Drawing the Line Between Truth and Lie

[Matt Gregory]

Your ideas about empathy and morality are stupid and solve nothing. You're the kind of person who would rather let his children run out in the street because he feels too guilty to punish them. And then, when one of them gets killed, you would weep, "Oh why did this happen? I'm so confused!"

Ah, I see I've hit a nerve. You are responding with rancor because you have been criticized. This is good! Not very enlightened, but good.

But your characterization of the "kind" of person I am does not follow from what wrote in my post. And it is silly as well. For one thing, I do not have any kids of my own. But I do have a bunch of nieces and nephews, with whom I am quite willing to be a hardass. And you know what? They love their Uncle Brokie all the more for it. No one is getting killed on my watch. There will be no weeping or "confusion."

By the way, from your posts in this thread, it sounds as if you are the confused one. You can't do a simple act of kindness without second-guessing it and running to the thought police here at GF for some kind of twisted validation.

So I guess if my ideas about morality are stupid and solve nothing, that your ideas about the same are actually solving things? Let's examine that. If I had said what you did to that waitress, I would not be "lying" or going against some deeply held bit of nonsense. I would merely be offering comfort, a little thing from one human being to another. You know, just in case it made her stay on this mortal coil a bit less painful.

You, on the other hand, seem to know that you were dishing out "bullshit" about God. If it were truly bullshit, then you should have known a truthful thing to say that would have been equally effective. Instead you said the right thing with the wrong reasoning. You should be wondering why you feel the need to question your own motivation. If I had said what you did to the waitress - and I have been in that situation countless times - I would have not thought twice about it. Yet here you are, still attached to what should have been the briefest of experiences. So is your approach truly more enlightened than mine?

Well, I'm the one who thinks about what he does to try and learn from his mistakes and you're the one who doesn't, so make of it what you will. I may have little intellectual integrity but you have even less than I do! It's a way of life for you, apparently, like most people.

[Matt Gregory]

MG:

L: Well, I’m not sure exactly what you mean by an honest effort. To my way of thinking, an honest effort occurs when one is uncertain of a truth themselves rather than when one is involved in some sort of conundrum over imparting it.

M: Why do you separate the two?

Fair question.

In order to distinguish between being aware of your own specific uncertainty and being embroiled in the conundrum of that uncertainty.

Well I mean why can't you call an effort to communicate with someone an "honest effort"? It takes a lot of work to be a good communicator. It's not something that comes to us effortlessly. Some people might have more talent for it than others, but they still work at it.

Do you think imparting truth is not part of one's own journey to truth?

If that’s what you’re doing—imparting truth—what’s left of one’s own journey to truth?

Well, we learn things along the way that we can share.

I did impart a truth, though. It was just a little, subtle truth.

I disagree. You imparted more of the same poetry she’s used to hearing. What indication was there that she actually received even a modicum of the truth you claim to have imparted? Or, are you 1) satisfied with having achieved imparting something to her that she already knew ("God knows best"); or maybe, do you 2) consider the sounds of your words alone as an imparting of the truth about which you spoke/were pointing to?

Well, alright. I give up. I lied. I don't want to defend this any longer.

And yeah, I do admit I was looking at how she felt, not because I valued her feelings more than her understanding of truth, but because a person's feelings determine what they're able to take in. Feelings act like mental blocks. If I were to say, "In the grand scheme of nature, your son is no different to a fly on a windshield . . . splat!" or something like that, I don't think it would have been effective, [snip]

Well, I just so happen to think that humans are different to flies. :)

Well, yeah, I guess they don't splat in quite the same way when they hit the windshield :) But seriously, everything comes to an end due to causal circumstances. There's no favoritism of any kind in nature. Tornadoes don't move around the homes of humans to avoid them or anything.

Could the solution to truth v. formidable mental blocks be that simple? (Remember: what you said to her is something brokenhead would've easily said!)

Well, (why do I say "well" every time? :) I was just joking about the fly. I don't really know what I could have said because we were just chatting a little bit and to suddenly take a philosophical turn in a casual conversation is always weird and never really goes over well, but I'm sure there's a tactful way to do it.

[Leyla Shen]

Well, alright. I give up. I lied. I don't want to defend this any longer.

[laughs!] God fucking damn it. I knew I'd make an honest man out of you, Matt! :)

[Leyla Shen]

PS: More later because, lately, I've had the attention span of a fly...

[Leyla Shen]

Well I mean why can't you call an effort to communicate with someone an "honest effort"?

Oh, I can, and do call an honest effort to communicate with someone an honest effort to communicate with them. But doesn't this seem to imply, insofar as imparting truth goes, that perhaps your own emotional barriers were the greater problem in communicating? If it doesn't, you would somehow have to be equating the effort to communicate with the achievement of imparting truth. I can see how this could be the case, but I am curious as to how you think you can measure it. Does the yardstick have anything at all to do with anyone's feelings, or feelings in general?

It takes a lot of work to be a good communicator. It's not something that comes to us effortlessly. Some people might have more talent for it than others, but they still work at it.

Absolutely, absolutely and absolutely. And, frankly, there is nothing that I love, admire, respect, more than a person who honestly wants to communicate with others and makes the effort to do so. You are, in my view, one such completely genuine person. Communicating well is as effortless as one's understanding of others (and, therefore, necessarily by contrast, self). (A hard ask, of course.) If, for example, I am speaking with someone (and I know it will surprise you to hear this) and I think they're a complete idiot, then I am totally OK with being perfectly honest about it in general discussion. But, Matt, there are times when I think a person is a complete idiot and I don't just pipe up and say so. Why? Because, in the latter case, I either understand exactly why they are an idiot and, 1) deal with it accordingly, or 2) realise I haven't come to such an understanding of that person and end up not saying anything--thinking about it, instead.

The ability to communicate honestly is, of course, rudimentary to imparting truth, and one who achieves such a thing actually is communicating perfectly. But, communicating honestly and imparting truth are not necessarily the same thing. Thus, the journey.

[Matt Gregory]

Well I mean why can't you call an effort to communicate with someone an "honest effort"?

Oh, I can, and do call an honest effort to communicate with someone an honest effort to communicate with them. But doesn't this seem to imply, insofar as imparting truth goes, that perhaps your own emotional barriers were the greater problem in communicating?

I wouldn't say that wasn't a factor, but there's also the factor of trying to fit one's understanding into someone else's conceptual framework in order for them to get a handle on it. Their views of reality may not be very accommodating to your ideas or to new ideas whatsoever.

If it doesn't, you would somehow have to be equating the effort to communicate with the achievement of imparting truth. I can see how this could be the case, but I am curious as to how you think you can measure it. Does the yardstick have anything at all to do with anyone's feelings, or feelings in general?

If someone can take your idea and derive some consequences from it, enough to ask a sensible question about it, then that indicates that they understand it. If you were to express the view that life isn't held sacred by nature and then the person you're talking to asks you if that means that life is worthless and that we should kill ourselves, then that would be an example. If they're attempting to refute it, then they're thinking about it.

It takes a lot of work to be a good communicator. It's not something that comes to us effortlessly. Some people might have more talent for it than others, but they still work at it.

Absolutely, absolutely and absolutely. And, frankly, there is nothing that I love, admire, respect, more than a person who honestly wants to communicate with others and makes the effort to do so. You are, in my view, one such completely genuine person.

Thanks!

Communicating well is as effortless as one's understanding of others (and, therefore, necessarily by contrast, self). (A hard ask, of course.) If, for example, I am speaking with someone (and I know it will surprise you to hear this) and I think they're a complete idiot, then I am totally OK with being perfectly honest about it in general discussion. But, Matt, there are times when I think a person is a complete idiot and I don't just pipe up and say so. Why? Because, in the latter case, I either understand exactly why they are an idiot and, 1) deal with it accordingly, or 2) realise I haven't come to such an understanding of that person and end up not saying anything--thinking about it, instead.

The ability to communicate honestly is, of course, rudimentary to imparting truth, and one who achieves such a thing actually is communicating perfectly. But, communicating honestly and imparting truth are not necessarily the same thing. Thus, the journey.

I think there's the question of relevance, too. Many people are honest about their feelings, but feelings are rarely relevant to anything. Calling someone an idiot (just to take an example) is often nothing more than the equivalent of saying, "I'm frustrated with you" or something like that. I don't think talking about one's feelings makes someone an honest person, because it's kind of solipsistic in that feelings are kind of a feedback loop that's closed off from the rest of the world. They shut down the inquiry into causes (like of idiocy, for example).

"Sleepy time, when I lie..."

Did you hear that Rick Wright died? Sad.

Marigolds are very much in love
But he doesn't mind
Picking up his sister
He makes his way into the see-saw land
All the way she smiles
She goes up as he goes down
Down

Sits on a stick in the river
Laughter in his sleep
Sister's throwing stones
Hoping for a hit
He doesn't know
So then
She goes up while he goes down
Down

Another time, another day
A brother's way to leave
Another time, another day

She was selling plastic flowers on a Sunday afternoon
Picking up weeds
She hasn't got the time to care
All can see
He's not there
She grows up for another man
And he's down

Another time, another day
A brother's way to leave
Another time, another day
Another time, another day
A brother's way to leave

[Leyla Shen]

I wouldn't say that wasn't a factor, but there's also the factor of trying to fit one's understanding into someone else's conceptual framework in order for them to get a handle on it. Their views of reality may not be very accommodating to your ideas or to new ideas whatsoever.

If someone can take your idea and derive some consequences from it, enough to ask a sensible question about it, then that indicates that they understand it. If you were to express the view that life isn't held sacred by nature and then the person you're talking to asks you if that means that life is worthless and that we should kill ourselves, then that would be an example. If they're attempting to refute it, then they're thinking about it.

I think what I'm trying to say is that I'm a god-damned optimist... :) But, more seriously and directly, I personally have a great deal of trouble accepting that truth cannot be conveyed to anyone, by a wise man, of course. It must necessarily be so (otherwise, whence his wisdom) and where it fails it is the failing of the individual attempting to impart it as much as it is of the other with the mental block. Really, if you hit someone else's mental block, you've effectively hit one of your own.

I have some very personal experiences with that!

Thanks!

Pleasure.

I think there's the question of relevance, too. Many people are honest about their feelings, but feelings are rarely relevant to anything. Calling someone an idiot (just to take an example) is often nothing more than the equivalent of saying, "I'm frustrated with you" or something like that. I don't think talking about one's feelings makes someone an honest person, because it's kind of solipsistic in that feelings are kind of a feedback loop that's closed off from the rest of the world. They shut down the inquiry into causes (like of idiocy, for example).

I'll address this one later.

Did you hear that Rick Wright died? Sad.

Yes, unfortunately.

[Matt Gregory]

I wouldn't say that wasn't a factor, but there's also the factor of trying to fit one's understanding into someone else's conceptual framework in order for them to get a handle on it. Their views of reality may not be very accommodating to your ideas or to new ideas whatsoever.

If someone can take your idea and derive some consequences from it, enough to ask a sensible question about it, then that indicates that they understand it. If you were to express the view that life isn't held sacred by nature and then the person you're talking to asks you if that means that life is worthless and that we should kill ourselves, then that would be an example. If they're attempting to refute it, then they're thinking about it.

I think what I'm trying to say is that I'm a god-damned optimist... :) But, more seriously and directly, I personally have a great deal of trouble accepting that truth cannot be conveyed to anyone, by a wise man, of course. It must necessarily be so (otherwise, whence his wisdom) and where it fails it is the failing of the individual attempting to impart it as much as it is of the other with the mental block. Really, if you hit someone else's mental block, you've effectively hit one of your own.

I have some very personal experiences with that!

Yeah, I think that for any given ignoranimus, there is always an aspect of wisdom that is possible to convey to that person. But there are plenty of people who are in so much darkness that even the wisest sage would have to know more about them to get through than is really practical. Then again maybe sages know more than I think they do . . . or less.

Did you hear that Rick Wright died? Sad.

Yes, unfortunately.

Ah, I forgot how much music is on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGKM5u7RhsY

[brokenhead]

Well, I'm the one who thinks about what he does to try and learn from his mistakes and you're the one who doesn't, so make of it what you will. I may have little intellectual integrity but you have even less than I do! It's a way of life for you, apparently, like most people.

What a goof. Of course I think about what I do and try to learn from my mistakes. Your problem here is that you didn't make a mistake and you think you did! You said something kind to someone in passing that probably meant more to her than the ridiculous effort you are expending in mulling it over.

And what's this nonsense about intellectual integrity? You can't possibly judge how much I have, because you only know the thoughts I care to share here. Do you think constantly second-guessing yourself is a sign of intellectual integrity? Intellectual integrity is the readiness to overhaul your entire conceptual framework at a moment's notice if need be, if you are mistaken, to be a warrior.

Your comment to the waitress could not have harmed her in any imaginable way. To even entertain the idea is rather grandiose. Nor could it have harmed you. You have more compassion than you give yourself credit for, and as long as it doesn't wind you up in the poorhouse, don't stew about it. It's not like you gave her a thousand dollar tip or anything. You didn't, did you?

[sue hindmarsh]

Brokenhead wrote to Matt:

Your comment to the waitress could not have harmed her in any imaginable way.

You can’t know that for sure. That is just one possible outcome. There are many others.

The waitress’ need to convey her life story to Matt may well have been her last attempt at finding some sort of resolution to her suffering. His comment; that day heard by her as words of comfort and understanding, could well have kept the lid on her desire to inflict on others the same sort of suffering she endured day in and day out.

Alternatively, on another day, his comment may have been the last straw for her; coming as it did from Matt, a young man she saw as having what her son never got the chance to have – a future. “You just gotta have faith that God knows best”, Matt had said. People had probably been telling her the same thing from the day of her son’s death. And yet her suffering remained. Standing there whilst this young man sat eating and drinking and mumbling about things she may have felt he knew nothing about, she could well have cracked. And Matt may have had to pay for more than just his bill.

To even entertain the idea is rather grandiose.

The unconscious haven’t the means to consider their actions; the conscious have no alternative.

[sue hindmarsh]

Leyla wrote:

I personally have a great deal of trouble accepting that truth cannot be conveyed to anyone, by a wise man, of course. It must necessarily be so (otherwise, whence his wisdom) and where it fails it is the failing of the individual attempting to impart it as much as it is of the other with the mental block. Really, if you hit someone else's mental block, you've effectively hit one of your own.

Yes, I agree that people’s “mental blocks” are barriers to truth, but I can’t agree with your idea that failure to impart a truth is necessarily evidence of hitting a mental block of “your own”. Mental blocks are old established ignorant ways of thinking. And the greater number of mental blocks, the further you are away from truth. Often the case is that the truth you are speaking of hits one of these barricades and is repelled. The truth needs a gap to pass through, so one has to find ways into those gaps. But that can appear to be a Herculean struggle due to most people being so scared of losing what they have they’ve built fortification upon fortification around themselves. And you quickly discover that the height and density of those fortifications depend on the age of the person nestled within. Older people usually have strong fortifications, whereas younger people have weaker ones. This is only natural because younger people are naturally more open and curious, and thereby more open to a great many different ideas. They do have their fortresses, but being younger they haven’t had the time to build the monstrosities belonging to their elders. This means there will usually be gaps in their defences. And through those gaps go both truth and lies. And sometimes the truths go towards the dismantling of their fortress, and other times the lies are too strong, and the fortifications are made thicker. But whilst still young, the possibility remains for truth to completely unsettle the foundations of their fortress, and bring it crashing to the ground.

[Leyla Shen]

Matt:

If there’s no distinction between “honest communication” and a truth-imparting communication, why a specific argument for the virtue of the former? To me, honest communication necessarily implies that there is some emotional component to it, or some motive other than solely imparting truth. So, if you’re not really interested in imparting truth because you don’t like the idea of the affect it might have on you, in what way could that be considered more of an honest communication that expressing your feelings that the person is an idiot? How are the two different, or one more relevant that the other, in terms of truth?

[Leyla Shen]

...but I can’t agree with your idea that failure to impart a truth is necessarily evidence of hitting a mental block of “your own”.

Your position puts truth at the mercy of lies; that is, lies have more potential than truth itself. I think wisdom is precisely the ability to execute truth in such a way as it destroys lies. It's a simple, logical proposition. Of course, I don't know of anyone who has achieved that ability 100% of the time, yet--but what's that got to do with the nature of truth itself?

[Leyla Shen]

Then again maybe sages know more than I think they do . . . or less.

Heh. Exactly. :)

[Matt Gregory]

Matt:

If there’s no distinction between “honest communication” and a truth-imparting communication, why a specific argument for the virtue of the former?

There is a distinction, which would be the success of the communication, but we don't necessarily know how successful we are every time. We can just do our best.

To me, honest communication necessarily implies that there is some emotional component to it, or some motive other than solely imparting truth. So, if you’re not really interested in imparting truth because you don’t like the idea of the affect it might have on you, in what way could that be considered more of an honest communication that expressing your feelings that the person is an idiot? How are the two different, or one more relevant that the other, in terms of truth?

My position is that anything anyone does is dishonest to the degree that it is emotional because emotions aren't rooted in logic but in evolutionary traits. But if a person is getting emotional, which in the moment is unavoidable (you can't simply wish them away because they arise out of one's overall development), then there's truth in acknowledging that emotion, but that's more or less that person's private affair. Blaming the other person doesn't help. You want to clean your own house before mucking around in other people's.

--

All this talking finally brought to mind the topic I was actually looking to bring up when I started this thread: I think the standard of truth that we use has to take significance into account, otherwise our concept of truth becomes so cluttered with trivialities that it becomes bullshit itself. This idea reminds me of that Nietzsche quote:

Worst are they that have petty thoughts. Verily, it is better to act wickedly than to think pettily.

True, ye say: The pleasure of petty wickedness saveth us many a deed of great wickedness. But herein one should not be saving.

An evil deed is like an ulcer: it itcheth and pricketh and breaketh forth - it speaketh honestly.

"Behold, I am disease", saith the evil deed: therein is its honesty. But a petty thought is like a fungus: it creepeth and hideth and will not be found - until the whole body is rotten and withered with little fungi.

The fundamental issue that I want to raise is: Does it impinge on honesty to sacrifice little truths in order to communicate a bigger truth or vice versa? Understanding has to tackle things one aspect at a time, so as you're trying to grasp one thing, the parts you haven't got a handle on are going to be bullshit no matter what. I don't think there's anything wrong with acknowledging that this is the case and working with it.

[Matt Gregory]

Well, I'm the one who thinks about what he does to try and learn from his mistakes and you're the one who doesn't, so make of it what you will. I may have little intellectual integrity but you have even less than I do! It's a way of life for you, apparently, like most people.

What a goof. Of course I think about what I do and try to learn from my mistakes.

Like what for example?

Your problem here is that you didn't make a mistake and you think you did! You said something kind to someone in passing that probably meant more to her than the ridiculous effort you are expending in mulling it over.

What do you think is difficult about mulling things over? This is what I naturally do.

And what's this nonsense about intellectual integrity? You can't possibly judge how much I have, because you only know the thoughts I care to share here.

Because you openly reject the act of trying to understand something better. Are you saying that leads to more intellectual integrity?

Do you think constantly second-guessing yourself is a sign of intellectual integrity?

It's not second-guessing. It's taking a specific situation and using it to consider a general principle. And yes, considering the principles by which one lives leads to greater intellectual integrity.

Intellectual integrity is the readiness to overhaul your entire conceptual framework at a moment's notice if need be, if you are mistaken, to be a warrior.

Intellectual integrity is intellectual consistency.

Incidentally, the idea of overhauling one's entire conceptual framework at a moment's notice is romantic. It's like overhauling one's entire state of physical health at a moment's notice. It's that kind of task.

Your comment to the waitress could not have harmed her in any imaginable way. To even entertain the idea is rather grandiose. Nor could it have harmed you.

Like Sue said, you can't know that. Do you think that the waitress' daily yearning for her dead son is a good idea? Does it benefit anyone? I mean, every time I go in that restaurant, I hear her say something to someone about her son. But actually, he died a heroic death saving someone else's life, so I think a lot of her is about pride rather than just mourning.

You have more compassion than you give yourself credit for, and as long as it doesn't wind you up in the poorhouse, don't stew about it.

I'm not stewing about it, so don't worry. I'm not going to break out in acne or anything.

[sue hindmarsh]

Leyla wrote to Matt:

So, if you’re not really interested in imparting truth because you don’t like the idea of the affect it might have on you, in what way could that be considered more of an honest communication that expressing your feelings that the person is an idiot? How are the two different, or one more relevant that the other, in terms of truth?

The way I see Matt's situation is that he's a bloke who values truth and who naturally wants his life to reflect that fact. But what he experiences is that his reactions to and interactions with people and situations don't always reflect his values. And that can be very frustrating. But really, what can he or any of us expect when we are brought up to live in a world where lies and falsehoods are the only nourishment most of us are ever given. In this light, Matt's valuing of truth over lies and falsehoods is astounding! And even his reckoning here in these pages about the consequences of his actions is astonishing; especially when it is more than obvious that hardly a person on the planet ever questions their own mind about anything - let alone the consequences of their actions.

So yes, I do see a great relevancy to Matt's line of questing. He actually takes life seriously enough to take his own mind seriously.

[sue hindmarsh]

Brokenhead wrote to Matt:

You have more compassion than you give yourself credit for, and as long as it doesn't wind you up in the poorhouse, don't stew about it.

Violence thinly cloaked as generosity and friendship.

[brokenhead]

Brokenhead wrote to Matt:

You have more compassion than you give yourself credit for, and as long as it doesn't wind you up in the poorhouse, don't stew about it.

Violence thinly cloaked as generosity and friendship.

What are you on about?

Did one thing Matt said, either at the restaurant on in his posts about it here, suggest violence of any kind? He may be a violent person, but you wouldn't know it from what he says.

And does it sound as if he is trying to cloak anything, thinly or otherwise? I think he is actually going out of his way not to, to be as honest as possible. I simply feel his remark does not warrant excessive analysis.

Compassion requires neither generosity nor friendship, although they are certainly not incompatible with it. If Matt had felt generous and friendly at the time when he spoke to this waitress, he likely would not be posting about it. He is claiming neither generosity nor friendship as I see it, perhaps he is actually saying he felt neither thing, which would be a reason his words felt more like a lie to him.

Once again, Sue, your analysis misses the points about the topic at hand. You are nothing if not consistent.

[brokenhead]

Matt Gregory: I may have little intellectual integrity but you have even less than I do! It's a way of life for you, apparently, like most people.

brokenhead: What a goof. Of course I think about what I do and try to learn from my mistakes.

Matt: Like what for example?

Almost everything, to be honest. I have enough quiet time in my life at this stage to manage that. It's the only way I know how to discover which of my actions were mistakes in the first place. But I find you can learn as much from things that weren't mistakes but correct actions or words. Such actions tend to lose their beneficial effect by excessive dwelling, just as the mistakes lose their negative effects by going over them: they get turned into lessons by which one can improve oneself.

What do you think is difficult about mulling things over? This is what I naturally do.

It is what I naturally do as well. It takes effort. Look, people with OCD wash their hands fifty times a day. It is what they naturally do. Doesn't that take effort? Is the effort as wisely spent as it could be?

brokenhead: And what's this nonsense about intellectual integrity? You can't possibly judge how much I have, because you only know the thoughts I care to share here.

Matt: Because you openly reject the act of trying to understand something better. Are you saying that leads to more intellectual integrity?

No, I openly reject the act of trying to "understand" this thing better. I challenge you to find the theme "do not be contemplative" very often in my posts. Don't waste your time. You won't find it.

It's not second-guessing. It's taking a specific situation and using it to consider a general principle. And yes, considering the principles by which one lives leads to greater intellectual integrity.

As I see it, I am merely trying to be supportive of what I view as an admirable action on your part. (BTW, ignore Sue Hindmarsh. )

Intellectual integrity is intellectual consistency.

It can be. Unless you consistently reject intellectual integrity. There are plenty of people who have no integrity and who are quite aware of the fact. Such people assiduously avoid it, that is, they do so consistently, as they may find avoiding all self-reflection helps them get and stay ahead. It would be disingenuous to claim Hitler or Stalin had integrity merely because they were consistent in eradicating people they believed to be their enemies.

Incidentally, the idea of overhauling one's entire conceptual framework at a moment's notice is romantic. It's like overhauling one's entire state of physical health at a moment's notice. It's that kind of task.

It is anything but romantic, as anyone who has ever had an epiphany will tell you. I am being practical when I say integrity requires one to be like a warrior, not romantic, because it is that kind of task: overwhelming and seemingly impossible if you are not prepared.

You cannot overhaul your entire physical state in the same way as it does not respond immediately to your will. You can, with tremendous effort, overhaul your contributions to your physical state: You can stop overeating, stop drinking and smoking and doing drugs, start exercising, make all these changes at once with colossal effort. The next day, you will still be fat, hypertensive, out of shape with black lungs. It takes time for the actual "shape" of you body to improve. I know, because I have done all of these things, but always failed when I attempted them all at once (against medical advice, I should mention.) What I did do all at once, using the tools I obtained in rehab, was to set my mind unwaveringly to accomplish them one at a time no matter how long it took. It took about three years. The only thing that remains is for my body to fully repair my lungs, which I am told it will do if I live long enough.

brokenhead: Your comment to the waitress could not have harmed her in any imaginable way. To even entertain the idea is rather grandiose. Nor could it have harmed you.

Matt: Like Sue said, you can't know that. Do you think that the waitress' daily yearning for her dead son is a good idea? Does it benefit anyone? I mean, every time I go in that restaurant, I hear her say something to someone about her son. But actually, he died a heroic death saving someone else's life, so I think a lot of her is about pride rather than just mourning.

I told you, don't listen to Sue. She is a human tape loop.

Well, I am just going by the scenario you gave as I understood it to be. If she has been yearning for 19 years about the death of an adult son, she is probably no spring chicken. It may not benefit you or her other regulars, but can it be harmful? Annoying, yes, but if it were harmful, you would eat somewhere else. Memories may be all she has going for her beside Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune. Memories are all most of us have waiting for us at the end of the Long Day that is our life.

But you are right. Now that I have this bit of information that her son died a hero, she is clearly fishing for some emotional reinforcement. That is annoying. After all, she wasn't the hero, was she?

I am just saying, if it was compassion that led you to make the remark to her, it's not worth another second of your time. You clearly do not need adjustment. If it was to keep getting good service, then the next time you are in there and she brings up her dead hero, just say to her that it makes you uncomfortable to hear her mentioning him all the time when you are trying to eat. Then if the soup starts tasting funny, start eating somewhere else.

[Leyla Shen]

Understanding has to tackle things one aspect at a time, so as you're trying to grasp one thing, the parts you haven't got a handle on are going to be bullshit no matter what. I don't think there's anything wrong with acknowledging that this is the case and working with it.

The Nietzsche quote, paraphrased:

Worst are they that have petty thoughts. Verily, it is better to act wickedly than to think pettily.

It’s better to do the wrong thing from thinking truthfully than to censor one’s thinking for sake of not doing the wrong thing.

True, ye say: The pleasure of petty wickedness saveth us many a deed of great wickedness. But herein one should not be saving.

True, you say: the emotional gratification of petty wrongs is like a pressure valve for great evil, releasing egotistically measured doses of wickedness. But we should not be saving ourselves so, here.

An evil deed is like an ulcer: it itcheth and pricketh and breaketh forth - it speaketh honestly.

An evil deed speaks truth openly; lays itself bare to scrutiny by the unmistakable consequences of its existence.

"Behold, I am disease", saith the evil deed: [...]

Look! This is what I am! And this is my calamity!

[…] therein is its honesty.

But a petty thought is like a fungus: it creepeth and hideth and will not be found - until the whole body is rotten and withered with little fungi.

But, suppressed, it hides away from all consciousness, quietly spreading until all truthful thinking rots and there is nothing else but it.

~

[Leyla Shen]

Wow.

Truly, I wonder how many people understood that Sue was talking about you, brokenhead, not Matt--especially in light of her admiration for and doting over him in this very thread!

You can't be THAT blind, su-u-u-u-u-u-u-urely?!

No wonder you can't pick contradictions in your own thinking.

[brokenhead]

Wow.

Truly, I wonder how many people understood that Sue was talking about you, brokenhead, not Matt--especially in light of her admiration for and doting over him in this very thread!

You can't be THAT blind, su-u-u-u-u-u-u-urely?!

No wonder you can't pick contradictions in your own thinking.

What, me? Violent?

Yes, Leyla, cackle away in your nice cage. I can't pick contradictions in my own thinking for the same reason you have not been able to: there aren't any.

You are quite correct, I completely missed that Sue was referring to moi. That's because there isn't even a hint of violence in my own sweet self. But again, that's our Sue. Seeing things where they aren't, missing things where they are.

[Leyla Shen]

Seeing things where they aren't, missing things where they are.

Oh, you mean exactly like you just did?

~

(GO HAWKS!)

[brokenhead]

Seeing things where they aren't, missing things where they are.

Oh, you mean exactly like you just did?

~

(GO HAWKS!)

Duh, yeah.
Can't fool you.