Ego reactions

[Rigel]

I ve noticed this lately. I actually can't find the boundary between my ego's righteousness and other egos reaction of what I say. 

Sometimes I say something that I think is fairly reasonable to say for exemple I point out how language interpretation is relative and there's no way that two people are going to interpret a statement the same way and then I am surprised to see that people lash out at me. 

Then I wonder:"wow how come this is such a big deal?" 

Next thought:"Am I actually deluded and the statement:'language is relative' is actually false and they are right?" 

Then self righteousness comes up and I am like:"they must be lashing out at me because I am threatening some kind of belief of theirs." 

But how do I know that? How do I differentiate between my own self righteousness and arrogance from collective ego backlash? Feels like they are one and the same. 

[Rigel]

Part of me is like:"well fuck it it's all relative I don't care to prove anything anyway I am just gonna say anything I feel like" 

Other part of me feels compassion towards the other and knows how hard it is to have your worldview challenged and don't want to induce that in other people. 

Ahahah mind is so messy it's grotesque 

[Mu_]

1 hour ago, Rigel said:

Part of me is like:"well fuck it it's all relative I don't care to prove anything anyway I am just gonna say anything I feel like" 

Other part of me feels compassion towards the other and knows how hard it is to have your worldview challenged and don't want to induce that in other people. 

Ahahah mind is so messy it's grotesque 

And?

[Rigel]

@Mu_ good question I don't know. I guess discussing self-righteousness was the point. 

Edited October 30, 2020 by Rigel

[Origins]

@Rigel It's just awareness all the way up and down for these kinds of situations. There's no need to self blame. Don't blame yourself for another's lack of awareness when its clearly not really your responsibility. Just focus on your own awareness, for these situations there's no thinking really required, at least for me, its very mild pattern recognition, so just allow yourself to be aware and reduce thinking then the contents will transmute themselves and you'll feel better afterwards.

[commie]

2 hours ago, Rigel said:

Sometimes I say something that I think is fairly reasonable to say for exemple I point out how language interpretation is relative and there's no way that two people are going to interpret a statement the same way and then I am surprised to see that people lash out at me.

I'd wager your narrative is at variance with the happening.

2 hours ago, Rigel said:

Then self righteousness comes up and I am like:"they must be lashing out at me because I am threatening some kind of belief of theirs." 

But how do I know that? How do I differentiate between my own self righteousness and arrogance from collective ego backlash? Feels like they are one and the same. 

Obviously you don't know that. Nor do you know anything about this "collective ego backlash". There are many differences between righteousness and arrogance but the most pertinent one I suppose is that living righteousness is beautiful.

2 hours ago, Rigel said:

Other part of me feels compassion towards the other and knows how hard it is to have your worldview challenged and don't want to induce that in other people.

Challenging people's worldviews isn't that easy. And you don't know it'd be hard on them if you actually did. You're welcome to challenge mine for instance... but if I "lash out", instead of theorizing a successful challenge and some kind of backlash, do take a moment to consider the possibility you might have said something ugly.

Edited October 30, 2020 by commie

[Claymoree]

If they already have their own image of who you are and it is not pleasant one, they will lash out fast for smallest reason and probably about anything  as long as it is not something they them self strongly agree with you.

Second everyone interprets statements, but, it depends on how complex  statement is and if it is something they hold close, so you are probably wrong to say that two people always interpret statements differently.

Bus will be at 5:00 PM is statement , I am sure almost everyone will get it the same way. 

If I would have to guess it is because they think you are trying to act smarter then them and it trigger people, especially if they don't think of you as smarter. 

 

 

 

[commie]

The trouble of course is with statements involving abstractions. If there was any doubt about what a bus is in the context of 5PM (or how to use a clock for that matter), it would be easy to dispel. After living in a society for a while, you get these things.

But WTF does "language is relative" mean out of context? And in this forum, people very often talk abstractions... sometimes quite obliviously I'm sorry to say.

[Claymoree]

9 minutes ago, commie said:

The trouble of course is with statements involving abstractions. If there was any doubt about what a bus is in the context of 5PM (or how to use a clock for that matter), it would be easy to dispel. After living in a society for a while, you get these things.

But WTF does "language is relative" mean out of context? And in this forum, people very often talk abstractions... sometimes quite obliviously I'm sorry to say.

Obviously, if you will say for example

Quote

Trump is evil 

You will have different reactions, it is not like people do not understand what it is pointing at, but for sure they will have different opinions, no he is not , yes he is , yes and no, do you know him, are you expert on what is good and bad and so on. 

But if for example I say

Quote

time does not exist 

Most people will not even understand what I mean by it , or in what context. 

Edited October 30, 2020 by Claymoree

[commie]

Out of context, I don't understand what "Trump is evil" is supposed to be pointing at, other than a value judgment. And you shouldn't react to a value judgment with "no he is not" or "yes he is".

[Claymoree]

15 minutes ago, commie said:

Out of context, I don't understand what "Trump is evil" is supposed to be pointing at, other than a value judgment. And you shouldn't react to a value judgment with "no he is not" or "yes he is".

You just said you did. 

[Mu_]

9 hours ago, Rigel said:

@Mu_ good question I don't know. I guess discussing self-righteousness was the point. 

Its a hard question answer exactly.  I know the loop of questioning life this way very familiarly.  It is a mystery at times what is what and it can be freeing to just let it be so.  That said, sometimes its not always going to settle the mind, so one thing you can try or try and see from the perspective of is, just put your best foot forward in general, come from a good intention and then if something comes up in a situation due to someones reaction, if your able to go into together, maybe you'll find out more about eachother.  However some people won't want to, you may find your own defensiveness come up and it will get muddled and hard to determine either way, so if that happens, thats that, next moment, carry on.

[Rigel]

10 hours ago, commie said:

do take a moment to consider the possibility you might have said something ugly.

That's mainly why I started that thread. How can I tell when I said something ugly vs when people over react?

My thought is:"It is fine as long as I am not attached to changing their position in any way"

I don't see a problem with people lashing out at me either aside from the thought:"It must be hard for them I don't want them to feel bad about what I just said."

10 hours ago, Claymoree said:

If I would have to guess it is because they think you are trying to act smarter then them and it trigger people, especially if they don't think of you as smarter. 

It could definitely be the case. I often assume that it's no big deal when two people don't believe the same stuff. I'll remember that it's my bias?

 

1 hour ago, Mu_ said:

Its a hard question answer exactly.  I know the loop of questioning life this way very familiarly.  It is a mystery at times what is what and it can be freeing to just let it be so.  That said, sometimes its not always going to settle the mind, so one thing you can try or try and see from the perspective of is, just put your best foot forward in general, come from a good intention and then if something comes up in a situation due to someones reaction, if your able to go into together, maybe you'll find out more about eachother.  However some people won't want to, you may find your own defensiveness come up and it will get muddled and hard to determine either way, so if that happens, thats that, next moment, carry on.

Great points. I like the idea of having loving intent. I feel like I can gauge self-righteousness with that. To me self-righteousness feels like 'proving something'.

Self-righteousness might not be the best term for what I am feeling though I'll contemplate about that.

 

 

[commie]

Proper proofs are often beautiful. Trying to prove something when you have no proof though... that's just not a good look.

10 minutes ago, Rigel said:

That's mainly why I started that thread. How can I tell when I said something ugly vs when people over react?

You can never tell when people over react. Don't bother trying. You can ask reasonably clueful third parties if they figure the reactors are full of shit (a second opinion is always welcome) but I wouldn't bother anyone with it when it's clear they haven't even paid attention to what you said (for instance they may have gone off on a tangent based on a keyword).

As to ugliness, well... I don't know how you do it but people usually make a show of looking at their creations from different angles. Sometimes they fuss with the light as well or compare their stuff to respected works. Ultimately you'll be the judge but there are rash judgements and informed judgements. Search engines may reveal the unsuspected baggage of a word for instance. But the basic technique is always going to be: pause, look, feel.

[flume]

19 hours ago, Rigel said:

I actually can't find the boundary between my ego's righteousness and other egos reaction of what I say. 

Now that is an interesting thing to contemplate

19 hours ago, Rigel said:

How do I differentiate between my own self righteousness and arrogance from collective ego backlash?

Just don't. It causes you to either turn against yourself or the world; so it turns sour either way. It's a loose-loose situation, so that makes the question  irrelevant.

When people are struggling in your presence, they show you how they're trying to get a grip on their own view of the world. They just found life with as many question marks as you did. Don't rob people of their journey by insulting their intelligence. Its like you said here:

6 hours ago, Rigel said:

I often assume that it's no big deal when two people don't believe the same stuff.

If they're struggling in your presence, they don't need your insights, they need your support.

Focus on love in action and the question disappears.

And if you find yourself struggling with that idea or being unable to implement it because you're still preoccupied with who's fault it is... Now that means that you don't need any more insights, just support

[Rigel]

1 hour ago, flume said:

Now that is an interesting thing to contemplate

Ahahah you got me

Thanks for the feedback 

[Reciprocality]

This is the categorical vs the specific, there is definitley a formal set-theoretical model of how this dichotomy unfolds (if you are interested i can help you search for it), you and me will as you've said interpret any sentence in different ways, yet by means of another language loop categorize mutual agreement as a not yet understandable connection/result.

Now this is an utilitairan mechanism our will is accidental relative to, it happens spontaneously before we are even conscious of it, a subception if you like.

Where there is utility in playing a game in which we entertain categorical similarities we can difusely work towards goals, nothing else could be the structure of language.

If all written hitherto is gobbledygook i can show you a better way of comunicating the same thing:

I may call you from the north pole and claim Bears are milk colored, from Alaska you may say that Bears are chocolate colored, now we will both find the other quite deluded in their assesement but despite your SPECIFIC emperi in relative contrast to my SPECIFIC emperi we can find common ground in asserting the BEARNESS of the creature. But when we meet in Europe a month later and some bartender tells a story of a bearattack GUESS what, we will within our imaginative faculties see totaliy different bears listening to the bartender go on and find imense utility in not needing to wage a war on the other. (which is the alternative, and indeed it is)