Reed Konsler wrote:
>
> >Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 07:20:06 -0600
> >From: Zloduska <kjseelna@students.wisc.edu>
> >Subject: Re: virus: Being uncomfortable isn't always bad
>
> >But see, I think RB meant "enlightened" in a 'my mind is superior to yours'
> >sort of way. I have nothing against "enlightenment", per se, but there are
> >certain kinds that bother me. Like, I think enlightenment in an academic
> >sense is a lie, and foolish, however it's often perceived. Know what I
> >mean? I'm referring to thinking you're infinitely wiser and more
> >'enlightened' than someone because you have read more books than them, or
> >have more college degrees.
>
> I agree on both accounts. But, look at it from RB's perspective: He
> _honestly_ thinks that his is the "higher mind"...and mine too, I suppose
> (though he might change his mind tommorow...you never know with
> RB ;-) ). Isn't it refreshing that he says so...straight, no chaser? Later
> on you criticise me for "using 'nice' words to relay a not-so-nice
> message". By that criteria, he's more enlightened still...becuase he
> says it like he sees it...even when he knows it will raise hackles.
>
> Can you understand his strategy? He wants to be seen as a leader, as
> superior, as a person worthy of respect and deference in order that
> he might more effectively communicate his message. Unlike so many
> other people, though, to find out what he wants you just have to ask
> him.
>
> The meaning of words is best understood in the context of their purpose.
>
> >See, but once a list becomes polarized over a certain issue (like Oprah),
> >communication breaks down to the level of children on a playground,
> >fighting with each other. It doesn't matter whose "side" you're on. After
> >all, you can't really tell what everyone on the list is thinking, and esp.
> >not all the lurkers I'm sure have witnessed this little debate. What
> >bothered me about Richard's post is that he assumed he knew that "most"
> >people on the list agreed with him that I was on a lower 'plane' than you,
> >whatever that means.
>
> Richard wasn't "assuming", he was TELLING people what they were to
> think. Haven't you read his book? His purpose was to instruct whomever
> was on the fence what the truth was. Then you made a frankly irrational
> move by AGREEING with him that everyone on this list thought you
> were...well, the exact words escape me becuase I'm not THAT easily
> programmed...but let's recall that they were "bad" words. You were
> telling anyone who might be listening that you were a "bad" person
> and Richard was telling everyone that I was a "good" (enlightened,
> whatever...) person (and also implying that HE was a suitable authority
> to judge the difference). Given that I'm not, by nature, much interested
> in achieving a false sense of closure my only recourse was to turn
> around a TELL people that they ought to be suspicious of me. Plus
> I had to get into a side tangle with Richard about who knew better
> what the most effective methods of persuasion were...quite a cognitive
> backflip.
>
> Although, I guess I do come here for the exercise, so I'm not
> complaining.
>
> It is easier to tell people what to think than to tell what people are thinking.
>
> >Just curious, why do you think I have turned anger onto myself? Uh, *do*
> >you think that in the first place, and when? They are not the only ones
> >who are puzzled. ;-)
>
> It was the most plausible reason that you would tell everyone on the
> list to see you as a "bad" person, based on my experience. If you
> disagree with my conclusion, could you tell me why you made those
> negative statements about yourself?
>
> >>But if YOU think THEY think you're an "X" sort of person then
> >>that makes you feel a certian way. Everyone is like that...we
> >>all care what people think.
> >
> >Oh, I agree with this. When I said "I don't care what people think" I
> >meant more along the lines of the general public. On the CoV list, I give
> >input, so obviously I care about some kind of feedback, or I wouldn't be
> >wasting my time.
>
> That's true of the rest of the world, to a lesser extent, as well. Sure, there
> are people and groups to whom you are more closely attentive. But, to
> claim you aren't part of the "general public" would be elitist.
>
> We are all part of the public.
>
> >I think you're using "nice" words to relay a not-so-nice
> >message. You should be straightforward. I think you're using all these
> >terms to mask saying, "The truth hurts- don't it?" And I would disagree
> >about what the truth is.
>
> If you reread my post in it's entirety, you will find that I said
> something like:
>
> "If you think deeply about the issue, you will arive at the correct
> conclusion...which may not be mine."
>
> I don't care for your agreement. I want you to think about it logically.
>
> >Also, when I said "dreaded chore", I meant
> >investing all this time sitting at the computer, having to attempt to
> >defend myself against an onslaught of pro-Oprah posts. It was swallowing up
> >my motivation to post and making CoV a very lackluster affair.
>
> Why? Look, you can easily ignore me. As far as you are concerned,
> I'm just words on a screen, to be deleted at your whim. Don't try to
> sell me on the fact that you "had to reply" in order to defend your
> honor or something...that's ludicrous. Whatever is forcing you to
> continue this discourse is in your head, not mine.
>
> You chose to pay attention...try to get the return on your investment.
>
> >>Two things can happen.
> >>
> >>1) Your present way of thinking overcomes reason and you
> >>become more resistant to change. For instance, you will begin
> >>to automatically discount anything Richard or I say...perhaps you
> >>will log off COV to avoid further input along these lines.
> >>
> >>2) Your present way of thinking will be overcome and your mind
> >>will assemble a new way of thinking accomodating your new
> >>experiences.
> >
> >Again, I think you're trying to pick my mind apart a bit too much.
>
> In what sense...beyond your comfort? beyond my abilities? beyond what
> is appropriate? beyond reason? ;-)
>
> >You seem to think there is always something more complex and
> >entirely different in my words, when in fact I meant simply one
> >thing only, or else something completely different.
>
> Alternatively, you are not conscious of the deeper meaning in everything
> you say. As a result, your words often betray you. Do you feel like you
> "really" understand most people and can help them "really" understand
> you? Do you feel a deep connection to the public, one which makes you
> happy to be a fellow human being?
>
> Or not?
>
> We are all telling stories to each other about who we are and what
> we think...all the time. I tell you what to think and you tell me. Round
> and round. But you sound a little indignant...like you are the only one
> who has the right to define yourself. That's crap, and everyone knows
> it. Nothing is off-limits in this game...not in the sense that I have the
> "right" to tell you who you are...but in that we cannot avoid making
> such statements about each other.
>
> So, go ahead, tell me...who am I? The best I've heard so far was
> "sanctimonious"...but that didn't last more than a day or two. If
> you're uncomfortable talking in your turf, then we can talk in mine.
> It all the same in the end, anyway.
>
> Reed
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reed, you kick ass with this post. NC
-- To stay in place, you have to run. To get anywhere, you have to run even harder. --The Red Queen