a4a Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 Lop off the "needy nerd" and "preserving ego" parts and you will have nailed it. well exactly those are not what you want to portray. who the hell would? not me I would it imagine that it is easier to particapate with yourself intact by being hostile or saying I do not care. In hopes that a person will see past your wall and see the real you?
SmoochieFace Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 well exactly those are not what you want to portray. who the hell would? not me I would it imagine that it is easier to particapate with yourself intact by being hostile or saying I do not care. In hopes that a person will see past your wall and see the real you? I do not think of myself as *needy* or as a *nerd* and I don't come off that way based on feedback from others so that isn't an issue. Some people have seen past that wall...
a4a Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 I do not think of myself as *needy* or as a *nerd* and I don't come off that way based on feedback from others so that isn't an issue. Some people have seen past that wall... True Smooch some can see past the wall...but you cannot hold resentment for those that do not. If you expect others to treat you a certain way you also have to be willing to take that step forward on occassion. A public display of tit for tat will not make you more welcome. Eventually people will percieve and expect certain behaviors from an individual if they display them over and over again. Now I expect you to lash out at me for saying that, because I have in a way placed blame on you and pointed out a flaw in you. But I have done so with kindness.
SmoochieFace Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 Eventually people will percieve and expect certain behaviors from an individual if they display them over and over again. I have heard of this but it is a flawed way of thinking to me. If someone *changes* - does a *180* - then those expectations become invalid. Just my opinion. Now I expect you to lash out at me for saying that, because I have in a way placed blame on you and pointed out a flaw in you. But I have done so with kindness. You expect me to lash out at you because you have pointed out a flaw in me? Don't we ALL have flaws? If we do then it would be silly for me to lash out at you over it, right? So does that make your expectation silly too? Do you believe that I think I have no flaws? Why or why not?
a4a Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 I have heard of this but it is a flawed way of thinking to me. If someone *changes* - does a *180* - then those expectations become invalid. Just my opinion. Some people are not seeing your "new you".......so to you it is invalid but to them it is not. You expect me to lash out at you because you have pointed out a flaw in me? Don't we ALL have flaws? If we do then it would be silly for me to lash out at you over it, right? So does that make your expectation silly too? Do you believe that I think I have no flaws? Why or why not? Of course you have flaws..... we all do. No matter how hard we try to hide them or project that we do not. We are all f***ed up to various degrees be it to our own standards or to others standards and that is what is so great! We do not live in an ideal world it is ludicrous to continue to try to think or wish we did. Every person has a different Ideal World Fantasy. Was the underlined above a form of lashing out? I could percieve it that way, but I am not. You cannot expect a person to want to or to walk behind a horse that is a known kicker. Unless of course the horse has shown for sometime that it's habit has been broken. It takes time for trust to build, and to prove that the habit is indeed gone. right?
navywife Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 so i'm jumping in kind of late here, but does anyone really realize that nothing is original anymore? everyone that you say, do, think, or feel, has all been done before. you'd like to think you're original, you'd like to think you're the first one to ever think the way you do, but you're not. and my big thing is conformaty. "ok, conformaty sucks, so let's all rebel against conformaty" wait, doesn't that just mean i'm conforming with the rebels? i'm not saying people are not special in their own way. but come on, for as long as people have been on this earth, don't you think it's kind of hard to be an original thinker now-a-days?
lindya Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 so i'm jumping in kind of late here, but does anyone really realize that nothing is original anymore? everyone that you say, do, think, or feel, has all been done before. you'd like to think you're original, you'd like to think you're the first one to ever think the way you do, but you're not. and my big thing is conformaty. "ok, conformaty sucks, so let's all rebel against conformaty" wait, doesn't that just mean i'm conforming with the rebels? i'm not saying people are not special in their own way. but come on, for as long as people have been on this earth, don't you think it's kind of hard to be an original thinker now-a-days? Let us chortle at the irony as we consider how your comments were already covered by Newbby on the first page! THINKING for yourself is an illusion. people only ever think what data has been programmed into their brains.
d'Arthez Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 so i'm jumping in kind of late here, but does anyone really realize that nothing is original anymore? everyone that you say, do, think, or feel, has all been done before. you'd like to think you're original, you'd like to think you're the first one to ever think the way you do, but you're not. and my big thing is conformaty. "ok, conformaty sucks, so let's all rebel against conformaty" wait, doesn't that just mean i'm conforming with the rebels? i'm not saying people are not special in their own way. but come on, for as long as people have been on this earth, don't you think it's kind of hard to be an original thinker now-a-days? Good points. But is originality not simply applying old formulas anew, in slightly different settings and ways? Thousands of women were painted before Leonardo painted the Mona Lisa. Thousands of women have been painted since the Mona Lisa. And it is not just art (although it is most easily seen in that field), but practically any field of endeavour. The problem is not that things have been done before, but that the meaning or lack of meaning results from the fact that we consider that those things have been done before. A lot of people can still idealize marriage as being highly romantic, whilst others see it as a business transaction (which legally speaking it is). Everything ultimately becomes meaningless in our perception, of what we do, and what we believe in. Meaning is not something we create solely and actively. A lot of "meaning" is also offered to us on a plate, thus making the meaning of "a highly romantic weekend to Paris" already questionable. It is only romantic if you come up with something original, and not do something that 30,000,000 people do each year. It is exactly the lack of faith (not so much in the religious, but in the spiritual sense), that seems to be paralyzing us, in these times, in my opinion. It is not (necessarily) about believing in the existence of a higher power, but in the steadfast belief that we can actively contribute to the lives of others and ourselves, and improve the fate of mankind, that is almost completely lacking, or so it seems.
a4a Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 It is exactly the lack of faith (not so much in the religious, but in the spiritual sense), that seems to be paralyzing us, in these times, in my opinion. It is not (necessarily) about believing in the existence of a higher power, but in the steadfast belief that we can actively contribute to the lives of others and ourselves, and improve the fate of mankind, that is almost completely lacking, or so it seems. I would have to disagree with your opinion on this. But than of course it is like looking at a glass...... some will see half empty..... some half full. It is easy to put out opinions, they themselves cannot truly be argued. Many tend to do this without giving the reasons why they have formed such opinions.
d'Arthez Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 I would have to disagree with your opinion on this. But than of course it is like looking at a glass...... some will see half empty..... some half full. But why do you disagree then?
lindya Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 A lot of "meaning" is also offered to us on a plate' date=' thus making the meaning of "a highly romantic weekend to Paris" already questionable. It is only romantic if you come up with something original, and not do something that 30,000,000 people do each year.[/quote'] Regardez la mournful expression on your duck's face! All those months it's spent planning to spring a surprise trip on you. Dreams of bondage and croissants followed by a happy little bob along the Seine that have now been turned to dust by your consideration of the romantic connotations attached to Paris being "questionable". One can only hope that the duck will find some way of providing an original twist to the weekend.
serial muse Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 That little niggling suspicion that someone couldn't possibly be that secure? Envy, perhaps? Is it not possible that someone might have spent a lot of time resolving fears and coming to terms with life as it is in a way that gives them peace of mind and the strength that comes from that? If that's not possible to envision, why is it not possible to envision? OC, I have great respect for your insight - and as a general philosophical argument, this is certainly possible. But in this case, given the additional information we have on, say, both SF and Woggle, I don't think it rings true. SF, in particular, has already said he wants to be part of the group, and that it frustrates him that he doesn't know how: BINGO! Also the fact that they cannot *see* that I want to be a part of group triggers those negative feelings. I do not know how to communicate that want to anyone. The bottom line is, if someone is so secure, then that should speak for itself. There is simply no need to proclaim it to all, unless it is somehow important to you (the general you) to have that recognized. Which is inherently insecure. To be honest, OC, I believe that you are generally secure. And part of the reason for that is that, although you have always been willing to make strong arguments for the things you believe in, you don't make frequent posts about your individuality. You just exhibit it. That is a far more convincing argument. I also think that one line that pokes holes in the idea that such proclamations come from a place of security is the number of generalizing comments about shallow or ruthless women that yes, both Woggle and SF have made. Those comments don't come from a place of security, but from insecurity and defensiveness.
blind_otter Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 One can only hope that the duck will find some way of providing an original twist to the weekend. Does it count if the aforementioned original twist involves ONLY the very orignial anatomy of said duck?
a4a Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 But why do you disagree then? Because I see it differently. a4a- a duck with one shorter leg may end up walking in circles often
lindya Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 Does it count if the aforementioned original twist involves ONLY the very orignial anatomy of said duck? What - the tattoo on its wing? Only d'Arthez can answer that!
d'Arthez Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 Because I see it differently. The question already implied I was asking for arguments, not for an explanation, on why you disagree.
blind_otter Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 You know what? I think it a fallacy to state that there is no more individuality. When you think about the multitude of things that people can feel, think, believe, love, hate....just because they don't necessarily feel comfortable enough to express their individuality to everyone doesn't mean it doesn't exist. To me there is no black and white, no day and night, there are a bajillion shades of a billion colors and even the discussion and arguments on here illustrate that. No one here thinks exactly like anyone else does. We see it in action every day. And to assume at first that everyone is different or an individual who is different from you seems to be like a good thing, because then when they act or react differently from what you think is appropriate, instead of getting all worked up about it, you can just say HEY! they are probably just different from me. I don't need to take this personally! I'm talking about the complexities involved in socializing. I seem to see the onus of responsibility placed on the communicator's shoulders to be all out there and obvious about their motivations, who they are, what they are, their personal philosophies, blah blah BLAH. Like in terms of verbal shortcuts I have the TIME to do that with everyone I talk to. That is just complete bulls***. Utter pap.
serial muse Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 You know what? I think it a fallacy to state that there is no more individuality. When you think about the multitude of things that people can feel, think, believe, love, hate....just because they don't necessarily feel comfortable enough to express their individuality to everyone doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I think this is an excellent point, and furthermore I...what is that in your avatar, B_O???
newbby Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 I have heard of this but it is a flawed way of thinking to me. If someone *changes* - does a *180* - then those expectations become invalid. Just my opinion. i just want to step in for a minute and say, i completely agree. if people strove to approach people from afresh constantly, then it not only allows those they approach to just be, as they are, it also allows THEM to drop their own habitual reactions/expectations. just think, it could even lead to world peace V
blind_otter Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 I think this is an excellent point, and furthermore I...what is that in your avatar, B_O??? This is up for debate. I say it's an angry muff. But it occured to me in conversation that this could be a4a's potato on a full moon. Other options - irritated full bush - angry clam - unsettled hairpie
lindya Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 It is exactly the lack of faith (not so much in the religious' date=' but in the spiritual sense), that seems to be paralyzing us, in these times, in my opinion. It is not (necessarily) about believing in the existence of a higher power, but in the steadfast belief that we can actively contribute to the lives of others and ourselves, and improve the fate of mankind, that is almost completely lacking, or so it seems.[/quote'] Now actually - that ties in quite interestingly with the whole concept of individualism as expounded by our old friend Ayn Rand. She was (or struck me as) being fervently against notions of altruism in that they were used to place obligations on artists and intellectuals to use their gifts for the good of society...this being a form of constraint on their talent. Is the concept of individuality inevitably opposed to spirituality, if spirituality stems from helping others and improving the fate of mankind? Or is it just Ayn Rand's concept of individuality that is opposed to that? What is it that people want for themselves when they say "I am an individual" ...and what would be the repercussions of having a planet full of people who were committed to individualism rather than collectivism?
serial muse Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 i just want to step in for a minute and say, i completely agree. if people strove to approach people from afresh constantly, then it not only allows those they approach to just be, as they are, it also allows THEM to drop their own habitual reactions/expectations. just think, it could even lead to world peace V Yes - I think that what SF said about that is true, too. If only it weren't so dammed hard to do! But if we could do it,then in addition to world peace, there might also be more second chances in relationships, too.
blind_otter Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 i just want to step in for a minute and say, i completely agree. if people strove to approach people from afresh constantly, then it not only allows those they approach to just be, as they are, it also allows THEM to drop their own habitual reactions/expectations. just think, it could even lead to world peace V This is not a choice, though. There is a certain neurobiological protocl involved in socializing - it's the reason that our brains are as large as they are. Other primates with their complex and multi-layerd social groups also share this trait. To approach a person you interact with frequently as if it were a fresh start every time would get exhausting and it's inefficient because you NEED to be able to make an educated guess on how people will respond to you. It's a protective measure. By necessity we have mental shortcuts in place that are difficult to consciously choose. I think we have all established pre-conceived notions when it comes to the loved ones in our lives. Like, my Dad is deaf and refuses to wear a hearing aid. So if, every time I tried to talk to him, I acted as if I didn't know he refuses to wear his hearing aid, we'd go through the same dance every time we spoke. it's behaviorism at it's most basic. This is why, when I went to marriage counseling with my exH, the therapist advised that it would be difficult. You get habituation to a certain method of interacting with someone, it is difficult to re-write that habituation. It's the way our brains are structured. which is why it simply takes TIME, and endurance, when it comes to learning the complexities of socialization. 1
serial muse Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 This is why, when I went to marriage counseling with my exH, the therapist advised that it would be difficult. You get habituation to a certain method of interacting with someone, it is difficult to re-write that habituation. It's the way our brains are structured. which is why it simply takes TIME, and endurance, when it comes to learning the complexities of socialization. Yep, that's true...and, looking back at my previous post about second chances, I suppose that that's an argument for why the 180 approach isn't necessarily the most healthy - some relationships should stay ended. Some lessons should be remembered. Otherwise, we say of the person that they "never learn". I think it's a satanic pompom...
whichwayisup Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 and furthermore I...what is that in your avatar, B_O??? I was wondering wtf it was too! I'm sorry, but your avatar is completely distracting me from reading this thread. I keep on picturing your avatar and Smoochie's adorable bunny going at it. (And I hear "boing, Boing, BOING" in my head... ) Ok, sorry for thread stealing. Call it a humour commerical break in this thread. Over and Out.
Recommended Posts