virus: Re: virus: Being uncomfortable isn't always bad

Re: virus: Being uncomfortable isn't always bad

Zloduska (
Mon, 08 Feb 1999 05:18:44 -0600

Reed wrote:

>I agree on both accounts. But, look at it from RB's perspective: He
>_honestly_ thinks that his is the "higher mind"...and mine too, I suppose
>(though he might change his mind never know with
>RB ;-) ). Isn't it refreshing that he says so...straight, no chaser? Later
>on you criticise me for "using 'nice' words to relay a not-so-nice
>message". By that criteria, he's more enlightened still...becuase he
>says it like he sees it...even when he knows it will raise hackles.
>Can you understand his strategy? He wants to be seen as a leader, as
>superior, as a person worthy of respect and deference in order that
>he might more effectively communicate his message. Unlike so many
>other people, though, to find out what he wants you just have to ask

I think you can be worthy of respect without being "superior". Anyhow, I realized this. I would like to think of others as my equal, and not consider myself to be on a higher plane of thought than they are. However, I cannot deny that part of me does this regardless. Is it subconscious that when you view other people, you tend to place yourself above them, no matter what your attitude? If I have a choice, I would *not* like to think that I'm better and more enlightened than everyone else, but I probably do this anyway.

>Richard wasn't "assuming", he was TELLING people what they were to
>think. Haven't you read his book?

No, actually. At least not yet.

>His purpose was to instruct whomever
>was on the fence what the truth was. Then you made a frankly irrational
>move by AGREEING with him that everyone on this list thought you
>were...well, the exact words escape me becuase I'm not THAT easily
>programmed...but let's recall that they were "bad" words. You were
>telling anyone who might be listening that you were a "bad" person
>and Richard was telling everyone that I was a "good" (enlightened,
>whatever...) person (and also implying that HE was a suitable authority
>to judge the difference).

No I wasn't. You misunderstood that. Actually, I told RB something like this: "It would make no sense for me to discuss (argue) this any further, because *IF* ((notice the IF here, Reed)) almost everyone thinks I'm ignorant and wrong, then their minds are already made up and it would be of no use." I was of the opinion that he was completely wrong; the opposite of what you say. I was assuming that everyone did _not_ think those "bad things" about me. My whole point was that I did not want to bother trying to *prove* that I am not operating on a lower plane than you are. Comprende?

Again, my point was that he is _not_ in a place to "judge" these matters. I don't see what's irrational about not taking the bait when someone implies you're inferior. I completely disagreed, is that clear?

(Note: I am -over- that whole thing and harbor no ill will towards Richard. I'm just driving this into the ground because you are telling me I felt or did something I did not, so I'm correcting you.)

>It is easier to tell people what to think than to tell what people are

No offense Reed, but I think this is what you are constantly trying to do to me- tell me what I'm thinking instead of knowing first-hand, and then wanting me to accept it as truth. Yes, you have your observations and all, but I know myself much better than that. So if as you say, it's easier to make it up, are you?

>>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. ;-)
>It was the most plausible reason that you would tell everyone on the
>list to see you as a "bad" person, based on my experience. If you
>disagree with my conclusion, could you tell me why you made those
>negative statements about yourself?

Gah! I didn't make those negative statements about myself. Stop trying to brainwash me against myself! Or so it seems, at least.

>That's true of the rest of the world, to a lesser extent, as well. Sure,
>are people and groups to whom you are more closely attentive. But, to
>claim you aren't part of the "general public" would be elitist.
>We are all part of the public.

Not me; I'm a vampyre. [1]

>If you reread my post in it's entirety, you will find that I said
>something like:
>"If you think deeply about the issue, you will arive at the correct
>conclusion...which may not be mine."
>I don't care for your agreement. I want you to think about it logically.

Okay, then I just took it the wrong way.

>>Again, I think you're trying to pick my mind apart a bit too much.
>In what sense...beyond your comfort? beyond my abilities? beyond what
>is appropriate? beyond reason? ;-)

Beyond what you can possibly know from the fact, which you said yourself, I'm just "words on a screen".

>Alternatively, you are not conscious of the deeper meaning in everything
>you say.

Um, alternatively, I think you are not conscious of the *acutal* meaning of my words, let alone the deeper meaning. The many times I have to clarify myself with you is evidence of this. Your remark is kind of like saying that a panda doesn't realize its place in the world besides eating bamboo, so you have to make the analysis for dumb, lesser creature. I don't think so.

Really Reed, do you think I'm some kind of puppet, and my thoughts come from a giant robotic Squid in the sky? Of course not, but after all these are my words and thoughts, and here you are telling me that I don't really understand where they are coming from (my brain). I think I know it better than anyone else. Please explain, or else I don't buy this for a second.

>As a result, your words often betray you. Do you feel like you
>"really" understand most people and can help them "really" understand
>you? Do you feel a deep connection to the public, one which makes you
>happy to be a fellow human being?
>Or not?

I feel disoriented right now.

>We are all telling stories to each other about who we are and what
>we think...all the time. I tell you what to think and you tell me. Round
>and round. But you sound a little you are the only one
>who has the right to define yourself. That's crap, and everyone knows
>it. Nothing is off-limits in this game...not in the sense that I have the
>"right" to tell you who you are...but in that we cannot avoid making
>such statements about each other.

Okay then, I implore you to "define" me. Please. Wrap up my whole person and all my little quirks and complexities included, into a neat little paragraph that would fit onto the panel of a cereal box. Tell the home audience how many calories i am and how many grams of fat. Perhaps our definitions of "define" are completely different. I think defining a person is hard enough to do, let alone solely through email for a brief period of time.

>So, go ahead, tell me...who am I? The best I've heard so far was
>"sanctimonious"...but that didn't last more than a day or two. If
>you're uncomfortable talking in your turf, then we can talk in mine.
>It all the same in the end, anyway.

  1. I don't think you have offered enough about yourself so that I can tell who you are. I mean you- as a person- I don't think I have enough to go on, because of the way you post. You probe, you ask question after question, you tell me all these things about myself, and yet you never seen to volunteer any information about yourself. (Not that there is anything wrong with that...) I don't think I'm qualified to have an informed opinion about your character, or who you really are.
  2. But if you want a bare sketch, here is an honest one. I think your intentions are good, however so are those of many religious zealots, and we all know how I feel about them. I don't see you having any open and unreasonable malice, and generally you seem like a good-natured person. One thing that really bothers me is the tendency you have to act like a therapist or a high school guidance counselor. I imagine that if we were to talk in person, I would have a *much* easier time conversing with you. But here, we tend to clash and I lapse into feeling like an "indignant" rebellious teenager having to protect myself from you picking me apart the wrong way, and so I act the part. You make me feel sassy. You sassy boy. Heh.


[1] Warning: this was only a _joke_!