Join the Neopoet online poetry workshop and community to improve as a writer, meet fellow poets, and showcase your work. Sign up, submit your poetry, and get started.
Whim versus Reason or "Don't be an idiot"
Someone will decide I have written this blog, this personal opinion, to provoke them. What an idiot.
I have limited social skills. I know this and do my best to paste on what is considered acceptable behaviour until such behavior interferes with dealing with reality.
Acceptable social behaviour tells me that you don't tell people they are deliberating stating falsehoods.
Reality forces me to call a lie a lie
Acceptable social behaviour tells me you don't tell people when they are acting like children.
Reality forces me to call people on their actions.
Acceptable social behaviour tells me it is impolite note the hypocritical actions of people when they really just mean to do what they think is good.
Reality forces me to blatantly point out hypocritical actions.
Because of the way my brain is wired and my upbringing, experiences, decisions, and outlook, I see the world and people as grey, in general. But, grey is a matter of perspective and the more you focus on an item, the more you see that it all becomes a matter of black and white the closer you get to the source of the question.
Let me illustrate using an example:
Is it wrong to kill?
The answer is; depends on the situation. Because the question encompasses too wide a range we must look further into the issue.
So, let's break it down.
Is it wrong to kill a 2 year old child?
Yes. It is always wrong.
Is it wrong to kill someone who is legitimately threatening your life?
No. It is never wrong.
There is no grey area here. So, as stated, grey area becomes a matter of distance from the base question or point. At times the question is so complicated that it takes thousands or millions or more individual decision points to define everything in absolute terms and this becomes cumbersome so we fall back on societal interpretation that is a result of current views and mores and ideals.
Fine, so what's the point aside from stating the obvious?
The point is simple. If you are going to issue judgments of right and wrong, these judgments must be able to withstand drilling down to the base question. If they cannot, you are doing nothing more than judging on personal whim and personal whim is a moronic thing on which to judge others and their actions.
And that dovetails into the current uproar at Neopoet.
If you cannot prove you are issuing judgments on the actions of others that are identical then you are lying to yourself and others. You are draping yourself in a nebulous cloak of authority and morality that has no substance or base.
You are being a prick without any cause or justification.
I am an asshole. That's something I've both known and acknowledged for 20+ years. Because I know this I have a tendency to be the same asshole in every aspect of my life. I've lost friends because I demand they adhere to the same standards of judgment. I've disagreed with my father on a personal level on issues. It's created conflict in my personal relationships.
And I've come to the conclusion that it has created less stress and angst in my life because of a consistency of approach and attitude. My children have grown into my closest friends as they have reached adulthood. My father and brothers and I respect and love each other even while we disagree on basic issues, and friends I have had for decades remain close and new friends appear in my life and we connect on a basic level because they know my standards remains constant and knowable.
So I judge my results by the only standard I can. Have they been successful more than they have been unsuccessful? The answer is a demonstrable yes.
Do I still need to work on things? Of course, this is why I listen to every valid criticism. What makes a valid criticism? A valid criticism is an observation that is backed by real evidence, not mere arbitrary judgment.
Part of my pasted on social skills has been to respond with small talk when asked how I am doing and then to return the question and listen to the answer. This may seem second nature to some but for me it was a difficult concept to master, mostly because small talk and I do not interact well.
It was not until I was in my late 30's before I learned this and modified my behaviour to incorporate it. It all happened because someone noted to me the issue with a valid example, not merely a "You're a jerk!"
And when I have failures in my life, I do not make judgments against those people involved.
Cases in point:
I've been married and now divorced twice. In both cases I have come to the conclusion that these women were not bad people, just bad people for me. So in future relationships I must choose more wisely; end more quickly when legitimate incompatibilities are exposed, and make certain that the women with whom I get involved like me. That may sound obvious to some but earlier in my life I assumed if someone said they loved me it meant they liked me as well. This is wrong and I have finally learned this seemingly basic fact.
I've recently departed from an improv group I helped found. It had grown to the point where we were doing more and more external work and the structure we had was not compatible with the structure I needed and laid out my thoughts and ideals to the co-founder. The group decision was made that my ideas were not to be supported so I stepped aside with both my best wishes and full support and still work with them at one venue. Because they are not bad people, the external situation was just bad for me.
And what are the results of this attitude and behavior?
I can be friends, with the full knowledge of all involved, with people who do not like each other because all involved know I will call everyone on irrational behaviour. It also means I clash with those who cannot act in a rational manner. This means I get accused of having no empathy since I will not listen to the same complaints forever. This means I get accused having being heartless because I won't judge someone as evil when they just disagree. This means some folks feel compelled to level against me the worst thing they can imagine; their own insecurities.
And this is where it gets ugly.
Since these accusations are without merit and unfounded and never backed with any evidence other than "everybody thinks so!" my response is predictable and direct and falls outside of acceptable societal norms.
Because I ridicule and mock the accusations. I question the ability and intellect of the accusers. I pass detailed judgments on their motivations. I class them as parasites and sycophants because they have demonstrated that reason is not an option and, quite honestly, I have no use for those who substitute whim for reason.
And as the debate rages more and more people start to see the issue and begin to fall away from the whim and although they do not decide I am right, they decide I might have a valid point with which they may not agree.
And that is my only goal. Not a requirement, merely a goal. A goal that my consistent stance and application of behaviour will seep through personal prejudice so that folks who do not agree with me, folks who do not especially care for me, even folks who hate me, will realise that I have a valid point.
Some people want to be loved. Some people want to be feared. Some people want to be understood. Some people want to be respected. All I want is to be free to state my own opinion and stance unimpeded and let the chips fall as they may.
All I want to be is treated fairly and baring that, to be left the hell alone.
And luckily I have the ability to accomplish this and the strength of will to remove myself from the situation when I've decided things will not work out.
As I've stated before, it's not that I am smarter or more handsome or more accomplished or talented or competent or tougher. It's that I know both my motivation and my goals and so am not easily cowed, intimidated, or deterred.
I have limited social skills. I know this and do my best to paste on what is considered acceptable behaviour until such behavior interferes with dealing with reality.
Acceptable social behaviour tells me that you don't tell people they are deliberating stating falsehoods.
Reality forces me to call a lie a lie
Acceptable social behaviour tells me you don't tell people when they are acting like children.
Reality forces me to call people on their actions.
Acceptable social behaviour tells me it is impolite note the hypocritical actions of people when they really just mean to do what they think is good.
Reality forces me to blatantly point out hypocritical actions.
Because of the way my brain is wired and my upbringing, experiences, decisions, and outlook, I see the world and people as grey, in general. But, grey is a matter of perspective and the more you focus on an item, the more you see that it all becomes a matter of black and white the closer you get to the source of the question.
Let me illustrate using an example:
Is it wrong to kill?
The answer is; depends on the situation. Because the question encompasses too wide a range we must look further into the issue.
So, let's break it down.
Is it wrong to kill a 2 year old child?
Yes. It is always wrong.
Is it wrong to kill someone who is legitimately threatening your life?
No. It is never wrong.
There is no grey area here. So, as stated, grey area becomes a matter of distance from the base question or point. At times the question is so complicated that it takes thousands or millions or more individual decision points to define everything in absolute terms and this becomes cumbersome so we fall back on societal interpretation that is a result of current views and mores and ideals.
Fine, so what's the point aside from stating the obvious?
The point is simple. If you are going to issue judgments of right and wrong, these judgments must be able to withstand drilling down to the base question. If they cannot, you are doing nothing more than judging on personal whim and personal whim is a moronic thing on which to judge others and their actions.
And that dovetails into the current uproar at Neopoet.
If you cannot prove you are issuing judgments on the actions of others that are identical then you are lying to yourself and others. You are draping yourself in a nebulous cloak of authority and morality that has no substance or base.
You are being a prick without any cause or justification.
I am an asshole. That's something I've both known and acknowledged for 20+ years. Because I know this I have a tendency to be the same asshole in every aspect of my life. I've lost friends because I demand they adhere to the same standards of judgment. I've disagreed with my father on a personal level on issues. It's created conflict in my personal relationships.
And I've come to the conclusion that it has created less stress and angst in my life because of a consistency of approach and attitude. My children have grown into my closest friends as they have reached adulthood. My father and brothers and I respect and love each other even while we disagree on basic issues, and friends I have had for decades remain close and new friends appear in my life and we connect on a basic level because they know my standards remains constant and knowable.
So I judge my results by the only standard I can. Have they been successful more than they have been unsuccessful? The answer is a demonstrable yes.
Do I still need to work on things? Of course, this is why I listen to every valid criticism. What makes a valid criticism? A valid criticism is an observation that is backed by real evidence, not mere arbitrary judgment.
Part of my pasted on social skills has been to respond with small talk when asked how I am doing and then to return the question and listen to the answer. This may seem second nature to some but for me it was a difficult concept to master, mostly because small talk and I do not interact well.
It was not until I was in my late 30's before I learned this and modified my behaviour to incorporate it. It all happened because someone noted to me the issue with a valid example, not merely a "You're a jerk!"
And when I have failures in my life, I do not make judgments against those people involved.
Cases in point:
I've been married and now divorced twice. In both cases I have come to the conclusion that these women were not bad people, just bad people for me. So in future relationships I must choose more wisely; end more quickly when legitimate incompatibilities are exposed, and make certain that the women with whom I get involved like me. That may sound obvious to some but earlier in my life I assumed if someone said they loved me it meant they liked me as well. This is wrong and I have finally learned this seemingly basic fact.
I've recently departed from an improv group I helped found. It had grown to the point where we were doing more and more external work and the structure we had was not compatible with the structure I needed and laid out my thoughts and ideals to the co-founder. The group decision was made that my ideas were not to be supported so I stepped aside with both my best wishes and full support and still work with them at one venue. Because they are not bad people, the external situation was just bad for me.
And what are the results of this attitude and behavior?
I can be friends, with the full knowledge of all involved, with people who do not like each other because all involved know I will call everyone on irrational behaviour. It also means I clash with those who cannot act in a rational manner. This means I get accused of having no empathy since I will not listen to the same complaints forever. This means I get accused having being heartless because I won't judge someone as evil when they just disagree. This means some folks feel compelled to level against me the worst thing they can imagine; their own insecurities.
And this is where it gets ugly.
Since these accusations are without merit and unfounded and never backed with any evidence other than "everybody thinks so!" my response is predictable and direct and falls outside of acceptable societal norms.
Because I ridicule and mock the accusations. I question the ability and intellect of the accusers. I pass detailed judgments on their motivations. I class them as parasites and sycophants because they have demonstrated that reason is not an option and, quite honestly, I have no use for those who substitute whim for reason.
And as the debate rages more and more people start to see the issue and begin to fall away from the whim and although they do not decide I am right, they decide I might have a valid point with which they may not agree.
And that is my only goal. Not a requirement, merely a goal. A goal that my consistent stance and application of behaviour will seep through personal prejudice so that folks who do not agree with me, folks who do not especially care for me, even folks who hate me, will realise that I have a valid point.
Some people want to be loved. Some people want to be feared. Some people want to be understood. Some people want to be respected. All I want is to be free to state my own opinion and stance unimpeded and let the chips fall as they may.
All I want to be is treated fairly and baring that, to be left the hell alone.
And luckily I have the ability to accomplish this and the strength of will to remove myself from the situation when I've decided things will not work out.
As I've stated before, it's not that I am smarter or more handsome or more accomplished or talented or competent or tougher. It's that I know both my motivation and my goals and so am not easily cowed, intimidated, or deterred.