You've simply stopped fighting against your flaws and in the process disconnected from the will to perfection. This is a contrived sense of wholeness, generated by apathy.vicdan wrote: I lack vulnerability because I lack internal conflict. I am whole.
Do you understand why you are mean, inconsiderate, rude and agressive? How do you explain these things? Do you enjoy these behaviours?vicdan wrote:I am not the one struggling with internal conflicts here. Yeah, i am mean and inconsiderate and rude and aggressive, and i don't hide it.
You do hide them from public view though.vicdan wrote:Yup. I lack vulnerability because i already know what my flaws are, and i don't hide them.
Another possible defence against this is to reinforce the self-deception until it's impenetrable.vicdan wrote:The way to get hurt is through having the protective veil of self-deception ripped off. The protection against that is lack of self-deception.
An apparent lack of internal conflict can come about through acceptance or denial of self-deception too. If you're convinced that you're not deceiving yourself then maybe you're not. It'd be nice if you would elaborate on what lies you overcame so that I could truly understand what you've accomplished, and maybe at the same time gain some more understanding of myself.vicdan wrote:That is why I lack vulnerability; yes, which state I deliberately sought. I lack vulnerability because I lack internal conflict. I am whole.
It's generated both by the fact that I recognize 'perfection' to be an illusion, and the fact that I am the sort of person I wanted to become. I never wanted to be perfect. I wanted to know. There is infinite room for further growth of course, as knowledge is always up for improvement, but I have no conflicts within myself.David Quinn wrote:You've simply stopped fighting against your flaws and in the process disconnected from the will to perfection. This is a contrived sense of wholeness, generated by apathy.
1) Yes.Jason wrote:Do you understand why you are mean, inconsiderate, rude and agressive? How do you explain these things? Do you enjoy these behaviours?
Mebbe there are some flaws which I hide from others. Mebbe not. You will never know, huh?You do hide them from public view though.
<shrug> Yup. And one can never know the difference between the two with certainty; one can only try their most honest best. That's life.Another possible defence against this is to reinforce the self-deception until it's impenetrable.
Then, inwardly, you are dead.vicdan wrote:It's generated both by the fact that I recognize 'perfection' to be an illusion, and the fact that I am the sort of person I wanted to become. I never wanted to be perfect. I wanted to know. There is infinite room for further growth of course, as knowledge is always up for improvement, but I have no conflicts within myself.David Quinn wrote:You've simply stopped fighting against your flaws and in the process disconnected from the will to perfection. This is a contrived sense of wholeness, generated by apathy.
They made a show about Victor. It's called House, and it's actually a pretty decent show. The main character, Dr. Gregory House, has pretty much the same philosophy Victor has, and as a result, everyone else thinks he is an ass.I am mean, inconsiderate, rude and agressive to those who deserve it (IMO). I generally give everyone at least one chance to show that they are serious about understanding whatever is the subject at hand. If they show themselves to be unwilling to understand it, i treat them the way I think such people ought to be treated.
Yeah, so is Dr. House. Except that, just like you, he thinks being a prick to "those who deserve it" is a virtue rather than a flaw.I am generally fairly open about my flaws though.
I saw it a couple of times. I like Dr. House. He is the sort of person I might be if I got accidentally but seriously fucked up. He is driven by the conflict with his pain, both emotional and physical. He is wounded. I am not.Unidian wrote:They made a show about Victor. It's called House, and it's actually a pretty decent show. The main character, Dr. Gregory House, has pretty much the same philosophy Victor has, and as a result, everyone else thinks he is an ass.I am mean, inconsiderate, rude and agressive to those who deserve it (IMO). I generally give everyone at least one chance to show that they are serious about understanding whatever is the subject at hand. If they show themselves to be unwilling to understand it, i treat them the way I think such people ought to be treated.
Ever watch House, Vic? Ring any bells for you?
I just openly discussed that flaw/virtue above. "Can't be open about it"? OK...Yeah, so is Dr. House. Except that, just like you, he thinks being a prick to "those who deserve it" is a virtue rather than a flaw.
You can't be open about the enormous flaws you see as virtues.
Oh, I am glad you asked.Unidian wrote:Let's see how it works out when you are old and dependent.
Not at all. I would very much prefer that you have a fulfilling, happy, long life which has a peaceful, content, and easy death. You, however, made different choices. Me pointing those out to you doesn't make it my fault. Your inability to make rational decisions, your cowardice and weakness and all-encompassing fear, aren't my fault either.Unidian wrote:You can sure hope so. Everyone knows you take great pleasure in your opponents suffering such outcomes
Stow your puerile indignation. You are the one who tried to slam me with this outcome. You were all atwitter over the idea of me, such an asshole, having a cold and lonely and bitter end. I simply turned it against you.while your superior self has the last laugh.
Do you think it's partly motivated by a desire to feel superior?vicdan wrote:1) Yes.Jason wrote:Do you understand why you are mean, inconsiderate, rude and agressive?
Why do you think that such people ought to be treated in this way?vicdan wrote:Jason wrote:How do you explain these things?
2) I am mean, inconsiderate, rude and agressive to those who deserve it (IMO). I generally give everyone at least one chance to show that they are serious about understanding whatever is the subject at hand. If they show themselves to be unwilling to understand it, i treat them the way I think such people ought to be treated.
Do you get sadistic enjoyment from it?vicdan wrote:3) Yes.Jason wrote:Do you enjoy these behaviours?
Well I already know that you're hiding your "ugly" "web of lies" past. That's obviously a vulnerability.vicdan wrote:Mebbe there are some flaws which I hide from others. Mebbe not. You will never know, huh?Jason wrote:You do hide them from public view though.
Prove it: tell me some of your flaws.vicdan wrote:I am generally fairly open about my flaws though.
Not really. It's past. It would be a vulnerability if it were present; then I would fear someone figuring it out. As it is, if you figure it out, more power to you. It's not hard.Jason wrote:Well I already know that you're hiding your "ugly" "web of lies" past. That's obviously a vulnerability.
'Prove it'?' [LOL] Try double-dog-daring me, that might work better.Jason wrote:Prove it: tell me some of your flaws.
Actually, no. It's odd, because my response to this is pretty much the same as your response to me. I wish you could reform your asshole ways, but you prefer to make a different choice. It's unfortunate, because you could be a huge asset to the world instead of just a huge ass. But hey, that's your call to make. Your egotism and all-encompassing need for superiority take precedence.Stow your puerile indignation. You are the one who tried to slam me with this outcome. You were all atwitter over the idea of me, such an asshole, having a cold and lonely and bitter end.
The egotistical part of me enjoyed it, sure. There's a lot of satisfaction in the idea of someone's admitted assholery being repaid in a just manner. You know that, since you think of my views and values as a form of assholery, and you obviously took some pleasure in responding to my doomsday predictions for you in a similar manner.Did that fantasy give you a woody?
On the contrary. In general, I find your assessments and predictions fairly accurate. You see, I believe the age-old spiritual teaching that "many who are last are first." I don't share the view that one can be a "winner" in this world and have anything of value spiritually. I'm sure you would disagree, but that's fine. I'm pleased with my progress in that area, and I know that, at least for me, it is associated with difficult conditions in the conventional world. I'm not claiming to be a monk, but there is a reason monks do take vows of poverty, for example.You are too pathetic to be able to take your own medicine.
That would be love, knowledge, ego, and fulfillment, in that order. You seem to have a deep obsession with painting anyone who isn't a total loser like you as being a materialistic money-grubber. I suppose it makes you feel better about your own loser nature -- it's not your lack of money, not at all; it's your complete inability to actually control your own life. You let the world toss you about, and pretend that this is what you wanted all along. All your spin about spirituality and materialism is just a flimsy facade for the fact that you lack the will to make your life, and yourself, what you wish to be.Unidian wrote:Enjoy your money, status, fulfillment, ego, or whatever you've chosen for yourself.
Says you. There's not a snowball's chance in hell I'm going to convince you otherwise, so believe what you want. It's what all conventional people believe anyway - that any values different from their own are borne of jealousy and "sour grapes."All your spin about spirituality and materialism is just a flimsy facade for the fact that you lack the will to make your life, and yourself, what you wish to be.
Incorrect, oh socially Darwinistic one. You only think so because as a social Darwinist, your key defining characteristic is a need for self-percieved "strength." Like all social Darwinists, you love yourself for it, but that's your problem. The rest of humanity has to learn to tolerate your moral and spiritual bankruptcy just like we are forced tolerate neo-Nazis.Your key defining characteristic, dude, is weakness. You know it, and you loathe yourself for it.
They wouldn't know what to do without each other. Welcome to board, Dave. A different voice in this dynamic would be welcome.Sensei Dave San wrote:Hi...
I'm new to this board. I've had a little look around... looks good.
Unidian and Vicdan seem to get along, fine!
This situation is not exactly dynamic. Perhaps you meant "a different voice in this static"?Dan Rowden wrote:A different voice in this dynamic would be welcome.
You're obviously lying. Just a few posts back this is what you said in response to me asking you to elaborate upon your past:vicdan wrote:Not really. It's past. It would be a vulnerability if it were present; then I would fear someone figuring it out.Jason wrote:Well I already know that you're hiding your "ugly" "web of lies" past. That's obviously a vulnerability.
That's certainly not what someone would say if they weren't significantly worried about people finding out the details of their past. It's most definitely a pointer to a real current vulnerability, and also shows that you do hide your flaws - even merely long gone past flaws.Jason: Why don't you care to discuss them?
Vicdan: Because they are ugly, and I don't have any adequate reason for revealing them that would outweigh that.
That looks very much like an attempt to wrap up your desire to hide your past flaws in a neat packaging of superiority. It's "not hard" to work them out, you claim, so if I can't work them out then I'm an idiot, whilst simultaneously giving you a further excuse not to reveal them.vicdan wrote:As it is, if you figure it out, more power to you. It's not hard.
Yeah try to laugh it off, try to sidestep it.vicdan wrote:'Prove it'?' [LOL] Try double-dog-daring me, that might work better.Jason wrote:Prove it: tell me some of your flaws.vicdan wrote:I am generally fairly open about my flaws though.
<shrug> Whatever you need to believe, dude.Jason wrote:That's certainly not what someone would say if they weren't significantly worried about people finding out the details of their past. It's most definitely a pointer to a real current vulnerability, and also shows that you do hide your flaws - even merely long gone past flaws.
if that's how you choose to see it, sure. The way I meant it, however, was that my delusions were not very different from anyone else's. I wasn't deceiving myself in a uniquely complicated way. If you understand how people commonly lie to themselves, you can fairly easily figure out how I was lying to myself.That looks very much like an attempt to wrap up your desire to hide your past flaws in a neat packaging of superiority. It's "not hard" to work them out, you claim, so if I can't work them out then I'm an idiot, whilst simultaneously giving you a further excuse not to reveal them.
You try too hard, dude. :)What kind of moron would claim that it's "not hard" for an almost complete stranger to figure out their long gone past flaws anyway? An irrationally defensive moron perhaps? What you've said there is so empty of anything resembling cogent thought that it beggars belief - I've heard more convincing defensive lies from five year olds.
I mentioned a number of them already -- aggression, arrogance, etc. On a whim, I also mentioned some of the 'ancient past' ones in the last few years. If you talk to Unidian, he might possibly give you some more info, he's known me longer than anyone else here.I knew you'd find it very difficult to admit any flaws, it clashes with some of your fundamental and habitual modes of operation.
You forgot to double-dog-dare me. I think a few more dares might just do the trick. Either that, or you could ask me nicely.So, the challenge continues, can you manage to admit and expose some substantial flaws in yourself?
