Being less 'self'-centric and more considerate

[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.