Petteri left a couple of comments on a previous post that got into frustrations about blogging and so forth. This started out as a comment but I thought I’d just roll with it as a post instead.
It sometimes becomes tiring dealing with emotionally filtered thinking and comments based on what people think has been said or imagined has been said by myself or others, and not on what’s actually been said.
That’s one of my conscious on-line practices-to comprehend what’s actually there and get directly to the point. I know that comes across sometimes as harsh to some people but life isn’t long enough to wallow around in the weeds, particularly when they relate to such tangential things as personality flaws, manufactured ego dramas, unrelated issues, and so on.
Some years ago I was taking a bunch of writing courses. There was always the dictum to not waste words. That means to put forward only those things that relate to the point (plot) and not get lost in tangents. Tangents are worth expressing and exploring, if they relate to the issue, but if they don’t it totally derails the discussion. (ie comments section of the Washington Post) That sort of efficient view or style of communication is not for everyone and we all like to take some moments to gather our thoughts, so I try to relax my (one) pointedness to a degree.
However strictly emotional arguments are not my cup of tea at all. I don’t see a point to them other than people working out their own emotional issues and I don’t care to be cast in that kind of psycho-drama narrative. So I don’t participate much in those kinds of things.
I try to keep my ego shit off this blog as much as possible. That means things like personal problems and stuff which only I can deal with. I don’t expect anyone to wallow there with me. And much of that is dealt with in practice anyways. Do it long enough and you get to know what’s of substance and what isn’t.
I’m way more interested in social issues, creativity, attempting to understand the world, existence, humanity as it is and to try to get to the root of all of that.
I realize that some expressions of emotional outrage are expressions of suffering. But I’m not a teacher, psychotherapist or counselor. And neither are most people who blog, participate in forums etc. If what I write touches upon that in such a way I will take my share of the blame insofar as I’ve written something that touches that. But I won’t take up the responsibility for someone else’s emotional state. Ultimately the responsibility for that rests with the person who chooses the response. And I do consider emotional responses to be a choice in many cases. (Sometimes not if people are in shock or are really deluded or lost in their own fantasies or nightmares, like with PTSD or something)
Some time back someone referred to me as a”banshee”. I can’t remember exactly where. It doesn’t matter. I don’t care much about that. The reason it stuck in my head was the lack of rationality involved. It’s real easy to hurl labels but a lot more difficult to rationally justify it. Name calling and labeling is something I really try to avoid, as is strictly emotional ranting. Not always successful (I can think of 3 specific instances where it was not). I do rant aplenty but set myself a certain burden of reasoned proof for such things.
As well I have to answer to my own satisfaction the following questions:
- Why am I saying this?
- Does it possibly serve a useful purpose?
- What tone am I using and why?
- What are the possible logical arguments against this position? (That’s why some of my pieces are so long)
- What is the emotional content? Is it tied to my own issues or to greater concerns?
- What, potentially will the receiver of this information experience or feel? (That’s a little difficult since I’m not a mind reader, but I try to shift perspectives throughout everything I write)
- Is the message relevant to goals other than my own wish to express or vent? (I am venting right now and not really giving too much of a shit about it actually, it’s totally self-indulgence-kind of a difference between what I usually write Hmmm?)
There’s a whole lot more that could be put on that list but everyone has their own lists when they are questioning stuff.
I also get tired of unrelated agendas that seethe beneath words. Things like veiled threats, pleas for feeding a victim mentality (not about real victims but imaginary ones), attention-getting mechanisms and so on I just don’t have any more patience for. Nor for distortions of facts, masquerades of truth made for self-serving purposes or statements that parrot “what everybody else says” as if that’s justification for belief.
Then there’s all the psychological crap like projecting of motives, manufacturing of consent meaning trying to whip up mob mentalities, looking for approval or agreement and so on.
I could go on and on but there’s not much purpose left in this post. I don’t feel like justifying myself to anyone.
But I will say I’m pretty much the same in person as I am in the words that appear on this blog. Don’t see a lot of need to create persona when I’ve already got one called an ego.
So if I’ve responded in a rather testy manner it’s because I’m tired of some stuff for the moment. And there is a little bit of existential pissed-off-ness as well as misanthropism to that tiredness.
Considering Sartre: Hell is other people.
Or Aristotle who follows a more ontological route: the misanthrope, as an essentially solitary man, is not a man at all: he must be a beast or a god, a view reflected in the Renaissance of misanthropy as a “beast-like state. [Wikipedia]