The Couch

quirk analysis

Comments on quirk analysis

Nihil Loc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 16, 2005

Total Topics: 56
Total Comments: 864
Posted 08/31/09 - 10:08 PM:

edit: the following posts have been moved here from another thread

Quirk wrote:
I have a reputation as a selfish, lying, cheating, bastard to maintain, so, let me further say this...


Hyperbole...

Quirk wrote:
Since I have no interest in playing the civilization game and no interest in any of the four groups: as far as I'm concerned, they can all go to the devil.


Hyperbole...

Quirk wrote:
It seems that way only to those too chickenshit to buck the system. Those who need 'community' to simply survive are, I'm sure, horrified that someone like me flouts the status quo.


More hyperbole...

Strong words but they are just components of a front: 7 a : "a person, group, or thing used to mask the identity or true character or activity of the actual controlling agent."

Bitterness too. What is there to be bitter about?



Edited by libertygrl on 09/01/09 - 9:43 AM. Reason: added referring link to top of post
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
Posted 08/31/09 - 10:51 PM:

no psychoanalyzing fellow members without their invitation, please. thanks

Edited by libertygrl on 09/01/09 - 9:43 AM
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
Posted 09/01/09 - 9:20 AM:

"Hyperbole X 3"


No: Humorous, but real, commentary and statement

Ah, 'humor': a sense of which is sorely lacking among some.

HA!

#

"no psychoanalyzing fellow members without their invitation"


Please: analyze away!

It's your time and energy...expend them as you like. wink

#

"...a front: 7 a : "a person, group, or thing used to mask the identity or true character or activity of the actual controlling agent."


I presume evidence for such an assessment is forthcoming, yes?

Otherwise: the assessment is just an opinion, which, as the Mighty Yahweh pointed out elsewhere, is just that, 'opinion', which -- to my mind -- makes the assessment meaningless.

#

"Bitterness too. What is there to be bitter about?"


Where you see 'bitterness', dear 'nothing’, I see matter of fact-ness.

*shrug*

Edited by henry quirk on 09/01/09 - 9:39 AM
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
Posted 09/01/09 - 9:47 AM:

henry wrote:
Where you see 'bitterness', dear 'nothing’, I see matter of fact-ness.

leave the name-calling out. this is why uninvited psychoanalysis is not welcome here. if you guys feel like smacking each other around, do it somewhere else.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
Posted 09/01/09 - 9:50 AM:

Got it...however: 'nothing' is what 'Nihil' means...so: it was less name-calling and more a play on words.

But: I hear ya, Liberty...
Nihil Loc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 16, 2005

Total Topics: 56
Total Comments: 864
Posted 09/01/09 - 3:23 PM:

Quirk wrote:
I presume evidence for such an assessment is forthcoming, yes?

Otherwise: the assessment is just an opinion, which, as the Mighty Yahweh pointed out elsewhere, is just that, 'opinion', which -- to my mind -- makes the assessment meaningless.


Your language is evidence. Posed unnecessarily as a man set against the status quo who by circumstance (?) must always defend himself against the 'politically correct' but then disregards such a critically incessant response as humor (sarcasm?). There is some point to be made by this show.

Everyone is a front in words, myself included. Nothing changes that unless we meet face to face and see into each others lives. What makes you, Quirk? Why tendency A rather than tendency Y?

confused
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
Posted 09/01/09 - 4:46 PM:

"Your language is evidence."

Poor evidence indeed! One man's 'bitter' harangue* is another's plain speech.

#

"Why tendency A rather than tendency Y?"

I am who and what I am, as are you.

Thing is: I choose who and what I am.

Do you?

*shrug*

#

All this...

"Posed unnecessarily as a man set against the status quo who by circumstance (?) must always defend himself against the 'politically correct' but then disregards such a critically incessant response as humor** (sarcasm?). There is some point to be made by this show. Everyone is a front in words, myself included. Nothing changes that unless we meet face to face and see into each others lives."

...eyewash, conjecture, opinion. You're, of course, free to foist it up. I, however, am free to ignore it (or respond in a way you won't like).

#

"What makes you, Quirk?"

I do. That's what being a self-possessed, self-deliberating, individual is all about. wink

#

*One should never discount the harangue. As tool: it’s a fine way to prod the conversation into life, to force the flow from one channel to another, or to illustrate a point.

**Actually: I said it was 'Humorous, but real, commentary and statement'. Not the same as ''humor' or 'sarcasm'

Edited by henry quirk on 09/01/09 - 5:26 PM
Nihil Loc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 16, 2005

Total Topics: 56
Total Comments: 864
Posted 09/01/09 - 9:45 PM:

Quirk wrote:
Thing is: I choose who and what I am.

Do you?


*shrug*

I doubt it. I've a hand that was dealt and an inherited set of plays to pursue. I don't choose who and what I am absolutely. Nobody does. That is why it would be interesting to know who you really are, the back-story so to speak, to see what makes you work, Quirk.

I won't hold my breath.

henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
Posted 09/02/09 - 8:38 AM:

"I've a hand that was dealt and an inherited set of plays to pursue. I don't choose who and what I am absolutely. Nobody does."

On this we agree! As I've said elsewhere (and perhaps in this forum too) I am bound up in, and by the world. Free will is a fantasy.

But...

I have, am, agency, so, within the very broad, very diffuse, limits imposed by reality, I choose...I choose a great many things...I choose to remain mired in the past (shackled and victimized by my own slavishness), or, I choose to move forward and away, to build what I want on the foundation of myself.

I choose...not unlimited choice, but choice, nonetheless.

So: (again, within the limits of my 'self') I choose who and what I am.

Again: do you?

#

"That is why it would be interesting to know who you really are, the back-story so to speak, to see what makes you work, Quirk."

If that's truly the agenda, then, I'm flattered.

But: to get to my back story, you need to ask specific questions. Merely engaging in conjecture about 'me' ain't warming my cockles.

#

"I won't hold my breath."

Not a good idea in any circumstance (except for underwater and when surrounded by mustard gas).
Nihil Loc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 16, 2005

Total Topics: 56
Total Comments: 864
#10 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/02/09 - 11:37 PM:

Quirk wrote:
I choose...not unlimited choice, but choice, nonetheless.

So: (again, within the limits of my 'self') I choose who and what I am.

Again: do you?


It ain't easy to answer with either yes or no. My wants are not much more than the every-day-pedestrian's needs (which are quite extravagant even in recession). Choices I've made have had great impact on my character. In little ways I choose who and what I am all the time. Just being here is an example. Did I choose to be here at the couch? Is the 'I' as the executive function a complete omniscient dictator of the whole self, or is there some kind of continual exchange between entities like the Id and Superego, with the organs of the self in perpetual conflict?

Quirk wrote:
But: to get to my back story, you need to ask specific questions. Merely engaging in conjecture about 'me' ain't warming my cockles.


What is the origin of your political ideology, favoring absolute self-reliance and unregulated free market capitalism? You didn't randomly select it from a hat with a few other options, did you? sticking out tongue
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#11 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/03/09 - 3:08 AM:

Nihil Loc wrote:
In little ways I choose who and what I am all the time.


Yes and no.



Just being here is an example. Did I choose to be here at the couch? Is the 'I' as the executive function a complete omniscient dictator of the whole self, or is there some kind of continual exchange between entities like the Id and Superego, with the organs of the self in perpetual conflict?


'I' is not capable of choosing freely. It cannot be a drashta. Only a Drashta can move between infinite parallel universes. Only drashta has free will,so to say.






Thank you.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#12 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/03/09 - 9:35 AM:

"Is the 'I' as the executive function a complete omniscient dictator of the whole self, or is there some kind of continual exchange between entities like the Id and Superego, with the organs of the self in perpetual conflict?"

First: there are no 'Id and Superego'. These are simply poor models Sigmund foisted up. Neither has any basis in reality.

Second: The 'I' is 'you'. It's not a function or a process or 'a complete omniscient dictator'...'you' are seamless and whole. You are 'you' and -- within the limits of your 'self' -- you choose.

#

"What is the origin of your political ideology, favoring absolute self-reliance and unregulated free market capitalism? You didn't randomly select it from a hat with a few other options, did you?"

First: I'm no defender of 'capitalism'. Free markets, yes. The two -- capitalism and free markets -- are not synonymous.

I subscribe to no ideology*.

Second: I favor 'me' (not 'absolute self-reliance and unregulated free market capitalism') because it's my nature** to do so. In this: I had no choice. Where I did have a choice was to be myself, or, allow everyone (parents, school, society, etc.) to 'shape' me, probably in ways that would have conflicted with that nature.

The crux event: getting hold of a copy of Stirner's 'the Ego and His Own' at just the right time.

Stirner, in the awkward, crippled, translation, gave words to describe what I felt and thought. His was not a philosophy but a manifesto.

I understood then: there wasn't something wrong with me for claiming my 'self' as my own, for acting in the world as I chose instead just reacting according to convention.

I understood then, I was, and am, my first, best, property...there are no fleshy umbilicals tying me to any-one or -thing...Stirner's work didn't liberate me by way of persuasion but, instead, clarified 'me' as 'me' for 'me'.

#

*Ideology, to me, implies universality. I see no evidence 'ideology' is anything more than another, sometimes useful, fiction with no basis in reality. Ideology is a model...nothing more.

#

**By 'nature' I mean all those neat, genetic inheritances of mine...the way ma and pop contributed to 'me', and the way all that information came together, mutated, transformed into something new, that is, the foundation upon which I was built and, later, built myself.

In this: the Existentialists are wrong. The individual comes into the world with vast aspects of him 'self' already set in place. Nothing to be done about that...no changing what 'is'. But: as I see it, the individual has enormous power over how he uses him 'self' how he comports him 'self' and -- at heart -- whether he is aligned with his own nature or at odds with it.

I found myself depressed, frustrated, angry, etc. precisely at those times and in those circumstances where I acted contrary to who and what I am. Forcing schisms within, as it were, simply to 'get along' and serve the 'common good'.

Most of my adult life: I've lived without schism, without depression, without anger (but plenty of hatred**!), because I took hold of 'me'.

#

***Anger and hatred are two very different things.

Anger is hot...it rules and over-rules...it enslaves the angry man and makes a tool of him.

Hatred is cold, dispassionate. In wise hands: hatred is clarifying and a multipurpose tool (both cudgel and scalpel).

Edited by henry quirk on 09/03/09 - 11:51 AM
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#13 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/03/09 - 12:05 PM:

"Hey quirk: can I analyze you?"

Do as you like.

*shrug*
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#14 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/03/09 - 12:11 PM:

"Yeah, on second thought... I'll have to do it when I'm not doing other priority things like washing my hair."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

A fickle deity...
Nihil Loc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 16, 2005

Total Topics: 56
Total Comments: 864
#15 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/03/09 - 1:06 PM:

Quirk wrote:
First: there are no 'Id and Superego'. These are simply poor models Sigmund foisted up. Neither has any basis in reality.


Id, Ego, Superego: the It, the I, and the Over-I.

As I see it, the Over-I represents the molding and enforcement of culture and its limiting institutions upon the an individual; Law and Ethics as embodied by a self-governing group or authoritarian agency or constitution, down to the mundane learned conduct which allows each of us to function in society.

When a person says 'let's 'stick it to the man'' they render up a sort of perennial attitude toward the scares of enculturation and the pyscho-social limits imposed by the status quo. You, Quirk, talk of flouting or ignoring 'convention' and claim to be more free in this respect. But such willfulness evokes the same damn tension between what you want and what you get, or who you'd like to be and who you actually are. It isn't as if you are all that different from anybody else. I wager that your attitude and ideas are by no measure original (but whose are?).

Quirk wrote:
I subscribe to no ideology*.


If we could extract the Quirkian tendencies and maybe even postulate true reasons or causes for those tendencies, then such a treasure would just as well substitute for an ideology. The above quote might as well be a maxim for the Quirkian manifesto.

Quirk wrote:
I favor 'me' (not 'absolute self-reliance and unregulated free market capitalism') because it's my nature** to do so. In this: I had no choice. Where I did have a choice was to be myself, or, allow everyone (parents, school, society, etc.) to 'shape' me, probably in ways that would have conflicted with that nature.


How do we separate your nature from your enculturated self? Does it merely come down to a conflict of wants and or unrequited needs? (Are a few unlucky folks actually damaged by enculturation?)

Quirk wrote:
I found myself depressed, frustrated, angry, etc. precisely at those times and in those circumstances where I acted contrary to who and what I am. Forcing schisms within, as it were, simply to 'get along' and serve the 'common good'.


With regard to your family's expectations of you?



Nihil Loc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 16, 2005

Total Topics: 56
Total Comments: 864
#16 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/03/09 - 1:42 PM:

Quirk wrote:
The crux event: getting hold of a copy of Stirner's 'the Ego and His Own' at just the right time.


One to add to my reading list.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#17 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/03/09 - 2:37 PM:

"...the Over-I represents the molding and enforcement of culture and its limiting institutions upon the an individual; Law and Ethics as embodied by a self-governing group or authoritarian agency or constitution, down to the mundane learned conduct which allows each of us to function in society."

What you describe here is external, not a function of me unless I adhere to the 'LAW'. And even then: still external to me. It remains external to me because, at any time, I can choose to not abide. What you describe is just another set of, sometimes useful, fictions, not reality.

Certainly the result of a body adhering to the dictates of the fiction are real (bomb the building for 77, nonexistent, virgins comes to mind), but the fiction itself (Law and Ethics) remains a fiction to be clung to, or discarded.

#

"When a person says 'let's 'stick it to the man'' they render up a sort of perennial attitude toward the scares of enculturation and the psycho-social limits imposed by the status quo"

I'm sure you're right. I, of course, don't care about 'the man' or 'sticking it' to him. My only interest is navigating what 'is', not overthrowing it.

For revolution: you need to talk to xanthos... wink

#

"You, Quirk, talk of flouting or ignoring 'convention' and claim to be more free in this respect."

I flout convention, yes. Quietly, for my own reasons (that is: for myself).

Never said I was more 'free' as a result.

#

"But such willfulness evokes the same damn tension between what you want and what you get, or who you'd like to be and who you actually are."

I'm sure you're right. I however get what I want (which is very little), get what I need (which is very little) and am who I want to be.

#

"It isn't as if you are all that different from anybody else."

True. And still I'm 'here' and you're 'there'. Something divides us...some difference exists.

#

"I wager that your attitude and ideas are by no measure original (but whose are?)."

Probably not. So what? My 'attitude' and 'ideas' are mine, arrived at by 'me'...doesn't matter if 1,000,000 others had or have the same 'attitude' or 'ideas'.

#

"If we could extract the Quirkian tendencies and maybe even postulate true reasons or causes for those tendencies, then such a treasure would just as well substitute for an ideology."

Probably. But in extracting, you codify for the use of others. For them: codified 'Quirkian tendencies' could very well become an ideology.

For me: 'Quirkian tendencies' is just me.

#

"The above quote might as well be a maxim for the Quirkian manifesto."

Probably...for my followers, anyway...HA!

#

"How do we separate your nature from your enculturated self?"

I don't think you can. Whole and seamless, Nihil, whole and seamless.

Enculturation is over-rated. Folks travel extensively, immigrate all over the place...cultures are dropped like so much dirty clothing in the process. Culture has its uses but the indocrinative qualities only apply if you want them to.

#

"With regard to your family's expectations of you?"

Nah. Once my family understood me, I was left alone, and (later), became valued for what I could offer, instead of frowned upon for what I wouldn't give.

No: the 'culprit' is the world (that aggregate of culture, society, civilization, etc. (more accurately, the folks who rule and who demand service to maintain whatever status quo is in place).

Surely: you can't with a straight face tell me 'the world' doesn't attempt to square circles all the damned time, can you?

#

"One to add to my reading list."

A boring read, an unwieldy translation: but there be gold in them pages...

#

"true reasons or causes for those tendencies"

This, then, is the flaw in your inquires. You imagine I have some dark secret, some past damage, that colors everything, rather than taking me at my word that I am what I am because it is my nature to be what I am.

Why is it important to you to believe me damaged instead of just different?
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#18 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/03/09 - 2:54 PM:

This, then, is Yahweh’s 'wise' assessment of me, as offered through private message.

I post it here in keeping with the thread's topic.

I certainly do not expect, or want, Liberty to take a hand on any level.


"I think you're conceited and dumb, a poser with a front. It is annoying, so it only seems appropriate to let you know, because it seems that you're unaware of this."


HA!

Also: Yahweh had a somewhat more direct assessment to offer by way of instant messaging, but -- being dumb -- I can't access the text to save for verification, or posting, purposes.

#

Found it!


henry quirk (10:24 AM): Well?
henry quirk (10:12 AM): HA! that the best you got?
Yahweh (10:10 AM): g
Yahweh (10:10 AM): a
Yahweh (10:10 AM): f
henry quirk (09:50 AM): hey...what's shaking, hoary thunderer?
Yahweh (09:32 AM): hey quirk
Bold indicates unread messages. Yahweh: Sep 03 2009 - 10:24 AM


And there you have it...Quirk according to Yaweh.

wink
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
#19 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/03/09 - 3:32 PM:

henry wrote:
I certainly do not expect, or want, Liberty to take a hand on any level.

can't think of any reason to concern myself with what people post to each other via private messaging, unless yahweh objects for some reason to having his sentiments shared openly by you. i don't imagine that he does. cheers
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#20 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/03/09 - 4:53 PM:

"i don't imagine that he does"

I couldn't care less either way. He posted his comments in the wrong place...I simply corrected his error.

If he does complain: then, please, delete away. If he doesn't: then, please, let his 'assessment' stand.

I leave it to individual forum members to decide for themselves if his assessment of me as 'conceited', 'dumb', 'poser', and 'fag' is accurate or not.

It'll be interesting to see how any Yaweh-sympathizers arrive at their conclusions. I hope they, whoever they might be, are more thorough in offering up evidence than Yahweh. wink
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#21 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/03/09 - 5:30 PM:

I wrote: 'Why is it important to you to believe me damaged instead of just different?'


I offer a possible, generalized, answer: A great many folks want desperately to believe the best about others. Laudable. Such a perspective can drive one to refine his own life. At most: he draws like minds to him. At least: he sets (he believes) an example, a model, for others to emulate.

This is fine.

The problem: sometimes, when a body (and let's call him the idealist) is so desperate to find only the good in others, such a person might actually come to believe (without evidence) that it's natural to 'be' good (as 'he' sees good). Such a person might come to view 'difference' (except for the carefully proscribed difference, the sanitized difference, the 'acceptable' difference) as indicative of 'wrongness'. A 'wrongess' that must have its roots in damage of one kind or another.

When faced with the different person -- one who claims to be what they are as function of reasoned choice and nature -- the idealist can't simply 'shrug* and live and let live. Instead they poke and prod, looking for the soft spot, the sore tooth, the irritating boil, that forces the other (and let's call him the idiosyncrat) to be so unacceptably 'different'.

No one wins, of course. The idealist can't live and let live for two possible reasons.

One: to abandon what he sees as such a damaged soul is immoral. That is: the idealist must save the idiosyncrat...from himself...from the ghosts that haunt him...etc. Unfortunately: the idiosyncrat doesn't want, need, saving and he says so.

Two: the idealist can't abide a perspective so alien, so harsh, so different, to move about unmolested. He considers it a matter of honor, or of the 'public good', to bring the cancerous idiosyncrat into the light, and reveal him for what he is (said 'is' varying depending on the idealist). Unfortunately: the idiosyncrat, in his 'dumb' way, refuses to go quietly, to be bound to the chair, to submit to distorted Socratic interrogation and fervent polemic (not, at least, without saying his piece too).

Again: no one wins.

What's interesting to me, especially in a forum like this, is little to no attempt is ever made to actually refute the points of the idiosyncrat.

For example: each of my unpalatable little posts is pregnant with embedded points to discuss and debate. This is intentional. And yet -- always, always, always -- the method of presentation (and the presenter) are criticized while the content (which should be the only issue) is rarely commented on.

Yes: as the expression goes, 'you catch more flies with honey than vinegar', but none of you are flies.

I expect better.

Anyway: the above is directed at no one in particular (so, please, Nihil: no complaints). As I said, I'm just offering a possible, generalized answer to the question I posed (plus a little rant for balance).

Onward! Upward!
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
#22 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/03/09 - 7:34 PM:

henry wrote:
What's interesting to me, especially in a forum like this, is little to no attempt is ever made to actually refute the points of the idiosyncrat.

maybe most of your points don't require refuting. i would take it as a compliment. on the other hand, you seem very certain about what you believe so at least from my standpoint, there seldom seems any reason to debate anything with you.

to restate plainly what i have just said: a) many times i agree with you. b) when i don't agree with you, i often don't see any point in debating it.

case in point: in the "insanity" thread, i disagree with your perspective on what constitutes insanity. as far as i'm concerned, it's nothing more than a difference in perspective. in such cases i see little point in debating. any ensuing debate would be more in the interest of getting to know each other better, which doesn't seem to coincide with your "i don't need people" position. getting to know people is a give and take, but you've expressed clearly that you are only interested in taking and not giving. so why be surprised at the idea that maybe people don't want to enter into a discourse with you? you may say that you don't care if they do or don't, but if you claim that you don't, i would suggest that your complaints betray otherwise.

cheers,
lib
Nihil Loc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 16, 2005

Total Topics: 56
Total Comments: 864
#23 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/03/09 - 9:13 PM:

Lib wrote:
to restate plainly what i have just said: a) many times i agree with you. b) when i don't agree with you, i often don't see any point in debating it.


I agree.

Quirk,

You speak of better kinds of evidence but there is the impression that no good reason coupled with insight into the human condition would make a difference to you. I'd watch you spar with another but I'm not so good at debate.

Quirk wrote:
Onward! Upward!


Spare Nietzsche! You're gonna give me a laugh attack.

Quirk wrote:
The problem: sometimes, when a body (and let's call him the idealist) is so desperate to find only the good in others, such a person might actually come to believe (without evidence) that it's natural to 'be' good (as 'he' sees good). Such a person might come to view 'difference' (except for the carefully proscribed difference, the sanitized difference, the 'acceptable' difference) as indicative of 'wrongness'. A 'wrongess' that must have its roots in damage of one kind or another.


I like this but it is a slight exaggeration if it would apply to me. What you say is not a good indication of what you are and this is why I'd still insist that you are putting up a front, which is possibly valuable and put in place for inciting others to debate through emotional appeals.

The lesson I like to recapitulate to myself here is that we are naturally suspicious of others, not only because they may intentionally deceive us, but because we each can only objectify ourselves so far. A true encounter with the other isn't always at the cross road of alienating difference. The experience of being there, seeing the who, trumps all of the character analysis, codification, ideological bullshit. Rabbits can turn themselves into dragons with just a pen.

I'll role the dice and become a Jeffery Dhamer, Mao Tsi Tung, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Idi Amin, Hitler or anyone, really. That they exist trumps the drama of idealism, since any of us given the improbability could have been like those madmen and radical idealists. Reality too often collapses the ideal and cuts through the artifices. Death purges us of all such krap and silly melodrama (if any of us is to blame) sooner or later.

The real picks you up and flings you into the fire, as you say. No time to talk sweet pea, I'm running. Running from a nightmare that isn't there. Or I'm feeling, feeling a botched carpal tunnel surgery, pained to suicide.
I'm cutting up the sham to undo the shame of shams... bla,bla,bla... Nihil, sweet nothing.

Edited by Nihil Loc on 09/03/09 - 9:37 PM
Nihil Loc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 16, 2005

Total Topics: 56
Total Comments: 864
#24 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/03/09 - 10:53 PM:

Quirk wrote:
I offer a possible, generalized, answer: A great many folks want desperately to believe the best about others. Laudable. Such a perspective can drive one to refine his own life. At most: he draws like minds to him. At least: he sets (he believes) an example, a model, for others to emulate.


At most: he fulfills himself. At least: he is embittered about forgoing what would make him feel alive. Inbetween: he finds ecstasy in the absurdity of life's throws and disappearances, whether accorded a failure or success.

Quirk wrote:
The problem: sometimes, when a body (and let's call him the idealist) is so desperate to find only the good in others, such a person might actually come to believe (without evidence) that it's natural to 'be' good (as 'he' sees good). Such a person might come to view 'difference' (except for the carefully proscribed difference, the sanitized difference, the 'acceptable' difference) as indicative of 'wrongness'. A 'wrongess' that must have its roots in damage of one kind or another.


A problem: sometimes, when a body (and let's call him a human being) is so desperate to flourish, such a person might actually come to believe (with evidence), that it is only natural, however statistically rare, to suffer a life threatening congenital disease. Such a person might come to view his disease as indicative of inherent 'wrongness.' A 'wrongness' that must have its roots in the fate of natural bodies of one kind or another.

Quirk wrote:
When faced with the different person -- one who claims to be what they are as function of reasoned choice and nature -- the idealist can't simply 'shrug* and live and let live. Instead they poke and prod, looking for the soft spot, the sore tooth, the irritating boil, that forces the other (and let's call him the idiosyncrat) to be so unacceptably 'different'.


When faced with the same person -- one who claims to be what they are as function of reasoned choice and nature -- the idealist can simply 'shrug* and live and let live. For fun they poke and prod, looking for the hard spot, the adamantine tooth, the sclerotic shell, that forces the other (and let's call him the idiosyncrat) to be so persistently in his own words unacceptably 'different'.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#25 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/04/09 - 10:21 AM:

"you may say that you don't care if they do or don't, but if you claim that you don't, i would suggest that your complaints betray otherwise."

You may be right, Liberty...I'll have to think on it.

#

"You speak of better kinds of evidence but there is the impression that no good reason coupled with insight into the human condition would make a difference to you."

A valuable insight, Nihil...again: I'll have to think on it.
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.