being reasonable
- Thread starter linebaugh
- Start date
constant escape
winter withered, warm
Yeah, and I'll stick to it.
I can see where these self-underminings can topple your momentum, but I also think that can be a powerful technique for disrupting your reality on a smaller scale. Not just writing the "although"s and "on the other hands"s, but actually integrating such pivot points into your reasoning, perhaps even into the flow of energies that guide your articulation/reasoning.
Maybe also is a pertinent tactic for synthesizing and compounding ideologies, pivoting from one direction to another in a strategic and dialectical manner.
Even adding the "no?" after a relatively tentative point serves to leave the assertion in a kind of ungrounded stasis.
This is actually vital, as far as I can tell, in terms of exploring multiple pathways of reasoning. Rather than picking one and putting all of your eggs in that basket, try out one pathway, then return back to the fork and try another, ultimately going with whichever seems better. Whatever better means to you.
constant escape
winter withered, warm
This is actually hitting on a critical cognitive technique, which I've mentioned a couple times, although perhaps unclearly.
On a very fine scale, the scale of the direction of your reasoning, which is largely determined by where certain pre-cognitive/pathic energies are guiding it, as well as how your ideological framework imposes predetermined manners of securing the truth, moving in the right direction, etc.
I say predetermined because certain ideological factors, say how ends justify means in a utilitarianism, determine the manner in which you make certain decisions before those decisions even arrive. By the time those decisions arrive, you have a prepackaged and proven technique for making them.
Anyway, I think it can have potentially profound effects if one learns to probe out down multiple paths at a junction before landing on one.
And @luka I mean reasoning not as a base operation of the self, but as a layer of articulation that we often lean on or depend on, perhaps even identifying with it. Think about how one can really identify with ideological categories, theories, and other things that reside on the layer of articulation, the layer of the map.
So I'm essentially talking about navigating the map, while being cognizant that what you are navigating is the map. I think.
On a very fine scale, the scale of the direction of your reasoning, which is largely determined by where certain pre-cognitive/pathic energies are guiding it, as well as how your ideological framework imposes predetermined manners of securing the truth, moving in the right direction, etc.
I say predetermined because certain ideological factors, say how ends justify means in a utilitarianism, determine the manner in which you make certain decisions before those decisions even arrive. By the time those decisions arrive, you have a prepackaged and proven technique for making them.
Anyway, I think it can have potentially profound effects if one learns to probe out down multiple paths at a junction before landing on one.
And @luka I mean reasoning not as a base operation of the self, but as a layer of articulation that we often lean on or depend on, perhaps even identifying with it. Think about how one can really identify with ideological categories, theories, and other things that reside on the layer of articulation, the layer of the map.
So I'm essentially talking about navigating the map, while being cognizant that what you are navigating is the map. I think.
WashYourHands
Cat Malogen
Being reasonable. The British disease.
I try to be. If you don’t listen to someone or a point of of view/perspective they have, how can you find the common ground of understanding or empathy?
The flip to the flop is when an unwritten threshold is repeatedly crossed. Then you have to ask yourself why waste your time or theirs.
Work is the litmus test, or it was until COVID washed away face to face contact. Even then you want a few different brains on the problem at hand or your read of the situation or context could be ill-informed.
No-one’s mentioned driving. About a decade ago I found myself dragging a bloke out of his car at a set of traffic lights. Could’ve ended up far worse. So now I just let the impatient, irritated or psychotic overtake. Hand out the window and waive them past. Job done. 1 in 10 will flash to say ta. Cunts.
I try to be. If you don’t listen to someone or a point of of view/perspective they have, how can you find the common ground of understanding or empathy?
The flip to the flop is when an unwritten threshold is repeatedly crossed. Then you have to ask yourself why waste your time or theirs.
Work is the litmus test, or it was until COVID washed away face to face contact. Even then you want a few different brains on the problem at hand or your read of the situation or context could be ill-informed.
No-one’s mentioned driving. About a decade ago I found myself dragging a bloke out of his car at a set of traffic lights. Could’ve ended up far worse. So now I just let the impatient, irritated or psychotic overtake. Hand out the window and waive them past. Job done. 1 in 10 will flash to say ta. Cunts.
constant escape
winter withered, warm
constant escape
winter withered, warm
Does getting that synergy require that everyone acknowledge that difference of opinions is good? Or can some of them just think they are right and that difference from them is negative?
WashYourHands
Cat Malogen
Depends on any underlying diagnoses and the range of compounds involved. Your goal is the same - getting an addict clean of combination drug abuse, which remains a massive issue in Britain. If they’re admitted, then they’re clearly committed to change, so it’s usually a holding canopy of specialists with enough overlap to synergise coordinated treatments. Once a client is clean, further therapies can be introduced from outside organisations.
Do we disagree? Of course, but it‘s worse when someone clearly has underlying trauma and the subsequent healthcare team referral proves obstinate. Then it’s pinning those facts to rates of recidivism until they yield or you pass those notes onto the relevant agencies that pursue institutional incompetence.
Being reasonable can be a virtue or a route into the abyss.
Do we disagree? Of course, but it‘s worse when someone clearly has underlying trauma and the subsequent healthcare team referral proves obstinate. Then it’s pinning those facts to rates of recidivism until they yield or you pass those notes onto the relevant agencies that pursue institutional incompetence.
Being reasonable can be a virtue or a route into the abyss.
Leo
Well-known member
who's at your door, @luka? a poetry groupee who's stalking you? an intruder? should we be concerned, or call someone? @Simon silverdollarcircle, you've stood outside his place in the past, can you go over and check on him?
IdleRich
IdleRich
How did you reach that conclusion?
luka
Well-known member
Not sure I think I more just intuited that was the basis I work from. Anti dialectic.
luka
Well-known member
"Never go too far in any direction, is the basic law on which Limey-Land is built"
luka
Well-known member
thats been the poetry mainstream for a very long time.