Boundaries, FOO, Superstition is Cowardice in Journal
- Aug. 30, 2022, 12:30 a.m.
- |
- Public
Boundaries, I have without exception experienced, are useful only as an internal asshole radar system. It’s fine (I guess) to “have” boundaries- but no one who you would actually need to have them with will ever respect them anyways.
That’s basically the entire purpose- or at the purpose according to all the self-help gurus. Just have boundaries. lol. How about just don’t hang around assholes? Then, not only don’t you need boundaries but you can relax and enjoy your time with other people. Without being defensive or vigilant. Life is too short for that.
The more time and space that accumulates between the FOO and I- both physically and internally as emotional/mental- the more clearly fucked up they become. The farther away I get, the more destruction and carnage I feel from my past that could have been avoided. Why did I stay so long?
The real question is, why did I finally leave? The long and short of it is, I found philosophy. I discovered independent thought. I began to apply the principles to my life; in and out. No one much liked that. Least of all my FOO. Nor DH’s FOO.
With independent thought and clarity, it is truly terrifying what we might discover.
The avoidance of moral philosophy and the terrifying discoveries it brings leaves the intellectual with a curious dilemma; a vacuum of responsible actors. One solution it would seem to this cowardly avoidance is to invent ways in which victims are responsible for their own victimhood; to say that the unlucky are responsible for their misfortune. And, this falseness dilutes the true heroism of self ownership. It is none of my honor if success is merely a karmic fate. Nor am I ever a true victim justified in self defense if I chose to be raped, murdered, or stolen from. It is the denial of violence! Since rape, assault, murder and theft exist only if the victim dissents. The category of aggression disappears once it is chosen; it becomes voluntary, consentual. The espouser of reincarnation gives full chosen responsibility to the victims of violence and aggression, it’s just removed in time.
It is only cowardice, and a service to evil, to claim reincarnation, karma, or superstition.
anticlimatic ⋅ August 31, 2022
Boundaries are important for maintaining diverse friendships, I think.
Miss Chiffs Manager anticlimatic ⋅ August 31, 2022
What has been your experience of maintaining boundaries?
What does diverse friendships mean?
anticlimatic Miss Chiffs Manager ⋅ August 31, 2022
I think it's important for people to retain a core of independence and dignity for the sake of good mental health, as that has been my experience with them.
I think they're good for friendships because it allows a consistent standard of ethical etiquette regardless of what your friend's value systems might be. So no dissonance.
Miss Chiffs Manager anticlimatic ⋅ September 01, 2022
Regardless of what your friend's value system might be?
How so?
anticlimatic Miss Chiffs Manager ⋅ September 01, 2022
If there is a value system, for instance, that requires either assimilation or rejection in order to avoid the "othering" pitfall, that a potential friend fails to meet, having a boundary of not discussing/arguing or pressing/persuading on those conflicting value systems can sustain a friendship that otherwise might end in enmity.
Miss Chiffs Manager anticlimatic ⋅ September 01, 2022 (edited September 01, 2022)
Edited
That is pretty convoluted language. But as far as I can tell, your experience of boundaries seems useful to you because it allows you to be "friends" ( in quotation bc idk what that means) with people who don't have and even refuse your values.
If one person is reasonable- meaning they are willing to compromise- and the other isn't, that isn't friendship.
Just editing to add that friendship or enmity is a false dichotomy. The incredible vast majority of people do not fall into either category.
anticlimatic Miss Chiffs Manager ⋅ September 02, 2022 (edited September 02, 2022)
Edited
A false dichotomy in the sense that friend and enemy are one in the same?
I agree that the vast majority of people fall under the "stranger" category. Second largest probably being business (or otherwise) acquaintances.
Boundaries are useful to me for additional reasons, that was just an example. A more important one is that they preserve my sanity and independent mental faculties from the predations of those- friends, family, bums on the street- who would seek to manipulate me to their purpose. I've never heard anyone argue against them before, it's quite intriguing!
Miss Chiffs Manager anticlimatic ⋅ September 02, 2022 (edited September 02, 2022)
Edited
To be sure, I am not arguing against boundaries. Just what they are, and what they are for.
So I'll try to be more direct in asking; is someone capable of manipulating you also capable of being your friend?
anticlimatic Miss Chiffs Manager ⋅ September 02, 2022
All of my friends are capable of manipulating me, yes. Product of knowing me well- my likes, dislikes, etc. Boundaries set which ways I am open to manipulation (being cheered up, pleasant surprises, being pushed the right way at the right time), and which ways I’m not (guilt tripping, free labor/resource extraction, etc).
Miss Chiffs Manager anticlimatic ⋅ September 02, 2022
Manipulation is outside the possibility of friendship.
That's not *my definition. It's a reasoned statement. On the basis that if someone is a friend, they care about my state of being, my interests, my Self, without any other goal. The individual is an ends unto himself.
anticlimatic Miss Chiffs Manager ⋅ September 03, 2022
It is quite OK to have a boundary that forbids people from manipulating in any sense of the word for any reason you please. ;)
Miss Chiffs Manager anticlimatic ⋅ September 03, 2022
Sure, but I'm not arguing any subjective boundary.
What I am saying is that someone who manipulates is not a friend, by definition.
anticlimatic Miss Chiffs Manager ⋅ September 03, 2022
I don’t see anything in the definition of friend that precludes manipulation, in fact I’m unaware of any relationship that doesn’t involve it to some degree. What makes someone not a friend for stopping by with my favorite coffee and doughnut to cheer me up?
Miss Chiffs Manager anticlimatic ⋅ September 03, 2022
Right, so what is a friend?
If you include people who exchange goods and services, then there is already a category for that, which is economic. The category of friend is only made distinct by the action of valuing another person as an end in themselves.
Your question about 'what makes someone not a friend..' is isn't honest (and I'm not saying you're lying, but that you'd prefer to use subjective standards to define an objective fact). My pointing out that the people you call friends and perhaps your own behavior isn't consistent with objective friendship is something you don't like.
anticlimatic Miss Chiffs Manager ⋅ September 03, 2022
Hmm. You lost me. I believe it’s important to define terms for the sake of communication, but I abandoned any idea of “objective definitions” when dictionaries started changing definitions in real time.
I’m not sure how you or the dictionary defines friend at the moment, but to me it’s any person non familial that has formed a biological pair bond.
Miss Chiffs Manager anticlimatic ⋅ September 04, 2022
I am very sorry to hear that.
anticlimatic Miss Chiffs Manager ⋅ September 04, 2022
I mean it’s also more or less how the dictionary defines it. Not sure what you’re sorry to hear. Seems like a strange thing to say.
Miss Chiffs Manager anticlimatic ⋅ September 04, 2022
I am sorry to hear that you have abandoned objective definitions.
No meaningful communication is possible without that basic requisite; so I am indeed sorry to hear that that is the state of affairs for you.
anticlimatic Miss Chiffs Manager ⋅ September 05, 2022
Can't say I agree with that either, considering most people shape their definitions from context and not a universal identification authority (as even those mutate), and having a 'similar enough' understanding of specific words used to communicate can provide conversation that is plenty meaningful. I'm still trying to work out a way in which objective definitions can exist at all in reality in the context of language and symbolic representation and I am struggling.
Miss Chiffs Manager anticlimatic ⋅ September 05, 2022
I can really understand that I feel a great deal of commonality in that struggle.
I will point out, in the interest of perhaps helping to illuminate the difference, that the argument from averages or normality ("considering most people...") is the result of abandoning objective definitions and not an argument for it.
In order to make an argument against objective definitions, one must first demonstrate the inconsistency, irrationality, or falsehood of that method. Proposing that an alternative method might be 'just as good' is not a logical position; it's an emotional position. "I don't see why a friend can't bring me coffee.." etc is the real world example of this position. If you are willing to cast aside all prior assumptions and positions, starting from the first principle becomes the only option.
anticlimatic Miss Chiffs Manager ⋅ September 06, 2022
If I were able to set aside prior assumptions and positions, in general as a skill, I’d probably use it to believe in God or some other soothing story of someone else’s making. Alas I’m stuck with my own empirical data.
I don’t need to argue against objective definitions, I think you’re getting things backwards here- I believe the burden is on you to demonstrate how that is possible at all.
Miss Chiffs Manager anticlimatic ⋅ September 06, 2022
"I believe the burden is on you..." isn't a rational argument.
And, look, you might be right. IDK. But the method you're employing isn't one that I can follow and hope to influence through objective rational thought. Why should I ever try or attempt it, if your admitted position is to abandon objective definitions? You have abandoned any evidence or reason that we as two discrete individuals have mutual access to; objectivity.
What exactly are you asking me to attempt to prove to you?
anticlimatic Miss Chiffs Manager ⋅ September 07, 2022
How objective definitions are possible at all, and why they are necessary for meaningful communication.
Miss Chiffs Manager anticlimatic ⋅ September 07, 2022 (edited September 07, 2022)
Edited
Lol, Im sorry. I can't continue this conversation anymore.
Just editing to add, you've been perfectly pleasant and an enjoyable to converse with. My boundary is just to protect my own interests and time.
Miss Chiffs Manager anticlimatic ⋅ September 02, 2022
What exactly is the othering pitfall?
Values antithetical to my own are not compatible to my continued success or existence. Either I cede or they cede in a win-lose dominance stance. Values are chosen; they do not just exist. They are voluntarily taken up, and acted out.
anticlimatic Miss Chiffs Manager ⋅ September 02, 2022
The othering pitfall that leads to the zero sum mindset you seem to have going on here, in which a person is only a real person because they are useful, and all “others” who are not can be cast out into the cornfield.
There are a few value systems that are directly opposed to my way of life, but as long as a very basic umbrella set of values are met- desire to do the right thing, desire for other people to thrive and be happy- we can be friends.
Miss Chiffs Manager anticlimatic ⋅ September 02, 2022
Ah, okay. So you are saying that my view is to determine whether a person is useful to me or not?
What evidence supports your hypothesis?