The interesting question T-Clark raised was whether the violence we associate with men (I suppose from violent outbursts to wars) is reason to ridicule men in general. I believe his angle was that ridiculing a whole group of people is unacceptable if the group in question is women, but if it's men, it's ok? — frank
The deeper question I'm seeing is about the naturalness of competitive behavior that sometimes spills over into violence. Is it natural and so to love men is to accept that aggression? Or should we see violent behavior as always pathological and so prime stuff of ridicule (when despair is maybe bottomless?) — frank
Are we talking about "play" with two different meanings? Three if we include Frost:
[1} Playing games - bad
[2] Playing - good
[3] Play for mortal stakes - all there is. Authenticity, integrity, humanity.
As for #2, yes, it is play all the way down. Or turtles. Or playing turtles. "Final vocabularies," if I understand what you're saying, are play. The Tao is play. We, in our nobodiness, are playing. Good playing. I guess playing for mortal stakes, so 2 and 3 are the same. — T Clark
I really like what you've written. Flexible, searching, playful, serious, dedicated, honorable. Hey, wait. This is one of them metanarratives, isn't it!!!? In some ways really different from my experience of myself. You'll be someone fun to talk to. — T Clark
I find it very exciting - I could even call it pleasurable - when someone destroys my argument and I realise that I was thinking the wrong thing. — TimeLine
Similar to the time I thought I first fell in love, it was the first time I became conscious of myself, my body and my place in the world and that overwhelmed me because at the same time I realised just how oblivious I was to a number of intellectual and sexual feelings that I never actually knew was possible. :fire: — TimeLine
What I fear is not intellectual, on the contrary I try my best to make it intellectual — TimeLine
I strongly believe in my values because it is important to me; sometimes my values are not aligned to others and they see that as a threat to their beliefs whereas I am just simply articulating what I believe without judgement or hostility. My fear is the "mind games" that people play with me and it hurts - both in a sad way but also in an angry way - when people use stereotypes and categories as a way to shut me down and silence me, to say that I am a woman immediately makes me incapable and the worst part about it is that it is believable, — TimeLine
Intellectual development is linear as it is intimately connected to the arrow of time and as such evolutionary where we are constantly developing and improving; even memories are consistently changing since our interpretations are, but those that remain 'fixed' or stuck are really those that are delusional where their belief-system is ideological. Neo-nazis represent this madness clearly with holocaust denial. You cannot ever have an argument with such a person, it is impossible, so immovable in their position that they resort to delusional answers to resolve any inconsistencies in their beliefs. — TimeLine
Some women are very bad, indeed they can be very manipulative to a point of turning good men into very bad men and still come off appearing to be a caring and innocent woman. They have mastered appearances but underlying that is nothing but a vicious creature tricking people to think otherwise. Sorry, both men and women are scary and violence need not only be physical. It can be psychological too. The scales are tipped when we look at the outcomes of the aggression, however, and that is largely a result of our cultural and sociological attitudes to masculinity and the fact that men are physically the stronger sex making them more capable to act out aggressively. — TimeLine
Totally agree. Modes. I think in sexual relationships this fluidity is especially evident.
The laughter evoked by non-humorous jokes underlined by a passive-aggressive hostility or Othering can be amusing to bullies; when I think of this young girl who was taunted by several men, they found it funny and it evoked laughter, yet it is clearly not humour. Humour is ambiguous because it can reflect several different conditions and even then to categorise can be an oversimplification. So, I look at humour from a functional angle rather than attempting to ascertain why we find some things humorous and see that playfulness is an important part of human cognition and can bring us joy. — Timeline
I'm sorry to pick on you, it's only that you were conveniently at the end of the thread when I came to it -nothing personal. — unenlightened
Identity is division, as what I am and what I am not. And to reflect upon that is to externalise it again, creating the third as analyst/observer. — unenlightened
Hang on, I thought you were gentle inside? But no... — unenlightened
What you relate is the opposite of what you relate to; you relate being hard on the inside but perform it gently on the outside. — unenlightened
What I want to get to through this triple nature of psychology is something that has been both demonstrated and expressed in the thread, that a psychological theory is always itself analysable psychologically through a meta-theory, or through itself. The transactions of a a thread on transactional analysis are being analysed. Curiously, or not, this does not require a fourth element, but merely takes the superior position of adult/analyst/observer/ charioteer, to comment on the interactions of the participants, just as I am doing here. Personally, I don't much like Berne, his theory is just an emasculated version of Freud, with the gloss of capitalist universalism as rational, or perhaps irrational self-interest. — unenlightened
I'm not sure that having reflexively assumed roles is usually a good thing in relationships. If both people know what's going on and are OK with it, sure, but I don't think this happens as much as its converse. Games played are usually bad, or at least worse than an alternative. — fdrake
My beef was that, when the discussion veered into this area, it immediately started ragging on those wacky men. TimeLine brought out her experiences in the office, which she's discussed before. @csalisbury says "Oh, no, I'm just like that, I feel so guilty." :joke: @syntax chimes in with what his (I think you're a guy, right?) girlfriend says. :razz: . As I said, I like men. It appears to be easy to make them look ridiculous. — T Clark
I've been a bully before, one of the things I remember most acutely about it - or rather remember as conspicuous in its absence - is that cruel actions aren't seen as cruel to the target. Their humanity is suspended in the decision to belittle them. The target becomes part of the narrative of jokes surrounding them. Their needs were silenced and the dissatisfaction of those needs is their only voice, spoken in my terms; as hilarious weakness. Formally, they were not excluded by my (and friends') actions because they were already excluded from any empathy as a prerequisite to bully them without cognitive dissonance or bad faith. Truly authentic cruelty. If it wasn't so funny we wouldn't have all laughed. — fdrake
These were my thoughts. It's sort of male caricature talk, supported by personal anecdote, and sort of off-putting, as I'd imagine a woman might feel if men sat around the cooler talking about how women were this and that. Some insights might be true, but stereotyping doesn't help with individual situations. — Hanover
The kind of play that 'doesn't go all the way down' (what I had in mind) is 'ironism.' All I mean by that is that I think everyone in non-extreme states takes some things seriously. I mean that a person can have a metanarrative that emphasizes play and looseness of identity, but that they only really have this metanarrative to the degree that they take it seriously. Sometimes it hurts stay open, for example, a person who prides themselves on staying open (takes it seriously) endures that hurt. — syntax
It's funny, but I could see that being described as the food that makes men lose interest in sex. Or as a joke on the tendency for relationships to be become less thrilling (but hopefully also warmer. ) — syntax
the contempt I have sometimes felt for people, usually boys or men, acting, being weak, vulnerable, pitiful. — T Clark
I think you nailed it. I know this contempt. It's all their in the word 'pussy,' which in a crude vocabulary serves as both the primary kind of sinner and the officially sanctioned object of desire. A rough theory would be that men repress their vulnerability and find it again at a safe distance in a woman (in the heterosexual case.) He is the shell. She is the shameful but delicious goo inside. — syntax
The only times I can remember having a reaction similar to what you're describing is the contempt I have sometimes felt for people, usually boys or men, acting, being weak, vulnerable, pitiful. — T Clark
I think you and I have really different ways of looking at this. This discussion, and the metanarrative one, have been eye opening to me. — T Clark
I'm curious to see what fdrake has to say. I have a feeling there's more to it than that. From previous discussions, I think @TimeLine does too. I'm walking in unfamiliar territory. — T Clark
If social norms designate certain conduct for anything, whether it be boys not cry, that you applaud at a play, sit silently at a funeral, or whatever, your contempt or disapproval at the violation of the norm is a normed social response in order to reassert compliance. — Hanover
What's funny is that I read this as a non-assertive, non-masculine response, as in "stop telling me you're nervous and anxious about being in the deep end of the pool, fucking jump in and swim." True story. Ironic I spose — Hanover
For better of for worse, this is the most stressful thread I've ever participated in. A conversation about patterns of conversations. Every post is both part of the conversation and also an object to be talked about as example within the conversation....ahhhh — csalisbury
For better of for worse, this is the most stressful thread I've ever participated in. A conversation about patterns of conversations. Every post is both conversation and an object to be talked about as part of the conversation....ahhhh — csalisbury
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.