Syd: Fair warning, Kuba, I write high-context[1]: I know what I mean, and I’m quite content if it doesn’t fully carry to every reader. The fad’s daft and fair game, granted, the self having exhausted the zodiac and graduated to the DSM, ‘my’ rottenness “solved” the moment it’s issued a four-letter acronym. Grade-A psittacism (psittacus, n., parrot). But you’re up the wrong tree on me: there’s plenty of ‘self’ still rattling about in here, “neurodivergence” just isn’t one of its costumes, only the handiest name for how my predilections run on their own. And here’s the giggle: your own Vineeto already granted me the factual bit. She tells you, in your own journal (#1658), that it’s “not autism in the medical definition of the word, but perhaps a tendency to be less interested in how people you are not personally connected to are experiencing life,” and that “it can vary from person to person”. That per-person tendency is all I’m naming, just pointed the other way. So take the facticity complaint upstairs, mate, and give Vineeto my regards
[1] A mind that holds many disparate things at once and learns and adapts quickly — at the cost of being hard to communicate with at the same velocity and scope, especially for neurotypicals. (link)
You have stated that you “never set about to do that [channel the instinctual passions into being the felicitous & innocuous feelings” because the obvious common sense of doing that eludes your supposedly “high-context” mind-frame, (even though it allegedly “holds many disparate things at once”). You also declared that your “high-context neurodivergent frame” can only perceive to “channel the instinctual passions into being the felicitous & innocuous feelings” “in moralistic-forcing way” (link) and that you have given up on the goal of “both AF and PCEs” (link) – in other words, you cannot change your nature and therefore there is really nothing worthwhile discussing here. Kuba has already pointed out (link) that such neurodivergence labels are easily turned into personas and your previous and present responses have just demonstrated and confirmed this.
It has already been extensively explained in what way the intent to be happy and harmless, felicitous and innocuous can be arrived at without any moralistic forcing, both by myself (for instance: link), and even more detailed by Claudiu (for instance: link) but the common sense of becoming happy and harmless has so far eluded you.
This forum has been specifically set up for those interested in changing their human nature and becoming happy and harmless, felicitous and innocuous, whereas your way of non-“moralistic-forcing” communication is clearly not even intended to be friendly and innocuous, or even civil, but aggressive, derogatory, condescending and supercilious, reminiscent of your communication style in December 2015 on Gitter –
[Syd]: ‘…we should start ‘giving shit’ to these rude people, regardless of their sex’. (Dec 07 07:31).
[Syd]: ‘…if the other person is ‘giving me shit’, expect to the receive the same back (at same level of subtlety)’. (Dec 07 07:44).
[Syd]: ‘Indeed, that’s what I’m getting at. If they give me shit, I give them back’. (Dec 07 07:49).
It looks like Richard’s recommendation from 10+ years ago is still applicable.
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). (link)
Your present post demonstrates that you are still seeing the world through the prism of the power structure of hierarchy, superiority/ inferiority, pride and humility, while imagining yourself as No. 1. This unexamined emotional hierarchical template/ framework is both the underlying foundation for your concept of what “moralistic-forcing” means and the justification for your own rebellious behaviour, and it goes a long way to explain why you cannot see the quite obvious common sense in having a sincere intent to become happy and harmless, which are two sides of the same coin (see link). It also explains the creation of an imaginary phantom ‘Vineeto’ who is allegedly Kuba’s “own Vineeto”, situated “upstairs”, which is so far out inside your high-context mind as to be ludicrous.
Here is a quote of the day to ponder –
Richard: … the term ‘cognitive dissonance’ would be better described as a ‘feeling-fed cognitive dissonance’ as it is not just a mental blockage which causes people to be unable to grasp innovative things that are to their own advantage and to fight so hard to retain the existing belief systems which are inimical to their welfare.
It is the strangest of incongruities in regards to human pertinacity that peoples will invent reasons and struggle to maintain a state of affairs that is detrimental to their own advancement … even those conditions which enslave them. (Richard, AF List, No. 30, 22 Oct 2003).
Regards Vineeto