Respect is a modern luxury

Speaking of kittens, check out my new puppy;

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Aww, he's sleeping with his tongue hanging out.
He's from a long line of strictly culled security dogs, he's specifically designed for combat with a man, litterally guaranteed not to back down from someone who's trying to beat him up with any weapon you can imagine. Cost me a bundle. His jaws could crush a human skull like a grape. Roman war dog x pit fighting dog hybrid. He will fight a criminal to the death.
And look at his little tongue sticking out like he's a person

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And what is wrong with the protection of the young instinct that is active in us all?
Are you afraid of it?
Are you ashamed of it?

Invert, you ought to understand something: All cats were once such darling kittens. What becomes of a cat, largely depends on the owner of this cat.

Of course, some cats have a very wild character, like Fenris', while some are sweet little darlings. Cats have their own individual characters, just like humans.
But apparently, you don't know much about felines, or you would know why some cats become obese, or why others need to be bathed etc. You apparently don't know what it is like to raise a cat and take care of it properly.

If you would know, you wouldn't make idiotic comments like "Look at this parasite of a cat. You come home from a hard day's work and what's he been doing? Sitting on his ass watching the tube and drinkin' all your beer. That's what!"


The idea you are trying to push is that certain cats deserve to be killed, because they don't fit *your* standards on what a cat is supposed to be.

A cat is not a thing, it is not a plush toy that would simply sit there and be nice. And the same goes for any other animal.

They are living beings -- with all their demands, desires, wits and funs.
It is this wide range of what it is to be a living being that you have troubles accepting.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Jesus H Rosa. The man is joking.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

1. No, he is not.
2. Some things simply are not funny.

I have enough reasons to believe he is not joking -- his true attitude is shown genuinely in those remarks he made. Have you read this whole thread? (Plus, there is also a parallel history to it via the PMs some of the participants here have exchanged.)

 

1. Yes. I am.
2. Yes. They are.

First of all, don't always believe what you read, dear Rosa. And secondly, never in any of my PM's have I suggested that cats should be killed because they lounge around drinking your beer and watching television.

Seriously. You're out there on this one. Can it be any more obvious that it's a joke?

That cat being bathed is pretty damn ugly, but live and let live. That's my motto.

 

Why, thank you. I've been trying to get more in touch with my animal side.

 

Verty:

Oohh. Ahhh.
Nietszche, Nietszche, Nietszchie !! Another Nietszchen nun only acquainted with pocket philosophy.
His passion clouded his reason, did you know?
Why don't you use that? Or his mischievous delight in what he called hatred, if we are to use him?

" a relish in the misfortunes of others, the lust to rob and dominate, and whatever else is called feeble belong to the most amazing economy of the preservation of the species. To be sure this economy is not afraid of high prices....."

The feeble minded so intimidated by their betters that they can only resort to pointing out their lonely coldness forget its these incredible specimen that preserve the species and slap the sleep off your face.
Evil is an end in itself yet so traumatized that weaklings, like you, tremble at the thought of it.
Let it be known that if I had you clutched in my hands all alone to butcher your embryonic mind I would.... its only that I am too drunk with fear and infected with a conscience too consequence- aware that's keeping your blood from spilling were we in the same room, asshole.

We're all fucking savages.

You damn well know I chug at Crisco Burger.

You accuse me of the same extremes you yourself suffer from: a higher mind asks the lower of what use he would be without people and he quickly surmises that it is a sermon on the prerogatives of solitude.
Since your spine is only a column of other people, all stacked on top of each other like corpses, you recoil in fear when presented with a cold void and say "Dead as a Doornail"
You think its only solitude?
I speak of self-worship in order to worship, establishing one's one rules in a domain prepared for certain others that know how to live in it, because they know.

"Rules? said, Roark. "Here are my rules: what can be done with one substance must never be done with another. No two materials are alike. No two sites on earth are alike. No two buildings have the same purpose. The purpose, the site, the material determine the shape. Nothing can be reasonable or beautiful unless it's made by one central idea, and the idea sets every detail. A building is alive, like a man. Its integrity is to follow its own truth, its one single theme, and to serve its own single purpose. A man doesn't borrow pieces of his body. A building doesn't borrow hunks of its soul. Its maker gives it the soul and every wall, window and stairway to express it."

One who sees this, knows this, knows himself and owes nothing- he does not seek to flatten himself or others to his constitution.
Neither does this difference between him and other men, as differences between buildings, provoke envy or fear as it does with others. Respect from this type of human is no luxury, it is a binding privilege.
I'll leave the luxuries to the greedy cannibals whose bellies run empty without other people to eat from.

Rosa:

The brutal and the criminal are not coping, they just are.
They've never shunned the genetic heirlooms his pampered brothers, like Wes and Raithere and his little brother Guthrie, have.
People like these three like to pretend we've graduated from the primitive and are so far removed from the savage that mankind has come to be something other than the aggressive tyrant he's always been.

Consider what Lola said for a minute:

One can't be anything, when surrounded by so many despots in neckties pretending we all get along.
They say hello to you on the street, so kind and civil, so demanding yet watch them all gather around blood sport.
Fucking Neckties and all.
Watch them swarm to the promise of death like so many Romans and Toltecs, clogging a highway up at the sight of an accident………………….. or bringing a thread back to life again where a little boy is getting murdered.

Muhahhahahah....

Raithere:

Insisting, once again, on this being nihilism.
As if one cannot devalue life and triumph in it simultaneously.
Stravinsky, Michelangelo, Einstein and Da Vinci all paragons of man's potential yet all could have been that little boy on the bridge fascinated with death and detached from it. All four worthier than 4 hundred others in the same room, yet you'd call them petty nihilists.

What you call consideration I call fear.
A car will blaze down a street doing a hundred and keep doing a hundred if a dog walked the side of it.
But it will trickle down to 20 mph to barely tiptoe oh so carefully around a bloody pedestrian.
I get what you are saying perfectly and agree on many things, but our orientations on self value and its differences will keep us from seeing the same things- agreeing is one thing, seeing another.

Its only a baby step- boy's a baby.
Given time and age he will feed that curiosity of throwing a real human off to see it get run over- if he’s not the coward I am.

Wes:

No problem.
Served my purpose…..now fuck off.
Kidding.

 

Maybe I am seeing this differently because of my personal experiences -- once you have to fight for your life, for real, in a fight, this "makes you acquainted" (for the lack of a better word) with aggressiveness in a certain pure and unsublimated way.

I think I can understand your position though.
However, as far as "shunning the genetic heirlooms" is concerned: You make it sound as if people like Henry *chose* their "ancestral code" over the "modern code".
This, in some cases, is certainly true -- but I doubt it is so in all (considering brain malfunctions -- from the scyhzophrenics to the hyperactive).

As for the aggressive tyrant: Well, maybe I am from the Moon or something, but this is really nothing new to me -- but yes, I know, admitting an aggressive nature is not politically correct.

But people simply have a wide range of emotions, behaviours, thoughts. Some are favourized by evolution, some aren't. Some are socially acceptable, some aren't.
And I still think that only those who know this whole wide range are really human.
Although maybe, a new definition of what it means to be human (as someone poitend out somewhere else) is on the way: a giggling robot.

Who came up with the idea that it is possible to be "anything" anyway?! Try to be "anything", and, at any time in history, you'd get cleared away, get rid of.

Yes. So?

I think that what happened is that this default civility has become to mean something it actually isn't. Originally, it is there as loyalty between tribe members; and for the sake of communication. If you want efficient communication (and efficient communication is there for the sake of better orientation in the environment), then a certain civility is needed.

Personally, I see this default civility as a matter of efficient communication -- little work can be done if you scream and shout.
But, and how unfortunate this is for our oh so developed race, people are often confusing this efficient communication with personal respect.

What are you saying?

Ah. It is not about cowardice. In such a situation, we are still dealing with a one on one fight, like thousands of years back. There are more humans on the planet, and so they *seem more dispensable* -- but when it comes to a fight, it is that same ancient situation.
Unless you say that since humans have become so "psychologically diluted", nowadays one would have to kill more to "achieve the same effect" as if one had killed one 10.000 years ago.

 

I'm going to come clean but I have to be out of here by six.

Vert, you have been most useful.

Take a bow, fellow.
Muahhahahhhaa.....


Rosa, I'll reply later with more time.
Ta.

 

It has been most difficult pretending such hostility. Thank you for ending the charade. My cowlick is firmly in place. And we return once more to the previously scheduled program.

Damn fine post up there, Gendanken. And now that the vitriol is no longer necessary, it will be so much easier to answer.

By the way, for all interested. The original blows of the fight were real. Her accusing me of hypercivility and me calling her a moody twat. It was only after that we started playing this little play. For a reason, I assure you. Gendanken has already declared that reason in a way. Perhaps you see it? If not, I'm sure she will further enlighten you on her return.

*bow* Thank god it's over. Hypercivil pieces of shit like me don't like getting into fights with friends. Even playfights.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Heh.
Invert, do you realise that even with this last post you've given away so much of yourself?
Tell me: Why was it so important to you for "those who are interested" (and who are they?) to know that it wasn't "real"? Have you not just confirmed exactly many of the things that have been said of you, in here?

 

Heh. Perhaps. Perhaps not. The thing that I didn't like about the whole thing was it's dishonesty. Which is why I detailed when it became dishonest.

And as to confirmation. Only those already sure in their own minds might find confirmation. And the truth is, Gendanken and I have already discussed this very issue. When coming up with reasons for why this charade must be in the first place. I said that one of the reasons could be that we respect each other despite these barbs which are based in truth. Do you care to know how she replied to me about that? It might just surprise you, Wolf. It might indeed.

It is the dishonesty that I loathed. I am an honest man. And keeping up this charade pained me.

Don't like it? I don't care.

 

Hmm. Well, I'm sure we each have an opinion on how much the "dishonesty" pained you - but are you sure you didn't feel just the teensiest bit a "part of something" here? Quite sure? Pain, indeed. Pain possible, but I don't think you found playing your part quite so painful as you would like to convey it did.
As for the caring to know - of course. And wouldn't you be so pleased to show me? Heh. Invert, you are glass.

As for the "I don't care" -
Yes, you do.

 

Fenris Wolf:

Yes, I'm sure everyone has their opinion. That's the nature of opinion after all.

Part of something? I felt part of something before the 'flamewar' broke out. Afterwards, I felt less a part, truthfully. The rational discussion ceased to flow. You might notice the evolution of my flames. I began quite strong because I thought it was to be a short affair. And then, Gendanken didn't lash back at me so fiercely and I felt somewhat of a churl because it seemed to me that I was overreacting. She wasn't goading me enough for the reaction to be so strong, so fast. I'm surprised more people didn't understand at that point that it was a charade. The vehemence with which I hurled forth "MOODY FUCKING TWATLICKING BITCH!!" From such a light touch. That seems artificial to me. And it's only the desire to see a bloodbath that I can see convinced people of it's "truth." And so, after that, I began to scale back. At the end I was practically rational again. Because rationality is a state of mind that I naturally seek.

Painful? Of course, that was hyperbole. But, I truly didn't care for it. I am an honest person, Wolf. And if you don't like it, screw ya. Honesty is part of me as observing is part of you. I'm not the only one made of glass around here, you know. You think that because you hide yourself behind walls that people can't see through? Ha! Beg to differ.

Pleased to show you? I simply answer your question and you accuse me of wishing to inflict pain. Shame. You know something? I asked Gendanken if you were taken in by this. I figured that you, above all, would see through the intense vehemence of the original lashing forth. But, I begin to think that you did fall for it. Hook, line, and sinker. Glass? Lots of types of glass. And lot's of glass men about.

But, honesty is as honesty does, and truthfully, I would like to inflict a small pain on you. Why? Because of your circling in for the 'kill' in another thread. You thought you saw a means of dispatching me and came in to finish it. You didn't realize that Gendanken was playing a game in that instance as well. I wonder, is that why you didn't come in for the kill this time? Because you got burned last time? There are men so proud that to look like a fool for even an instant would shatter them. Glass?

Don't care? No, I don't. Why should I care if you like it or not? You have shown no desire or interest in these conversations. You hold yourself above the fray. Rarely sinking to 'share' yourself. Your ideas. So precious, aren't we? Ideas like gold. Hoarded in the dark. My honesty is of no concern to you. So why should I care if you like it or not? If you believe it or not? If you respect it or not?

You see, Gendanken has taunted me with this hypercivility. That I need people. Any people. Please like me. Yadda yadda. But, that's not the case. Not the case at all. I am polite at first glance. A default condition. Until the proper conditions are met for judgement. After judgement, the situation changes. If the judgement lies against you, then you become as furniture. If it lies for you, then you may just enter into my respect. Hypercivility does not apply. For civility to strangers is only useful for inviting. There comes a time when the inviting is over.


As to sharing Gendanken's words about my statement of our taunts being based on truth, I won't. Not her exact words. But, I will say that she said yes and no. Some were based around a tiny kernel of truth. Some were just outright vitriol with no basis in truth. But, all were meaningless beside our respect. This is the conclusion we came to at the end of our round of PM's on the subject. At first she was incredibly annoyed that I should accuse her of meaning these things. I had to convince her that in some small way she did.

Honesty. To me it is an important thing. Without honesty, there can be no respect.

 

He is an honest man, ladies and gentleman. An honest man indeed he is who proclaims himself to be honest.

People who really don't care don't bother to say that they don't care -- because they simply don't care.

You care, more than you think you should. Saying "I don't care" gives you away.

You wait for us to say something. You say my name 5 times in one single post, just to make sure I would reply.

You didn't "detail". You buried me in your rationalizations and your intellectualizations, trying to give me "reasons" to "understand" you.

The dishonesty is all yours: in your rationalizations and your intellectualizations. They are called *defense mechanisms*, and are used by those unable to creatively cope with themselves.

 

Yes, you've shown me your "honesty" in the past. Words won't change my opinion of that now. I've told you that. Actions speak far louder.

Aren't there.
Taken in? I think I saw some things in there, yes. You can call it "taken in" if you wish. I asked Gendanken what was "going on, out there" quite early in the piece.

But you say :

That you see it as me being "burned", and not wanting it to happen again from pride. Does this reveal more about me, or you?

And regarding the earlier circling for the kill and not following through - there were many reasons for that, priorities, timezones, and others. Mainly though, you were a victim of disinterest.

On the contrary... your honesty is of great importance to me, and I've made that clear in the past. That is why. Besides which, using you-don't-care-so-why-should-I is rather purile, don't you think? We both know it simply doesn't work that way.

My ideas are hoarded in the dark, you said (and rather angrily, I might add). Was it a little slip there, you saying "so precious, aren't we" rather than they? Or perhaps you meant it that way.

I've heard all this before in other threads and this one.

Which is what we discussed, in part, when we first spoke. I've seen little yet to change my initial impression, although I'm quite sure you're as honest with others as you believe yourself to be.

And of course you won't share her "exact words" - in fact, I didn't ask for them. What I said was, "of course, I'd like to know". I'd be lying if I said I didn't. However, I did not ask you to tell me. Yet you did. I'm sure you'll call it "honesty" again, soon. Perhaps it was... but honesty was not your only motivation, was it?

Perhaps also, that "tiny kernel of truth" was softened somewhat, in the light of this mutual respect. Perhaps you'd like to think of it as "tiny"... best left that way, yes? Tiny. Small. Insignificant. Best thought of that way, for all concerned, yes?

 

Rosa Magika,

Heh. Et tu, Rosa?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Look. It's true that claiming honesty is of no consequence. But so what? I feel that I am an honest man. I said I was an honest man because it is the reason why I spoke as I did after Gendanken declared the falsity of the war and Fenris accused me of liking it.

It means nothing, but it is how I see myself. So blah.

Oh? Is that so? What did I say I didn't care about? Whether Fenris sees me as an honest man or not. Whether he likes that I'm an honest man or not. Mustn't extend this argument to all the words. Let's keep them in their place. And that matter, I truly don't care. So saying it denies it?

Here's the thing. Just as in proclaiming honesty, proclaiming indifference doesn't prove it. But it doesn't deny it either. You can take it as you will but that's the way it is.

No. I said your name 5 times in a single post because that's how the words fell. You simply chose to see your name and ignore the rest. Or maybe I'm in love with you, Rosa. Rosa, my sweet. Rosa, my darling precious angel. Rosa, precious, precious Rosa. A Rosa by any other name would smell as Rosa.

Pointless. And egotistic. You just can't shake your emotional illogic in this thread, can you, Rosa? (Oooh. I doubled the 5 to 10. Should I make it twenty? Would that make it worth your time to reply seeing as how all it takes to make someone reply is saying their name?)

And besides, what the hell do you have to do with this little branch of the debate? Suddenly my indifference towards Fenris' feelings towards me extends to you? Interesting branch of logic you are following, Rosa. What happened to you?

Oh? So this isn't a detailing of where the charade began?

The original blows of the fight were real. Her accusing me of hypercivility and me calling her a moody twat. It was only after that we started playing this little play.​

Was that 'burying' you in rationalizations and intellectualizations? Or perhaps you're speaking of another instance? You must be. Because the above is certainly not burying. Again you show your ego. Rosa says, "Me, me, me!"

Ha! Defense mechanisms? Look who's talking about defense mechanisms. The passive aggressive queen, ladies and gentlemen. Have your followers tithed you recently?

I'm not at all surprised that you were taken in. I fully expected it. I was rather surprised that you believed the quote to those pictures. That was beyond even your emotional state, I thought. Obviously I was wrong. Amazing what emotion does to people.



Fenris,

And it's your actions that speak loudest of all. That is the reason why you annoyed me in the Murder thread. Your intent was painfully obvious.

Really, I'm surprised. As I said, I thought you would see through it. You are an excellent observer as you have proven in the past. I won't deny a small amount of glee at the thought. Why? Because of the annoyance you brought me in Murder. As I said, your intent was painfully obvious.

Heh. Excellent argument. My words are merely my interpretation of the events and therefore show more about me than you. This is of course somewhat true, but that is the way I see it and won't deny it. I don't mean 'burned' as in my rebuttal was so sound that it smashed you into the ground. No. What I mean is that your intent was to further back up Gendankens seeing me as inconsistent. And it turns out that she was just egging me on to get a point across. That's just the way I see it of course. How could it be otherwise? My viewpoint is the only one I have.

Ah. And now comes the "I don't care" said in a much more illustrious manner. "Victim of disinterest" ladies and gentlemen. Ha ha! And Rosa's argument on stating such a thing? Does it apply?

Yes, perhaps so. Or perhaps it is more important for me to be dishonest? I really don't know, of course. But that is what your actions in Murder suggest to me. As well as your actions here. One cannot escape the interpreter.

Also, that explains why you care about my honesty. Not why I should care about what you think of me. I did once, you know. But, actions speak louder than words and here we are. Perhaps we can get past this. Perhaps we can't. Only time will tell. As always.

No. Not angrily. I don't feel so, anyway. As I've said time and time again. Annoyance. This is what you bring me. Not only in your actions but in your reticence to join the conversation. My words might have possibly come across as harsher than intended because of a dislike for this attitude in general. This hoarding ideas. Of thought. Why come to a discussion forum if not to discuss?

Merely a figure of speech. I was calling you precious, not your ideas. Or perhaps you and your ideas. And your walls to defend your treasures.

I know. But, you refuse to believe. Or so it seems.

If you've seen little, then it's doubtful that you will ever see. Might as well give up now. My annoyance with you is that it seems that you do not seek to find evidence of my honesty or respectworthiness, but rather the opposite.

Interesting argument. "If you tell me then you're bragging. If you don't then you're withholding." Motivation? No, not entirely. I know that it irks you. And you've irked me. So I irk back. Annoyance is an annoying thing.

Once the tiny kernel of truth is in the open to be discussed in a rational manner, who knows where that discussion might lead? On both sides of the barrel. The kernel may grow or the kernel may vanish or the kernel may change. But, it is better to bring it into the open rather than hide it and blame the fart on the dog.

 

I was speaking of the first time you and I spoke. Remember that? All stems from there. If you wish to speak of annoyance, then start from the beginning.

How is anyone not involved supposed to know for certain? I thought I did, hence the question to Gendanken. Certainty was not possible on my part, nor on anyone else's not in on it.

Your mistake here is in assuming I was backing up Gendanken. Your viewpoint is now not the only one you have.

No. I was merely stating a fact. I work long hours, I'm in a different timezone thus making it virtually impossible to be "in" on discussions except when things have long since been clarified. Things have a way of congealing over a day or two, and during the week I have little inclination to post anything at all for those reasons. The disinterest was in general, not specifically aimed at you. I should have made that clear.

This is my Sunday. Today I have time.

I don't think I ever said you should care about what I think of you. And my actions here should become clearer shortly.

One might come to observe, as well. This place is rather fascinating to watch at times, like a little microcosm discussing itself even when it is not aware of it doing so. You already know of my main reason for coming here, but even without that I would pop in from time to time. The actors may change, but the play goes on.

I've explained what you see as "reticence", and I've had to do so before for others. But this is only a part of it - I do not, in truth, often feel any need to discuss anything. There are few who I respect enough to want to do so. I often find it tiring, and to be quite frank the words I type aren't an accurate representation of my thoughts anyway. It's not a skill I possess as much as I'd like. For every thing said, there are ten more unsaid, lost in concentrating on a point, forgotten to be thought of later - when it's too late. You and Gendanken have discussed this before, have you not (in the Kabalah I think)? I believe I "suffer" from it more than either of you do.

Actually, that's exactly what I saw it as.
Everyone is precious, to themselves. The only variance is in the degree, and in the awareness of it.

On the contrary, again. I do believe it. That is why it went by with little comment.

Your intelligence I do respect, but that is not what we're speaking of here.
I think you're missing the point. I did seek to find honesty - and I did not. Normally I would not do so.

And now we're coming to a crux of this discussion - are you demanding it from me? Your viewpoint is that I should seek something to respect first, then accord or withhold based on what I see. Mine is that I will see someone as worthy or not in a short glance, then it will take time for them to change an initial impression or solidify it. There are many factors which influence that first glance, of course - male or female, physical impressions, vocation, many things. But still, that glance (by which I mean a glance "into" the person, not physically looking at them) is the basis. In short, you err on the side of caution. I do the opposite.

The first part is correct - I expected you to, and you delivered. You've done it before - "A thread in which I was a major contributor" - remember? Pride is a thing I have different ideas on than most - and you display something on occasions which I see as not quite pride, rather an aberration of it. You seek the looks of others.

I put no qualification on "if you don't". You did. Who brought the subject up to begin with? Were you seeking to influence me with the opinion of another knowing I think more of her than anyone?

"Try again".

Oh, I think that kernel is well in the open, don't you? I see no dogs here.

You spoke of "tiny" kernels. I said they become insignificant, when thought of in that manner. When pointed out by a friend, particularly when it has been brought up as part of a "joke", then how much significance does it have? Willl you truly see anything inside you, or will you look upon it lackadaisically in leisure, then dismiss? And when pointed out by an "enemy", your defences go up too, do they not? I'm witnessing that right now.

Your joke was ineffective on you because you were a part of it. Gendanken had a purpose - you became a part of the vehicle.
You saw little truth in anything other than the main thrust, thinking that it was said in jest with only a "tiny kernel" of truth.

The question here is how much of that kernel do you see in yourself - and how much honesty have I seen here, as opposed to what you believe to be honesty, or what you decide to show me? I think it's partly both - but I have to decide on the weighting.

As an aside, I wonder how much we're further advancing Gendanken's initial thrust here - do the vultures gather again?

 

Oh. I know where it stems from. I can never forget that. But, that was offense rather than annoyance, eh? And, offense to another to boot.

Ok. I sort of assumed that you were lashing out this way because of a misplaced anger over being fooled. I'm likely wrong. It'd fit your character (what I know of it) better if you had figured it out. No blind fool is Fenris.

"Back up" was a poor choice of words. It is what I felt you were doing but not in the sense of helping her out, but rather seeking to reinforce this viewpoint she seemed to have developed. There was a lot of interesting talk going on in that thread and you devoted your attentions solely to those things which in your eyes were damaging to me. In my viewpoint.

Ok. But, Rosa's argument still stands. An avowal of disinterest does not prove it. But, my argument still stands as well. Neither does it disprove. So, we are left at an impasse. But, an impasse that is besides the point so can happily be dropped without affecting the argument.

You never said I should. But you said I do. And that my professing disinterest proves it.

I suppose it all depends on what you're after. I come here for thoughtful discussion. To learn. To teach. To share. Hence my erring on the side of caution. I'm a much more unforgiving and far less sociable type in the world at large. Out there I don't feel the desire to converse. But, I come here for that specific reason.

And even those few you do respect must suffer from your lack of attention. At least in public. I view this place as a means of teaching and learning. Many here are arrogant pricks and short-sighted bastards, but there are always those few who genuinely seek to learn and to share ideas. If I had not come across these genuine typed, I most likely would have left long ago. Even observing the actions of the arrogant would bore me quite quickly.

One cannot teach those who come after in PM's. It must be done here. In the open. Publically. Here our words gain weight because we expose them to critical eyes. Not saying that those discussions in private are completely critically blind, but they lack the strength of publically uttering them.

I've spoken with Gendanken about this. The negative character and the higher man.

“What constitutes the higher man?”, said Confucious “The cultivation of himself with reverential care. The higher man seeks all that he wants in himself. The lower man seeks all that he wants from others. The higher man is anxious lest he should not get the truth….the thing wherein the higher man cannot be excelled is simply this: his work, which other men cannot see.”--Gendanken (Or rather Gendanken quoting Confucious)​

I say that unless one shares one's work then it is nothing. It dies with him. It is a hoarded gem that means nothing. The thing in which the higher men cannot be excelled in his work. Why? Because other men cannot see. It's hard to be wrong when no one is able to judge.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Perhaps that's just your own interpreter interpreting away. I've always found your posts rather well-written and well thought out. But, that's just me, I suppose. We all must get over the feeling that our words fail. And if they do fail which they always must at times, then we must just continue. We must explain. We must further our ways and means. To me the reward is worth it. The reward? Enlightenment. And I'm not kidding. Never perfect enlightenment, but always a bit more than the state in which one is in now. Blah. Too idealistic, I suppose.

Yes. But it is the hiding of the self that annoys. It is the barriers to communication. Walls so high that all we can see is our own reflection. What an interesting world that would be.

So you just disagree with it, I suppose. Find it weak or cloying.

Demanding what? That you seek for honesty within me? Certainly not. I would like for others to see me as I see myself, of course. Such is the selfishness of man. But is it required of you? No. Not at all.

As I've said, that is my viewpoint in here. In this place where I seek to open doorways. Where I seek to discuss. In the real world I am far more... unforgiving in my initial judgements. I am more like you. But, that's because most people in the real world are ignorant fools (from my experience). They don't give a rat's ass about what we're saying here. They'd blow this whole conversation off as... "uhh, fuck you." So, I blow them off with the same. In here, however, I seek mental connections with people.

And it's not so much that I seek something to respect in them. It's more that I show politeness, an open door. And allow them to show themselves. I seek to judge them with no bias. For good or ill. Of course, it's practically impossible to achieve this state, but I try anyway.

A thread in which you were a major contributor...? The only thread I can recall where you've made more than a couple of posts was Rosa's Look of other Eyes. And seeing how you mention it, that must be the one. I fail to see how I "delivered" in that thread though. But, that is besides the point as well.

In here, yes, I did deliver. And, it was in fact in my mind when I did so that that was likely your intent. But, I did so anyway? Why? Because it furthers the ends of this thread I feel. It deals with respect. Gendanken had chosen another message to highlight with our sport, but I have chosen this one.

And, also, just a bit, to dig at you for the annoyance you've caused me. Because you've made me realize that I must carefully guard my words (yeah, right...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) else the hounds might fall on me in my weakness. That thought is annoying to me. You try to make me build my own walls. Rather, higher walls. With no view. I like being made of glass. I don't want to hide behind walls.

Amd, I don't feel that I seek the look of others. I seek the contribution of certain others. The rest can go hang for all I care.

Lost me on that last bit. I wasn't trying to influence you at all. Merely conversing.

It's true that I added the "if you don't" but it certainly follows that it would be a likely scenario.

Quite. And who is it that sent the dogs away? I revealed this thing. This kernel of truth to the jibes we hurled at one another.

I think this is the most important part of the whole conversation. I should have just skipped the rest and come straight to here.

I understand what you meant by insignificant now. No. I don't think that way. I certainly value Gendanken's input and don't dismiss her thoughts and ideals because it's in 'jest.' What I do dismiss is the vague lashing out and defensiveness that prevents one from striving to higher awareness.

When pointed out by an "enemy". I didn't defend myself against the kernels of truth from the 'enemy.' I defend myself against a vague attack. Against the annoyance that I saw in Murder. Against merely seeking to find a way to get me.

I do begin to doubt that that is the whole case now. I don't dismiss it entirely, but you make some good points. You forget an angle in concentrating on me though.

My taunts also had their kernel of truth. I am not the only one who risks missing the point because it is a jest with a friend. But, I don't think that she did miss the point. We still have a long way to go on our discussion of these things. But, I don't think that either one of us dismisses the other.

That's the point.

How much? That's not the real question. The question is what does the kernel mean? Is it weakness or is it strength? The same question can be asked of her. And, I personally feel that the answer lies somewhere in between.

As far as how much honesty have you seen and how much merely my mistaken belief that it is honest. Well... who can say? We are all blind in the end. We see through the mirror darkly. The interpreter is always functioning.

I think that we might just manage to open our eyes someday though.

I can only hope. And work towards it.

Heh. I thought the same thing. But it's not quite the same thing. I haven't even called you a cumguzzling queen.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yeesh. Getting long. I won't be offended if you pick and choose to narrow it down. I should have done so, but I'm already done. So here it is.

 

Two things here.
I might have been fooled, if I'd come home late, tired, and sunk a beer or two before seeing it. So yes, there was some annoyance - but it was not directed at you.
Second. "No blind fool is Fenris". You have me thinking at a tangent here. My initial reaction to this was a certain pride, followed quickly by an annoyance at that reaction, followed by pride at feeling annoyance, followed by annoyance at feeling pride at feeling ... I'm sure you get the point. Conflicted emotions. There is no one who can flail me more than I do myself.

This constant self-analysis has become routine, a habit - and in time, others become, as I've said, like glass as a result. In knowing the self, knowing others become easier. The number of "steps" they take in their thinking becomes clear - like subroutines in a program. The more complicated the program, the more subroutines. In time, one can find themselves in very complicated loops, and often unable to say anything at all because the program hasn't finished yet... and when it has, no one is there anymore to see the result. A simple program is easily spotted, isn't it? In time, even more complicated programs (people) can be judged and ranked depending on how many steps of thought can be determined.

The only motive which can be truly known is your own. When judging others, we tend to project our experience of ourselves onto them, and determine motive in that light. Thus the humanist thinks that all men are alike, that they only want to live in peace, that all are like him and only lack the opportunity and circumstance to be so. Our resident pedant? A prime example.
Much can be seen in the assigning of motive of the one who assigns it.

However, there might come those who can incite that self-flailing with their words, their criticisms. For me, these are very, very rare. More, they might be friend or foe - respect is not confined to one or the other. I'm rambling a bit here, but the point is this - it will not come about as a result of mollification. I've mentioned it once already - I see mollification for what it is, and I'm not taken in by it.

You probably do feel the desire to converse, out there, but don't feel it would be productive. We're all a little dissillusioned, in here. It's why we are here. Those who come by here and "discuss" the same sorts of things they do on their mobile phones, at their social gatherings and in their chatboxes, don't know that.

Another sore point. I'm not above admitting it to some degree.

"At least in public"...
Remember my cat? Did you think I mentioned him in frivolity? He had his life, I had mine. He didn't like being "stroked", nor did I feel much desire to do so. He showed me his victories, and I understood him. We were simply together. If only he'd been human, and female.
Perhaps I'm being overly romantic.

I'm put in mind of Gendanken's Simba, from The Idea of Power.
You don't see a higher man in there? How can you say his work is "not known"? The fact that he does not desire it to be known does not change that it may one day be, nor does it take any value from the work itself should it never be acknowledged. Simba might take an apprentice and teach, he might not. Does this detract in any way from the value of his product? Often, there is much to be learned from a man who doesn't utter a single word. Respect for him is garnered in viewing his work, and the results of it - thus he sets an example without intention to do so, teaches without teaching. Think of Roarke showing Mike a more efficient way of welding in his building construction. Respect came from observation of efficiency on the part of Mike, and Roarke's goal was to get something done, not teach - except almost accidently, by example - and in innocence. Other men, contrary to Confuscious, often can and do see the work - regardless of whether it was intentional for them to do so or not.

This doesn't apply "in here", of course. I do see your point. I just don't wholly agree with it - however, I will admit that this entire conversation has made me see it differently.

....
While we're mentioning Confucious, there is another old Chinese adage - "he who is really hurt - doesn't talk". Therein lies the difficulty - determining who is silent as a result of having curled into themselves, who is not thinking deeply at all, and who is delving... deeply - which can sometimes result in a kind of paralysis when all the things needing to be addressed jostle for attention, thereby killing any communication at all. Here, in this place, in public, only two of those are prevalent. They might even come out with the same thoughts - but the route by which they came by them differs. Thus I understand your viewpoint that I am not "interested" - but you don't see the difference between the first and third.
Rambling here - another time perhaps.

Demanding respect.
Honesty you can demand - those posts I do make are honest, as I am in private. Respect you can never demand. That is earned.

That was a quote from a post you made. You said something like "A thread in which I was a major contributor", a day or two ago. I don't remember where it was. It put in mind "The look of other eyes". You sought to direct someone to a good thread, but didn't resist the need to point yourself out in there at the same time - nor does it appear you even realised it. It "annoyed" me. Rosa did have some valid observations, regardless of whether you saw them or not. You do often give the impression of overrationalising, not seeing things in the light of that rationalisation - in effect, it appears you're covering your tracks to some observers. Thus, your polite conversation is rendered partially invalid.

I've noticed. Your "certain others" seems to waver on occasion though.

You might also see the compliment. Call that arrogance on my part, if you wish. There was a bat in here once who I didn't like at all - and yet, his arguments brought out responses others did not, and he sometimes made me look at myself in a rather harsh light. I reiterate - respect is not confined to those we see as friends.

I don't agree, but sometimes feel she is more in agreeance with your opinion on this, or perhaps - "somewhere in between". I'm sure she'll clarify this for herself. In fact, if I'm wrong I'm sure she'll slap me over it.

"how much" is a real question, for me. It's something I'll decide for myself though, in time.

Lastly, another point I've been trying to make. There are times when being slapped with something engenders far more of an initial response than "polite conversation" will. Gendanken has pointed this out in the past, hasn't she?
And here we are.