Re: virus: Being uncomfortable isn't always bad

Zloduska (kjseelna@students.wisc.edu)
Sat, 06 Feb 1999 07:20:06 -0600

Reed,

As I said, I'm working on replying (a bit swamped here atm ;-/). And I'm going to reply "offlist" to you as well.

At 01:48 PM 2/4/99 -0500, you wrote:

>It also depends on what you mean by enlightened, right? The classical
>Chinese used to give out "Certificates of Enlightment" which were pretty
>much the same as "Doctorates of Philosophy". What if "enlightenment"
>meant something more mundane, like mastering a certian way of thinking
>...like multiplication. We're all enlightened mathematicians, in that
>sense.

But see, I think RB meant "enlightened" in a 'my mind is superior to yours' sort of way. I have nothing against "enlightenment", per se, but there are certain kinds that bother me. Like, I think enlightenment in an academic sense is a lie, and foolish, however it's often perceived. Know what I mean? I'm referring to thinking you're infinitely wiser and more 'enlightened' than someone because you have read more books than them, or have more college degrees.

>Not true, I bet the list is split. Wade put a foot in on your side, before
>Richard checked him with Oprah's book list. Richard and I don't agree
>on some details and I'm sure people on this list don't agree with you
>on every detail. But there are a number of people that don't like Oprah
>for one reason or the other. Certainly, "inferior, ignorant, nuisance"
>isn't what I was thinking (seriously!).

See, but once a list becomes polarized over a certain issue (like Oprah), communication breaks down to the level of children on a playground, fighting with each other. It doesn't matter whose "side" you're on. After all, you can't really tell what everyone on the list is thinking, and esp. not all the lurkers I'm sure have witnessed this little debate. What bothered me about Richard's post is that he assumed he knew that "most" people on the list agreed with him that I was on a lower 'plane' than you, whatever that means.

>Anger can be created and it can be destroyed. Why shift it onto
>yourself? I think most of the people on this list will agree that
>you are a good person, seriously trying to help yourself and other
>people have a better life. I suspect a lot of people who haven't
>posted are suspicious of me and probably question the "justness"
>of my starting this discussion with you. Right now we are puzzling
>them. They've been reading, and they don't know who they agree
>with, or how it ought to turn out.

Just curious, why do you think I have turned anger onto myself? Uh, *do* you think that in the first place, and when? They are not the only ones who are puzzled. ;-)

>But if YOU think THEY think you're an "X" sort of person then
>that makes you feel a certian way. Everyone is like that...we
>all care what people think.

Oh, I agree with this. When I said "I don't care what people think" I meant more along the lines of the general public. On the CoV list, I give input, so obviously I care about some kind of feedback, or I wouldn't be wasting my time.

>That is a memetic defense mechanism. You are experiencing cognitive
>dissonance. The force of your present way of thinking is resisting
>the reasonable part of you, which is confronted with inconsistency.
>It is a very unpleasant experience...a "dreaded chore"...I agree. I've
>been right where you are and I know exactly what you mean.

Here, I disagree. I think you're using "nice" words to relay a not-so-nice message. You should be straightforward. I think you're using all these terms to mask saying, "The truth hurts- don't it?" And I would disagree about what the truth is. Also, when I said "dreaded chore", I meant investing all this time sitting at the computer, having to attempt to defend myself against an onslaught of pro-Oprah posts. It was swallowing up my motivation to post and making CoV a very lackluster affair. I wasn't referring to being confronted with someone else's form of Truth.

>Two things can happen.
>
>1) Your present way of thinking overcomes reason and you
>become more resistant to change. For instance, you will begin
>to automatically discount anything Richard or I say...perhaps you
>will log off COV to avoid further input along these lines.
>
>2) Your present way of thinking will be overcome and your mind
>will assemble a new way of thinking accomodating your new
>experiences.

Again, I think you're trying to pick my mind apart a bit too much. You seem to think there is always something more complex and entirely different in my words, when in fact I meant simply one thing only, or else something completely different.

~kjs