-
(this is a tangical post made from the thread
referring to being invisible)
well, i fear how this thread may turn out...
so i guess i better say all that i need to
in one post.
now... with the title...
i'm not talking about resisting the temptation
to purchase the newest *insert 'thing'
here*...because of money problems.
nor am i referring to resisting the compulsion
to do something radical or unconventional...
(like getting a tattoo) because you are
denied it from one form or another.
what i am referring to is the compulsion
to say or do something but refrain because
it is against social morees.
stop.
i'm not referring to murder, sexual violation,
and other things of that nature.
i'm specifically referring moreso to the
conditions that prevent a person from saying
what is on their mind...
especially when it would feel good to be
completely exposed.... ie, not fearing
what is normally feared when confronted
with things you may think.
here's an example:
(and yes, i am over simplifying what i'm
really wanting to address)
children are gathered at a local public park.
a handicapped parent is also there....
and a child is overheard saying to another:
"he has a scary *insert feature*..."
the child is reprimanded not for thinking
it... nor for making the comment known...
but for making the comment loud enough so
that the handicapped person could hear it.
now, don't get me wrong. most children are
reprimanded for making the comment regardless
if the person can hear it.
<font size=30>WHY?!?!?</font>
why are we told to keep such things internal???
sure, we JUSTIFY it by saying that we should
be concerned as how the person reacts to
such a comment... but thats asinine.
bah... i can't get across what i want to
accomplish here. its futile anyway...
none of you would understand... nor would
i expect to receive any sort of legitimate
answer...
i just wanna be able to say what i want without
the bullshit of having to deal with the
responsibility of 'how the other person
will interpret it'. thats not my problem.
its a flaw in communication... of interpretation.
if a person misinterprets a comment...
and they choose to react hostile or
like a fucking asshole (ie, self-pity.. etc)
that's their problem for not coming to
terms with reality and/or facing the
objectivity of their present.
i find it complete BULLSHIT that extraneous
responsibility is imposed on me by no other
facter than some social entity that says
i must!
this is only encouraged and subtantiated
by express guilt... also saddled on the
'comment maker'.
why is the world so fucking sensitive???
i understand this is all part and partial
to fucking mill and his utilitarian BULLSHIT...
basically -- to protect the herd in order
to produce better, more expedient results
of X...
but c'mon!
this immediately prompts me to make more
threads, as previously seen in GP, about
truth, love, compassion, etc...
but i guess thats just a pipe dream...
BAH FUCK IT! i'm now pissed off....
what am i doing here????
*exit emotionally charged tanget*
I CURSE YOU, SMITH! [img]graemlins/cry.gif[/img]
-
Basically, you're saying "it's not my fault for saying that, or thinking that which may offend you, it's your fault for getting offended"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Which I think is rude in itself.
It's called kindness, and yada yada, but I know, you probably think that stuff is so dumb blah blah.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#000000"><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">Originally posted by shatzy:
(this is a tangical post made from the thread
referring to being invisible)
well, i fear how this thread may turn out...
so i guess i better say all that i need to
in one post.
[img]graemlins/cry.gif[/img] </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thinking deeply for a long while before I even attempt to broach this one. HMMMMMMMMM *turing off lights so no one bugs me while I listen to Shatzy cry*
CYA
-
its not about kindness, hanny. i am taking full
responsibility for my thoughts/comments....
which is why it should go without saying that
the things i say are carefully considered prior
to being said.
but even so... wtf would anyone be offended by truth?
even if that 'truth' is limited within the
boundries of a persons perspective??
if i say that X (art, house, dog, etc) is ugly...
no one is arguing for absolute truth... merely
contained from the values of perspective.
now, naturally the items i mentioned are, as
we know it, incapable of understanding the
meaning of my comments...
but add a rational entity in there... such as:
that baby/kid/person is ugly...
then i am naturally having shame/guilt enforced...
for saying only that which i think.
why can i not establish my thoughts?
*and cya... i completely understand your post...
thank you*
-
crimethink is doubleplusungood
[edit]
sorry, it was cRimethink
That should make it a lot easier.
<font color="#c0c0c0" size="1">[ April 30, 2003 07:01 PM: Message edited by: zelazny ]</font>
-
whoa....
i have NO IDEA what you just said [img]eek.gif[/img]
-
Not so much as to answer to or an explanation of what I think Shatzy feels when she states that people on a whole in a society where we speak of free speech yet often get cursed at for what we say or even as much for even thinking it, I will attempt to add to what has been said without making it more confusing.
Shatzy, I sat long and in silence nodding my head in agreement to what you said and often shaking it in dis-belief for I too agree that society has become the child in a world full of glass houses.
People usually never understand fully what one person has said nor meant, but change it into what they want to hear. This is no more astonishing then people who think about something they need to say and then shape the words for a predicted outcome. Some do it in haste, some to get the end result they desire. I believe you yourself shaped the topic when you chose it. You chose certain anologies where what has been said could draw a certain conclusion such saying a child or person was ugly then throwing guilt in the mix only to predict the outcome of that it was wrong to say that.
People are a curious sort that I believe are drawn not so much to what people say but how they say it. We shape ideas of how feel towards other people on how they come across to us and how much we know of them.
Example:
You say someones (house, car, etc) is ugly.
We draw that you are free to your own opinion and may or may not like certain things yet this doesn't mean we can't co exist.
Example #2
You say someone's (spouse, kid, or themself) is ugly.
We can only draw that you have taken all the facts as you saw them and shaped a world in which you see that person as only ugly in your eyes and this is not something that will change until what you viewed as ugly is changed in your opinion.
And since people haven very little control of your opinion on how you view things in life they become protective and insecure. Which in turn causes self guilt on both parts. One for you voicing the opinion which you felt was free to be spoken and guilt on their part for not pleasing you.
But I dont think this is what you were initially getting at. That is only the surface of what you spoke. You had meaning in there, that it hurts to feel ideas inside and yet unable to say them for fear of being cast out, banished, stoned or what have you for your beliefs and thoughts.
Getting back to the part where I think you shaped the outcome before the end was even near. You drew a conclusion to the arguement that people are too sensitive to anything said, so people are reserved or overtly expressive just to rebel yet never letting what they truely feel out in the open.
I think this is a state in the mannor of which we grew up and how ideas were passed on from the people were were raised by and our peers of whom we respect. We feel the need to want to conform in some mannor yet have an over welming desire to be different in a world full of carbon copy people.
It is amazing how were were given 1 mouth to speak with yet 2 ears to listen by. If people spent only half the time talking and twice the time listening to what was said I think any answer could be giving in rhetoric without the fear of someone not liking what you said.
In choosing your end before you began, you youself are only the limit to what you say or when you say it. You are given free will to do as you wish. But in a life where we usually bond with people we either wish to be like or are most like us, I only fear that you have not chosen people around you that you feel comfortable with sharing your ideas or words without any fear. This is as opposed to people that may share the same value of saying what you believe yet not believe in that everyone can say as they choose without mistaking ones words for swords by which to fight by.
I am not sure if that helps or hinders the whole topic.... but it is what I feel.
CYA
[img]wink.gif[/img]
-
whoa....
you know... you totally busted me.
i feel exposed.
yes, i was somewhat delicate in what i chose
to say here... because i did fear in speaking
what i really wanted to say.
and yes, i did alter the post by adding analogies
that were really irrelevent...
it astonishes me that you gathered all of that
from my post... it really does.
i'm not sure what to say....
if i had posted exactly what i wanted to say...
i felt as if it would still be somewhat skewed.
so i went for bad analogies.
still.... whoa....
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#000000"><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">Originally posted by shatzy:
whoa....
you know... you totally busted me.
i feel exposed.
yes, i was somewhat delicate in what i chose
to say here... because i did fear in speaking
what i really wanted to say.
and yes, i did alter the post by adding analogies
that were really irrelevent...
it astonishes me that you gathered all of that
from my post... it really does.
i'm not sure what to say....
if i had posted exactly what i wanted to say...
i felt as if it would still be somewhat skewed.
so i went for bad analogies.
still.... whoa....</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
So please Shatzy say what you feel. Write the words you wanted to before your mind altered them or tanted them in ways you thought either we could understand it or would accept it. I want to know what was really on your mind and more so why you felt you can't share it or at least share it here with me now? Write ... don't think just write what you felt you needed or wanted to and I will listen.
CYA [img]eek.gif[/img]
-
love, like truth, is not a complete linear compulsion...
its merely situational... and not even as lengthy
as that.. but a series of smaller, broken
increments of time that will flicker on and off
according to whim.... not some long, circular
flow of existence.
love is momentary... never constant.
it is criminal to see it any other way...
not only to yourself... but to others.
its delusional and wrong.
there is no 'life-long love'... no 'absolute
truth'... nothing like that.
no one person can be 'trustworthy'... for trust,
like love, is merely situational... and not
bound to any linear path.
to blame a person for an act of distrust is
delusional and criminal... as moments of
action are just that... moments... and trust
cannot be spread thin in order to compensate
our inability to distinguish the profound from
the profane...
it is this that makes me cower from being
included with all the others.
i do not do this.
at the time of the initial post... i loved...
but only at the moment. i now no longer love.
and i do not feel guilt nor remorse for that.
-
I cower from no one.
I am as big as anyone!
I am me, and there is no one better.
I am smarter, stronger, quicker, faster.
It's no sweat!
I am alive!
You can't stop me!!!!!!!!!
-
Once you define an object stationary or moving, liquid or solid you then give it standards by which it must act within a given set of rules. You defined love as how you viewed it, skewed or not. You gave it a certain lifetime expectancy. By this I wonder if that was the end that justifies the means?? If you view love as so fleeting I wonder must then be lust? Can I ask of what was your object of love?
CYA
-
'the end justifies the means' is a nonsensical
statement...
however, i agree that once something is termed,
it revolves around a predermined set of structure.
i think that the view of 'my' love as fleeting
is incorrect. its not fleeting... just as it
is not consistant. we are not bound in extremes.
it is a flux of the sublime...
a matter of perspective? sure. but you cannot
justify a constant of any one feeling.
here's an example:
anyone can impose a sense of beauty on an object...
like a sunset. you can meditate on a sunset in
order to distinguish its beauty... but that is
unnatural and not within the context that i am
referring.
it is the moment when beauty is generated from
beyond your control... when beauty imposes itself
upon you... which is something you cannot
generate yourself.
this is what i'm referring to in the context of
love and truth. if real... it cannot be self-generated...
and it is only momentary.
you see it in hindsight.
-
You give many examples but follow by saying they are not what you are refering to. Instead of sparing with words if you want us (or myself) to know what you once thought had beauty but which does not any longer, you must reveal what is deep inside and not play the cat and mouse with paragraphs filled with hidden direction in which I can not follow.
But then again maybe that (in it self) could be the beauty of loosing ones self in trying to explain something which someone else can not understand.
CYA [img]eek.gif[/img]
