would be greatly improved if both parties gave the other what they needed, egolessly, and without reservation in this regard. Try going around for a week making every woman you encounter feel more security, and every man you interact with more respected and validated, and see how drama free your week goes in comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 23, 2014 2:16:15 GMT -5
I've ways assumed that most of the drama that happens here, is because one or more parties REALLY want to be heard, and then, not disagreed with, though that last bit is secondary to just 'being heard'. People then 'fight' for attention when they do not feel adequately acknowledged or listened to. Seems like most arguments and dramas could probably be avoided if the devil's advocate simply acknowledged the speakers desire to be heard by saying something like, "I hear you and respect what you are saying, but here is my take on it"....instead, fuel gets added to the 'I need to be heard and acknowledged' fire, when someone just says 'you are wrong and here is why'. In those instances, the one wanting to be heard and acknowledged seems to usually just assume that the only reason you disagree with them, is because you have not 'really' listened to them. Maybe that one could be bit more open minded too. They then try harder to be heard, and drama ensues. Just my 2 cents. People pop in here all the time just wanting their big new thing to be heard, folks like that one who wrote the text wall about infinity, most leave when they are disagreed with, or not feeling like their big thing is not getting the attention they want it to, and very occasionally, one sticks around and fights to be heard, like Tzu. I sometimes shake my head at the close mindedness and outlandish things that people will sometimes do to 'be heard' here, but I don't have an issue with someone wanting to be heard per se....is a bit of a natural human instinct in a way....some people are just ran by that need more than others. Yes, the need to be heard is very strong, though often that takes the form of being agreed with rather than simply understood. Folks believe in the validity of what they are saying, which is what they really want to convey, and it's usually not enough to feed back a clear understanding of the ideas, while still contradicting another's viewpoint. I'd say the biggest factor in the emotional reactions we're calling drama is that what's being said results in a negative feeling in the listener, and then the response is designed solely to eliminate that feeling. Suddenly the interest is no longer in whether or not the idea is valid, but rather how to counter it so that the feeling goes away. Mind may actively seek to negate the message and/or the messenger and disregard the truth/falsity of it completely. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 23, 2014 2:27:55 GMT -5
Cool. I've read his major books and I have to say I'm not a fan either because mostly it's just about belittling others in a rather polemic way. But I think he has some good points about morality and how it developed into what we have today and what we use as some kind of compass to guide our interactions with others. I get what you're saying, and surely moralism is used round these parts, but it also seems that underneath that is this basic need to be heard and acknowledged that some are driven by more than others. A smart guy once said that above all else, women crave security, and men crave validation. I've found that if you deny a woman a sense of security, drama will invariably ensue until that need is met, and if you deny a man validation and respect, drama will ensue until his needs are met. Many marriages, indeed most relationships would be greatly improved if both parties gave the other what they needed, egolessly, and without reservation in this regard. Try going around for a week making every woman you encounter feel more security, and every man you interact with more respected and validated, and see how drama free your week goes in comparison. I'd say women seek validation at least as much as they seek security. If there's a gender difference in terms of the need for validation it may be that women seek to have their feelings validated while men seek to have their thoughts and actions validated. As for going around trying to fulfill expectations, it's a game destined to fail. Partly because it's disingenuous and subtly deceptive, partly because there's no end to the expectations because getting them fulfilled is not ultimately satisfying, and partly because there's likely to be resentment following on the heels of fulfilling the expectations of others while rarely getting your own fulfilled. Don't try that at home, folks. A genuine relationship is accepting and appreciative of differences and devoid of expectations. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Apr 23, 2014 2:42:00 GMT -5
I get what you're saying, and surely moralism is used round these parts, but it also seems that underneath that is this basic need to be heard and acknowledged that some are driven by more than others. A smart guy once said that above all else, women crave security, and men crave validation. I've found that if you deny a woman a sense of security, drama will invariably ensue until that need is met, and if you deny a man validation and respect, drama will ensue until his needs are met. Many marriages, indeed most relationships would be greatly improved if both parties gave the other what they needed, egolessly, and without reservation in this regard. Try going around for a week making every woman you encounter feel more security, and every man you interact with more respected and validated, and see how drama free your week goes in comparison. I'd say women seek validation at least as much as they seek security. If there's a gender difference in terms of the need for validation it may be that women seek to have their feelings validated while men seek to have their thoughts and actions validated. As for going around trying to fulfill expectations, it's a game destined to fail. Partly because it's disingenuous and subtly deceptive, partly because there's no end to the expectations because getting them fulfilled is not ultimately satisfying, and partly because there's likely to be resentment following on the heels of fulfilling the expectations of others while rarely getting your own fulfilled.Don't try that at home, folks. A genuine relationship is accepting and appreciative of differences and devoid of expectations.This rings true, yeah. |
|
