Being less 'self'-centric and more considerate

[syd]

[deleted by author]

[Vineeto]

Hi Syd,

I don’t remember Richard telling this story in my presence and I have no way of finding the correspondence you quoted if it exists at all. Richard wrote no private emails in 2024.

Cheers Vineeto

[Vineeto]

Hi Syd,

After you just had your own name changed for privacy reasons it’s incongruous and presumptuous, to say the least, that you would publicly write about something Richard supposedly told you in person in a private conversation, without even asking for the permission of the directors of the Actual Freedom Trust.

I remind you of the Directors Correspondence “A Matter of Style” in May 2008 where you had similarly ignored what is not yours to publish in your own stylistic preference.

Regards Vineeto

[syd]

Hi Vineeto,

Okay, my apologies. I had written about it during the Ballina trip on the Zulip, but it is not public anymore. But the fact that you don’t remember it anymore means the accuracy of my version cannot be confirmed by anyone one way or the other. So it would be inconsiderate of me to publish it.

I’ll take it down. I’d also be okay with deleting this entire topic (cc: @claudiu).

[Vineeto]

Hi Syd,

Instead of “my apologies”, which sounds rather glib, I suggest a more comprehensive understanding about the difference of private and public conversation and a possibly growing consideration for anything outside of your personal emotional interest. Some contemplation on what being less ‘self’-centric and more considerate of your fellow human beings is might be fruitful?

What you had already published in a private blog on Zulip does not make what Richard supposedly said public. Besides, I read that alleged conversation again and particularly the last sentence makes me sure that Richard never said anything of the kind.

Regards Vineeto

[claudiu]

I have no information about this incident, but it looked to me like Syd had posted something he wrote to someone else (and that someone else’s reply), that someone else not being Richard. But in his message/email to that someone else Syd was describing what he at the time remembered Richard having told him. Just a thought if it helps to clarify the situation.

(In general I second Vineeto’s suggestion to understand the difference between private & public conversation, but have nothing else to add otherwise)

[syd]

@Vineeto

I suggest a more comprehensive understanding about the difference of private and public conversation

I would never publish private conversation as attributed to that person without consulting with them.

In this case, I was already writing publicly on our Zulip all the while I was meeting Richard & Vineeto during those six weeks in Ballina. However, since Rick and I decided not to communicate publicly anymore, I took the whole Zulip private and made it inactive (no one’s participating). So, this one case didn’t seem very clear-cut to me. What do you all think?

@Vineeto

and a possibly growing consideration for anything outside of your personal emotional interest. Some contemplation on what being less ‘self’-centric and more considerate of your fellow human beings is might be fruitful?

You are quite right. In fact, a common feedback my Quebecois landlord (who welcomes French students, with whom I often socialize from time to time) gives me is that I’m too focused on my own perspective in life, instead of, say, taking genuine interest in other people (she had this to say, primarily, in response to my falling-in-love back in December).

I can’t moralistically force my way into being less ‘self’-centric, can I? I will nevertheless keep this in mind as I go about everyday interactions. Getting outside of my ‘personal emotional interest’ is … well … umm … kinda scary-seeming at first. But … I can dimly see a great sense of freedom too. I will play with it!

---

@claudiu I’ve renamed the title of this topic since the focus has shifted in a meta-level, and I figured it is more useful that way. The original title was “Bullying / Bullies” and I paraphrased what Richard told me in the houseboat regarding dealing with bullies (and their fear & aggression), with the intention of linking to it from other topics. My memory may not been most accurate, and since Richard is not here and nor can Vineeto confirm it, it is best left unwritten.

[Vineeto]

>>Vineeto: Instead of “my apologies”, which sounds rather glib, I suggest a more comprehensive understanding about the difference of private and public conversation and …

>Syd: I would never publish private conversation as attributed to that person without consulting with them.
In this case, I was already writing publicly on our Zulip all the while I was meeting Richard & Vineeto during those six weeks in Ballina. However, since Rick and I decided not to communicate publicly anymore, I took the whole Zulip private and made it inactive (no one’s participating). So, this one case didn’t seem very clear-cut to me. What do you all think?

Hi Syd,

Well, you did “publish private conversation as attributed to that person” – twice. First on your Zulip blog, now inactive, without first gaining consent or consulting “that person” about the accuracy of your report, and then on the ‘Discuss Actualism’ forum two days ago. See below –

>>Syd: In addition to this, I thought it is worth posting something Richard told me in person back in 2024. [Emphasis added]. Copy-paste from my notes: 4/23/2024
SYD: In regard to bullies in general, Richard recounted a past incident to illustrate the fact that behind the bully’s aggression lies their fear. They have learned to channel the fear towards aggression. And, if you learn to respond directly to their fear (rather than aggression) and call their bluff, it would diffuse the bully-victim dynamics. I hope I’m representing Richard’s words faithfully here. I’d like to understand this point a bit, actually; might revisit it.
PRIVATE CORRESPONDENT: Regarding the last bit about bullies channeling fear into aggression, it’s spot on. I managed to do this very thing when 11/12 years old and it was invigorating/a relief. Deep seated fears vanished into hostility which was a far better subjective experience. It even marked a 3 year streak of some of the happiest days of my life, which was due to being free from these fears. On the downside, it ruined the middle school experience of another kid who was subjected to bullying, and, eventually, those fears I had managed to dodge through aggression continued to compound behind the scenes and returned 3-4 years later with an absolute vengeance, bigger and badder than ever.
With the return of fear’s dominance, I lost the knack for channeling fears into naked aggression, and became once again timid and meek. This marked the start of a depressive period for which I am yet to recover.
SYD: Vineeto, please correct me of I’ve misremembered it; I’ll be happy to correct this post. (link)

It seems very clear-cut to me. Having deleted the evidence after feedback does not mean it did not happen. What else is required for you to sit up and take notice?

Besides the last sentence of that supposed correspondent – “This marked the start of a depressive period for which I am yet to recover” makes it clear that whatever you remembered is not what Richard could have possibly said.

*

>>Vineeto: … a possibly growing consideration for anything outside of your personal emotional interest. Some contemplation on what being less ‘self’-centric and more considerate of your fellow human beings is might be fruitful?
What you had already published in a private blog on Zulip does not make what Richard supposedly said public. Besides, I read that alleged conversation again and particularly the last sentence makes me sure that Richard never said anything of the kind. (link)

>Syd: You are quite right. In fact, a common feedback my Quebecois landlord (who welcomes French students, with whom I often socialize from time to time) gives me is that I’m too focused on my own perspective in life, instead of, say, taking genuine interest in other people (she had this to say, primarily, in response to my falling-in-love back in December).
I can’t moralistically force my way into being less ‘self’-centric, can I? I will nevertheless keep this in mind as I go about everyday interactions. Getting outside of my ‘personal emotional interest’ is … well … umm … kinda scary-seeming at first. But … I can dimly see a great sense of freedom too. I will play with it!

Ah, another diversion – calling the aim of “being less ‘self’-centric” “moralistic” and then interpreting that you should “force my way” – and this only three days after you had eloquently waxed about “Once I so-willingly decline all these desire-expressions (I’m still exploring some subtle ones), seriousness basically goes out of the window, and the near-innocence of naiveté becomes accessible”. (link)

Oh, what a tangled web they weave … (Richard, List D, Syd, 7 Dec 2012, Footnote 1)

Again, your focus shifts from possibly considering the impact of your words and actions on others, i.e. not being harmless, to your personal emotional interest – “scary-seeming at first” to a possible “great sense of freedom”.

I am reminded of what Richard wrote to another correspondent regarding ‘self’-centredness, albeit on the topic of affective vibes –

>>Respondent: But hey, if you’d rather take the easy path and assume your own feelings originate from others and not yourself, ultimately it’s your business. This fellow traveller is just advising differently in my experience is all. (…)
Re: denying affective vibes I don’t deny aliens either… Just haven’t seen any evidence for them yet.
Richard: Ha … what you are ‘just advising’ fellow travellers (further above) reminds me of the ‘Simon and Garfunkel’ hit of the 1960’s ‘I am a rock’. Apart from being damn’ good music, with exquisite lyrical over-tones, the lyrics speak well of more than just a few human being’s experience such as you describe.
For instance:
‘I am shielded in my armour;
Hiding in my room,
Safe within my womb,
I touch no one;
And no one touches me …
I am a rock,
I am an island …
And a rock feels no pain;
And an island never cries’
(Richard, List D, No. 15, 5 Aug 2013).

Cheers Vineeto

[syd]

@Vineeto

Syd: I would never publish private conversation as attributed to that person without consulting with them.
In this case, I was already writing publicly on our Zulip all the while I was meeting Richard & Vineeto during those six weeks in Ballina. However, since Rick and I decided not to communicate publicly anymore, I took the whole Zulip private and made it inactive (no one’s participating). So, this one case didn’t seem very clear-cut to me. What do you all think?

Hi Syd,

Well, you did “publish private conversation as attributed to that person” – twice. First on your Zulip blog, now inactive, without first gaining consent or consulting “that person” about the accuracy of your report,

Hi Vineeto,

Richard was reading that Zulip blog often prior to my meeting you both in the houseboat, do you remember? See also: Syd is currently visiting Richard and Vineeto and journaling it I took that as a sign that he implicitly consented to my publishing the meeting reports on Zulip, else surely Richard would have asked me not to do so any time during that 6 weeks period, no? Thus, I believe, what you are saying is that it would been considerate of me to explicitly gain Richard’s consent anyway, before publishing the meeting reports publicly in Zulip. If so, I actually see your point now. Not checking the accuracy with Richard was also my mistake. If I’m missing something here, please say so explicitly.

@Vineeto

Besides the last sentence of that supposed correspondent – “This marked the start of a depressive period for which I am yet to recover” makes it clear that whatever you remembered is not what Richard could have possibly said.

Oh, I didn’t realize this could gave been misinterpreted! The ‘private correspondent’ was not Richard, of course (it is the other participant in the Zulip who replied to what I had to report).

@Vineeto

Ah, another diversion – calling the aim of “being less ‘self’-centric” “moralistic” and then interpreting that you should “force my way” – and this only three days after you had eloquently waxed about “Once I so-willingly decline all these desire-expressions (I’m still exploring some subtle ones), seriousness basically goes out of the window, and the near-innocence of naiveté becomes accessible”

Why do you call it a “diversion”? When I wrote “I can’t moralistically force my way into being less ‘self’-centric, can I?” I was not implying that the actualist aim of “being less ‘self’-centric” is being “moralistic” . Rather, I was explicitly establishing the opposite (inasmuch as I’ve had the tendency to moralistically force things)!

@Vineeto

Again, your focus shifts from possibly considering the impact of your words and actions on others, i.e. not being harmless, to your personal emotional interest – “scary-seeming at first” to a possible “great sense of freedom”.

I’m considering both–i.e. both “considering the impact of [my] words and actions on others” (why I am seeking clarity on Zulip publishing here, in both my replies here) as well as writing about how I’m feeling emotionally in response to your “Some contemplation” suggestion above (a sincere starting point, that’s not moralistic forcing). I’m not diverting from the former, at all. If I’m giving you this impression, please say so explicitly what I need to specifically consider in particular.

[claudiu]

@syd

@Vineeto

Besides the last sentence of that supposed correspondent – “This marked the start of a depressive period for which I am yet to recover” makes it clear that whatever you remembered is not what Richard could have possibly said.

Oh, I didn’t realize this could gave been misinterpreted! The ‘private correspondent’ was not Richard, of course (it is the other participant in the Zulip who replied to what I had to report).

Yes this is what I was attempting to clarify — for what it’s worth, it also had a tooltip containing a recounting of a story Richard told you (in case this was missed which I did miss at first)

[Vineeto]

>>Syd: Richard was reading that Zulip blog often prior to my meeting you both in the houseboat, do you remember? See also: Syd is currently visiting Richard and Vineeto and journaling it (link). I took that as a sign that he implicitly consented to my publishing the meeting reports on Zulip, else surely Richard would have asked me not to do so any time during that 6 weeks period, no? Thus, I believe, what you are saying is that it would been considerate of me to explicitly gain Richard’s consent anyway, before publishing the meeting reports publicly in Zulip. If so, I actually see your point now. Not checking the accuracy with Richard was also my mistake. If I’m missing something here, please say so explicitly. (link)

Hi Syd,

Now that you reminded me of the context, I remember it well. Both Richard and myself read the blog, each day prior to your visit, and if Richard had any corrections he would have told you so when something was to be corrected.

As such there was no need to ask for my confirmation/ correction about the summary you made of the article in the you quoted at the beginning of this thread (now deleted). Viz.:

>>Richard: Bullying in childhood is all-too-common—the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago fell victim to the bully-boys and feisty-femmes due in no small degree to being a particularly sensitive feeling-being—incurring all manner of childhood hurts. Yet, even so, anyone who carries those hurt feelings, no matter how deeply felt, over into adulthood (and stubbornly nurses them in their adult bosom) is surely yet to have earned the title ‘mature adult’. (…) (Richard, Selected Correspondence, Aggression and Anger)

Syd: In addition to this, I thought it is worth posting something Richard told me in person back in 2024. Copy-paste from my notes:
4/23/2024
Syd: In regard to bullies in general, Richard recounted a past incident to illustrate the fact that behind the bully’s aggression lies their fear. They have learned to channel the fear towards aggression. And, if you learn to respond directly to their fear (rather than aggression) and call their bluff, it would diffuse the bully-victim dynamics. I hope I’m representing Richard’s words faithfully here. I’d like to understand this point a bit, actually; might revisit it. (…)
Vineeto, please correct me of I’ve misremembered it; I’ll be happy to correct this post. (link)

As I could not see that there would be anything to correct in this highlighted summary of yours – in fact Richard would have done so at the time as explained above. Hence I looked for the reason of your request in the second part, you labelled “Private Correspondent”, also guided by your introduction to it saying “I’d like to understand this point a bit, actually; might revisit it”.

And because it was public knowledge that you corresponded with Rick as the only member on this Zulip thread, and large parts of your correspondence at the time was published on this forum in the “Burnt Toast” thread on April 24-25, 2024, with both yours and Rick’s name, I automatically assumed (my big mistake), that you had renamed something Richard wrote as “Private Correspondent” waiting for my confirmation/ correction. Well, this is where this thread derailed and I apologize for my mistaken assumption. In hindsight, I should have inquired who this “private correspondent” referred to.

-

>>Vineeto: Besides, the last sentence of that supposed correspondent – “This marked the start of a depressive period for which I am yet to recover” makes it clear that whatever you remembered is not what Richard could have possibly said.

>>Syd: Oh, I didn’t realize this could have been misinterpreted! The ‘private correspondent’ was not Richard, of course (it is the other participant in the Zulip who replied to what I had to report). (link)

>>Claudiu: Yes this is what I was attempting to clarify — for what it’s worth, it also had a tooltip containing a recounting of a story Richard told you (in case this was missed which I did miss at first) (link)

Claudiu, by tool tip did you mean the link to Richard’s article or was there another one?

Thank you both, Claudiu and Syd, for clearing up this to-me-mind-boggling mystery.

Cheers Vineeto

[claudiu]

@Vineeto

Claudiu: Yes this is what I was attempting to clarify — for what it’s worth, it also had a tooltip containing a recounting of a story Richard told you (in case this was missed which I did miss at first) (link)

Claudiu, by tool tip did you mean the link to Richard’s article or was there another one?

There was another one… if I were to re-present it all it would look like this:

SYD: In addition to this, I thought it is worth posting something Richard told me in person back in 2024. Copy-paste from my notes:

4/23/2024

SYD [to Private Correspondent]: In regard to bullies in general, Richard recounted a past incident[1] to illustrate the fact that behind the bully’s aggression lies their fear. They have learned to channel the fear towards aggression. And, if you learn to respond directly to their fear (rather than aggression) and call their bluff, it would diffuse the bully-victim dynamics. I hope I’m representing Richard’s words faithfully here. I’d like to understand this point a bit, actually; might revisit it.

[… snip Private Correspondent response …]

[1]: He was in a rush to get something from school and hit the chest of a strong kid by mistake, who in turn did said something verbally to (bullied) him. And he responded (because he was in a hurry) saying “Yea come at me anytime”. The strong kid stopped pestering him forever.

Vineeto, please correct me of I’ve misremembered it; I’ll be happy to correct this post.

Cheers,
Claudiu

[syd]

Hi Vineeto,

I appreciate your explanation of your thought process, and I’m relieved to hear that you do remember Richard and yourself reading my then-public Zulip journal prior to my visits.

I had deleted the original post merely under the assumption (rather than any direct knowledge) that you wanted me to take it down. If you do want the original post content & title restored to what they were before, let me know. The footnote (“He was in a rush to get something from school …”) was something I posted in a then-private Zulip stream with Rick, but my memory recall back then surely wasn’t 100% accurate. Thus, what you and Richard must have read back in 2024 was everything I posted here but without that footnote. Thus, if we in fact are to restore the content, it would be best to restore everything but leave that footnote out.

---

Incidentally, this conversation (and some others before) indirectly had me reflect on my communication skills. Although Richard told me that I write well, this skill doesn’t translate to communication. As my style of communication tends to be rather high-context^[1] (shaped further by my own ways of thinking and relating), I’ve concluded that it would be beneficial for me to slow down and be detailed and explicit wherever it would enable better comprehension for others in the conversation.

---

1. From High-context and low-context cultures - Wikipedia

   High-context cultures are related to connotation. People within high-context cultures tend to be more aware and observant of [..] other aspects of communication that are not directly spoken. In high-context cultures, where much of the communication is implicit, knowing the context allows individuals to pick up on [..] indirect messages, thus facilitating smoother interactions. Conversely, in low-context cultures, recognizing the need for explicit communication helps in providing clear and direct information, which can avoid misunderstandings.

   In my case, it is less so about body language and such, and more about the implicit assumptions and knowledge that I automatically take another person to also know of. ↩︎

[syd]

@syd

@Vineeto

and a possibly growing consideration for anything outside of your personal emotional interest. Some contemplation on what being less ‘self’-centric and more considerate of your fellow human beings is might be fruitful?

You are quite right. In fact, a common feedback my Quebecois landlord (who welcomes French students, with whom I often socialize from time to time) gives me is that I’m too focused on my own perspective in life, instead of, say, taking genuine interest in other people (she had this to say, primarily, in response to my falling-in-love back in December).

And now we have a third data point (feedback) on this! First, Vineeto. Then, my Quebecois landlord. And now, this woman I was dating back in Nov/Dec.

@syd

The message I sent was something along the lines of asking for FWB arragement:

Gotta be honest: while the emotional heaviness is gone, the sexual desire is very much still there. I’m not looking for strictly friendship. I enjoy our conversations, I want us to be physical too. Is that something you want too?

I really fought tooth and nail with the actualist because I was afraid of directly asking her this. In the end, I decided to just ask and see what happens – both from her standpoint and my own reaction to it.

She basically vanished from that point—no response. [..]

She did eventually respond to this on Jan 25 which I only saw today (because I had stopped checking Telegram). The essence of it was that she didn’t feel cared for, or heard or seen by me. I didn’t care about the details of her life, since I was obssessed with my own feelings. She couldn’t have sex with someone that doesn’t genuinely care for her. Her response was very good (she had to wait a few days before writing it, as she felt mad), and I replied with my appreciation for it stating that she is indeed right I didn’t actually care for her … and that I was fond of her and enjoyed her company irrespective of my desire for physical intimacy and that I sent her that message honestly hoping it would lead to permanent closure with no hope of revival.

So, this is now firmly established … that by default I do not really care much about other people, outside of my personal bubble of emotional interest. How do I feel in response? A bit sad … bitter-sweet sadness (longing + loss)^[1] in fact. Do I feel compelled to upend my life as result? No, I’m not interested in any moral forcing. For now, I shall sit with this sadness and any other accompanying feelings for however long,^[1:1] regardless of the outcome. Strangely, I’m feeling comfortable in my skin for the first time. No longer interested in hiding my feelings in public anymore. No longer interested in women (as an ego-gratifying object), even - as I realized I literally have nothing to offer them (especially that caring that they so yearn for). This is who I am, and that’s okay.

EDITED to add: This “bitter-sweet sadness” eventually changed into a greater sense of freedom! I know what I want, and I know what I’m willing to provide (or not). Things are so much simple now.

---

1. See edit below ↩︎ ↩︎

[syd]

@syd

So, this is now firmly established … that by default I do not really care much about other people, outside of my personal bubble of emotional interest. [..] Do I feel compelled to upend my life as result? No, I’m not interested in any moral forcing.

Here’s the reason why this never sat well with me: While “I” remain so obsessed about “myself” (e.g.: worrying about my feelings, as with this woman from November, and thus being serious), how can I care to consider others? Doing so would be like putting lipstick on a pig (link).

A sorrowful ‘me’ cannot genuinely care about others.

Heck, even an euphoric ‘me’ cannot care! I’ll explain below:

@syd

… it was a full-blown being in a love so much that when I went to an organic grocery store that day I was but ‘flying’ or ‘swimming’ in love with various women visibly picking up on that euphoric ‘energy’ of this man in their vicinity (I happenned to spontaneously flirt heavily with a female worker there, who seemed as if she eagerly wanted me to take her home that day).

I recently got to dvelve further into the fear^[1] Vineeto queried me about, because those euphoria-cum-fear resurfaced after I once again messaged her (in vain) … this time being willing to be ‘caring & sharing’ (as she had put it). This time, however, I was no longer afraid to face those feelings, so I took a good look at them. Right after I messaged her (and during the hours before she would delete it so as to move on):

• Libido fired at first. Full on arousal around (if not at) the sexual center
• Later on, that fire existed only as the swirling romantic euphoria atop (belly area)
• Eventually (and for the first time), this euphoria took a life of its own and was no longer associated with ‘her’ (which association was responsible for fear and loneliness as she doesn’t reciprocate the feelings), so it felt rather pleasant and ‘stable’. If I was a spiritual guru, this could have well been a gateway to ‘unconditional love’ to attract followers.

Whatever ‘caring’ and ‘sharing’ I would have now enacted with her would have been to ultimately prolong and satisfy these euphoric feelings! Women instinctively know this (there’s more to it than sexual desire, per se), and thus unwittingly exploit men.

It is simply impossible to be caring and considerate of women, in a genuine sense, as long as this affectional intimacy remains the main spanner in the works.

I find it quite interesting how men who have a track-record of high sexual success on this matter (to the point of finding sex boring; link) still depend emotionally on this affectional intimacy, for instance:

[Tate]: So what can a girl give you? Happiness, vibes! Always smiling. Take the edge off a stressful life. (link)

Yet, there are others, like Elon Musk, who are rather non-plussed about it, which perhaps explains their success in life:

[Elon Musk]: If I actually wanted to spend my time partying with young women, it would be trivial for me to do so without the help of a creepy loser like Epstein and I would still have 99% of my mind available to think about other things.

But I don’t. (link)

---

Anyway, I originally came here to post a realization: I finally realized the benefit of not being so self-obsessed, and this only came from my contemplation of PCE. In allowing PCEs (link), the focus is rather sensate and on the world at large. In other words, not on ‘me’ at all (link). Ergo, the same applies in regards to interactions with people; being ‘self’-obsessed or ‘self’-focused (thus serious) is rather painful, whereas taking note of and delighting in the world of people, things and events (which naturally includes taking interest in others) is what transpires naturally as I seek to evince the PCE now. It solves all problems. And I get to find out things about other people, they seem to enjoy it … overall a pleasant state of affairs. No moral forcing is necessary.

PCE is the key, everything else is such a gas.

---

1. cf. Vineeto’s “perhaps your first inquiry is about what was so terrible, so frightful in this past experience, and why” in the post linked above. ↩︎

[Andrew]

@syd

It is simply impossible to be caring and considerate of women, in a genuine sense, as long as this affectional intimacy remains the main spanner in the works.

I find it quite interesting how men who have a track-record of high sexual success on this matter (to the point of finding sex boring; link) still depend emotionally on this affectional intimacy, for instance:

[Tate]: So what can a girl give you? Happiness, vibes! Always smiling. Take the edge off a stressful life. (link)

Yet, there are others, like Elon Musk, who are rather non-plussed about it, which perhaps explains their success in life:

[Elon Musk]: If I actually wanted to spend my time partying with young women, it would be trivial for me to do so without the help of a creepy loser like Epstein and I would still have 99% of my mind available to think about other things.

But I don’t. (link)

Hi mate,

quoting either Tate or Musk isn’t going to make the point I think you wanted to make! both are without a doubt well outside ‘normal’, with definite malignant personalities, that I would not be surprised are clinical cluster B’s.

Anyway, to your point of it is “impossible to be caring and considerate of women”. This is simply another variation of “it’s impossible to change human nature”. The clause you added “in a genuine sense” was moralizing in an “actualist way”. There is no reason that we cannot be caring in considerate of women to an increasing extent, except for the belief that it is “impossible”. This is a belief, which I was also holding in general. The “impossible to change instinctual passions” variation.

It’s very possible to be more and more caring, as in considerate to all and sundry. It’s a choice.

[syd]

I don’t believe it is “impossible.” Sincerity simply revealed that it is disingenuous to call this ‘caring’ when it is a veneer pasted atop affectional intimacy. I’m not genuinely interested in that ‘caring’ because its motive is to merge with ‘her’ for sexual validation and the attendant ego-delectation. Such feelings don’t lead to a PCE or to enjoyment and appreciation of this very moment; it is just ‘me’ seeking to prolong ‘my’ own euphoric feelings.

Reminds me of what Claudiu had to report on similar thing:

@claudiu

The degree to which ‘she’ affects ‘you’ will vary — eg if I’m in a normal state, then my partner’s negative moods or emotions will often trigger a “resistance” in me, a dislike of that she is feeling, and a wanting her to stop feeling that way. This latter can be mistaken for caring but actually it’s a self-centered empathy response (me wanting to stop feeling bad in response to her feeling bad). While if I’m having an intimacy experience, I automatically ‘perceive’ the totality of the situation — she is a fellow human being, she is having a hard time — how unfortunate! What can I do to ameliorate this? It’s a much more genuine caring, and though I still fully recognize and to some degree am directly affected by her feelings, it’s nowhere near the same, the enjoyment and appreciation of being alive practically does not diminish. Incidentally this way of handling things is much to her benefit too!

Note that “she is a fellow human being” is miles ahead of seeing her as a sexual-cum-romantic object to be “cared” for. And more importantly, the definitive marker of success in all of this is that one’s “enjoyment and appreciation of being alive practically does not diminish”.

---

Regarding your point about ‘choice,’ something seems to have changed in your view since about 3 weeks ago:

@Andrew

Being a typical blind nature ‘male’’ is hard. Really is such a massive drag. You can see how it has only a single goal; sex. It, blind nature, doesn’t care at all about her. It doesn’t care about you either. Which is to say, ‘we’ don’t care about each other naturally.

If we don’t care naturally, isn’t ‘choosing’ to care just another moralistic strategy to avoid the raw fact of my self-centeredness? I’m not interested in moralistic forcing. I’d rather be sincere about who I actually am than force a version of caring that serves as a spanner in the works.

[Andrew]

@syd

Regarding your point about ‘choice,’ something seems to have changed in your view since about 3 weeks ago:

@Andrew

Being a typical blind nature ‘male’’ is hard. Really is such a massive drag. You can see how it has only a single goal; sex. It, blind nature, doesn’t care at all about her. It doesn’t care about you either. Which is to say, ‘we’ don’t care about each other naturally.

If we don’t care naturally, isn’t ‘choosing’ to care just another moralistic strategy to avoid the raw fact of my self-centeredness? I’m not interested in moralistic forcing. I’d rather be sincere about who I actually am than force a version of caring that serves as a spanner in the works.

Hi mate,
Indeed my belief did change, after we had our video chat. We were talking about this topic, and the conversation went to “instinctual passions”. To summarise, I saw that I believed that they (instinctual passions ) were the “final boss” and can’t be changed. In other words, I believed that human nature can’t change.

So, yes, my attitude did change in the last 3 weeks.

Change happens when we choose too. Justification (as I was doing) changes nothing at all, and was an example (among the many) of me adapting “actualist sounding “ ideas into self perpetuating “reasons” why I continue to choose not to feel good, (bro)!

Andrew

Writing this down, as I almost forgot! I can change “Instinctual Passions” because I am Instinctual Passions. In as much as any radical change is changing me, I am changing entirely. I say this as I realised that I hold the instinctual passions in some belief system of being the “final boss” , and as such are in effect saying “I can’t change human nature”. While I am sure it’s not technically true that I am for example eliminating fear (which would be a stripped down self), I can radically re…

[Andrew]

@syd

If we don’t care naturally, isn’t ‘choosing’ to care just another moralistic strategy to avoid the raw fact of my self-centeredness? I’m not interested in moralistic forcing. I’d rather be sincere about who I actually am than force a version of caring that serves as a spanner in the works.

No. Choosing to care, as in firstly choosing to care about my own experience of being alive, and this naturally extends to caring about others experience of being alive as far as it is up to me is not “moralistic forcing “ or anything other than (in my case) finally realising that at some point, it is as always my choice.

Nature is also our friend in this endeavour, as it is nature itself which is the altruistic force that enables self immolation.

[Andrew]

Of course, you need to define “care” in this context. It’s finding myself likeable. Which allows me to find everyone likeable . These are feelings. Feelings akin to joy and a light hearted playfulness.

I can switch them on and off at the moment, which means I haven’t changed, but I can see the choice is there.

For example, I was walking to the local shop. I was in a good mood, thinking about this choice. I saw a small selection of people, a couple walking, and another man a little further back. I made the choice to extend my mood to them. I deliberately liked them. The other man was overweight. I said something in my mind like “l love food too! I completely get that”.

One could say I “forced “ myself to think that to allow a person who, like me probably doesn’t like being overweight, and feels bad a lot about it, into my “good mood”

So be it!

May I in your words, continue to “moralistically force myself “ to like myself and others!

It is a challenge. As I posted the other day, unless one is “out from control “ is not just in the “beginning “ that effort is needed.