Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2014 2:45:45 GMT -5
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. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Apr 23, 2014 8:01:55 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. Yeah, I agree with you about both men and women seeking validation. The security thing seems more dependent on the culture and environment - in, say, a war-torn country or violence-ridden city you'd probably see women looking for security over validation. We're generally out-muscled. As far as fulfilling expectations, though, why would it be disingenuous and deceptive to say, "I heard you."? Assuming it's true, of course. I think Steve has a valid point that a lot of the drama gets triggered by the sense that the other is not hearing either what's said or the intent behind it. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 23, 2014 8:05:51 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. Perhaps a good example of that lack of understanding you refer to is how a moralist might mistake this critique as an advocacy of amorality or an amoral lifestyle. It's not, and it's just yet another example of an absence not being a presence ... but there's no way to sustain that conversation without first accepting the notion of a pointer, because in a literal sense, amorality is just that: the absence of morals. In recognizing that behaviorism itself is a behavior we see the relationship between recursion, the failure of language and conceptualization and the double bind. It's easy to deal with first-order moralism that characterizes a person or a group negatively based on a subjective description of the targets actions, but the situation is complicated by the fact that judgmentalism has been out of fashion, especially in "spiritual circles", for decades now. Complicated strategies get employed to fly the indictments of the modern day moralist under the radar. Ideas that seem to be at neutral ("when attachments fall away the distinction between impersonal and personal ceases to be of importance or interest") form the base of the re-purposing of loaded words like "fundie" and the whole shooting match of supposed facts is always eventually disclaimed as subjective opinion anyway.  Neo Moralism TM inevitably leads to a brave new spirituality where freedom means being trapped in mind and one has obviously deluded themselves with 2nd-hand news if they dare speculate that a good percentage of the population likely harbor a sense of identity based on history, narrative and physicality and aren't even conscious of the nature of that sense. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 23, 2014 8:14:42 GMT -5
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. Yeah, I agree with you about both men and women seeking validation. The security thing seems more dependent on the culture and environment - in, say, a war-torn country or violence-ridden city you'd probably see women looking for security over validation. We're generally out-muscled. As far as fulfilling expectations, though, why would it be disingenuous and deceptive to say, "I heard you."? Assuming it's true, of course. I think Steve has a valid point that a lot of the drama gets triggered by the sense that the other is not hearing either what's said or the intent behind it. The source of the drama is in translating "not listening" into an objectionable behavior. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Apr 23, 2014 8:16:51 GMT -5
Yeah, I agree with you about both men and women seeking validation. The security thing seems more dependent on the culture and environment - in, say, a war-torn country or violence-ridden city you'd probably see women looking for security over validation. We're generally out-muscled. As far as fulfilling expectations, though, why would it be disingenuous and deceptive to say, "I heard you."? Assuming it's true, of course. I think Steve has a valid point that a lot of the drama gets triggered by the sense that the other is not hearing either what's said or the intent behind it. The source of the drama is in translating "not listening" into an objectionable behavior. Well, yeah. But we're in a communication medium. Wouldn't it follow that posting and 'listening' are both necessary for communication? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 23, 2014 8:21:09 GMT -5
The source of the drama is in translating "not listening" into an objectionable behavior. Well, yeah. But we're in a communication medium. Wouldn't it follow that posting and 'listening' are both necessary for communication? Can't say no to your question, but what does it have to do with the inflection point of the drama? In terms of finding "not listening" objectionable, perhaps that inflection point is in the objector finding communication to be necessarily imperative. Plenty of people don't listen to me all the time -- sometimes they'll tell me that by saying that they don't understand what I'm writing. Ain't no thing. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Apr 23, 2014 8:29:16 GMT -5
Well, yeah. But we're in a communication medium. Wouldn't it follow that posting and 'listening' are both necessary for communication? Can't say no to your question, but what does it have to do with the inflection point of the drama? In terms of finding "not listening" objectionable, perhaps that inflection point is in the objector finding communication to be necessarily imperative. Plenty of people don't listen to me all the time -- sometimes they'll tell me that by saying that they don't understand what I'm writing. Ain't no thing. Oh, ok. I've got you now. Yes, you're right - if I don't care whether or not you hear me, no drama. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 23, 2014 8:34:48 GMT -5
Can't say no to your question, but what does it have to do with the inflection point of the drama? In terms of finding "not listening" objectionable, perhaps that inflection point is in the objector finding communication to be necessarily imperative. Plenty of people don't listen to me all the time -- sometimes they'll tell me that by saying that they don't understand what I'm writing. Ain't no thing. Oh, ok. I've got you now. Yes, you're right - if I don't care whether or not you hear me, no drama. No! No! Nooo!! It's not about right or wrong! You're just not listening to me!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Apr 23, 2014 8:41:14 GMT -5
Oh, ok. I've got you now. Yes, you're right - if I don't care whether or not you hear me, no drama. No! No! Nooo!! It's not about right or wrong! You're just not listening to me!!! You're going to get some nasty wrinkles if you keep making that face.  **stands up at the AA meeting** Hi, my name is Quinn and I like to be heard when talking. **all the non-dualists lower their eyes so the horror doesn't show** |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 23, 2014 9:16:11 GMT -5
Can't say no to your question, but what does it have to do with the inflection point of the drama? In terms of finding "not listening" objectionable, perhaps that inflection point is in the objector finding communication to be necessarily imperative. Plenty of people don't listen to me all the time -- sometimes they'll tell me that by saying that they don't understand what I'm writing. Ain't no thing. Oh, ok. I've got you now. Yes, you're right - if I don't care whether or not you hear me, no drama. Wise words.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2014 9:53:06 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. This reminds me of the style talks we've had. I don't have any doubt that moralism can be used as jewel encrusted bludgeon when the chips are down using just reason and rationality. Examples are everywhere. I think one of the reasons style and moralistic arguments come to the surface is because of what you say -- the moralist or style police is seeing the underpinnings of their other argument chipped away at to pile of nonsensical dust and so they pick up a new, even more subjective weapon. And that style/moral weapon will have more bludgeoning capacity the more it is based on perceived shared truth, or mutualconditioning, perhaps. Like manners, if the style and moral arguments are traced back, there may be a rational core. For example, the table manner of spooning the soup away from you is to save a bit of costly/time-consuming laundering and also to keep stains from distracting your compadres the rest of the evening. Similarly, some of the style/moral issues that come up are probably rooted in efficiency of communication. The reason insulting someone doesn't work is because it makes it really hard to communicate afterwards. Therefore insulting is 'bad.' So there is often a grain of truth in the moralist bludgeon, howeverso it be a desperate distraction from the original discussion. What makes matters even more murky is that the main topic of discussion here -- something about spirituality, I'm told -- has wrapped up with it the expectation of some sort of enlightened conduct by those tagged as spiritually advanced in some way. Yes, not everyone has this expectation, but I do think it is widespread. Methinks that the moral/style complaints come up because the opportunity of showing a hypocrisy with respect to enlightened conduct seems so ripe for the picking.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 23, 2014 10:52:51 GMT -5
We all have a certain viewpoint as to how life operates, it's truth for us, our truth. We're very protective of that truth, most of us have an "I", and we have put all our eggs in that basket of truth so-to-speak. So any objection to our truth is essentially an objection, our self. (This is probably where morality comes in, but it's subjective, it's our morality).
Whether we like it or not, or even know it, almost everybody that has an "I", leads with their emotions, or more to the point, their emotions trump the intellect, thought processes. I showed this recently on another thread by a quote from the neuroscientist Antonio Damasio, when sensations enter the body, they are routed first to the emotional centers of the brain. I was looking for a quote by Anthony DeMello, couldn't find my book (The Way To Love). He says that the heart (emotions) decide and then the mind makes up a reason to support the emotions.
So our emotions hijack the mind, even on forums, food fight ensues, defense of our truth happens, which means defense of self. The stronger the (ego) self the quicker and harder the "food" flies. All this is seen easier in (non-internet) ordinary life.
sdp
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 23, 2014 16:19:40 GMT -5
No! No! Nooo!! It's not about right or wrong! You're just not listening to me!!! You're going to get some nasty wrinkles if you keep making that face. **stands up at the AA meeting** Hi, my name is Quinn and I like to be heard when talking. **all the non-dualists lower their eyes so the horror doesn't show** |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2014 18:29:01 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. That doesn't seem very realistic, or pragmatic. Also There are a lot of strawmen there my friend....I don't believe I said anything about expectations or appreciation of differences, rather, i was saying that life is easier, and the people around you are happier, if you help the women feel more secure, and men feel more respected, and if you do the opposite, drama will likely ensue. Also, if a 'genuine' relationship is only one that is devoid of all expectations, have you ever been in or even witnessed such a relationship? I would go so far as to say that a relationship that is devoid of all expectations, is not actually a relationship....possibly a kind of existence in close proximity, but not a relationship... I dunno man, maybe I'm gettin old or something, but seems like these days pragmatism and reality factors larger than idealism lol Pragmatism vs idealism....might be an interesting thread. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2014 18:40:49 GMT -5
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. Yeah, I agree with you about both men and women seeking validation. The security thing seems more dependent on the culture and environment - in, say, a war-torn country or violence-ridden city you'd probably see women looking for security over validation. We're generally out-muscled. As far as fulfilling expectations, though, why would it be disingenuous and deceptive to say, "I heard you."? Assuming it's true, of course. I think Steve has a valid point that a lot of the drama gets triggered by the sense that the other is not hearing either what's said or the intent behind it. Hi Quinn, Yes, both men and women typically seek both security and validation, but in most case, if one is forced to choose to have one over the other, a woman will chose security over validation, while a man will put security at risk to get validation. Knowing what one's most basic needs are, and doing a little something to help them realize those needs, does not to me seem to be disingenuous. In any case E, I just offered it as a little bit of an experiment based in simple life pragmatism, versus a kind of idealism...go for a week doing some little thing to make the men you interact with feel more validated, and the women more secure and comfortable, and see how much smoother and easier life is...its not a disingenuous thing to do unless you are only concerned with yourself, on the other hand, if you care about people in general, then being kind, complimentary, optimistic, and comforting is just a compassionate giving thing to do, not a lie. |
|
