@syd I would also add, that I genuinely feel bad when I post, most of the time, for the last year. This is because I know that what I am saying is often “off base” , maybe it’s over-reaching, maybe it’s just plain wrong, maybe it’s not reflective of “success “ in the way we would all like to be successful.
I very much do not want to return to any competitive, or false types of arguments, which was the norm for a lot of the time that Actualism has been discussed.
As the title of the thread explicitly states, “Being less ‘self’-centric and more considerate “.
Edit: “feel bad”, = feel nervous that what I am saying would be competitive and unhelpful, that I would be contributing to obstructing someone’s progress.
This is about the only thing you wrote here that I can even relate to. I wrote a similar thing at the end of post #15 (albeit based on my PCEs) and I wonder if, in your desire to make dismissive comments about Musk et. al., you have overlooked it? The key word is "transpires naturally".
From what I recall, they were (and are) all about ‘techniques’ a.k.a. ‘technics’ or ‘techs’ (as distinct from enjoying & appreciating being here right now). And techniques can often be idiosyncratic. Is your ‘caring’ (with that overweight person for instance) under the same bucket?
As far as I understand, the only effort required is to get the momentum going:
RESPONDENT:Richard, would you say that it takes quite a bit of effort and determination to follow through in asking the question to it’s conclusion?
RICHARD: I do say it takes some doing to start off with yet, with application and diligence and patience and perseverance, one soon gets the knack of it and more and more time is spent enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive – the sheer delight of being as happy and harmless as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’ – and, as the slightest diminishment of such felicity and innocuity is a warning signal (a flashing red light as it were) that one has inadvertently wandered off the way, it is remarkably simple in practice … and thus easy.
Hmm, no, I didn’t gloss over anything. I otherwise understand your position, as I have been (even as recently as 3 weeks ago) dismissive of “caring “ about women.
I was “dismissive “ of Musk and Tate as I do not in any way class you as being in anyway similar to two men who have been in one case charged with human trafficking (and imprisoned), and in the other case (very recently) implicated in human trafficking.
I would say that you are not even in the same “bell curve “ as either of these people. Which is why I did not accept them as being examples with which Syd, the smiling guy I was recently chatting with, could make a point about “caring” and his ability to do so.
They are not people who reflect anything which Syd can be compared too.
If we are going to be combative, then let’s be very specific; I have no interest in arguing about criminals who have either already been convicted, or are about to be.
So, it is entirely up to you whether you can understand and relate to other humans, female or not. I know that it’s not easy to even understand myself, let alone others, but it is still entirely up to me to choose.
I was not being combatative at all. I felt it important to point out that dismissive behaviour because you keep sidelining/ ignoring/ overlooking what I have to say again and again. But alas, I guess there’s no point in continuing this conversation at all.
Can we also, for the sake of “terms of engagement “ recognise that the entire point is that WE CAN RADICALLY CHANGE. (Capital letters for effect, not any “yelling “ involved! ).
I am completely sympathetic of your current state. In that I have a sympathetic nervous system which absolutely informs me of just how brutal it is to feel attracted, and desire, and fear,…etc.
You do not need to submit, or have any other reason to converse in public. I am not the enemy, or in any way trying to prove anything.
What I am interested in is more chats! If you want to talk more, then let’s do that! This format I have always found to be somehow prone to “point making “ rather than understanding.
@Andrew Since you haven’t responded to my private message at all, I will publicly ask you to stop using my real name anywhere here on this forum henceforth. You used the real name here; I asked you to edit it in a private message, which you seem to have ignored and then used the name yet again in another comment. I had to ask Claudiu to edit both of your posts above where you used it. If someone is using an pseudonym, it is basic consideration to not violate their privacy.
In regards to the following:
What I’m interested in here is sincere and clear communication, not “more chats” or to “talk more”.
I would suggest you get better at “this format”, because the problem is certainly not the format per se. The format, textual communication, is in fact quite beneficial for discussing actualism, and Richard says as much. You can re-read this very conversation, as many times as you need to, and then learn from your mistakes. Instead of blaming “this format”, find out why you are prone to “point making” instead of taking others at face value and responding to their words.
To help you, I’ll give you one starting point (the other one’s related to PCE), which is also beneficial to restore the focus back to the topic itself:
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.
Andrew: 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” [..]
For starters, note how you took what I said out of context, missing the very important qualifier highlighted in yellow above. When this context of affectional intimacy was further explained to you in a reply, you ignored it once again and went on yet another round promoting your particular version of ‘caring’ (concomitant to the ironic unfolding of its behavioural manifestation in realtime).
My standards for engaging someone here is very simple: they need to, at minimum, care enough to respond directly to what I actually write or say.
>Syd to Vineeto: 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! (29Jan2026)
>Syd to Andrew: 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. (9Feb2026)
Hi Syd,
This red herring you have been presenting for a nearly two weeks now is nothing but a furphy, nobody every suggested a “moralistic strategy” except yourself. I explained to you how it works in detail in my post from January 5 this year –
>>Vineeto: The way “naiveté come[s] into picture” is that with sincerity and naiveté you apply no moral or ethical or ‘actualistic’ judgements as to what feeling is occurring and therefore can apply unrestricted attentiveness (…) [Emphasis added]. (Actualvineeto to Syd, 5 Jan 2026).
With further detailed explanations on January 22 –
>>Vineeto: (snip Richard’s quote from List D, Syd2, 26 May 2009) In order to “go past the rather superficial emotions/ feelings … into the deeper, more profound passions/ feelings” you first need to stop ignoring, objecting to, pushing away, or ‘setting aside’ or by-pass any ‘inappropriate’ of those superficial and profound passions until you can recognize and fully acknowledge them as ‘you’. Only then will you be able to discover there is something further, “where you intuitively feel you elementarily have existence as a feeling being (as in ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being … which is ‘being’ itself”.
If that discovery is genuine (and not a superficial change of wording, which neither changes your underlying feeling nor the vibes you automatically emanate) then you will experience a change in the way you feel, in your attitude and general outlook, where, for instance, women are no longer prey or objects of sexual desire but likeable fellow human beings to enjoy their company whatever form that may take. (Actualvineeto to Syd, 22 Jan 2026).
You decided to forgo this “scary-seeming” exploration (link) and chose to instead to have a combative tit-for-tat, I-am-bigger-than-you intermezzo with Andrew.
Syd to Andrew: What I’m interested in here is sincere and clear communication, not “more chats” or to “talk more”. (…)
My standards for engaging someone here is very simple: they need to, at minimum, care enough to respond directly to what I actually write or say. (link)
You are probably not familiar with the flavour of the word “chat” when used in Australia –
>>Richard: And speaking of youthful dreams it is appropriate to mention how, around the time of puberty onwards, adolescents become increasingly serious and childhood fun gives way to societally-inculcated obligations and responsibility. As these are embedded into an instinctually affective programme (I have seen many a frisky lamb turn into a sedate sheep, and frolicsome calves into sombre cattle, as maturity takes its toll) they turn into having the appearance of being innate … when they are not.
Life here in this actual world – the world of sensuous delight – is akin to being a child again but with the undeniable advantage of adult sensibilities; when the occasion calls for it I can adopt a suitably solemn expression, nod sagely as appropriate, and get away with being just a big kid having a ball in the otherwise grim and glum land of the grown-ups; indeed, I can even tell them how much fun I am having – that I am just a big kid – and yet they are so serious they assume me to be making some kind of obscure or idiosyncratic joke.
Anyway, what I am finally succeeding in doing is seducing some of my fellow humans – those who have not lost the plot totally – to come out and play, now, as we are all but a missed heartbeat or two away from physical death each day again. Being retired, with more than sufficient means for the rest of my life, is nowadays to my advantage, of course, yet there is simply no reason at all why gainful employment need be anything other than fun.
For instance, all my best work (back when supporting both a wife and a family) always happened when I was having the most fun; in fact I have some very blurry black and white ‘home movie’ type footage of myself, circa March 1981, which ends with ‘me’ saying: ‘Do your own thing … but have fun; if you’re not having fun then, hell, stop doing it, something is wrong; if you’re not having fun, if you have to force yourself to go to work, if you’re unhappy, something is wrong’. Within weeks ‘he’ was carted off to a hospital emergency care unit in a catatonic state and … and here we are today having this illuminating chat about our fancy dreams.
Who else can be enticed to come out and play – to join me here in this actual world – and live life where all is fun yet where everything which needs to be done does get done (albeit playfully) because of those oh-so-vital adult sensibilities? ‘Tis yours for the asking, so to speak, as no one is stopping you but yourself; no time is the right time to make it all happen as the right time only comes about when you have it happen; it is not a case of being ready for it as being ready only occurs when you have it occur; all you get by waiting is more waiting as now is the moment where it all happens; everything which happens only ever happens now. Actuality is where more than your fancy dreams can come true – much, much more – as life itself, here, is beyond even any of your most absolutely wild fantasies.
This is what is actually better than best. [Emphasis added]. (Richard, List D, No. 4, 14 Dec 2009)
You see, a chat can be a bit different to your idea of communication –
>Syd: My standards for engaging someone here is very simple: they need to, at minimum, care enough to respond directly to what I actually write or say. (link)
Your standards, and the way they are presented, remind me of a previous conversation Richard had with you about your Gitter-chat –
>>Richard: It appears that it has not occurred to you how this aggressive attitude/ approach of yours – your tit-for-tat modus vivendi – is in lieu of dissolving those childhood hurts you stubbornly nurse in your adult bosom.
(…)
In other words, with the dissolution of those childhood hurts the (deeply felt) need for your aggressive tit-for-tat modus vivendi will also vanish … leaving you free to treat …um… the ‘other’ as a fellow human being (rather than as an adversary to gain dominion over).
(…)
It is no wonder you (hedonically) feel pleasant – as per your footnoted ‘in order to consistently feel pleasant’ words as quoted further above – upon channelling that police-force calibre ‘power’ (so as to obtain dominion over those ‘run-of-the-mill’ citizens, colleagues, and etcetera), eh? (Richard, List D, Syd2, 14 Jan 2016)
Isn’t it time to put “those childhood hurts” and the resulting “police-force calibre ‘power’” and “aggressive attitude/ approach of yours” behind you and start naïvely playing rather than endeavouring to impose your serious/ sophisticate standards on others?
You could instead re-awaken your dormant naiveté (being like a child but with adult sensibilities) and keep ‘thinning’ your identity to the point that it becomes more and more insubstantial. When you start naïvely liking yourself, then liking your fellow human beings will happen of its own accord.
Richard: And the key to unlocking naiveté is sincerity, pure and simple. Respondent:Can one ‘try’ to be more sincere? Curious. Richard: Sincerity, or any expansion thereof, is not a matter of trying: anybody can be sincere (about anything) – all it takes is seeing the fact (of anything) – and in this instance the perspicuous awareness of blind nature’s legacy being the arch-crippler of intelligence ensures one stays true to/ correctly aligned with that (that very factuality/ facticity seen).
And which (being aligned with factuality/ staying true to facticity) is what being sincere is … being authentic/ guileless, genuine/ artless, straightforward/ ingenuous. (Richard, AF List, No. 68d, 18 Oct 2005)
Umm, where did you gain the impression that I decided to “forgo” this exploration, despite me explicitly saying above “I will play with it!” (and then coming to that vital realization above)?
Again, where did you gain this impression?
In that context, I took Andrew to be referring to non-textual chat (video call, for instance).
There’s no need to read too much into it. I simply mean I have little interest in spending my valuable time interacting with a correspondent that is persistent on ignoring or downplaying what I have to say, repeatedly even. I mean, what is even the point of this “communication” if people are talking past each other?
Lastly, I’m rather by confused by this response. First, I did clarify that the “moralistic strategy” is my own tendency to interprent things:
Note: it says “I’ve had the tendency …” and not, for example, “others are telling me to …”.
In regards to your “you apply no moral or ethical or ‘actualistic’ judgements as to what feeling is occurring” - this is exactly how I am operating, which is exactly how I arrived at that realization that “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.”
Also regarding the “childhood hurts” you mentioned: I’ve looked, and I simply don’t have them. My response to Andrew wasn’t fueled by past trauma[1] or a need for “dominion” . It was a direct response to two specific things:
Andrew’s claim that I find change “impossible” was a total misrepresentation. He stripped away the qualifier: “as long as this affectional intimacy remains the main spanner in the works”. My tone was proportional to my persistent attempt to bring the focus back to that specific mechanism (affectional intimacy[2]) being repeatedly ignored.
The rather firm tone and setting “standards” was because of Andrew publicly outing my real name on this forum after I had already asked him privately to stop. Setting a boundary against a breach of privacy isn’t “police-force power”; it’s a requirement for a functional conversation.
Rather than nursing old hurts, I was addressing the fact that Andrew was talking past me while simultaneously violating my privacy (nevermind the political derailments and airing of dirty laundry towards the end).
I understand it intellectually. As for practical actualization, I’ll leave that to the PCE rememoration and actualism method, lest it all be yet another forcing & effortful thing leading to ever-more months/years of ‘actualist lifestyle’.
This is exactly what I meant by “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.”
PCE (and the affective imitation thereof) is the key, everything else (which I decline to grant one rodent’s derriere about) is such a gas.
During my experience with the woman from November, I came to the conclusion that ‘trauma’ basically is a made up concept. What exists is just a bunch of (more granular) affective feeling habits, which one uses the concept of ‘traumas’ to justify the existence of. ↩︎
I find it rather astonishing that nobody here but Claudiu seems to visibily grasp the importance of this. As I wrote in Intimacy - #5 by syd“One thing I still cannot stress enough here, in my original post, is how there is virtually no affections involved in man-woman intimacy”. ↩︎
I did not ignore the second part of your statement, or “talk past” your appeals to Musk or Tate.
I explained that you were “moralizing in an actualist way” . Making up a rule about what is possible.
I, in respect for what i know about you, unilaterally decided that these two people are not representative of Syd. If you insist that they are representative of you, then there is a far bigger problem than any tit-for-tat about what has been said in this thread.
As for the “name change” and reversal on everyone here that it’s now on us to change what we call you when you decide at a whim to change your screen name.
You did both these things a decade ago, I have seen you change it (the screen name) at least 3 time since coming back, and the appeals to the extremes of human depravity (Trump, Musk and Tate)..
I do think a lot more of you than these people, and I certainly wish you can get to the bottom of this issue.
As far as my communications, I have been thinking “damn, i seem to have messed up here”
this message is simply because I think it is sensible, not because I feel it sensible. As you are actively dismissing Vineeto, I can’t see how anything I write will be effective.
This is the last message I will write to you publicly or privately until i otherwise think it’s sensible for me to interact with you. I am not interested in whatever you have to say about a drama you created and are determined to perpetuate.
I have my own issues to deal with, and as i have been ineffective here, it serves no purpose to say more.
Andrew, I acknowledge your decision to end the interaction here.[1]
Regarding your claim that you “did not ignore” the second part of my statement: the record shows otherwise. You stripped away the qualifier “as long as this affectional intimacy remains the main spanner in the works” … and replaced it with a generic claim that I find it “impossible to be caring and considerate of women” (link). Addressing the first half of a sentence while deleting the condition that defines it is, by definition, ignoring the core of the message.
Furthermore, your “unilateral” decision that certain people are “not representative of Syd” is a rather vulpine attempt to put me in an identity bucket of your own making. To claim you are doing this out of “respect” while suggesting I have a “far bigger problem” if I disagree is not engagement; it is a condescending way to dismiss my actual words . By focusing on these personas and your impression of me, you avoided the specific points I made, via quoting their words, regarding the mechanism of affectional intimacy.
Regarding the “name change” - your reasoning makes no sense whatsoever. Those alias updates were made while my real name continued to be public; there is a fundamental difference between updating an alias and violating a specific private request to stop using a real name. Ignoring a request for privacy is a lack of the basic consideration and “caring” you claimed to value.
The text remains for anyone to see whether a qualifier like “as long as this affectional intimacy remains the main spanner in the works” is “moralizing in an actualist way” or not.
I wish you good luck in dealing with your own issues.
While you have stated you are not interested in further discussion, I remain open to conversing in the future should you realize and acknowledge the mistakes made in your approach to this exchange. ↩︎
Speaking to the topic alone rather than any forum dynamics… when Syd wrote:
The key is, what does ”in a genuine sense” mean?
If it means to be actually caring (in the way actually free people are or people in PCEs can be), without any self-centeredness whatsoever, then the statement is obviously true. I distinctly recall Vineeto’s story of how the feeling-being ‘Vineeto’ had tears in ‘her’ eyes when ‘she’ realized ‘she’ had never actually cared about anyone in ‘her’ life.
Indeed any emotion feeling passion or mood is ultimately self-centered, so any caring or consideration a feeling-being has for another will be tainted or tinged, to a greater or lesser degree, by that self-centeredness.
I say this because I think this birds-eye-level point may have not been appreciated properly.
Now if one takes it to mean that no caring or consideration in any sincere sense can happen whatsoever unless one is fully actually free (ie a strict binary of no caring at all vs genuine caring), then this is obviously false. The degree of self-centeredness operating varies (hence ”to a greater or lesser degree”), highly correlated with one’s level of feeling good, of felicity and harmlessness.
And this applies equally well if one takes it to mean that one could be a feeling being and could be sincerely caring and considerate of another, but only once any such “affectional intimacy” is completely eliminated. In practice, it simply does not work that way. Affectional intimacy in a sense does contain the seeds of the intimacy that is actually sought for. The best way I can put this is that I was discussing the topic of love with my partner, and of what actual freedom entails, that there not being any love anymore. The way I put it is that what will be once actually free is the intimacy there will be what love aspires to, but never reaches. My partner, who is not an actualist, immediately perked up at this and seemed to intuitively recognize the significance of what I was saying.
At the very least I just can’t think of any successful actualist that has, before meeting or being in a relation with anybody, somehow removed “affectional intimacy” and only after that point had a genuinely caring and considerate relation with someone of the opposite sex. This doesn’t apply to Richard, Vineeto, Peter, or anyone else I can think of.
As to whether one can choose or make a choice to be more caring and considerate then not, when one is not “naturally” like that… in a genuine and not ‘moralistic’ sense… this question is exactly analogous to whether one can choose or make a choice to be more happy or more harmless than not, when one is not “naturally” like that, in a genuine and not ‘moralistic’ sense.
If someone’s answer to that is “no” then that actualism and the actualism method are not appropriate for that person, as it means there is nothing they can do to genuinely change how they are in order to become more happy and more harmless on this wide and wondrous path.
If their answer is “yes” then it shouldn’t be a stretch to see how it applies not only to being more happy and more harmless, but also to being more caring and more considerate, even if it doesn’t attain to the level of actual caring (which is impossible for a feeling-being).
Indeed, this whole episode reminds me of a particular conversation two of the same participants here had where one was exhorting the other to be more harmless and how this could be done not in a moralistic sense but in a simply sensible sense, and the other, who was then extolling the virtues of the “power of being unfazed” was insisting that this be some ‘actualistic morality. and not the right direction at all. As such, Vineeto’s introduction of that “power of being unfazed” topic was very apt.
Cheers,
Claudiu
P.S. Just as a person well-known for being morbidly obese might nevertheless say things which, strictly speaking, are relevant to the topic of losing weight and being fit and healthy, it does seem like it would be contra-indicated to take the words of men who are not only not well-known for being in positive, healthy, and sustainable relationships with women but are particularly well-known for not being so, and use them to attempt to understand and further one’s own success in that realm.
I basically agree with everything you said before the PS.
In regards to my use of “genuine”, I’ll first draw attention to the post #15, especially the content between “Right after I messaged her” and “these euphoric feelings!”. Basically, upon realizing that intimacy to ‘her’ meant “caring and sharing” (her words[1]), I reached out to her again in two days writing a honest message about how I felt, with the intention of giving it a try again but this time deliberately being/ feeling/ behaving as caring and sharing as possible. Yet, at that time, as those sexual and euphoric feelings were swirling around, I couldn’t honestly deny (and it is sincerity in action) that whatever this ‘caring’ and ‘sharing’ I could done, would surely be done for the ultimately purpose serving and prolongating those sexual and euphoric feelings as that is exactly “my” motivation, in that moment, in being/ feeling/ behaving as such.
This is not a suggestion to repress affectional intimacy, of course. I am fully aware that the way forward is to experience and “go through” this intimacy with the total sincerity that comes from seeing the fact of its operation, which is but a fancy way[2] of saying imitate the PCE and with her in particular, looking at all objections on the way. And I’d of course begin with enjoying & appreciating however that affectional intimacy unfolds. If she had accepted my offer (or if/when I’m meeting someone new), this is what I’d have done, while firmly keeping in mind the exact affective ‘mechanism’ of that caring & sharing I talked to her about (i.e., not fool myself about it).
PCE (and the affective imitation thereof) is the key, everything else (which I decline to grant one rodent’s derriere about) is such a gas.
Syd
P.S. Your “morbidly obese person” analogy mischaracterizes my focus as an attempt to “further one’s own success in that realm” … as if I am looking up to these personas for relationship or Actualism advice. My focus, when quotting them, was the clinical observation of a mechanism of affectional intimacy, not a search for mentors. Regarding your “it does seem like it would be contra-indicated”: if a reader is upset by these seeing names that it diminishes their enjoyment and appreciation of being alive, then that is a “flashing red light” they might want to look into and talk about in the open, no?
Timeline of our chat, for additional context
[Woman from Nov]: [..] I only sleep with people who genuinely care about me. [..] I see intimacy as something shared and I see no sharing or caring [..] So NO I don’t have sex when I don’t feel cared for.
[a week later]
[Syd]: Hey, just saw this today, since I basically stopped checking Telegram.
I totally understand what you are saying. Your message did not come across as rude at all. You are quite right that I didn’t actually care for you, because I was still obsessed with my own feelings (I was like a teenager lol). Take care.
You are an emotionally sound person, and I trust you will recover from your recent stressful experiences. I’m glad to have gotten to know you (at least what little I knew). I’ll say hi as usual if we bump into each other. Thank you very much for our get togethers.
[Woman from Nov]: deletes conversation for both
[2 days later]
[Syd]: Thinking about it all, I feel very saddened about having fucked up. You were perfect throughout (utterly considerate towards me), I was not.
Right about when you went on your weekend [elided], the old feelings resurfaced and I became scared once again and so sought a way to cowardly end it with the help of my friend.
I’m sorry I was not able to care and share, even though I wanted that with you. I was indeed self-centered.
I feel there’s a tension in the air between us (primarily because of that out of tune message). I may have hurt you more than I can understand. If there’s anyway I can help, let me know.
I’m not afraid anymore. I’d love to give it another try with you. And actually get to know you this time. Not be so focused on myself for once.
Not a day has gone by where I don’t think about you. I’d love the chance to make things right.
I have no memory of that episode, but what it does emphasise is that I have “been here before “ in that I was then, just as now, writing “outside “ my lived experience.
It’s easy to recognise patterns and to post things to others based on an understanding which is cerebrally comprehended, but not lived.
I had not then (in that scenario which you can remember, but I can’t) actually lived anything other than the “soft hearted “ type of empathy common to many, rather than any actual caring, or any imitation of actual caring.
As such, and as much now, as then, it’s counterproductive for me to have commented on “Syd” s post. I had/have not lived through the scenario he is currently posting about, as I was not considering these ideas and perspective when I was in a relationship, or a potential one. There is no woman I am thinking about, or a potential one, so I am not doing it now.
This is very important. “Syd” is considering these things whilst in the midst of the situation.
I have a general regard and respect for women and females in general which has developed nuance and depth with age, Actualism, and pain.
I am not in the midst of the situation.
Although drama is “par for the course “, quite a few of us are getting “long in the tooth “ and I am glad that “Syd” is indeed doing very well compared to previous times, and that I am also doing better.
It’s clear to me now, that I do not understand “Syd” in the way I thought I did. That’s the arrogance that I am happy to lay down.
@syd I will continue to disengage with you. Not because there is any ill feeling, but with the same idea that has served me well over the last 18 months; I really do not want to be in anyone’s way, or provide any obstacle.
Even the posts in the other threads, music and “off topic” , I post with a light hearted type of intent, but I also feel that it could be “useless “.
For whatever it’s worth, I just spent the last hour and a half chatting deeply with the lad at the local shops about all sorts of nuanced topics, and really wish such interactions were the “norm” for me, online.
Online, I have managed to be someone completely “other” than who am I in normal life.
Either way, I will “live and let live” as I am determined that I will change radically, as I observe other doing here.
Cheers
Andrew
Edit; this has been edited a few times as I consider more of the nuance.
I’m glad to hear you that it is clear to you that you “do not understand “Syd” in the way [you] thought [you] did”. What I’ve mainly gathered from the times just prior to the whole Zulip apocalypse was me being wildly misunderstood by others when those miscellaneous allegations landed left and right. I realize now that this is largely because of the way I tend to communicate (one another aspect is that, contrary to what Vineeto may suggest, despite being instinctually the same I’m pretty different in the surface aspects compared to others; hence less ‘normal’), viz.
What I’m finding now however is that I still cannot consistently “slow down and be detailed and explicit”. It takes deliberate effort and consideration that is not at all automatic for me.
In regards to “be in anyone’s way, or provide any obstacle”, to the contrary I actually found this conversation an useful exercise. For me, the root of the issue was ‘fear of confrontation’ (submissiveness). I felt like something was off in your post around that out-of-the-tune political comment around Musk/Tate (as if you took offense and wanted to defend). My mistake was that, out of fear of confrontation, I had glossed over it (and the qualifier ignoration) completely instead of addressing it head on. I was also hesistant in honestly telling you what I thought of your comment on ‘caring’ (for example, I was internally thinking “What the fuck is Andrew doing ‘caring’ about some random fat guy instead of, you know, actually fucking enjoying and appreciating each moment again?”), because lately I’ve come to an agreement that it is mosty not worth giving feedback on anyone’s practice.
I’m very pleased to hear this. It is good to exit the ‘actualist lifestyle’ I talked of in the video call.
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. ↩︎
Well, I think we can both mutually thanks @claudiu spotting that we had both been here before.
What I was doing was “opportunistic “. Spotting that someone is otherwise missing the mark is easy. Hitting the mark takes dedication, patience, determination, and often painful endurance.
I had not done those things back then, and I am only beginning to truly have the mental space (if that is what is happening) to make decisions that are constructive.
I have been, for many years, embarrassed, about how much I post.
Strangely, I would say the conversation I just had with a guy in the neighbourhood, would have been thousands and thousands of words long.
I am never in front of a laptop when I write here. Always a phone, or my iPad.
It’s so different from talking.
I genuinely felt pretty shit for the last day thinking that I am somehow “correct “ but practically completely wrong in posting what I said.
I don’t understand you. I think that is freeing for us both the recognise. You are “outside “ of “normal” . Thankfully, knowing that, and directly addressing that we are both somewhat “outside “ of “normal” could well be the key for us interacting.
Hmm. This is the perfect example of my inability to write like I speak.
In real life, I would have lead with “I am outside of normal too” and built a report based on that. Despite being an introvert, in normal life I am extroverted and will establish common ground. I feel out people and will back track and set up common ground as a matter of habit.
Online, on this screen, it’s actually quite infuriating. Despite being an avid poster, I really don’t like typing and reading.
It’s just so inorganic. So one dimensional.
It would be better, if we are to have any useful interaction, just to have a video chat.
Your new app was pretty spectacular. Happy to schedule a time if you are.
Haha, I think I just identified another reason I am “shit” at talking online, but pretty decent in real life; I am a natural introvert!
When I am typing, it’s just me and my thoughts. I automatically understand (obviously) what I am typing and how it joins together.
It’s a trap! Haha
I have logged into the forum at work. I have not done that in the past decade, for some “moral” reasons of abusing company time. What a silly thing to have done! The company can, if unknowingly, contribute to “peace on earth” like a good citizen should.
).