and I'll leave one of them — unenlightened
The suggestion is that one can be a good person (or a bad person) but that a good person does not worry about making sure everyone knows how good they are. But someone who thinks this knows for themselves that they are even better for the fact that they 'don’t waste time to prove it'.
They pride themselves on their humility. — unenlightened
We want people (I think) to value themselves as those who bring gifts to the tribe. — j0e
In this thread, as opposed to that thread, we don't want people to value themselves, because we have discovered that the valuation of people - others or self - is violent. — unenlightened
it's hard though to avoid the unequal valuation of people. — j0e
In this thread, as opposed to that thread — unenlightened
There's a violence and anger in any moral dialectic, no matter how far you zoom out. They're bad because they think they're good (and i'm good because I know I"m bad), fed through the dialectic machine, can spiral out into infinity (I'm a severely wounded veteran of that spiral.) — csalisbury
:up:accept original sin, hope for grace — csalisbury
why not get angry — csalisbury
I say it as someone with an abusive relationship with an internal moral-voice — csalisbury
I'm wondering if some insults anger you lead to you feeling angry more than others — TLCD1996
I'm wondering if some insults anger you lead to you feeling angry more than others
— TLCD1996
Being called brainless or someone saying I have a fucked up mentality. — The Opposite
Total paradigm shift for me. — TLCD1996
Feeding that through google giraffe translate, I get something like "I need you to respect my intellect". — unenlightened
I need this to be false because my anger is redemptive.
I need this to be a partial truth because sometimes I must force people to meet my needs.
I need this to be wrong because no one could meet those needs.
I need this to be wrong because my needs are wrong. — fdrake
But how can needs be wrong? — unenlightened
We are taught that retribution is redemptive? — unenlightened
How can they be unmeetable? — unenlightened
I'm sooo glad someone else 'gets it'. For me, it's like -of course, I already knew all this, but I couldn't quite bring it together so that it worked. — unenlightened
I can need you to be subservient to me. — fdrake
- I might need flexible working hours, but my contract might say otherwise. Needs become unmeetable given a context. — fdrake
Perhaps some will not have the scope, introspective ability, insight, emotional integration, integration of self concept with behaviour, to see the peace giraffe speak would conjure into being. In other words, one must be in a place where they can make the choice not to be another's jackal. — fdrake
Me? I'm sure I'm a jackal, — fdrake
Well the theory, if I understand aright, is that you might need someone to to be subservient,{I'm not sure about that} but you cannot be so specifically dependent on my subservience. Choosing me is a tactic to fulfil the more general need. — unenlightened
The example Marshall gives is Mcdonalds. One needs food; one does not need a Big Mac; that's a tactic, {though they want you to think it's a need}. And anger is a tactic I employ to keep me away from Big Macs. — unenlightened
Unmeetable needs never get met - by definition - and that I think indicates that they are not needs. — unenlightened
But give it a go, you might like it. — unenlightened
What would this taxonomy make of trauma? A frustrated, festering past need which no tactic could address in context, leading to a frustrated present need - a shadow of one. The past need is still implicated as an anchor in the psyche. "I need them to stop (tormenting me)". I imagine that some of this turns on the distinction between a need and a tactic? — fdrake
Underlines mine.That's personalised so as to become a tactic, not just a need. — unenlightened
We know of all these people that they were difficult in their own lives - their own relationships fell ever apart - but razor-sharp and charming while appraising the situations of others. Why is that? — 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.