Friction among members

[NeverAmI]

Open your heart as well as your mind.

I am curious as to what it means to open your heart. I personally believe I am on a level with my heart that is quite beneficial. I observe my passion, I analyze it's behavior and I determine why it is invoked.

Why do I feel passionate about certain things, why do certain statements make me 'feel' a certain way when I cannot come up with a logical explanation why? Over time I find that I am able to come up with a logical explanation and it helps me to understand myself as a whole.

Both are indeed beneficial and necessary functions to be human. I do find that both are able to mislead each other. If you infer one thing repeatedly, perhaps through an unsound argument, your emotions will succumb.

There is fear attached to certain beliefs we have, they are when an external entity treads on a certain boundary, and behind a barrier inside that boundary is some logical deduction that has caused one to become defensive. We will find most times those barriers are from unsound inferences and should be taken down. Yet, only that person is in control of that barrier, no one else can strip it down. You can attempt to inject dissonance, but that is an art in itself and can really throw some unexpected side effects, as we so commonly see in the news.

Of course, injecting dissonance suggests that you have inferred that your own difference in truth is correct and their's is false. Mutual understanding and fleshing out of these ideas seems much more efficient than arguing your own truth for 3 days without a resolution. If fear is so strong that you cannot express your views until you feel ultimately threatened, then perhaps friction is your best method of getting your views 'out there.'

Personal subjective reality is comprised of many barriers and boundaries and external entities not respecting those can definitely meet with unexpected results. I am not saying respect means leaving them alone entirely, but rather being cautious in your actions and mindful that your truth or inferences aren't necessarily right.

 

[Norton]

Are we only intellect here? I for one am here to learn. Those "extraneous issues" many times really are the point. Open your heart as well as your mind.

Then these "extraneous issues" should be carefully, articulately, and tactfully expressed. I'm not denying or deprecating emotion. Emotion and intellect are inextricably entwined; you can't have one without the other. Just like it is counterproductive to deny emotion, it is equally counterproductive to instigate and amplify emotion during a discussion or argument. Tact is the essence of diplomacy. And, diplomacy is what we all do when we're at our best relating to others.

Unfortunately, some people get their kicks out of inducing negative emotions in others. This is a selfish power game that is, to varying degrees, abusive. It is, at the very least, disruptive and immature.

 

[Stu]

Then these "extraneous issues" should be carefully, articulately, and tactfully expressed. I'm not denying or deprecating emotion. Emotion and intellect are inextricably entwined;....
Unfortunately, some people get their kicks out of inducing negative emotions in others. This is a selfish power game that is, to varying degrees, abusive. It is, at the very least, disruptive and immature.

I agree that deliberately inducing negative emotions in others for fun is bad, but it is normal for many people to inadvertently induce those emotions and it is not evil to do it a little bit in some instances, just to see what lurks beneath.

I am curious as to what it means to open your heart. I personally believe I am on a level with my heart that is quite beneficial. I observe my passion, I analyze it's behavior and I determine why it is invoked.

Over time I find that I am able to come up with a logical explanation and it helps me to understand myself as a whole.

Both are indeed beneficial and necessary functions to be human. I do find that both are able to mislead each other. If you infer one thing repeatedly, perhaps through an unsound argument, your emotions will succumb....

There is fear attached to certain beliefs we have, they are [activated] when an external entity treads on a certain boundary, and behind a barrier inside that boundary is some logical deduction that has caused one to become defensive....


I am not saying respect means leaving them alone entirely, but rather being cautious in your actions and mindful that your truth or inferences aren't necessarily right.

I do not advocate baiting people repeatedly but the logic of which you speak is illusory in most cases. I invite my friends to tread on that boundary (hopefully with a bare and caring foot, not a storm trooper boot). I also accept that almost every conviction I hold could be reversed given the right set of circumstances (my "truths" are entirely subjective).

 

[NeverAmI]

I do not advocate baiting people repeatedly but the logic of which you speak is illusory in most cases.

Of which logic do I speak?

I invite my friends to tread on that boundary (hopefully with a bare and caring foot, not a storm trooper boot). I also accept that almost every conviction I hold could be reversed given the right set of circumstances (my "truths" are entirely subjective).

A very noble and virtuous mindset to have, and on this basis we entirely agree. You have come to the inference that expanding your knowledge and questioning your own insight is beneficial to everyone. Not everyone has yet reached this conclusion. I think the world would indeed be a better place if we could all spend more time in this mindset.

 

[Stu]

Why do I feel passionate about certain things, why do certain statements make me 'feel' a certain way when I cannot come up with a logical explanation why? Over time I find that I am able to come up with a logical explanation and it helps me to understand myself as a whole.

I am suggesting that this type of reasoning, while for you it may be logical, is often based purely on activated complexes within the personal unconscious.

 

[BlinkandThink]

Pain is a powerful mnemonic aid ... but there's also a very strong likelihood that when people experience it and have an opportunity to learn, they will miss the important bit and remember the wrong thing.


So a person may be pointlessly pissing off 40 people to benefit 2. If that's a ratio they're okay with, I'd say go for it. I'd absolutely go for it if I thought the issue were important enough, and I respect people who do this mindfully.

 

[NeverAmI]

I am suggesting that this type of reasoning, while for you it may be logical, is often based purely on activated complexes within the personal unconscious.

This subjective deduction has been proven in realms of psychology to be effective in overcoming certain complexes. Whether it truly removes the complex or simply convolutes it to the point of irrelevence is questionable.

Yet in my own mind, and in psychology, you witness emotion (x) in direct response to experience or inference (y). You can empirically witness this response.

At this point you analyze inference (y) to determine why it invokes emotion (x). Some are only able to find the root cause (z) of the inference (y) through hypnosis and analysis of the (sub/un)conscious because it is hidden. Through that analysis you can make a new inference (a) and instill that new inference into your (sub/un)conscious through repitition of (a). Once the new inference has been planted they find that emotional response (x) is no longer evident.

The problem is setting up the environment for someone to find (z). You canot simply shove (a) in their face and expect them to automatically adapt to it. Although politics has shown that sometimes they are able to instill (a) without (z) through repitition of fallacy. Although that requires a new inference (i) for ignorance that what they (the politicians) speak is the correct, or a truthful, deduction.

In some cases (z) may not be the true root cause, but it could still work for an individual to remove emotional resonse (x) simply because they are ready to believe the new inference (a). Of course, in that case (z) would actually be ignorance (i) because there is some data or something left out that isn't actually the cause (z) of their actual core inference.

This all relies on the postulate that our emotional responses are a direct response to our inferences. Freud and many others don't actually believe that postulate because they infer that emotional urges and the search of positive emotions are the core motivating factor of humanity. Religious people may believe that emotional urges are the will of god, or the opposite that emotions are a sin and take away from the connection with god. Some believe good emotions are instilled by god and bad emotions instilled by satan.

I personally believe all have a possibility of being untrue.

 

[Stu]

I am not looking to educate anyone but myself. When I see friction among the members I am often drawn to it by what it evokes in me.

 

[Billy]

I am not looking to educate anyone but myself. When I see friction among the members I am often drawn to it by what it evokes in me.

Sometimes friction is the result of ego, specifically thats the friction we have been dealing with lately based on 1 or 2 people. And it ripples out to the rest of us. Its also highly negative and destructive. Friction blows.

 

[Stu]

Bingo!

The problem is setting up the environment for someone to find (z). You cannot simply shove (a) in their face and expect them to automatically adapt to it.


.

Right on. I am advocating that the friction we sometimes see here can enable this process.

Again, I urge restraint both on the poster of something that is a bit flammable and the reader who feels the burn.

 

[Billy]

Right on. I am advocating that the friction we sometimes see here can enable this process.

Again, I urge restraint both on the poster of something that is a bit flammable and the reader who feels the burn.

"Temperance is key!" wasn't that what the alderman was saying constantly in that Henrik Ibsen Play an Enemy of the people? Did you ever read that? It speaks a lot to what you're talking about, great play.

 

[NeverAmI]

"Temperance is key!" wasn't that what the alderman was saying constantly in that Henrik Ibsen Play an Enemy of the people? Did you ever read that? It speaks a lot to what you're talking about, great play.

I haven't seen this, I should watch it! Thanks for the FYI Billy!

 

[randomsomeone]

Assuming I am understanding the distinctions being made...

Not all or us are drawn to friction....perhaps even most of us. I would recommend employing it with great discretion and even then, the negative outcomes might well outweigh any benefits. Surely other approaches can be employed.

 

[Billy]

I haven't seen this, I should watch it! Thanks for the FYI Billy!

Its really good, its a fight of Idealism vs Realism.

You feel torn between the 2 sides the whole time. I always came down on the side of the town though, total Fe lol.

 

[Sithious]

This thread is ridden with bullshit, good lord!

 

[NeverAmI]

This thread is ridden with bullshit, good lord!

You may certainly stop posting at any time.

 

[Ria]

I do feel there should be a balance, but that it can be really really difficult to be mature enough to see it. Compromise is a tough thing for folks, and if you're a certain personality type (not just MBTI but in general) it can be downright impossible to get two sides to agree on anything.

That's why we have police, judges, court systems, and the like. Not that they're honest all the time, but they do exist. You do hope that the court systems are mature enough to balance the cases as well.

Metaphors aside...I think folks have a right to ignore who they want to ignore if they're not at a place to respond positively to criticisms. And on that same branch, if a person refuses to listen or calm down, I should have every right to "hang up on them" via ignore. 'Course I don't ignore anyone anyway - I have to look at everything as a mod, anyway.

It's not wrong to want to avoid conflict if you're not at a place to take it, and it's not wrong to listen without reacting first or asking something in private. Neither is a weak response - they're just different responses.

Two cents.

I love how Arbygil words my thoughts so perfectly.

 

[Norton]

I think the US Congress and US politics as they are today are a perfect example of too much friction. Compromise is a dirty word. Tact and diplomacy are seen as weaknesses. Many politicians are "true believers" who are slaves to ideology, so certain they are right and others wrong. This is a guarantee of rigidity and failure because it does not comprehend the inherent complexity of economic and social systems. So, yes, even here on this forum, balance and compromise are desirable goals, as Arbygil says. It's good practice for getting along in the world as it should be.

 

[Stu]

aye, there's the rub

This thread is ridden with bullshit, good lord!

I am feeling something here.....I wonder......

 

[Feelings]

Generally speaking, I'm fine with somebody disagreeing as long as they do so in a respectful manner. That includes being open to listening. I've seen some people who are polite, but they're not really listening to or directly responding to what you say, and are just repeating themselves and pushing their own agenda. Or just relentlessly and very obviously throwing pure rhetoric at you without substance to back it up.

But frequently the conflicts I've seen here aren't even on that articulate of a level. I see rampant emotionality and sometimes vulgarity too. I understand if somebody is feeling very upset, but that is not the time to solve problems, that is the time to talk to somebody who will help you feel better.

I must say that I'm VERY troubled when I see somebody in a position of power take disagreement in and of itself as wrong. I believe people are right to have their own opinions, and express it within certain parameters. It's the manner in which that disagreement is expressed that is to be moderated, and only that.