Overly civilised people

[Carl-Richard]

Do you talk this incomprehensibly to people in real life? Do people understand you? Genuinely curious.

Edited March 19 by Carl-Richard

[meta_male]

On 6.3.2024 at 11:24 AM, 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?

@Reciprocality I used to kinda feel the same, now I feel more and more comfortable around large groups of people e.g. in cities, train stations, airports etc. It's hard to explain certain triggers to other people without making them think your speech is off.

But you're right, just because the environment has always been safe doesn't mean it's always gonna stay this way. Maybe these people have already lived through a lot of danger and are now less intimidated by their surroundings than others. Or they live in an illusion where danger doesn't even cross their minds. Or they simply don't care and trust the universe. Could be hundreds of reasons why. I'd look into why those people repulse you and you might get the key to unlock a deeper layer of your inner world.

 

[Consept]

7 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Do you talk this incomprehensibly to people in real life? Do people understand you? Generally curious.

i still dont understand his point 

 

[Reciprocality]

If you pay attention to people who communicate with each other they will do one of four things.

 

1. They refer to the spatial or sensorial similarity between things. 

2. They refer to themselves directly. 

3. They tell stories or convey experiences with a morale directly or imply such a morale indirectly. 

4. They refer to causes between things on the assumption or affirmation that 1. is a given.

 

I am as many others are perpetually testing statements concerning any of these three against my own experience of myself and reality, but I no longer contribute back to it, it is not my interest any longer though obviously this statement is an exception to its own rule. 

The first is the archaic basis for everything mathematical, the second is the archaic basis for everything philosophical, the third is the archaic basis for anything ethical, the forth is the archaic basis for anything scientific.

 

In virtually every sentence each of you write I see concealed or glaring purposivity, you wish to understand what I am saying for a purpose, but what if that kind of expectation removes you from the possibility of understanding the things that are a condition for instants of purposes in general, surely you can conceive that there should be such things? 

For instance, if I now describe these categories as non-disjunctive, as I am sure you can see them being, it may remove for some of you the whole point of those categories, and if I then ask you "what if it doesnt?" what would you reply? 

You probably think about yourself right now, so let me ask you directly, what is a condition for a purpose, or framed better: what are purposes conditioned on? Do you think about yourself again?

Abstract concepts are to the self what maths are to space and shape, all concepts are here for a distinct purpose to a distinct someone and the distinctness of the "someone" is logically necessary for these purposes. You want to understand what I am saying but it would ruin the purposes for why you would understand something in the first place, so your mind finds its weird ways to conceal its own nature from you.

[Reciprocality]

On 12/03/2024 at 3:58 AM, Carl-Richard said:

Do you talk this incomprehensibly to people in real life? Do people understand you? Generally curious.

@Carl-Richard In real life I don't talk much, I have to angle things in ways they have not considered before or build up something that sounds weird to them to even get to my point. I could do this in my late teens and early twenties but dont work any longer.

There are good reasons it is incomprehensible, when I read what I wrote half a year prior the main reason I can understand what I wrote is because I remember the distinct thought I were trying to convey, not by building it up by language.

Most of my ideas from two years ago sounds like rambling insanity to me.

[Reciprocality]

On 12/03/2024 at 9:48 AM, meta_male said:

@Reciprocality I used to kinda feel the same, now I feel more and more comfortable around large groups of people e.g. in cities, train stations, airports etc. It's hard to explain certain triggers to other people without making them think your speech is off.

But you're right, just because the environment has always been safe doesn't mean it's always gonna stay this way. Maybe these people have already lived through a lot of danger and are now less intimidated by their surroundings than others. Or they live in an illusion where danger doesn't even cross their minds. Or they simply don't care and trust the universe. Could be hundreds of reasons why. I'd look into why those people repulse you and you might get the key to unlock a deeper layer of your inner world.

 

@meta_male Hey appreciate the analysis.

The repulsion part could be read too much into, these people do not repulse me in such a way that I literally have to remove myself from them or even that I judge them. But on the occasion the repulse response did occur I analysed it as them having let themselves go, this too will always go back to my own inner world as you suggest but if it can be justified by the negative aspects that comes out of and is associated with dullness then maybe I don't need to investigate the inner world.

For every particular such case as in the example of the OP there could be as you say a hundred causes, and it is important for our own sake to not delude ourself into thinking we know someone just because of singular symptoms. 

I think they generally are unaware even of the possibility of danger, and it is self-evident that it is a byproduct of modern civilisation.

[Consept]

31 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

Most of my ideas from two years ago sounds like rambling insanity to me.

At least you know how we feel 

 

[Reciprocality]

27 minutes ago, Consept said:

At least you know how we feel 

 

@Consept nah I'm getting better, I doubt it would draw any interest if it were that bad.

[Consept]

1 hour ago, Reciprocality said:

@Consept nah I'm getting better, I doubt it would draw any interest if it were that bad.

its drawing interest because of how confusing it is. 

But I don't mean to insult you anyway, what I'm trying to push you toward is seeing how you could better improve your communication. You seem on some level to be a deep thinker, you just need to work on how to best deliver your ideas to other people's minds in a way that can be understood as much as possible. Some of the stuff you've written in the thread I'm not sure anyone in the world would be able to comprehend. 

Communication itself is a delivery method of ideas from one consciousness to another. The package you're delivering maybe amazing but it's useless if the delivery chain doesn't function. 

 

[Carl-Richard]

@Reciprocality

I would agree with @Consept that if you tried really hard to say simple and meaningful things, you could probably provide some useful thoughts. But that requires a certain set of values. Do you actually feel a strong drive for meaning, for being understood through and through by yourself and others? Is your need for self-expression something more than merely coming off as deep and profound? Do you want to connect to something truly real? Find that impulse within you.

 

And as a bit of a side note, for people who care about this notion, I think this is what being an independent/original/free thinker is really about. When you strive your very hardest to deeply connect with what is real and true, at the cost of sometimes not coming off as the smartest, most virtuous or most profound person in the world, you'll actually start to think for yourself, because thinking true thoughts as an unique individual is what produces original thoughts by definition. It has very little to do with isolating yourself from outside influences (in fact, you can't really escape outside influences, especially if you want to think). Simply being an unique individual and trying your best to get at the truth inevitably produces an original result, and it's really the only real way it happens.

People who don't aim to think true thoughts (at least unconsciously) but instead take shortcuts and go by surface-level appearances (for example on the level of ideology in the form of group-think, or on the level of language with grandiose and pseudo-intellectual word salad; both which work to serve an ego that needs a certain type of emotional validation), these people are the ones who don't think for themselves, simply because they don't know how to think. Not coincidentally, it's the people that know how to think that we fashion as original thinkers, not the people who fail to think.

Ironically, the concept of an original thinker is really about appearances and social recognition, which is why you shouldn't care about it if you're an original/true thinker. Knowing how to think true thoughts means your thoughts get recognized as thoughts worth considering, and you're always an unique individual and will always think unique thoughts, so the more true thoughts you think, the more unique thoughts people will recognize you for. Hence more true thoughts =  more recognition as an original thinker. Tada!

Also, in a sense, you'll stop thinking for yourself, because you'll be driven by something larger than yourself. And this is again why coming off as an independent thinker no longer becomes important.

A big part of it involves acknowledging when you don't understand something, seeking clarification, trying to be as clear as possible, and accepting when you're wrong (which happens less and less the better you get at acknowledging when you don't understand something). Anyways, late-night ranting again.

Edited March 14 by Carl-Richard

[Reciprocality]

10 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

@Reciprocality

I would agree with @Consept that if you tried really hard to say simple and meaningful things, you could probably provide some useful thoughts. But that requires a certain set of values. Do you actually feel a strong drive for meaning, for being understood through and through by yourself and others? Is your need for self-expression something more than merely coming off as deep and profound? Do you want to connect to something truly real? Find that impulse within you.

 

And as a bit of a side note, for people who care about this notion, I think this is what being an independent/original/free thinker is really about. When you strive your very hardest to deeply connect with what is real and true, at the cost of sometimes not coming off as the smartest, most virtuous or most profound person in the world, you'll actually start to think for yourself, because thinking true thoughts as an unique individual is what produces original thoughts by definition. It has very little to do with isolating yourself from outside influences (in fact, you can't really escape outside influences, especially if you want to think). Simply being an unique individual and trying your best to get at the truth inevitably produces an original result, and it's really the only real way it happens.

People who don't aim to think true thoughts (at least unconsciously) but instead take shortcuts and go by surface-level appearances (for example on the level of ideology in the form of group-think, or on the level of language with grandiose and pseudo-intellectual word salad; both which work to serve an ego that needs a certain type of emotional validation), these people are the ones who don't think for themselves, simply because they don't know how to think. Not coincidentally, it's the people that know how to think that we fashion as original thinkers, not the people who fail to think.

Ironically, the concept of an original thinker is really about appearances and social recognition, which is why you shouldn't care about it if you're an original/true thinker. Knowing how to think true thoughts means your thoughts get recognized as thoughts worth considering, and you're always an unique individual and will always think unique thoughts, so the more true thoughts you think, the more unique thoughts people will recognize you for. Hence more true thoughts =  more recognition as an original thinker. Tada!

Also, in a sense, you'll stop thinking for yourself, because you'll be driven by something larger than yourself. And this is again why coming off as an independent thinker no longer becomes important.

A big part of it involves acknowledging when you don't understand something, seeking clarification, trying to be as clear as possible, and accepting when you're wrong (which happens less and less the better you get at acknowledging when you don't understand something). Anyways, late-night ranting again.

@Carl-Richard I understand you have payed some attention to the difference between people appearing original and actually having something original and worthwhile to contribute, you have also drawn the connection between isolation, word salad, pseudo-intellectualism, the ego, emotional states, sense of grandiousity, and appearing smart.

You assert that being a unique individual coupled with sincere interest in truth should produce original results, possibly implying that this is most often the cause for why those that already had original insights did so.

 

You write self-evident statements attempting to conceal their true intents (I infer that instead of confronting what I write head on you write in general terms)"Not coincidentally, it's the people that know how to think that we fashion as original thinkers, not the people who fail to think." 

You also couple things that has nothing to do with the other and contradict the first distinction you yourself drew that I referred to first above: "Ironically, the concept of an original thinker is really about appearances and social recognition, which is why you shouldn't care about it if you're an original/true thinker. "

"Also, in a sense, you'll stop thinking for yourself, because you'll be driven by something larger than yourself. And this is again why coming off as an independent thinker no longer becomes important." Being driven by something larger than yourself is perennial, it is the human condition, the important distinction is whether one is aware of that or not, which could be what you are implying, on the other hand I don't think it has anything to do with who wishes to come of as an original thinker or not and of all conceivable distinctions to draw concerning those who are either aware of that or not I don't think whether they are trying to come of as independent, or even coming of at all, is that important or correlates the way you believe.

I don't intend to be asinine about the last claim of yours, it is not expected that you have statistics available or anything like that, but the connection you drew is terribly vague, what is the supposed percentage range of the correlation between these two variables, assuming you don't actually think there is a necessary connection between them.

 

In either case, what actually matters is to analyse reality and reflect on our own relation to it over a span of decades, to toughen up and question again and again our own pet theories and to go through the emotional turmoil that follows from there, the original ideas that often comes as a result will again and again be almost incommunicable to those that has not gone through that actual experience. Actual experience is king, imagination is a helpful servant and language is like a jester.

So toughen up, learn to read better, reevaluate your conception of an original thought because 99.99% of the stuff you see around here is no such thing, but are instead identifiable tropes and cultural waves.

Edit: When it comes to originality it is ridiculous how many times we can fool ourself into thinking that we have achieved original ideas, while actually being a connection or distinction we have already heard about in the past or being something that many others have actually already considered.

Edited March 14 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

11 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I would agree with @Consept that if you tried really hard to say simple and meaningful things, you could probably provide some useful thoughts.

@Consept said: "you just need to work on how to best deliver your ideas to other people's minds in a way that can be understood as much as possible"

 

@Consept, @Carl-Richard

I appreciate the feedback from both of you, it is not obvious though that dumbing down ideas will be beneficial on the span of say 10 years, but it is possible that I should learn to oscillate between both methods also in forums, this is a long format medium which is why I have done it this way.

[Danioover9000]

@Carl-Richard

On 2024-03-12 at 2:58 AM, Carl-Richard said:

Do you talk this incomprehensibly to people in real life? Do people understand you? Generally curious.

   Me?

[Consept]

1 hour ago, Reciprocality said:

@Consept said: "you just need to work on how to best deliver your ideas to other people's minds in a way that can be understood as much as possible"

 

@Consept, @Carl-Richard

I appreciate the feedback from both of you, it is not obvious though that dumbing down ideas will be beneficial on the span of say 10 years, but it is possible that I should learn to oscillate between both methods also in forums, this is a long format medium which is why I have done it this way.

@Reciprocality

No one said dumb down, Re-read your original post, I'm convinced no-one on this forum bar you can understand it. That's not saying people on this forum are dumb, that's saying it is incomprehensible. 

What @Carl-Richard was true, you have to be honest with at least yourself in what the intention of your post is, not just this but in general  witness how you communicate and the reasons behind it. For example I would say with you, your main focus isn't to communicate an idea, that might be a secondary focus, but a big part of your communication is show how smart you are and how deep your ideas are. Which is fine all of us when we communicate have different motives that we might not be conscious of, I might partly be wanting to help you but also I might be wanting to win a debate and feel smarter and more grounded than you. 

But in your case I think you've gone so far one way that we can't even decipher what you're trying to say, in which case you need to look at, is everyone else so dumb or is it on me to really identify the reasons behind what I'm saying and how I'm saying it. 

[Reciprocality]

8 minutes ago, Consept said:

@Reciprocality

No one said dumb down, Re-read your original post, I'm convinced no-one on this forum bar you can understand it. That's not saying people on this forum are dumb, that's saying it is incomprehensible. 

What @Carl-Richard was true, you have to be honest with at least yourself in what the intention of your post is, not just this but in general  witness how you communicate and the reasons behind it. For example I would say with you, your main focus isn't to communicate an idea, that might be a secondary focus, but a big part of your communication is show how smart you are and how deep your ideas are. Which is fine all of us when we communicate have different motives that we might not be conscious of, I might partly be wanting to help you but also I might be wanting to win a debate and feel smarter and more grounded than you. 

But in your case I think you've gone so far one way that we can't even decipher what you're trying to say, in which case you need to look at, is everyone else so dumb or is it on me to really identify the reasons behind what I'm saying and how I'm saying it. 

@Consept The meaning of "dumbing down" have two interpretations, if you insist on reading it in the one way I will not stop you but then it is effectively you who is talking with yourself. I will respond to arguments and analyses of particular instances or examples of things not your feelings of how things appears.

Respond on the basis of that alternative interpretation of "dumbing down" which only means that concepts and ideas are presented in a simplified way, or your speculations will be airy. 

[Reciprocality]

On the other hand, and to give you what you ask for, I do care about sounding smart, not being smart has been a long lasting insecurity of mine and appearing intelligent in front of @Consept gives me what I need to maintain my sense of self.

[Consept]

54 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

On the other hand, and to give you what you ask for, I do care about sounding smart, not being smart has been a long lasting insecurity of mine and appearing intelligent in front of @Consept gives me what I need to maintain my sense of self.

@Reciprocality

That's very honest and it totally makes sense. For the first time on this thread I've got a glimpse of you and I appreciate it 

[Reciprocality]

21 minutes ago, Consept said:

@Reciprocality

That's very honest and it totally makes sense. For the first time on this thread I've got a glimpse of you and I appreciate it 

@Consept 

[bebotalk]

Your points don't follow any representation of English. Good communication is stating things in ways people understand. It's not enough to be an overly unique edgelord. 

[Reciprocality]

1 hour ago, bebotalk said:

Your points don't follow any representation of English. Good communication is stating things in ways people understand. It's not enough to be an overly unique edgelord. 

@bebotalk Of course they do, that is why we have gotten this far, we dont edge and we dont lord here.

If there is something you want to add to my assertion that undercivilised cultures do not lack healthy attentiveness in the form of minor suspicion against total strangers the way we do in big cities be sure to reply in the thread I welcome you.

Edited March 14 by Reciprocality