Overly civilised people

[Reciprocality]

There is something about overly civilised people that repulse me, have you ever felt the same? If I see someone sitting on a bench in the middle of a big city with thousands of people walking all around them while being as calm and carefree as they would be in their own living room then how could this be explained differently than that they live their lives in some fugue state often predicated on the belief that if two things have been known to be associated or correlated then so will they continue to be?

[Danioover9000]

@Reciprocality

12 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

There is something about overly civilised people that repulse me, have you ever felt the same? If I see someone sitting on a bench in the middle of a big city with thousands of people walking all around them while being as calm and carefree as they would be in their own living room then how could this be explained differently than that they live their lives in some fugue state often predicated on the belief that if two things have been known to be associated or correlated then so will they continue to be?

   I think that when I look at 'overly civilized' peoples, which may include Victorian era people, pious religious people for instance Amish, and so forth I feel they are an uncommon sight nowadays. I do feel like there's been moral degradation to today's society especially in westernized countries by Neo-capitalism and liberalism run amok, and decrease in human decency and nudity almost everywhere I go, all thanks to Tik Tok and predatory social media platforms perverting the youth and the baby generation.

[Phil King]

12 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

If I see someone sitting on a bench in the middle of a big city with thousands of people walking all around them while being as calm and carefree as they would be in their own living room then how could this be explained differently than that they live their lives in some fugue state often predicated on the belief that if two things have been known to be associated or correlated then so will they continue to be?

WHat in the hell does this long ass run on sentence mean. 

[Reciprocality]

7 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Reciprocality

   I think that when I look at 'overly civilized' peoples, which may include Victorian era people, pious religious people for instance Amish, and so forth I feel they are an uncommon sight nowadays. I do feel like there's been moral degradation to today's society especially in westernized countries by Neo-capitalism and liberalism run amok, and decrease in human decency and nudity almost everywhere I go, all thanks to Tik Tok and predatory social media platforms perverting the youth and the baby generation.

@Danioover9000 This branch of people that you brought up, particularly victorians, were excessive in a way that has to do with being different from another contemporary group, where they idealised certain behaviour and attempted to internalise it and become that behaviour while judging others who did not successfully do so.

Civility in general however can be excessive without the causes for a certain form of civility having to be excessive like above, if u know what I mean, we can all conceive of the distinction between pretentiousness/pompousness and normality, what I attempted to induce in your mind were the possibility of an overly civilised version of the latter, normality.

And to your comment on moral degradation, yes the force is strong in that shit, I do think it is a separate topic though and that there are plenty of different causes.

[Reciprocality]

7 hours ago, Phil King said:

WHat in the hell does this long ass run on sentence mean. 

@Phil King yes what the hell

The assumption is that we as a general baseline value civility, do you do this? Okay moving on.

A question humans sometimes ask themselves is this: is too much of a good thing still a good thing? And then let me add to that: is the ability to associate different things with one another, say you associate the streets with absence of violence or general danger, itself sufficient to make good decisions?

I can then translate the latter question into the form of the former: is relying on the beneficial ability to associate variables a good stategy if it is done excessively?

If not then let us go back to my example of someone sitting carefree or in their own world on a bench in the middle of a street in a big city with plenty of people walking around them, they would certainly rely on their ability to associate variables to do so, but is this sometimes an example also of doing so excessively?

[Phil King]

@Reciprocality lol i think im retarded cause I still have no idea what youre trying to say

57 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

If not then let us go back to my example of someone sitting carefree or in their own world on a bench in the middle of a street in a big city with plenty of people walking around them, they would certainly rely on their ability to associate variables to do so, but is this sometimes an example also of doing so excessively?

Are you saying that you should be in a state of fear when your in the middle of a big city? I used to live in NYC and always felt relatively safe and carefree even at like 2AM in somewhat sketchy parts of the city. Why would being overly civilized evoke disgust/repulsion in you?

Edited March 7 by Phil King

[BlueOak]

The degradation of civility and manners in the general population is responsible for an unnecessary amount of personal conflicts, wasted time, and general malcontent in day-to-day life. People vilify it so they take the opposite position, which represents and partly contributes to social breakdown. As among the traits opposite to this are: Disrespect, inconsideration and generally being crude out of context.

At the extreme it's like anything when people vilify any common social variable (interaction/trend/discourse), they often take an unnecessary opposite position to it, which means they form opposition and resistance to it. This doesn't allow for a natural flow of anything, it's like a stone in the stream to them that is constantly going to irritate them irrationally. 

Which incidentally is what people spend much of their time talking about, worrying about or focusing on, something that has no material consequence or value whatsoever to them personally, only their deep-seated need to be in opposition to it, to make their ego feel 'the right way'. There are of course things that affect their lives greatly, but how someone sits on a park bench certainly isn't one of them.

[Reciprocality]

1 hour ago, BlueOak said:

The degradation of civility and manners in the general population is responsible for an unnecessary amount of personal conflicts, wasted time, and general malcontent in day-to-day life. People vilify it so they take the opposite position, which represents and partly contributes to social breakdown. As among the traits opposite to this are: Disrespect, inconsideration and generally being crude out of context.

At the extreme it's like anything when people vilify any common social variable (interaction/trend/discourse), they often take an unnecessary opposite position to it, which means they form opposition and resistance to it. This doesn't allow for a natural flow of anything, it's like a stone in the stream to them that is constantly going to irritate them irrationally. 

Which incidentally is what people spend much of their time talking about, worrying about or focusing on, something that has no material consequence or value whatsoever to them personally, only their deep-seated need to be in opposition to it, to make their ego feel 'the right way'. There are of course things that affect their lives greatly, but how someone sits on a park bench certainly isn't one of them.

@BlueOak If the fugue state I referred to either does not explain the behaviour or does not actually exist in those who behaved in the given way then what would be the matter that could be refuted. 

Nothing that I borught up has to do with whether sitting on a park bench in a given way affects someone greatly, but instead precisely the opposite, how a state of mind represented by how someone sits on a park bench can affect them greatly.

It is always possible that egos are involved or indeed the main concern where causal speculation takes place, it is besides the point.

[Reciprocality]

3 hours ago, Phil King said:

@Reciprocality lol i think im retarded cause I still have no idea what youre trying to say

Are you saying that you should be in a state of fear when your in the middle of a big city? I used to live in NYC and always felt relatively safe and carefree even at like 2AM in somewhat sketchy parts of the city. Why would being overly civilized evoke disgust/repulsion in you?

@Phil King I am not interested here in what one should do, normativity is a different kind of thing than explanatory speculation.

It is however true that some basic sense of normativity is likely the cause for why I would notice a carefree attitude to begin with, but even still it would not address my concern.

A new question that can specify our problem of communication here is this: do people have in their heads a perpetual conception of what a stranger is? And if the answer is yes then what kind of character does the conception have in those who sits on a park bench carefree of thousands of people walking behind them? Surely this conception would be susceptible to the same kind of collective uncosncious as other conceptions are, making it possible for us to speculate sensibly about it.

The implication to me, is that there is some form of fugue state underlying these people in general, where new information is treated as though it were old information, which brings us to the conception of predication, discernment and sufficient similarity between experiences.

Edited March 7 by Reciprocality

[BlueOak]

1 hour ago, Reciprocality said:

@BlueOak If the fugue state I referred to either does not explain the behaviour or does not actually exist in those who behaved in the given way then what would be the matter that could be refuted. 

Nothing that I borught up has to do with whether sitting on a park bench in a given way affects someone greatly, but instead precisely the opposite, how a state of mind represented by how someone sits on a park bench can affect them greatly.

It is always possible that egos are involved or indeed the main concern where causal speculation takes place, it is besides the point.

Then civility has nothing to do with it. You can have manners and awareness at the same time. Civility, respect, manners, discipline etc are not detachment, they are a way of considering others in your actions. Also being happy and enjoying yourself doesn't mean you lack awareness. Nor should you live your life according to a few bad experiences. 

As for happening to them, if someone is going to rob or attack you, how civil you are is likely not going to make a difference one way or the other. I suppose being nicer or more pleasant might make someone think twice about doing so, or put you in a better social circle, but to a stranger that's a long shot that it'd make any difference at all. Happy and carefree, I don't think a robber is going to say hmm that person is more happy, so i'll take them rather than the one with the expensive handbag and phone.

The only thing I've found that makes a difference is wearing expensive items can attract attention. That happened once. Also looking like a tourist while abroad is a good way to get ripped off by some opportunistic locals. Also I've noticed my confidence goes up when I am weightlifting, people tend to look at you differently when you are twice the bulk, but I was the same doing martial arts even if it didn't show as much.

Finally, you did say it repulsed you, which is why I mentioned you. 

Edited March 7 by BlueOak

[Reciprocality]

@BlueOak Okay I hear you, you take problem with the semantics of my descriptions, I refer to the underlying cause by the word "civility"

What is very interesting now is that your response: "Also being happy and enjoying yourself doesn't mean you lack awareness." implies that when you are reading the examples I provided of someone sitting on e bench you actually believe that the imagination I induced in your mind, though merely associated to it were the thing I were referring to, in this way could you respond to what I said with what has rather little to do with what I were saying. 

I am describing real events in terms of words that are merely here to induce adequate imagination, I would never attempt to even hope to establish a causal prediction based on the meaning of words or to be pedantic about what words in general are meant to signify.

I think it is fair that it appears to you that I were trying to do that, this is an ongoing problem of communication, so to be clear: there are observations possible of people sitting on park benches absent minded from their real surroundings, we may disagree as to whether civility is the essential characteristic which makes them behave this way, in either case the behaviour must have a sufficient reason and this reason is almost guaranteed to affect many aspects of their life and is certain to imply something about, given the magnitude of the kind of thing strangers are, how they see the world.

We can also debate the meaning of civility if you want, either by composite concepts or through examples, I don't often do that because it will be irrelevant to the actual points I make, though it could be helpful to establish an even more solid understanding of the descriptive definition of the word and it could help for you to see the connections drawn, were that the issue.

"As for happening to them, if someone is going to rob or attack you, how civil you are is likely not going to make a difference one way or the other." To be clear: this statement means that if every other variable were equal in a statistical distribution you would think that men and women who comes from the country who visits big cities and are naturally inclined to be more suspicious against people in their surroundings and display a proportionate body-language would be robbed and attacked to a diminishingly differing extent to those who, born and raised in big cities, portrays a carefree attitude. 

Edited March 7 by Reciprocality

[bebotalk]

I don't get the OP's points. It's based on very subjective perceptions. 

[Reciprocality]

Just now, bebotalk said:

I don't get the OP's points. It's based on very subjective perceptions. 

@bebotalk All real thinking is based on very subjective perceptions, when we get through the hurdle of language we end up in the land of plausibilities and statistical relationships.

If you wish to reduce (as opposed to criticise) what I am saying to being subjective perceptions then the ground of your assertion is that these relationships have a somewhat random distribution, and then you are affirming the last reply I made above concerning the difference between people from the country and people from the city.

[FourCrossedWands]

What are you even talking about? This is the most normal thing ever in most southern European countries lol

 

[BlueOak]

@Reciprocality Disagree entirely with the idea that people visiting cities are in less danger than the people living there. I think growing up in a city can make you a lot more streetwise. I only lived in a city for a few years, already I was learning where not to go, how to treat the locals or act etc, I think if I had been there all my life i'd be a lot more suited to city life. Maybe it might seem that way, because someone is more at ease in the surroundings, and of course, not everyone is an attentive person regardless of environment.

In this medium, I can only work with the words you give me. Our accepted definitions for them come from the dictionary, and although they can be debated, I'll usually just pull up the dictionary to show someone if they do. Then usually it's cut or dry if I am using the word correctly or not, (i've been wrong my share of times )

If being carefree, and civil is not the thrust of what you are saying. Instead that daydreaming on a park bench in a city center is inherently dangerous? I'll agree daydreaming anywhere carries some risk, it depends where though. In the center of a busy park, probably not, that would have a hundred eyes on it. At night in the same park, maybe yes. Years ago two guys almost robbed me in an area just outside the city center, in a relatively quiet area, that's more likely. I managed to get into a nearby shop in time. - The trigger for that was my sharp suit and briefcase as it was an important appointment.

As for civility being the cause if you want to debate it we can, its not at all related in my eyes. You'll need to link up for me why manners, discipline, politeness, respect, and consideration cause people to daydream.

*This could also be a cultural thing, if you are living in a particularly rough or high crime area, it might be different, but the person doing so would likely take that into account.

Edited March 7 by BlueOak

[Reciprocality]

43 minutes ago, FourCrossedWands said:

What are you even talking about? This is the most normal thing ever in most southern European countries lol

 

@FourCrossedWands I especially like this comment.

First you ask what I am even talking about and then you produce the very evidence of the thing I am talking about awaringly that it is such an evidence for then to top it off with a "lol".

Edited March 7 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

1 hour ago, BlueOak said:

Disagree entirely with the idea that people visiting cities are in less danger than the people living there.

@BlueOak Now this is different, now you introduce variables that first confuses the matter and then you assert something about these variables that has no bearing on the connection of those I listed.

In relation to your reply: it is very possible for it to be more dangerous for country people to travel to big cities than city people to do stay there per day at the same time as the countrypeople have less risk of being robbed or attacked etc in the situation i listed. And beyond the reply: it is also plausible, given the next sentence in your reply: "I think growing up in a city can make you a lot more streetwise"

"I think if I had been there all my life i'd be a lot more suited to city life.", yes indeed, and I find it self evident that the variables "better suited for city life", "more civilised", "carefree to ones surroundings" and "more prone to experience assaults in an idle state" are each correlated to the others.

"Our accepted definitions for them come from the dictionary, and although they can be debated, I'll usually just pull up the dictionary to show someone if they do" The dictionary is a product of the accepted definitions, not the other way around, but I understand your point about the importance of bringing up the utility of dictionaries.

"At night in the same park, maybe yes. Years ago two guys almost robbed me in an area just outside the city center, in a relatively quiet area, that's more likely. I managed to get into a nearby shop in time. - The trigger for that was my sharp suit and briefcase as it was an important appointment." Sounds traumatic, its good it all went well I bet they didnt catch those fucks on camera?

 

"As for civility being the cause if you want to debate it we can, its not at all related in my eyes. You'll need to link up for me why manners, discipline, politeness, respect, and consideration cause people to daydream."

Though I appreciate that you list up essential characteristic for civility the concept of daydreaming includes many characteristics that extends beyond the concept of a "carefree attitude", and also I can not help but smile a bit at the absurdity of this conversation ending up here but its all good.

First of all I take the phrase as self evident that too much of most good things is a bad thing and that if the term "civility" is going to mean something its referents must necessarily pertain to that phrase. (the argument for this would be overly philosophical, but if you want to hear it too then Ill make one later) Civility is a term that describes so many aspects of human social behaviour that though it serves the purpose of the point I made it can serve the purpose of points that are very different from the one I made, the man who has no care for his surroundings does not as you suggest have to be disciplined, polite, respectful or be mannered for his civility as opposed to his primitivity to be the cause for that behaviour.

 

I like to think in terms of simplicity, dualities and quantities and then the coupling between these, I am thankful that this conversation has made me realise that this is not helpful when certain assertions are made where the language has so much semantic baggage that the points will never be made, I kind of have known this for a while but it is helpful to repeat the cycles sometimes.

If instead of thinking about civility as a term which pertains to a subset of what modern people are doing then think about the possibility distribution of all human behaviour where what is furthest on one side is primitive and what is furthest to the other is civil, it may be more obvious then that the person who sits on the bench carefree is very far removed from primitive thus overly civil. I should have gone for this approach far earlier.

 

I would though argue that the general meaning of the word civility is more like the kind I exposed last above than yours which includes distinct characterstics, the difference being that politeness for example is a sufficient accident of the term under your definition and more of an insufficient necessity under my definition.

edit: Nah the part I crossed over is not entirely true, so forget about that.

Edited March 7 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

If you are native english or American then the words will have more distinctness to them to you, their meaning will become their own thing in culture at large independent of duality (independent of being opposite or complimentary to in this instance: primitive), this general trend probably has a name but I don't know what its called.

And that would also contribute to explain the language barrier here. 

 

Edited March 7 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

However, let us not lose sight of the ball, if for arguments sake you were to entertain the anti-primitive definition of civility, then would you then be more apt to agree that it is a cause, over many years, to the kind of people who are carefree (to a fault even) of their surroundings, whether or not you still disagree that these are in higher risk of assault?

Edited March 7 by Reciprocality

[BlueOak]

@Reciprocality

1) You are inventing meanings for civility it doesn't have. 

Carefree implies a level of the opposite of civility. To be civil you have to have a certain restraint in how you interact.
Absentminded in no way implies civility. Again civility implies a certain awareness of your actions, in an attempt to be civil.

They do not correlate. Carefree is enough.

I think the reason it bothers me enough to talk on it, is the constant barrage of pressure against good manners, against 'the nice guy', against being civil with people. People make their living off of saying its a bad thing, and have done for years, so I don't think respectful behavior needs any more unrelated things attached to it.

2) Here is the quote:
 

4 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

"As for happening to them, if someone is going to rob or attack you, how civil you are is likely not going to make a difference one way or the other." To be clear: this statement means that if every other variable were equal in a statistical distribution you would think that men and women who comes from the country who visits big cities and are naturally inclined to be more suspicious against people in their surroundings and display a proportionate body-language would be robbed and attacked to a diminishingly differing extent to those who, born and raised in big cities, portrays a carefree attitude. 

Then:

1 hour ago, Reciprocality said:

@BlueOak Now this is different, now you introduce variables that first confuses the matter and then you assert something about these variables that has no bearing on the connection of those I listed.

In relation to your reply: it is very possible for it to be more dangerous for country people to travel to big cities than city people to do stay there per day at the same time as the countrypeople have less risk of being robbed or attacked etc in the situation i listed. And beyond the reply: it is also plausible, given the next sentence in your reply: "I think growing up in a city can make you a lot more streetwise"

You just told me all things being equal the danger is LESS in that first quote. I am replying to that statement.

Your point you keep saying is a carefree attitude leads to being robbed or assaulted, and that people coming to the city haven't got comfortable enough to exhibit it. Which is true for some. There are plenty of people in either scenario who are going to walk into situations with blinders on.

1 hour ago, Reciprocality said:

And beyond the reply: it is also plausible, given the next sentence in your reply: "I think growing up in a city can make you a lot more streetwise"

"I think if I had been there all my life i'd be a lot more suited to city life.", yes indeed, and I find it self evident that the variables "better suited for city life", "more civilised", "carefree to ones surroundings" and "more prone to experience assaults in an idle state" are each correlated to the others.

No. Being streetwise does not mean you are at a higher risk in your environment, it means the opposite. It means you are aware of the dangers of where you live and not easily surprised by them. The more I live in an area the more I am aware of how it operates, such as the dangers and how to avoid them, not the other way around.

*Though agreed not everyone is streetwise, far from it, there are a lot of very unconscious people in the world, so perhaps my bias is showing too much here to be a good reflection of the middle ground.

Edited March 7 by BlueOak