>>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