New "Personality" Thread stressing my responsibility

It's also stupid to fight a fight that can't be won.

The more you try to beat it the more impossible it is to beat. The mere trying gives it power. So by asking it to teach you something about contradiction it loses it's power.
Remember the teacher student relationship I talked about a while ago in another thread.
By taking the student position you take power away from the issue as you are no longer trying to beat it but merely learn from it.

So I would advise that you write a better piece of contradictory writing about any subject you choose.
The last one was pretty ordinary, I would give it about a 6/10

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ok. It might take me a little while.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What do you think the purpose of contradiction is?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What do you think would be the motivation behind a person who deliberately contradicts himself would be?

 

I like to run because running isn't very fun. You start to lose your breath as you run, it is an excitingly helpful exercise to preform. Running out of all breath, you regain self. You oexperience something that is nothing. You run to experience a good sence of being.

Running is preformed by a small variety of unique individuals. They will normally procede upon a run. They experience great excitement as they run their heart out.

 

only a 7/10. The contradictions are not polarised enough. IMO

For example:

"I like to run because running isn't fun"

Could be interpreted as you being a masochist [ spls?]

"I like to run because I don't like to run" would be a more definitive contradiction I think.
So that sentance gets a 9/10
The rest of the dialogue is almost self consistant and gets only a 3/10

so the average score is 6 but you get 1 point for trying.... so 7/10 it is...

So what have we learned?

1] That it is very difficult to write stuff that is deliberately contradictory.... yes?
2] That it feels sillly to do so.

It may seem silly yet I would bet a dollar that if you keep trying to deliberately write in a contradictory fashion you will eventually master the "art" of contradiction. That eventually you will control the contradictions you make and in doing so have freedom to choose whether to be self consistant or not. This choice is not easillly available to you and that is the lesson I think.

To learn how to make a choice between writing and thinking in contradictory terms and expressing yourself with out them. So by deliberately writing contradictory statements you learn about the nature of contradiction and your awareness of contradiction becomes more controlled and stable.

 

Let's try to take this one slow. I'll go over your opening post and see if I can hit upon anything important.

One step at a time.

Perhaps to understand the intent of this thread one must also delve into the other thread as well? At the very least the opening post. I'll do so in a bit. I'll answer this post on its own merits first.

A problem, Brent, in trying to communicate with you is that you're so... overwhelming. Your threads tend to balloon quite fast. And as they do so, they diverge. Mostly, I think, because you are so difficult to understand much of the time and thus people are forced to puzzle their way through your words. Putting up this possibility or that. And the thread then meanders this way and that until all semblance of the original intent is lost.

You see this problem as well, I think. Somewhat, at least. You cry out against it when you say:

"A bunch of things like "WHY THE FUCK DON"T YOU GOD DAMMIT MOTHER FUCKER YOU DON"T UNDERSTANDDDDDDDDDDD_____YOU WON"T HEAR ME YOU WON"T ANSWER ME ANYTHINGGGGGGGGG" "YOU AREN"T TELLING ME ANYTHING AND YOU NEVER UNDERSTOOD FREAKING GODDD DAMMIT WHAT I WAS FREAKING SAY ING TO BEGIN WITH AHHHHHHHH!"

WWWWWWWWWWWWHYYY the EHHHEHLLLL DO YOU KEEP UP WITH THIS>>>..

weepweepweep​

Or perhaps I misunderstand the sentiment behind your words as well?



Pause.
Ok. I lied. I glanced back over your other thread. Didn't read it. But glanced at it....
That thread seemed to be very abstract. And when it failed to... take off... following your later efforts to turn it towards an analysis of yourself...
...
Is that what you mean when you speak of responsibility?

Have you ever considered not focusing on yourself and your problems so narrowly? Perhaps if you dealt in matters that are more abstract and removed from self then you could gain clarity in matters that are central to self?

What I mean is simple. I've 'advised' you several times that effective communication skills are what you should be seeking to acquire. That without these skills, you are unable to communicate effectively with yourself (i.e. your inability to 'figure yourself out') let alone communicate with others. You're not able to present yourself in a manner which is comprehensible to others easily. There are bits and pieces that seem to come through, but everytime a piece is puzzled out somewhat, a whole rush of other facets of your need come flowing through. You are desperate to understand yourself. All of yourself. And in your need to understand the totality, you overwhelm the ability to understand the part.

Do you understand?

If you deal in matters that are more abstract, perhaps you can control the... excitement which bubbles up and carries you away whenever you begin to approach anything that smells of 'goal'.

This reminds me of something I read in the Logic 101 thread in Site Feeback: "Part of the trouble might lie in finding arguments which aren't too controversial, at least to start off with, to encourage people to argue about the logic in an article rather than the validity of its facts or emotional content."

Logic is also a means of effective communication. And to practice logic, one should steer clear of emotive subjects so as to allow oneself to focus on the logic rather than the topic.

Focus on the prime task: Learn effective communication skills. Once you've practiced this and become somewhat adept at it, then you can once more turn to the tricky path of delving into your problems once more. I think you might find that many of your problems will have vanished by this time. Merely by learning how to explain them to yourself and to others.


Funny.
You speak of reading Buddhist books. I despise the eastern philosophy of self nihilation. But, this 'advice' I'm giving could well be seen in some ways as similar.

What do you mean here?
Your responsibility to the thread imitated your personality to suit?
That makes no sense. I can puzzle out the meaning I've contemplated above. That by 'responsibility' you're referring to your desire to understand your own personality. And I can also conjecture that you're referring to your instability as personality and that you failed your thread just as your personality tends to fail because of the instability and the inability to communicate effectively.
These are pure conjectures.
And I have no idea what you mean by 'to suit'. You use the term in an altogether unorthodox manner here. Do you mean it as in 'to suit your purposes'? Do you mean 'suit' as in 'clothing'? A 'mask' as later mentioned by Duendy?

The 'however' leads me to believe that you have embarked on a course in this thread that is different than the other thread. My conjecture about your use of 'responsibility' is backed up by this interpretation. That this thread is meant to center around your own personality problems rather than the more abstract notion of personality in the other thread.

The last phrase of the sentence is somewhat ambiguous.

"Individuality as 'norm' ".

Are you asking for what is seen as 'norm' so that you can contrast it with your own?

I have to say that I'm always somewhat shocked to hear that you're a reader. Generally, avid readers pick up on grammar and syntax. Even if not masters in this field, they generally are better able to express themselves than you seem to be able to. However, perhaps you give us a clue as to why this is.

Now. You go on after this to speak of caring for other people and that's an issue I'll address in a moment. But, first I'll dig up a quote from later in the thread which seems to relate to what I've been speaking about.

" I mean that I don't even understand a thing said!"​

To which Duendy replied:

"you mean as in, so self conscious thaat you cannot concentrate on what someone is saying etc?"​

To which you agreed.

So. I have to wonder why you're reading. And what you get out of it.
Are you able to focus on the words? Do they make sense to you? Perhaps the above quotes are only relating to the spoken word? Direct communication with other?

You are a fan of Sartre as is evidenced by several threads as well as your user name. I wonder, how much of his work did you understand? I'm still going over it myself. It's notoriously difficult to understand. The nomenclature and the trickiness of the subject is legendary in philosophical circles. Perhaps as much as Kant himself.
Were you able to work your way through the work and truly understand it? Or did you merely bulldoze your way through picking up this and that on the way?
I could have read the book 20 times over by now. But, I don't want to read the book.
I want to understand it.

Anyway... I think I'm going on a tangent myself here...

What the hell was my point? (This is going to be a long post. Apologies.)


Hmm.
Well. One thing that your comment on being too self conscious to be self conscious reminded me of was Sartre himself (imagine that). The very idea of the reflective and the pre-reflective ego's.
Perhaps you had this very thought in mind when writing it.

I, myself, am the type of person that exists more as the Cartesian Ego as opposed to Sartre's pre-reflective ego. I spend more time thinking about what I'm doing than actually doing it.
However, perhaps you are the type that carries this even further? So far, in fact, that it is crippling?
When you read, instead of actually reading, do you think about yourself reading? Savvy?

There is a huge problem with the Cartesian Ego. I touched on this in your thread. (I think...)
When one is acting, and one shifts attention from acting to contemplating his actions, there is a sort of stutter. In most actions, the most efficient method is... powered by the pre-reflective ego. The Cartesian Ego tends to... fuck everything up. Not always, of course. And, there are times that the pre-reflective ego doesn't do the best job of it either. But, when one is reading, one should be reading, not thinking about reading.

When one is speaking, one should be speaking, not thinking about speaking.

When one is listening, one should be listening, not thinking about listening.

Now. Time for the contrarian to enter the picture and bring up the notion of "think before you speak".
Well. This too is good advice.
And that's where things get tricky, isn't it?

And now I'm seriously threatening a tangent. I think I've said enough here for an opening gambit. Perhaps more later if you're so inclined and it 'suits' your purposes here.

See.
What does reading books have to do with caring for other people?
It seems that when you read, you're contemplating the fact that you're reading.
And you're trying to fit this in with a higher order schema of caring for others.
You're so caught up in trying to fit your reflections on reading in with higher order schemas that the reading is lost entirely? Or at least severely hampered?

Or am I completely lost here?
This is the nature of reading your posts however. Puzzling out what you're saying.
I've been contemplating starting a thread entitled: "What did you say, Brent?" Something where you can say stuff and people can try to figure out what the hell you're talking about and thus help you with your communication skills.

I have glimmers of meaning in this sentence...
It seems to say that instead of reading the book to actually glean the purpose of the book, you rather read the book so as to avoid... inner conflict?
A distraction of sorts?
And one which, apparently, not too successful if my earlier conjectures are correct.

It's interesting. I've always thought of my own inner state as... chaotic. Headnoise rambling on and on and on and on...
But, since meeting you, I suppose I begin to see that perhaps there is some sense to the eastern ideals of inner peace and clarity. Of course, said ideals would only be tools and a means to an end. Not the ends themselves. This is, in my belief, the greatest error of the eastern ways.
They deny the world in search of Nirvana...

Possibly. If they could figure out exactly what you're trying to describe.

Here we come back to responsibility.
What do you mean?

Ah.
Another thought comes to mind.
I've noticed that many of your threads seem to go along these lines.
"Here's a general topic that I've read a little about. Discuss."
Where you don't actually intend on taking a very active role in the discussion, but are rather more intent on inspiring others to discuss so that you can follow along.

Is this what you mean by responsibility?
That you're going to attempt to steer this thread along where you were more passive in others?

Question: How can you steer anything when you don't know what you're steering, where you're going, or where you want to go?
Hmmm.

That's a.... wide open question.
And. Do you really think that it's useful?
What purpose would an answer to this question serve? Would you use it to contrast it with yourself so as to find how you're not normal and so that you might be able to nudge yourself to some form of normalcy?

Normal is... not real.
You do know that, don't you?

You've asked a question that has no answer.

A zen koan, if you will.

I think that somewhere along the way the sentence... disappears...
I get the general idea...
You're speaking about the definition of normal being social acceptibility. About not being ostracized for outlandish behavior. About being able to mix with others in a.. (heh) 'normal' fashion.
But. The sentence seems to serve no purpose.
You have an if... but no then.

Unless you're saying, "If we define normal as in bounds with society (a rather...sketchy use of the phrase by the way) then being able to maintain relationships, conversations, and employment (maintaining various forms of social contact) without acting in a bizarre manner would appear to be what is deemed normal for any given society."

Is that what you're saying? A simple definition of normal as in being able to cope socially?

If so, I'd have to throw in that being able to maintain social relationships would deem one normal and the clause about 'bizarre behavior' would not necessarily be true. Everybody expresses bizarre behavior from time to time. And if they express too much bizarre behavior, then the aforementioned relationships would most likely fail.... or at least be deemed.... odd. Dysfunctional perhaps.

Anyway. The if-then seems kinda circular.

Ok. So. You've set up your definition of normal as in social interaction. And now you logically follow from that that normal people have some type of feature... some.... ability which enables them to act in this socially successful manner.

You fasten onto emotions as being the key method here.
Do you think that's necessarily so? Emotions certainly play a key role. But do you think that's all of it?
Why are you different?
I can tell you from reading you that your emotional state doesn't seem to be so different. What seems to be your problem is more logical.
Your ability to communicate on higher levels.
People don't understand you.
Why is this so?
I don't know.
Do you have any ideas?
Do people have difficulties understanding your speech as much as your written word?
I know that in my case, my writing is far more..... hmmm.... polished than my spoken word. Not that I spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about what to write, just that... I think different pathways are utilized sending the words to my fingers rather than my mouth... Maybe. I don't really know and should spend more time contemplating this issue... but that's another topic.


A question on your statement.
What is 'fea-spec'?

Use common language. Try to steer clear of words that you've devised in your own thoughts unless absolutely necessary. And if you do use non-conventional words and usages, then define them first.
I have no idea what you're trying to say with 'fea-spec'. I can only try to puzzle its meaning by the context in the sentence.
But, after having puzzled my way through so much of your writing... there is no solid context with which to make a judgement of meaning.

I don't see how this follows.
Deep?
How do you mean?
Deep as in... far-reaching?
One speaks of 'deep' philosophy as though it were something... profound.
How does the fact that normal people have inner constructs which predispose them to act normally lead to 'deep'?
Perhaps you're speaking of deep as in Chomsky's 'deep structures'? Innate?

Of course you are. That's your idiom. Isn't it?

And. I suppose, you have answered some of my questions here. By the use of 'in relation with other people'.
You seek to contrast yourself with others.
But, how will this help you find out what personality is?
It seems to me that your first thread had a better chance of doing that. This thread seems more directed at finding the negative space that lies between your personality and the personality of others.
Perhaps so that you can use that negative space as a mold to cast a mask to wear?
Noble sentiment, surely, but perhaps an impossible one at this stage?
You must first ask the right questions...

 

Perhaps you run to escape the reflection of running?
When you're running so hard that you're out of breath and you're completely trapped in the experience of all the sensations swarming upon you, your focus is all directed outwards. You are in Sartre's pre-reflective state in your entirety.

What do you think of walking?

 

Vert. The quote from Brent was actually an attempt at writing contradictions deliberately.
If you scroll up to earlier posts you'll see the context....
btw your post was facinating....

 

Ooops.
I didn't catch up after writing my post...
My bad.

 

I think you're the awesomest person to exist.
I will reply in a second.
Walking, gee GOD-eeeee.... Depends on who i'm walking with. It's ok i don't really do it that much but aside from that, boring. It isn't really me it's me that i've lost. I've lost me and so I walk and the me is lost even more.

Not wanting to be lost.
But don't hit on my emotions so much.
I think you've totally got to me.
If you could only destroy me.
If you could just destroy me the way that someone who is them self is destroyed.

I'm going to reply toyou long post with hope

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

NO SHIT Qq

 

Oh yeah.
I've been meaning to mention that.
Stop that.
No worshipping allowed.
Savvy?

 

Do you want me to respond to your post? Ask me something anything. And I will wait with that.
-

 

Fuck yeah. Respond.
I only said don't put me on a pedestal like that. You've expressed similar sentiments in other posts I've noticed.
I'm just some dude.
If you need something to worship, worship yourself.
But, first, you have to find it, eh?

How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

 

It may take some time

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Good.
One should gather one's resources, yes?
Take your time.

 

A not-quite-random recollection occurs:

Query: How to contrive not to waste one's time? Answer: By being fully aware of it all the while. Ways in which this can be done: By spending one's days on an uneasy chair in a dentist's waiting room; by remaining on one's balcony all a Sunday afternoon; by travelling by the longest and least-convenient train routes, and of course standing all the way; by queueing at the box-office of theatres and then not booking a seat.

--Albert Camus, The Plague​

We come to the problems of definitions, yes? Ah. Semantics. That gorgeous whore. Or perhaps slut would be a better term as she does it for free...

What does it mean to 'waste time'? How is one's time utilized most efficiently?
In reflection? Or in action?

The former is notorious for causing time to stretch before you like an endless sea. The latter famous for causing time to collapse.

Which is more productive? Which should be chosen?

The answer, I think, lies somewhere between two poles. Neither one nor the other. But both.

And that's the tricky bit. Deciding which and when...

And. Ha! Haven't we landed square on the notion with this very statement?
"Deciding which and when..." seems to be biased towards the Cartesian position, does it not? What say does the pre-reflective ego have in the matter? Perhaps more than you think.... After all, the Cartesian comes after. Always lagging behind. This is why it causes the stutter...

Perhaps this post would be better suited to the Ego thread, but it followed naturally from things spoken in here... and so here it shall be.

 

Before reading that, nex, i'm gonna say, that not even Mr grand Anonymous was able to pin-point my problem.

QQ pin-points everything. When I respond, be ready

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes. Well. Perhaps my goal is not to pin-point your problem. Perhaps, just perhaps, my goal is to pin-point my own?

Long-term goal that is.

Short-term would be helping you on the path to pin-pointing your own.

See. Your problem is not my responsibility. Is it?