Would you pursue a romantic relationship with someone who has been sexually abused?

[water]

Jenyar,

The sprit of the rape victim and the spirit of the rapist can remain different. That's why defense and recovery lies fundamentally at a spiritual level. The victim's spirit does not have to bend to the abuser's. Am I correct that this is also what you're saying, water? The "power struggle" might be lost by the victim if she is overpowered, but the victory does not have to belong to the perpetrator.

Agreed.

This is how I interpreted your argument:

Instead of basing our interaction on a perceived necessity, we can base it on decisions made by the application of free will.

What this takes away from life is the things-that-go-without-saying though. Instead of taking things for granted, all would have to be a matter of an explicit agreement.

Free will is a matter of applying your mind to your circumstances, even if the physical environment (the "matter") leaves very little, maybe even no "freedom". Our circumstances are the "perceived necessity", arguing for an instinctive if-then reaction, but instead we opt to interact on a different level - contrary to what circumstance dictates, maybe even contrary to our nature. (I also pointed out that in your example, even "pressing charges" takes something for granted). If this is not the case, please correct me.

It definitely is not the case.
By applying free will instead of acting on a perceived necessity I meant that we do not have to interact with one another by some rigid rules we have learned as we grew up.
I do not have to think "I must have so and so many such and such friends (or I am a nobody)".
I do not have to think "I must be nice to everyone no matter who they are and what they do to me".
I do not have to think "I must get married by the age of 30".

These statements DO NOT imply, however, that I advocate solitude and violence; I'm just pointing out that the things society may teach us are a MUST may actually not be a MUST.

Society may condition us to perceive certain things as necessities, and we can blindly follow these imperatives. Or, we can apply our free will and see whether those things are really necessary, or not.

In such a case, people will not seek to be with one another because they think they MUST, but because that is something they would like. Once the mode of intentions changes from "I-must" to "I-would-like-to", there is room for free will and explicit agreement about entering interaction.

This is what I meant by

Instead of basing our interaction on a perceived necessity, we can base it on decisions made by the application of free will.

What this takes away from life is the things-that-go-without-saying though. Instead of taking things for granted, all would have to be a matter of an explicit agreement.

Read the whole paragraph where I said that

If your quote cannot be taken at face value, you'll have to explain it.

You broke it up, it says (I apologize, I wanted to re-post this paragraph earlier, but noticed only after posting the post that I forgot to include it):

There are, of course, many politically correct ways to say this, like "I'm so sorry to hear about your situation. Take as much time for your recovery as you need." and then they shun them, under the pretense of "giving them time and space".

When politically correct words are combined with shunning, the effect is the same as when people say it flat out that victims are damaged goods.

Did you or did you not say that Light espoused "the attitude of we are all by default responsible for eachother" and "we need others in order to be happy and safe", which you then explained: "it forces on people to be weak, it makes people understand themselves as more insecure, more weak, more dependent on others" - a bad philosophy, which you call "codependency", that creates victims, and something that only ignorant people hold onto.

I have, but you are the one to say that that philosophy is bad.

You refer to another thread, where Light actually called this particular definition inaccurate. (In response of which I proposed an alternative wording).

Again. I said in that thread:

Basing ethical arguments on mutuality implies the beliefs that

1. we need others in order to be happy and safe,
and that
2. we are per default responsible for eachother's well-being.

None of these two is apriori true; they are ethical stances that we can either decide to accept or to reject.
However, we can also live by never making this decision, thereby leaving ourselves vulnerable to others, hoping that "the system" would take care of us -- and this is where game theory and strategizing comes in.

Your re-wording later does not collide with this, and I don't know why the fuss around this post.

Light didn't read accurately; he responded:

I understand what you're trying to say but your basic premises are not accurate.

On both points: Few people can actually live without social interaction. And that means we must all more or less agree on conventions and parameters within which to execute that interaction. As a result, if we choose to not stay within those ethical bounds we can cause others to be unhappy, unsafe and threaten their well-being.

I believe you can easily see how that negates both statements.

He both agrees and disagres with me ...

I have never stated that humans can or should do without human interaction; I was only concerned with the *quality* of this interaction (what human interaction is necessary for someone to be happy and safe, and whether we are per default responsible for one another).

If he says that other people CAN cause people to be unhappy, then the nature of these people's happiness is such that it can be crucially affected by other people; and it can be crucially affected by other people if it is inherently dependent on other people.
You can hurt someone only if you can hurt them, so to speak.

But if a person's happiness depends on God, for example, then other people (ideally) cannot crucially affect this happiness; they may add to it, but they cannot diminish it.

I haven't made one assumption in all of this that I'm aware of.

They are slowly being cleared up.

But nevertheless, Light is painted as someone who encourages this philosophy, therefore as someone who perpetrates this particular abuse.

I haven't called him an abuser though.
I don't like the way he behaves towards me.

But my question concerned Light as the victim in this case. (Light, I hope you don't mind being the guinea pig in this experiment!) We already know the accusations levelled against him. I want to know how he should respond (whether the accusations are true or not) - if he manages not to feel abused (and you proposed that the victim determines this), does he still have to modify his behaviour?

This is up to him. If he thinks it is best to be negative to those who have been negative to him, to return an eye for an eye, then so he can apply his free will. He is responsible for his actions. No matter how I behave, he remains responsible for his actions. He owns his responses.

I find it sad though that a grown and educated man behaves the way Light does. C20 is ten times the man Light is.

To put this in a human rights context: can guilt be assigned without right and wrong?

I don't understand?

Is the victim the only person qualified to decide whether he has been wronged?

I'd rather use the term "harmed" here.

If he decides he would be better off not being "codependent" (in the sense water uses the term) - and psychologically isolates himself not just from the perpetrators, but from all "judgement" that might treat him as a victim (thereby excluding most approaches of counselling) - would he cease to be a victim for all practical purposes except legally? In such a case, who or what is the law actually protecting, since it's now essentially a victimless crime?

Let's say Light also took water's approach, and doesn't cling to his "perceived identity". Assuming once again that there's an objective right and wrong, Light might be guilty or innocent of the charges against him (if there is no right or wrong, there can be no guilt either). If he is innocent, the charges clearly don't apply, and he won't have to feel victimized or even addresses by any accusations. If he's guilty as charged, he has two options: 1) Distance himself from the charged identity ("it's just a perceived identity") and consider himself innocent - or even regard himself as an innocent victim, if he wants the accuser to remain guilty. 2) Accept his guilt, a "weakness" which would make him responsible for changes his ways, make him accountable to the person he wronged, and perhaps even vulnerable to further accusations.

And option 2 implies acceptance of the golden rule: admitting that people do in fact and reality influence each other's happiness and safety, and that people may assume mutual accountability. The law then effectively creates "victims" and "criminals", because we would not have known which we were if there was no objective measurement. And with that comes the expectance that others would operate under the same standard of "guilt when guilty" and "innocent when innocent", so that our identity will be in proportion to our thoughts and actions - not just in our own minds, but in truth. Truth leaves little room for "shells" or "masks", since it exposes both good and bad in us. It's what allows us to really become who we choose to be, like seeds emerging through layers of soil around us, instead of being who we wish to be or pretend to be.

I'll try to explain. For practical, worldly purposes, we speak of right and wrong, victims and criminals.
But to assume there is an absolute right and wrong, and that we know it, is too much, in my opinion. We do not have the capacity to make such claims of absolutes.

It would be good if others would respect us, it would be good if we could cooperate, it would be good if others would love us. But we cannot demand respect, cooperation or love. We cannot rely on others to be a certain way. If they are, then good for us, if they aren't, then this is just how they are.

Our problems arise when we get attached to the feeling that we MUST obtain something, that things MUST be a certain way; that is when suffering may occur.

For example, if I insist that everyone MUST respect me, then this can drive me insane when the smallest "transgression" happens.

Quite so. Cognitive behavioural therapy has been quite effective in this field. However, it is severely inhibited without "unprofessional" support structures and plain human interaction.

Of course.

I can imagine some victims are like that, yes. I don't assume to know their motivations.

But I've only described some motivations, not any victims.

Are we disagreeing? It seems to me that you presume I am criticizing and being hostile even when I agree.

Of course, such things happen all the time.

And where does this leave "explicit agreement"?

I hope I have explained this thing about "explicit agreemetn" at the beginning of this post.

The victim's health and sanity then depends on explicit disagreement.

Of course.

But that requires a rational belief of how things should be. You've rightly discarded irrational beliefs as counterproductive, but without any beliefs, one is left with bare associations and misassociations

Of course.

My whole emphasis is on what we do with this how-things-should-be.
Of course we need standards by which we behave and measure.

"I should do my homework. I should brush my teeth on time. I should not indulge idle talk. I should not kill. I should respect people." and so on. There's nothing wrong with formulating standards this way.

But the danger of formulating them this way becomes apparent when they are transgressed:
"I should have done my homework, but I haven't! My brother has been murdered, but he shouldn't have been!"
-- this way, we can fall into denial of reality, and block ourselves.
The how-things-should-be can blind us to how things truly are, and we become unable to engage with reality.

But the admission phase involves much more than the simple affirmation. For a many, thinking about being a victim for even a few seconds constitutes "dwelling on it", and it is quickly repressed and never properly dealt with. The result is that it keeps resurfacing in a "repressed" (i.e. indirect) form elsewhere until that phase is complete. This is why professionals are called professionals: they aren't easily fooled as to when someone has in fact done what is needed.

Of course. This is why professionals know to ask the right questions, and they know when to stop.

And there is always something you can do about it. Not changing from victim to survivor to victor is to let it define you. I'm reminded of a quote (the person attributed it to Einstein, but I couldn't verify it): "Whenever you think the problem is outside you, that thinking is your problem".

And I add: If you, on your own accord, try to solve other people's problems, you thereby declare that you have made these problems your own.

Its meaning doesn't depend on where I'm aiming with it. Do you mean you don't understand what I said?

I don't understand.

 

[Jenyar]

And they told you to play therapist to me, for more than nine months? They told you to treat me like a schoolgirl and give your assumptions priority over what I say?

I was not your therapist, nor ever intended to be. It just seems I could never manage to make you not feel like a schoolgirl. It's evident now I shouldn't have tried, but it's ironic that it's exactly what you are holding against me now.

I don't know how a person can be so mindless and so careless so as to continue in an ill communication for over nine months, getting nowhere -- and think that what they are doing is right and good.

I thought my interest and care about you was right and good. I also assumed "Intentions make the greatest difference". It doesn't. What makes the greatest difference is how those intentions are interpreted, how intents are perceived.

For me, yes. If it is causing me harm, then it is not good for me.

How do you define harm? Are you saying that you can turn a rape into a good experience, but not a friendship? Is the measurement of "harm" then whether you (or any "victim") experience discomfort or not?

No. But I must also protect myself from other people's poison.

By poisoning yourself with it?

It doesn't have to be an eye for an eye.

But it is. People are mostly not willing to cooperate, esp. not at this forum. Here, it is mostly just competition about who is going to outsmarten, or outanalyze or outscold someone. This place tends to inflate one's ego terribly. Company is stronger than will-power, after all.

Forget the forum. Listen to the words: "It doesn't have to be an eye for an eye".

You don't know what I think of my identity.

I know what you tell me, and what you told me was that you don't cling to it. Whatever "it" might be.

I'm not the victim. I have a clumsy way of asserting myself, I apologize. I haven't worked through all my material yet, and assertiveness is up on schedule sometime soon. I can't do everything at once.

You can't do everything according to the book either. You're quite good at asserting yourself, but just as good at retracting it again. A moment ago you were a victim of "other people's poison", and certain you had to defend yourself against them. You have been the victim of abuse, or this thread would not have existed. It's nothing to be ashamed of, which is what everybody's been trying to tell you. You haven't done anything wrong, but you're on the way of becoming abusive in reaction to something you cannot forgive. Just like you can feel it from someone and reat to it, people will feel it from you and react to it.

I have to protect myself from "helpers". There are people who have the compulsive need to be needed, and they will seek out someone whom they perceive to "need" their help, and "help" them, without asking them anything. Such "helpers" only add to the person's problems.

The trouble is that a person that has been brought down by circumstances, isn't likely to be able to act on the principle "If someone doesn't help you, don't look for ways to add them to your problems.

If you have protected yourself from "abusers" and "helpers" alike, who are left? People need people, and the way to filter out negative influences is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Someone who ahs been brought down by circumstances is vulnerable, and any further stress will inevitably feel like an added problem. You did not do anything wrong to listen to advice and look at different avenues, but without forgiveness - of yourself and others - the original trauma will resurface even in the most innocent encounters, and sour them.

I think you are observing very selectively. You are ignoring all the times when I agree, and I aggree many times.

Yes, you often agree when something agrees with you. I'm talking about the times when something doesn't agree with you.

I DO NOT CLAIM CONSISTENCY. Just in my previous post, I apologized for my apparent inconsistencies. And I have brought this up seveal times before.

But there are also your intentional inconsistencies, which you also claim: "I intuitively, deliberatley create a messy situation". You must understand that we have no way of knowing which is which, and experience all of them the same. Sometimes you apologize, sometimes you enjoy the activity of the "vultures" - the people that have to bear the brunt of your intellectual experiments. If it's a clear experiment, most people here are keen on playing along, but you veil them like a trap.

When you see people as nothing but ignorant vultures, and lay yourself down as bait, why are you surprised when some unwittlingly tear you apart? And those of us who don't play along are simply excluded from the results, or worse. You want people to play these games in which you jump out midway through and tell everyone it wasn't a game, and then you don't like the consequences.

By whose standards do we lack of wisdom and compassion?

Mine. And many other people's I have spoken to.

Are these the same people you call ignorant for believing in the mutual accountability, interdependency in society, or the importance of love? What example of wisdom and compassion do you set, do you think?

Not at all. I want only professionals to be professional.

I don't know Light's credentials, but what would prevent you from complaining about someone else being just a "theoretical psychologist"? Would the same words you heard from me, or him, or anybody else, mean anything different from "a pulsating pink blot of loving-kindness"? Because you don't make it clear what you expect it to sound like.

Have you gone for counselling, or are you really going to try doing this by yourself?

 

[Jenyar]

PS. Your previous post has cleared up most of my questions, thank you. It addresses the same issue I brought up in the Golden Rule thread: that a reaction against determinism is a set-up, because the world doesn't operate on deterministic principles. But there are principles, and if God is the only objective judge (and only He can be), then these principles apply to everyone - not least to ourselves.

I just have one more question:

And I add: If you, on your own accord, try to solve other people's problems, you thereby declare that you have made these problems your own.

Is there something wrong with this?

 

[water]

Jenyar,

I was not your therapist, nor ever intended to be. It just seems I could never manage to make you not feel like a schoolgirl. It's evident now I shouldn't have tried, but it's ironic that it's exactly what you are holding against me now.

You behaved like a therapist; more like a controller. I could take my notes and pinpoint the problems exactly.

I thought my interest and care about you was right and good. I also assumed "Intentions make the greatest difference". It doesn't. What makes the greatest difference is how those intentions are interpreted, how intents are perceived.

You lacked feeling.

How do you define harm?

I don't have an anayltical definition. But harm is what the harmed person feels.

Are you saying that you can turn a rape into a good experience, but not a friendship?

??
This is absurd.

Is the measurement of "harm" then whether you (or any "victim") experience discomfort or not?

Of course, to say the least. But what is happening to the body, doesn't have to "go to the head", so to speak.

By poisoning yourself with it?

By spitting it back at them.
I'm not that good yet that I could turn poison into daisies.

I know what you tell me, and what you told me was that you don't cling to it. Whatever "it" might be.

I think identity is an extremely elusive and impermanent thing. But that doesn't bother me; I have been expected for a long time that it is supposed to bother me ...

You can't do everything according to the book either. You're quite good at asserting yourself, but just as good at retracting it again. A moment ago you were a victim of "other people's poison", and certain you had to defend yourself against them. You have been the victim of abuse, or this thread would not have existed. It's nothing to be ashamed of, which is what everybody's been trying to tell you. You haven't done anything wrong, but you're on the way of becoming abusive in reaction to something you cannot forgive. Just like you can feel it from someone and reat to it, people will feel it from you and react to it.

Lightyears, Jenyar, lightyears away.

If you have protected yourself from "abusers" and "helpers" alike, who are left?

Some very good people!

People need people, and the way to filter out negative influences is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Someone who ahs been brought down by circumstances is vulnerable, and any further stress will inevitably feel like an added problem. You did not do anything wrong to listen to advice and look at different avenues, but without forgiveness - of yourself and others - the original trauma will resurface even in the most innocent encounters, and sour them.

You just can't do without this, hm?

Roadblocks to effective listening.
The following types of responses indicate ineffective listening:

warning
interrogating
preaching
ordering
judging
diverting
analyzing
blaming
labeling
moralizing
probing
ridiculing
threatening
reassuring
distracting
sympathizing
demanding
interpreting
teaching
withdrawing
giving solutions
scolding
praising
advising
criticizing
directing
lecturing
name–calling

Are you innocent of these?

But there are also your intentional inconsistencies, which you also claim: "I intuitively, deliberatley create a messy situation". You must understand that we have no way of knowing which is which, and experience all of them the same. Sometimes you apologize, sometimes you enjoy the activity of the "vultures" - the people that have to bear the brunt of your intellectual experiments. If it's a clear experiment, most people here are keen on playing along, but you veil them like a trap.

When you see people as nothing but ignorant vultures, and lay yourself down as bait, why are you surprised when some unwittlingly tear you apart? And those of us who don't play along are simply excluded from the results, or worse. You want people to play these games in which you jump out midway through and tell everyone it wasn't a game, and then you don't like the consequences.

I have discovered that I have a terrible ability to bring out the worst in people.
I am not adept at using it, yet.

Are these the same people you call ignorant for believing in the mutual accountability, interdependency in society, or the importance of love?

One can believe in mutual accountability, interdependency in society and the importance of love IGNORANTLY, or BY CHOICE.
It is those that ignorantly believe those things that I beware of.

What example of wisdom and compassion do you set, do you think?

I have never praised myself with that.
Unlike some others.

I don't know Light's credentials, but what would prevent you from complaining about someone else being just a "theoretical psychologist"? Would the same words you heard from me, or him, or anybody else, mean anything different from "a pulsating pink blot of loving-kindness"? Because you don't make it clear what you expect it to sound like.

The problem is all yours. You try to think for me, or think you should account for whatever lack you perceive I have -- and then you get such questions as above.

And I add: If you, on your own accord, try to solve other people's problems, you thereby declare that you have made these problems your own.

Is there something wrong with this?

Yes. If you make those problems your own, you are assuming to know the full extent of them. Which you cannot know. You do not own the other person, nor their mind.

 

[Jenyar]

Are you innocent of these?

I never claimed to be. Are you?

Which of those apply with electronic communication? Name one response, except silence, that isn't on that list.

What example of wisdom and compassion do you set, do you think?

I have never praised myself with that.
Unlike some others.

Is it enough not to claim wisdom and compassion? Should they be exercized IGNORANTLY, or BY CHOICE?

Yes. If you make those problems your own, you are assuming to know the full extent of them. Which you cannot know. You do not own the other person, nor their mind.

And do you? You said earlier: "As if it weren't difficult enough that I have to deal with my problems, I also have to deal with other people's lack of wisdom and lack of compassion." Do you know the full extent of other people's problems and/or intentions?

When you accuse people of not listening, not having any compassion or not showing any wisdom, don't you also have an idea of "how-things-should-be", as you put it? Just like everyone else, you can only base your understanding of yourself and others on a combination of internal and external criteria, and these are sufficient to come to certain conclusions. Sufficient to be of limited help.

We are judged as having no compassion, I ask by whose standards, and you must answer: "Mine. And many other people's I have spoken to." You don't assume you know everything about us, but you consider it enough to make the judgement.

When someone tries to listen, tries to show wisdom and compassion, they can't be expected to have all knowledge and get everything right. It's not reasonable. It's not even reasonable to expect that of ourselves, because we are constantly getting to know ourselves as well. We talk about forgiveness, not because we have some sinister agenda for you, but because it's a principle that applies to everyone.

 

[water]

I never claimed to be. Are you?

No.

Which of those apply with electronic communication? Name one response, except silence, that isn't on that list.

Online communication is terribly limited.

Is it enough not to claim wisdom and compassion? Should they be exercized IGNORANTLY, or BY CHOICE?

By choice.

 

[water]

Oops, haven't seen this earlier, is at the bottom of the page:

Water: I think you are actually talking around the subject of forgiveness without realising it. The trouble is you cannot forgive unless you recognise the transgression and this seems something that you are furvently against as it appears to lend the transgression further negative power.

If I am wrong please explain why?

I am very well aware of the issue of forgiveness.
I'm trying to have a semi-decent thread here, hence my reluctance, maybe this is what is causing the misunderstandings.

 

[water]

Jenyar,

Simply strive to be mindful and strive not to act on ill will, to say the least. Be in the clear about your intentions for saying and doing something. State them. Understand that you don't see into the other person's head. Don't think you can analyze everyone and that such analyses are automatically welcome.

We don't assume our comments will always be welcome. That doesn't mean we act on ill will - speaking of assumptions: this is your assumption. Are you saying we should only say something if we are sure you will like it?

I'm saying that this kind of talk, such analyzing, is not appropriate for this medium and in the realtionships that exist between the posters.

I, for one, have made my intention clear as far as I was able. Were you content with my declarations of intent?

They weren't in accordance with what you were doing.

Of course they are noticed. But they don't give you the license to be abusive. Can you understand this?

Of course.

Do you want to be true to yourself, or do you want to be someone people care for here?

Are the two mutually exclusive?

 

[c20H25N3o]

I'm trying to have a semi-decent thread here, hence my reluctance, maybe this is what is causing the misunderstandings.

I dont understand what you mean - reluctance to what?

Thanks

c20

 

[water]

I dont understand what you mean - reluctance to what?

Public psycho-analysis. I do possess a last shred of decency, you know.

 

[water]

Jenyar, to your edit:

And do you? You said earlier: "As if it weren't difficult enough that I have to deal with my problems, I also have to deal with other people's lack of wisdom and lack of compassion." Do you know the full extent of other people's problems and/or intentions?

No, I don't, but this is not the issue here. People offer to "help" me, and what I get to deal with is their need to be needed, their own codependency.
Which would be manageable still, were it no that they want me to think of their help as proper and sufficient, and if I don't think it that way -- and it can't be because it is clouded with their own selfish interests --, then they end up resenting me for rejecting their "help".

When you accuse people of not listening, not having any compassion or not showing any wisdom, don't you also have an idea of "how-things-should-be", as you put it? Just like everyone else, you can only base your understanding of yourself and others on a combination of internal and external criteria, and these are sufficient to come to certain conclusions. Sufficient to be of limited help.

But you think that the help you give has to be sufficient (your resentment afterwards indicates that you thought so), that what you offer has to do to solve my problems. And when it doesn't suffice, you paint me to be the bad one, that I am the one "making it harder" for myself, that I am "refusing" your "help".

If you want to help someone, then strive to give 100% pure help, and not a help that is filled with your own selfishness and your own problems.

We are judged as having no compassion, I ask by whose standards, and you must answer: "Mine. And many other people's I have spoken to." You don't assume you know everything about us, but you consider it enough to make the judgement.

I am only making a judgment about how you are for me, not about how you are per se. Maybe with other people, you get along well, you are compatible with them. But with me, you are not. And for what matters to me, it matters to me whether someone is compatible with me or not.

When someone tries to listen, tries to show wisdom and compassion, they can't be expected to have all knowledge and get everything right. It's not reasonable. It's not even reasonable to expect that of ourselves, because we are constantly getting to know ourselves as well.

Think first WHY you are trying to show wisdom and compassion.
As a rule, clinging to wisdom and goodness makes people eventually do something stupid and bad.

We talk about forgiveness, not because we have some sinister agenda for you, but because it's a principle that applies to everyone.

So it is you -- the plural -- against me?

 

[Jenyar]

I'm saying that this kind of talk, such analyzing, is not appropriate for this medium and in the realtionships that exist between the posters.

But you have made it clear that don't consider anything on that list of "ineffective listening" to be appropriate, yet those are the only options one has over this medium. It's either on that list, or it's silence (which would be a good think in personal one to one communication, but will not work here at all).

They weren't in accordance with what you were doing.

They weren't in accordance to what you were expecting.

Are the two mutually exclusive?

Definitely! At least initially. If there is any correspondence between the two, it means that the people on this forum (their wishes, expectations, standards) are determining who you are - but you certainly aren't determining who they are. The difference is between just interacting with people, sifting everything you hear, and trying to please them (so that they "care" for you). One lets you develop socially, but independently; the other shapes your development around to other identities. That can easily become an approval-addiction, which inhibits identity formation.

Public psycho-analysis. I do possess a last shred of decency, you know.

Wasn't public-psychoanalysis the purpose of this thread? It could only remain anonymous for so long, but after people started posting their personal opinions, any discussion would have become equally personal. Like you said yourself: "The poll question was just a trigger to collect opinions, to see what justifications people offer for their arguments."

And I have to point out that refraining from sensitive psycho-analyses isn't more decent than refraining from more blatant abuse like "Fuck you, Light. You are a controlling bourgeois cunt."

 

[Light]

Public psycho-analysis. I do possess a last shred of decency, you know.

Water, let's clear up one point here, OK? The only reason I publicly presented the psychoanalysis profile was in response to the way you flew off on a tangent and publicly asserted that I claimed I could "read minds."

The point being that you forced that upon yourself and I had no choice but to explain that "reading minds" was absolutely not what I meant at all.

I could have gone into much greater detail as to what you have revealed about yourself but didn't for two simple reasons; you have a right to privacy (though you violate it regularly yourself by exposing too much in what you say); and because I do have compassion for you, regardless of what you've said about me.

 

[Roman]

Wow Light, you really are a presumptious prick. Do you know how much I dislike your kind? The type that feeds off the insecurities and weakness of others. Fucking counselors. Do you get off on knowing that other people have more problems than you?

 

[c20H25N3o]

Public psycho-analysis. I do possess a last shred of decency, you know.

Decency? Isn't that some pre-conditioned thought process that is a barrier to true freedom?

Why not let go of it? What harm can come? Nothing that can be said on here can be worse than say abuse or rape.

As far as I can see, Light and Jenyar are trying to appeal to a part of you that to them seems incredibly hurt. They do this because they care.

I do know this. I am taking an interest because you seem to be promoting 'denial' and then disguise it as some sort of act of 'self-control'.
I cannot help but see this as a stubborn refusal to deal with the pain of the experience. I have witnessed this before. My girlfriend was in the same position. When the levees burst and it all came flooding out, only then could the healing begin. I can only speak of things I have seen and I bless Jenyar and Light for their concern for you. Try to take that concern at face value and bless it likewise.

I am sorry if my words seem patronising or like they are probing too deep but it is hard not to view this thread as though the poster (you) have posted it subjectively and not objectively.

I think maybe Light, Jenyar and I just wanna give you a hug. We are not sophisticated, we just know what we have left to give and hope it is enough.

peace

c20

 

[water]

Jenyar,

But you have made it clear that don't consider anything on that list of "ineffective listening" to be appropriate, yet those are the only options one has over this medium. It's either on that list, or it's silence (which would be a good think in personal one to one communication, but will not work here at all).

Online communication is NOT face to face communication.
The things one gets to do or say in person aren't all possible here.
So some kinds of relationships simply are not possible over this medium. This is just how it is.

They weren't in accordance with what you were doing.

They weren't in accordance to what you were expecting.

They weren't what I think love is, to say the least.

We're speaking different languages.

Are the two mutually exclusive?

Definitely! At least initially. If there is any correspondence between the two, it means that the people on this forum (their wishes, expectations, standards) are determining who you are - but you certainly aren't determining who they are. The difference is between just interacting with people, sifting everything you hear, and trying to please them (so that they "care" for you). One lets you develop socially, but independently; the other shapes your development around to other identities. That can easily become an approval-addiction, which inhibits identity formation.

I have no idea what you are talking about.
I don't see why being true to oneself and others caring for one would have to be mutually exclusive.

Wasn't public-psychoanalysis the purpose of this thread?

Not at all; the "public psycho-analysis" was meant to be kept general, and not become a case study of me.
If I wanted help, I'd say "I have been abused, someone please help me", I wouldn't post a thread like this.

It could only remain anonymous for so long, but after people started posting their personal opinions, any discussion would have become equally personal. Like you said yourself: "The poll question was just a trigger to collect opinions, to see what justifications people offer for their arguments."

Sciforums doesn't have a help section. But you have probably noticed that some forums have such a section. The same topic, depending on which section it is posted in, will get a very different response, and posters will post with different intentions.
If it is posted in EM&J, it is expected to view the issue from the perspective of ethics, morality and justice, and the intention will be to discuss an issue as objectively as possible. If it is posted in the Help section, the issue will be taken personally, and the intention for posting will hopefully be to help, and not to discuss.

Sciforums doesn't have these things worked out clearly, so clashes happen.
(I remember though that there was once the same topipc on beauty, once posted in the philosophy section, and also in free thoughts, and people responded very differently.)

And I have to point out that refraining from sensitive psycho-analyses isn't more decent than refraining from more blatant abuse like "Fuck you, Light. You are a controlling bourgeois cunt."

What has one have to do with the other, why are you comparing the two?

 

[Jenyar]

No, I don't, but this is not the issue here. People offer to "help" me, and what I get to deal with is their need to be needed, their own codependency.
Which would be manageable still, were it no that they want me to think of their help as proper and sufficient, and if I don't think it that way -- and it can't be because it is clouded with their own selfish interests --, then they end up resenting me for rejecting their "help".

You don't have to think what they want you to think, and it doesn't really matter whether they resent you for what you think, so you don't have to compensate for that. But that doesn't mean their help is a sign of some "codependency" or invalid.

Unless you consider their helping a problem (and accusing them of psychological deficiencies or sinister motives would then be just a means of arriving at this conclusion).

People don't have to be perfect in order to help, just like someone doesn't have to be perfect in order to be helped. Compensating for them (or for some perceived deficiency in them) - instead of simply listening to what they say, taking what you can use and discarding the rest - will certainly derail the whole thing, because it doesn't allow for the limitations of personality and communication (and it's always limited).

But you think that the help you give has to be sufficient (your resentment afterwards indicates that you thought so), that what you offer has to do to solve my problems. And when it doesn't suffice, you paint me to be the bad one, that I am the one "making it harder" for myself, that I am "refusing" your "help".

I'm sorry that you think I resent you. I assure you I don't, and never have. I don't know how it's possible for anyone to think their help or advice could ever be "sufficient". I think you are making it harder for yourself, not by rejecting my help, but by enforcing unreasonable standards. And this is just an opinion, which you may take or leave as you like. I insist that you don't have to please me or anybody on these forums.

If you want to help someone, then strive to give 100% pure help, and not a help that is filled with your own selfishness and your own problems.

There's no such thing as "100% pure help". It doesn't exist. What usually makes help useful and relevant is that it is inextricable from personal struggles and experiences. The best kind of advice comes from someone who has applied it to their own lives. A person either has personal knowledge, which means they have their "own problems", or he has academic knowledge (i.e. learnt from other people's experiences), which is probably just as valid, but might make someone reject their help. But there is no "100% pure" of either.

If wishing to help someone is selfish, then what does it mean to be unselfish?

I am only making a judgment about how you are for me, not about how you are per se. Maybe with other people, you get along well, you are compatible with them. But with me, you are not. And for what matters to me, it matters to me whether someone is compatible with me or not.

Fair enough.

Think first WHY you are trying to show wisdom and compassion.
As a rule, clinging to wisdom and goodness makes people eventually do something stupid and bad.

You like to ask this question of intentions, but is there any way of answering it that you won't be able to call "selfish"?

I'm not aware of this rule that says always seeking wisdom and goodness is undesirable, unless it's simply because it's in the form of "clinging to X is bad, whatever X may be". But in this case it is self-refuting, because the implication is that the statement ("As a rule, clinging to wisdom and goodness makes people eventually do something stupid and bad") is good and wise. It would not be wise to cling to this statement as a good rule.

So it is you -- the plural -- against me?

C20 and I hold similar views, so it's "us", plural. As far as I know neither of us is persecuting you, so your anxiety is unnecesary (it would be unnecessary otherwise as well, as I explained at the beginning of this post).

 

[Light]

Decency? Isn't that some pre-conditioned thought process that is a barrier to true freedom?

Why not let go of it? What harm can come? Nothing that can be said on here can be worse than say abuse or rape.

As far as I can see, Light and Jenyar are trying to appeal to a part of you that to them seems incredibly hurt. They do this because they care.

I do know this. I am taking an interest because you seem to be promoting 'denial' and then disguise it as some sort of act of 'self-control'.
I cannot help but see this as a stubborn refusal to deal with the pain of the experience. I have witnessed this before. My girlfriend was in the same position. When the levees burst and it all came flooding out, only then could the healing begin. I can only speak of things I have seen and I bless Jenyar and Light for their concern for you. Try to take that concern at face value and bless it likewise.

I am sorry if my words seem patronising or like they are probing too deep but it is hard not to view this thread as though the poster (you) have posted it subjectively and not objectively.

I think maybe Light, Jenyar and I just wanna give you a hug. We are not sophisticated, we just know what we have left to give and hope it is enough.

peace

c20

Thank you, C20, I believe every bit of that to be quite true.

And since you mentioned subjectivity vs. objectivity, I believe now is the time to finally bring something important out into the open. I had hesitated to do so for a very long time because of the way I expect Water to react, but it's best to go ahead an deal with it.

I firmly believe that you are right about her purpose being subjective. In fact, this whole thread (and the one about the Golden Rule) had the same purpose. She is seeking confirmation that her approach to dealing with this problem is the correct one. She has rebelled against all of us (just as she will against this) because we are not giving her that confirmation.

I honestly do feel for her, even if she doesn't believe it, because she's caught in a trap of her making. As I've said elsewhere, it's a fairly common self-protection mechanism that she's using.

She still strikes me as being an intelligent person but her error lies in believing that she can shut out the whole world and find her on solutions to the problem. Without even realizing it, she's made it perfectly clear to many of us that it simply isn't working.

Rather than discussing the whole issue in a reasonable, rational fashion, she becomes insulting and obnoxious towards the very ones who care about her the most. I do not like the idea of anyone having to hurt. It's a sad thing to see someone injured. And it's an even far sadder thing to see someone who has been hurt reject those who express genuine compassion for them. But she fears us, partly because we're male, partly because we're getting to close, and mostly because she's filled with self-doubt.

It's far too easy (and the lazy way out, actually) to simply shout "You cannot know how I feel so just leave me alone!"

The world then becomes an empty and lonely place. Why? Because the ones who DID care will eventually stop.

 

[c20H25N3o]

Thank you, C20, I believe every bit of that to be quite true.

And since you mentioned subjectivity vs. objectivity, I believe now is the time to finally bring something important out into the open. I had hesitated to do so for a very long time because of the way I expect Water to react, but it's best to go ahead an deal with it.

I firmly believe that you are right about her purpose being subjective. In fact, this whole thread (and the one about the Golden Rule) had the same purpose. She is seeking confirmation that her approach to dealing with this problem is the correct one. She has rebelled against all of us (just as she will against this) because we are not giving her that confirmation.

I honestly do feel for her, even if she doesn't believe it, because she's caught in a trap of her making. As I've said elsewhere, it's a fairly common self-protection mechanism that she's using.

She still strikes me as being an intelligent person but her error lies in believing that she can shut out the whole world and find her on solutions to the problem. Without even realizing it, she's made it perfectly clear to many of us that it simply isn't working.

Rather than discussing the whole issue in a reasonable, rational fashion, she becomes insulting and obnoxious towards the very ones who care about her the most. I do not like the idea of anyone having to hurt. It's a sad thing to see someone injured. And it's an even far sadder thing to see someone who has been hurt reject those who express genuine compassion for them. But she fears us, partly because we're male, partly because we're getting to close, and mostly because she's filled with self-doubt.

It's far too easy (and the lazy way out, actually) to simply shout "You cannot know how I feel so just leave me alone!"

The world then becomes an empty and lonely place. Why? Because the ones who DID care will eventually stop.

You must be careful that frustration on your part does not lead you to throw around words such as 'lazy' because this will prompt an agressive response and cloud the issue. It isn't lazyness that causes one to reject love. Because love itself has become adulterated, it appears 'right' to reject it but make no mistake it is still difficult to do because of the obvious conflicts. It is natural just to want to remove the adulterants and to hell with it if you lose a bit of the raw product in the first place.
The only thing you can do in your capacity as someone who cares, is to help point out what the adulterants are and offer assistance in removing them trying to keep as much of the raw product intact as possible. Dont be guilty yourself of removing large chunks of love just to get the little speck of dirt out of it.
Your compassion is obvious however.

peace

c20

 

[water]

Light,

Water, let's clear up one point here, OK? The only reason I publicly presented the psychoanalysis profile was in response to the way you flew off on a tangent and publicly asserted that I claimed I could "read minds."

The point being that you forced that upon yourself and I had no choice but to explain that "reading minds" was absolutely not what I meant at all.

I could have gone into much greater detail as to what you have revealed about yourself but didn't for two simple reasons; you have a right to privacy (though you violate it regularly yourself by exposing too much in what you say); and because I do have compassion for you, regardless of what you've said about me.

No matter how a person behaves, YOU ARE STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS.

YOU CANNOT MAKE SOMEONE ELSE BE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS.

The way I act in no way demands you to act a certain way.



* * *


c20H25N3o,

Decency? Isn't that some pre-conditioned thought process that is a barrier to true freedom?

Why not let go of it? What harm can come? Nothing that can be said on here can be worse than say abuse or rape.

This is not a safe environment to discuss such issues.

As far as I can see, Light and Jenyar are trying to appeal to a part of you that to them seems incredibly hurt. They do this because they care.

I don't know why they do it.

I do know this. I am taking an interest because you seem to be promoting 'denial' and then disguise it as some sort of act of 'self-control'.
I cannot help but see this as a stubborn refusal to deal with the pain of the experience.

Not at all.

I have witnessed this before. ...

Then this could be clouding your thinking here, and this is why I am being continually misunderstood.

I am sorry if my words seem patronising or like they are probing too deep but it is hard not to view this thread as though the poster (you) have posted it subjectively and not objectively.

Like I said in my previous post to Jenyar, I have posted it objectively. But, for some reason, it was read subjectively, by some people -- not by all though.

Sciforums doesn't have a help section, so already the structure of this forum suggests a somewhat unclear approach to topics. Once a forum has a help section, chances are that discussions in other sections will be more objective, and the help issues answered more productively.

I think maybe Light, Jenyar and I just wanna give you a hug. We are not sophisticated, we just know what we have left to give and hope it is enough.

And this is another problem of online communication. Maybe you want to give me a hug, but you'll never know whether I accepted it or not. I might be too embarrassed to say I have, or uncomfortable to say I pushed you away.
You can't know. So you can't take that your intentions have come to fruition.

I often think online communication should be limited to what CAN be communicated effectively online.
Hugs are extremely poorly conveyed through this medium.