• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    31 year ago

    No, I’m not. I’m trying to teach you about your own nature, so you can correct it.

    I know my nature thank you very much. And what do you mean with “correction”? Do you want me to be an asshole? You also don’t need to worry about me: I’m peaceful, not harmless. In fact, you can’t really be peaceful if you’re harmless, in that we agree I think.

    The same motive all narcissists have - you’re trying to “prove” your “better” than I am to hide from your own insecurity. You’re trying to hide some secret shame from others - and you’re willing do anything, including kill, to do so.

    That’s not a narcissistic motive. Narcissists feel shame when they, inadvertently, do something nice same as others feel shame when they inadvertently hurt. Their moral instincts are flipped and their function in society is to keep the rest on our toes. They’re the empty space directly around the mark so the mark is easier to see. Their purpose in life is to be a warning example. In that way they serve good.

    Playing over fears is a thing every human is prone to, no matter the neurological makeup. It’s either a function of pride, to which the antidote is humility, or urgency/stress, to which the antidote is taking your time, avoiding snap judgements… or it’s foolhardiness. Courage, OTOH, is not playing over but actually overcoming fear, usually out of wisdom, the queen of the virtues, able to bring opposing instincts into mutually agreeable concord. That’s adaptation without the “mal-” in front.

    And I don’t care about whatever shame the assholes put into you. Keep it to yourself, you deserve kindness regardless. The question is whether you’re willing to look beyond it and become receptive to kindness, or whether you carry it around as a shield because giving it up would invoke the ire of people you are, as I gather, no longer under the direct thumb of.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        I’m not your gullible mark. I’ll worry about you as I see fit - not as you dictate.

        Oh this is very interesting. I meant you do not need worry about my safety. As you seemed to be keen on “curing” me of my “naive” ways, convincing you of yours, seeing the whole world as nothing but enmity. It didn’t even occur to me that it could be read the other way around. How did you come to that interpretation?

        No we don’t - I can’t even make sense of this line.

        Someone who is harmless has no way to defend themselves. They will be afraid little tiny chihuahuas throwing their ire at anyone that they ever meet, considering all to be more powerful than them, that ire will be directed inside into self-hatred or outside into anger, but it’s still the same helplessness.

        If you are not harmless, however, you can find safety, even in dicey situations, in your capacity to get out of them on your own terms. It’s the martial artists who is not impressed by chest thumping, and see no need to engage in that practice: If a punch flies their way they’re going to react, they can trust the back of their mind to deal with it. Any worry there might be does not need to cross the threshold of consciousness because they have achieved unconscious competence. That enables peacefulness even in a biker bar.

        Human beings are incapable of being genuine to those they do not consider their equal.

        Are humans fake to their pets, to their children? To their frail elders?

        I have been branded infinitely beneath all others, a brand enforced by society itself.

        How much do you yourself enforce that brand?

        and nothing anyone can say will change my mind.

        …never mind you just answered that.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            To you, my fears would be you r asset you can use against me.

            Now why would I do that. Humanity aside that’s strategically unsound: Fearful people are not at the full extent of their abilities. And if we are are to, what, hunt mammoths or some shit I’d rather have you at your best.

            You choose to assert that I am less than you to dominate me,

            I assert that your neurosis is less than you, that it diminishes you. Anyone trying to get you out of there does not do it to further their control over you – on the contrary, they want to see you fly and soar (or at the very least not get on their nerves). Those narcissists you speak of would rather reinforce it, because it is a leash they can lead you by. How do you clearly distinguish between those ends people aim for? “Everyone is out to get me” is not an answer to that question, it’s a cop-out, it’s avoidance.

            Or, let me put this differently: If there was a single decent human being among the billions we are, and you might just by chance stumble across them one day… would you be able to tell that they’re the exception? Can you develop that skill? Is that a hypothetical you’re comfortable contemplating?

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                31 year ago

                You hate me because I prove your belief that that you’re inferior.

                Was that a Freudian slip?

                Just for the record, no, I do not think of myself as inferior. Or superior. I generally don’t tend to think it those categories and definitely not as a generality. If there’s a shoemaker, sure, I’ll recognise their authority when it comes to the question of shoes.

                And you don’t want me “at your best” because that results in me killing you the next time you attack me.

                Why would I attack you? As I said in the beginning: No amount of flailing will make me hate you. Any aggression will have to be started from your side.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    3
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I do not think of myself as inferior. Or superior.

                    Sure you don’t.

                    If you do not consider that possible, I suggest you suspend disbelief. Try it out for yourself.

                    As I already linked Epictetus:

                    These reasonings are unconnected: “I am richer than you, therefore I am better”; “I am more eloquent than you, therefore I am better.” The connection is rather this: “I am richer than you, therefore my property is greater than yours;” “I am more eloquent than you, therefore my style is better than yours.” But you, after all, are neither property nor style.