A Question

I don't judge people as naive, confused or otherwise based on an opposing view. I do judge it based on whether they have facts or have misinterpreted something concrete (such as the many misunderstanding surrounding the double split theory ).

Now disturbed, sick, demented, etc that is something entirely different. To me, the first set are reserved for tangible ideas. The second set relates directly to the psychological. Let's take a recent example- only because it is very fresh in everyone's mind- Jestor referred to Mortose as "confused". I disagree with the terminology, but his "confused" may mean the same thing when I relate my understanding of Mortose as "disturbed".

Mortose easily presents herself as a class A (actual psychological diagnosis) sociopath. A sociopath which has not fully grasped themselves in a world that experiences emotions the way others do sometimes lashes out to hurt others because it is an easy way to attempt to feel emotions. Some do it in the form of killing small animals, and some evoke into serial killers. Mortose has a different way of approaching the situation- metaphysically and emotionally. You could say that Mortose can only feel when she's feeding off the emotional state of others- a form of psychic vampire.

So when I say she is disturbed, I mean she has not fully come to terms with simply being. Instead, she lashes out because she feels a need to. She finds solace in being the slave to "negation" (which to her is a sentient being-other cultures may refer to it as Void), rather than taking full control of her own life. And she even acknowledges she is a slave.

Is being disturbed a problem? It is for those which encounter a disturbed individual . You never know when you'll become the target. But as long as the individual feels comfortable, for them it is not an issue. The question then becomes: What is more important? To sever links to prevent further damage to the population (jail, psyche ward, death row, banning from a site, etc- in general not just Mortose mind you) or to continue trying to reach the individual (which I would argue only a psychiatrist should when it gets really bad, and I'm not a fan of medicating people).

Sometimes the words mean the same thing. For some "naive" and "confused" are interpreted the same way I would use "disturbed" or "demented".

As to using them properly and in reference to people that simply disagree with you- I would ask a different question: Why do you cling to your way so much that anyone else's is invalidated altogether? Why do you feel the need to hide behind insults such as "niave" or "confused" instead of "My personal experience states otherwise, it appears we have differing experiences- tell me what makes you believe the way you do?" If they have no answer, "because I want it to be that way" or something similar- then maybe you are right to think they are niave. But expressing it aloud rather than seeking to encourage them to explore the concept or even methods of trying to realize their dream is sort of the problem society (in my opinion) has today.

Just my two cents.

^ would you believe me if I told you I just typed all of that on my iPhone ? :lol:

Alethea Thompson wrote: ^ would you believe me if I told you I just typed all of that on my iPhone ? :lol:

You either have the patience of a saint, or you're a masochist.

Alethea Thompson wrote: ^ would you believe me if I told you I just typed all of that on my iPhone ? :lol:

I'm mobile 24/7, you should see some of my journal entries...

Good Job!!

I am mobile about 80-85% of the time as well...

Until 1.5-2 years ago, it was 100% of the time as well...

My thumb got soft, lol, it was hurting last night after all the posts I did last night...

I used to drive ren crazy, he was always woried about me causing a problem in the admin section...

When I finally caused a BIG screw up, I did it from the little touch pad on a laptop.... LOL...

I found that one of the main lessons I have learnt over my time at TOTJO is that...just because I disagree with someone, it doesn't make me 'right' and them 'wrong'.

However, I've also found that knowing this and living this are two different things. It's actually quite easy to step back from a discussion and say to yourself "as a Jedi I must be polite and respectful and give their view fair consideration as it may be that I am not in the right". But if you search deep down sometimes you still find that little niggling feeling that you know you are right reeeally...

Maybe it's an inbuilt human self-preservation thing. I don't think it's something we should beat ourselves up about too much. As long as we really do try, with the best of intentions, to give the opposing view the respect that we would like our view to be given - it's okay to have niggles. I think the more that you practice consciously adopting the philosophy, the more you find yourself adopting it without needing to employ constant mental reminders.

Naya wrote: Why is it when someone sees things in a different way than you, they are somehow naive/blind/ignorant/etc.?

Is it not possible for someone to have a different way of looking at the world and yet not be wrong just because others do not agree with your view?

Because some things are subjective and some things are not.

It is naive/ignorant for a child to think fire can't burn them. It is naive/ignorant to think that you are bulletproof. These are simple realities. This applies throughout life. Some things are beyond "well this is my opinion so it beyond right or wrong." It is naive/ignorant to think opinion cannot be incorrect, lacking in judgment, and/or knowledge.

Just because a person has the opinion the moon is purple, does not make it so. Nor does it make the matter subjective. Some times a person is simply naive, blind, incorrect, wrong, ignorant, or whatever word one wants to denote a mistaken opinion.

Of course. That is just my opinion. My subjective reality. So at least I can take comfort, that those who disagree will at least allow me to be right in my own little world. Yay subjectivity!!

Alethea Thompson wrote: As to using them properly and in reference to people that simply disagree with you- I would ask a different question: Why do you cling to your way so much that anyone else's is invalidated altogether? Why do you feel the need to hide behind insults such as "niave" or "confused" instead of "My personal experience states otherwise, it appears we have differing experiences- tell me what makes you believe the way you do?" If they have no answer, "because I want it to be that way" or something similar- then maybe you are right to think they are niave. But expressing it aloud rather than seeking to encourage them to explore the concept or even methods of trying to realize their dream is sort of the problem society (in my opinion) has today.

Oh I have no problem with people who have a differing opinion. It has been my opinion that I felt was invalidated, but honestly I don't want to get into that again. I was just asking in general really because I see it a lot here when someone disagrees with someone else, they will call that person naive and stuff... and I just don't get it. Why is someone ignorant or naive just because they don't agree with what's said or have a differing opinion.

I find it funny, though, how a lot of people automatically assumed I had a problem with people having a different opinion from mine. I don't think I have ever expressed that before.

I stand by my beliefs and thoughts when I have them. I mean, I change my thoughts and beliefs often, but that is based on my own experiences and stuff. I'm not going to change it just because someone else has an opinion. But I don't get angry or upset when someone disagrees with me either. So I don't get that mentality... This thread was just my way of trying to get a better understanding of why people get all bent out of shape when others don't agree with them or when people share a thought they don't agree with.

^ would you believe me if I told you I just typed all of that on my iPhone ? :lol:

Hehehe... I do that all the time!

. Why is someone ignorant or naive just because they don't agree with what's said or have a differing opinion.

Of course, this statement assumes that the only reason they are being called allegedly ignorant or naive simply because they have a different opinion, or disagree with what's said.

Naivete, and ignorance do in fact exist, and it is in fact more of a problem for online forums, as relativity abounds and its a consequence free environment.

Ignorance and naivete in more personal, or visceral venues, is less forgiving I one's life, and denial offers less in the way of a defense.

As does subjectivity.

Naya wrote: Why is it when someone sees things in a different way than you, they are somehow naive/blind/ignorant/etc.?

Is it not possible for someone to have a different way of looking at the world and yet not be wrong just because others do not agree with your view?

For once, I'm going to agree with Opie.

Opie Macleod wrote: Because some things are subjective and some things are not.

I was talking about this in the Hangout on Saturday, but one of the problems I have with the modern Western mindset (in general, and in NRM communities like this one and many forms of neo-paganism specifically) is this absurd notion that everybody is right because nothing is objective.

That's nonsense. Utter nonsense. And even if all our personal, discovered "subjective truths" are true, individually (i.e., "that's true for me, but it may not be true for you..."), that does not inherently negate the possibility that objective truth still exists.

An example of this mindset--I was reading a book on reiki recently, and came across a passage that said "Don't worry about messing up; reiki can do no harm." That's bollocks for a few dozen reasons, but the one I want to highlight here is the fact that, with proper intentions, nobody on the planet can destroy a body like a healer can. They just understand too well how the body knits itself back together, and if a healer takes a mind to stop helping and start hurting, they can use any bit of their knowledge to aid them to devastating effect. One might argue that by telling people "X cannot harm you, because it is composed entirely of love and kisses and sunshine and butt-rainbows" you're taking away the possibility of them harming others with it through brainwashing, but that doesn't make the statement any more "true."

Furthermore, even if something is subjective, it doesn't mean that right and wrong are immediately negated. I used to argue with my friends constantly over how to make sweet tea . Some of them want to boil the tea in the water, some of them want to make a syrup first and then steep the tea, etc. That's all well and good, and they all ultimately make sweet tea, and it's how they were taught, whatever. Now, I finally got most of them^* to stop arguing with me long enough for me to explain why I make tea the way I make it: get the water to temperature, steep the tea bags for 3-5 minutes (any longer and its bitter), immediately add sugar (so that it dissolves better without tasting grainy), stir rapidly, and chill immediately (again, bitter if you don't). They now almost universally agree that my method is better (even if they don't use it) because they like my tea better than theirs. I think that says a bit of something about Southern stubbornness, but also about subjective "truths."

And that's encouraging the use of the word "truth" (which almost inherently implies objectivity as subtly as a bulldozer) along with subjectivity, something that I think is completely mind-boggling, since words mean things on purpose--dictionaries don't accidentally come about through happenstance.

And even in the metaphysical there will be arguments. In the reiki example above, someone genuinely believed that there is a force moving about that cannot possibly cause harm. In my experience, anything can cause harm. Fire is a wonderful tool that brought us out of the caves and put us into new ones made of glass and steel, but it'll burn you as quick as the sun if someone hits you with it on purpose. I'm one of those chaps that thinks "pseudo-science" is a good term for a lot of the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo that goes on because, while it may not track with standard, objective, "modern" science, most of the metaphysical nonsense that co-exists with us does actually follow pretty standard, set rules akin to the laws of nature. This is something a great many people have experimented with and tested repeatedly, and while a lot of people differ on certain specifics (find me two correspondence charts from different authors that are the same and I'll kiss your backside), there is enough extant "evidence" (spiritually) to support things like life energy that interacts in a global field like multiple waters in a pond.

Naya wrote: I find it funny, though, how a lot of people automatically assumed I had a problem with people having a different opinion from mine. I don't think I have ever expressed that before.

To be fair, I think this is partly your tone. There have been times I have seen you disagree with folks and (while it's hard to judge tone online thanks to text) your syntax seemed to indicate a certain air of dismissiveness. Perhaps I'm reading into it. Also, to be fair, I did specifically ask you on at least one occasion if you have a problem with me or with my opinion on a matter or two, so not everyone automatically assumes.

^*the author of that blog post included, even though we continue to do it slightly differently; we tie our teabags in different places