UnbornTao

Sorry to ask, but is this your first account here?

The claim being made isn't that every cruel, harmful, or violent act is justified - though that might be assumed. Where do you find morality in babies, for example, or in animals? Does it exist as an object? This isn't incompatible with behaving consciously or with love, or with being sensitive to others. It doesn't mean you turn into a ruthless dictator. But I think your concern relates to how everyone might be "corrupted." This simply means that your operating system is yourself and not the truth. "You can't serve two masters." The Jesus thing.

I gave you the short version. Every effect created to affect a condition is a manipulation. And this isn't bad per se, or the same as the socially covert and self-interested, indirect or sneaky manipulation that's seen negatively. It just comprises everything you think and do. Look up the original etymology of the word. You can start it yourself, if you want.

We should all start with a barrel and a lantern.

Got it.

@Joseph Maynor Are you OK? I was joking above.

You create them to move you into action, essentially. Everything you do is a manipulation. Scratching an itch, for example. Anyway, this requires another thread.

I see. We could think of sages as just people - obvious, perhaps, but it keeps them from being idealized too easily, even when their wisdom is recognized. And as Diogenes may have learned, there aren't that many, I'd say.

What?

Ah, sad to hear.

?

Surely they'll receive whatever you give them and will love unconditionally most of the time. I don't know about the plants, though. Just don't do it with alligators.

Of course. I'm not sure how to explain why I feel certain about this. Emotions themselves are manipulations and can be uncreated, difficult as that may be. Imagine someone is conveying an experience with no emotions - now that's a contemplation. Feelings are a different matter. You need to be sensitive (receptive) to them.

"Let me tell you about my day"

The original sin of self. Repent now!

So we agree. There's a painting of Diogenes looking for a truthful person with a lantern in an Athens supermarket, if I recall. I suspect the subtext is that, ultimately, no one is - except perhaps Diogenes himself. That's why he's looking, and failing.

Everyone's corrupt by that definition. The corruption of you.

I think I lost you there. It's more like this: with your emotions involved, you'd still be focused on your own world and viewpoint, not the other person's. In that sense, it's an obstacle here. Listening is not about you. Communication is getting your experience across - and someone else receiving it as it is. That's all. Simple enough on paper. But when it comes to profound insights, it can take years or even decades to learn how to listen. One thing you realize the more you look into this is that it doesn't seem to be a common occurrence. We often don't even realize when we aren't listening, despite going through the ritual, gestures, and so on.

What I mean is that he comes across as having real vitality and enthusiasm. It looks like he's truly enjoying himself. It doesn't feel performative. And to me, it's contagious. I think he ended up poor. It's clear that he profoundly cared about what he did.

The guy's passionate.

@zurew Always refreshing to read you.

Why do people do this? Are they really taking their discussions with LLMs that seriously? Tell them to go fuck themselves (except when you need a haiku or a technical problem solved).

If you hand me a ball called "my experience" and I catch it, then in that connection we might say that, metaphorically speaking, listening took place. Not the best metaphor. We see that this has to occur outside of, or independent of, my intellect and view. This action of mine would have to be entirely about you. If you think about it, you can't escape being relational. And being emotional oneself obstructs listening. It isn't really needed at all. One's reactions would be irrelevant here. Jargon, giving instructions, providing information, sharing the contents of your mind - these are not the same as the act of communicating. I feel that the depth of this simple act is hard to convey and develop for everyone. Just consider that it is possible for two people to create the same experience as a result of this process. Magic! And then what you do with it is up to you. Maybe you see it as a delusion, a fascinating idea, an intriguing notion, a profound insight, a manipulation, a joke, nonsense, or a feeling of sadness.

Oh yeah. Like K said, to truly listen to someone isn't very common. What would you say listening to another, in that case, would require? What would the other "do" beyond the ritual (nodding, hearing, paying attention) of having heard what you had to say? What would that process leave them with? For example, an idea? What would make you say, "Oh yeah, you listened"? This can be hard to see. Sometimes it seems someone may have listened because they agree with you or share the same view or conclusion, or can express themselves with similar terminology as yours. Not necessarily. After the process: What's their experience? And this very process is happening to us as we speak, and yet we think it doesn't apply to us.