Fascinating. I’m not having any luck yet – but parts are coming back as I search. I remember being surprised at the argument taking place at all. He had a minor quibble – it may have been universal vs particular? [that is coming to mind as I type] – perhaps a philosopher from around that time — Yes, this is along those lines. It’s possible I’d referenced Wikipedia not as an authority but as a conceptual placeholder for the conversation — a marker of what I was referring to. But he took it as a reference and started hammering me about invalidity of Wikipedia. I started defending its pragmatic use and pointed out references that were in it and tried to move back to the topic pointed to in the Wikipedia post. But it started devolving. It was like he was looking for a confession of some kind – and what I gave him was even worse because I was so cavalier about it, not a hint of shame or remorse in the expression of my methodology. === The thing is: in this case, my friend’s passion was based upon his misunderstanding. You sent It was as if he was taken over by another force out of his hands, steering him to crash — I realized afterwards he suddenly believed I was lying to him and that I had been lying to him our whole time as online friends. He may have believed I was like him. University graduate, well read in teh classics, and instead I’m a fraud , an imposter, a pretender and he could not abide that. =-=- I have disappointed university educated people before. One of my idols, —, who I agree with 80% of the way on his ideas, once commented excitedly about something I was writing, hoping I had a paper or something in the works. But no, I did not and his response was slight disappointment. But we’re still online friends and he still comments on my posts occasionally, which is nice. === ah. Yes, it’s commonly used in business communications as an illustration of departments. Basically, one department does not communicate with another department, even with a proper hierarchy in place. Corporate structure is based upon university structure, which is older, dating back to the scholasticism era — Confused. I don’t expect these kinds of reactions from adults most of the time. Then I stopped and thought : what could have happened? I knew how I was thinking: so what might have he thought that could justify in his mind an action such as blocking me? I gave it a couple of minutes of thought, concluded. I believe I wrote a couple of sentences about being sad to have lost an online friend over a misunderstanding but I understood that from his perspective it was necessary for him to remain in his kind of chaste: I was a contaminant. And I accepted that as a reasonable possibility. — Not necessarily pejorative. But rather a fact. You can be discussing an idea academically but if it is with someone who has a political view of the subject, they may have opinions that are informed by their chosen politics. — I suppose it could be generalized to ideology, which could then include religion and politics as well. —- when I was a child, pre-internet, I can remember testing out ideas on people. I’d think “This is not my idea. This is [so-and-so’s] idea. But I wonder how [this person] will react if I say it as if it was my idea?” and so I would do that sometimes and gauge people’s reactions. Sometimes it didn’t go very well but it was always interesting. == Everybody knew my name but I never knew theirs. ==== well, it is sobering to realize that for a majority of the planet, we’re not even just a number. we simply do not exist. === Conspiracy people are lucky in a way. They believe they are important; they have secret knowledge. They are vital and they matter because the systems at play have them in mind. —–

Fascinating. I’m not having any luck yet – but parts are coming back as I search.

I remember being surprised at the argument taking place at all.

He had a minor quibble – it may have been universal vs particular? [that is coming to mind as I type] – perhaps a philosopher from around that time —
Yes, this is along those lines. It’s possible I’d referenced Wikipedia not as an authority but as a conceptual placeholder for the conversation — a marker of what I was referring to. But he took it as a reference and started hammering me about invalidity of Wikipedia. I started defending its pragmatic use and pointed out references that were in it and tried to move back to the topic pointed to in the Wikipedia post.

But it started devolving. It was like he was looking for a confession of some kind – and what I gave him was even worse because I was so cavalier about it, not a hint of shame or remorse in the expression of my methodology.

===
The thing is: in this case, my friend’s passion was based upon his misunderstanding.
You sent
It was as if he was taken over by another force out of his hands, steering him to crash

I realized afterwards he suddenly believed I was lying to him and that I had been lying to him our whole time as online friends.

He may have believed I was like him. University graduate, well read in teh classics, and instead I’m a fraud , an imposter, a pretender and he could not abide that.
=-=-
I have disappointed university educated people before. One of my idols, —, who I agree with 80% of the way on his ideas, once commented excitedly about something I was writing, hoping I had a paper or something in the works.

But no, I did not and his response was slight disappointment.

But we’re still online friends and he still comments on my posts occasionally, which is nice.
===

ah. Yes, it’s commonly used in business communications as an illustration of departments. Basically, one department does not communicate with another department, even with a proper hierarchy in place.
Corporate structure is based upon university structure, which is older, dating back to the scholasticism era

Confused. I don’t expect these kinds of reactions from adults most of the time. Then I stopped and thought : what could have happened? I knew how I was thinking: so what might have he thought that could justify in his mind an action such as blocking me?

I gave it a couple of minutes of thought, concluded. I believe I wrote a couple of sentences about being sad to have lost an online friend over a misunderstanding but I understood that from his perspective it was necessary for him to remain in his kind of chaste: I was a contaminant.

And I accepted that as a reasonable possibility.

Not necessarily pejorative. But rather a fact. You can be discussing an idea academically but if it is with someone who has a political view of the subject, they may have opinions that are informed by their chosen politics.

I suppose it could be generalized to ideology, which could then include religion and politics as well.

—-
when I was a child, pre-internet, I can remember testing out ideas on people.

I’d think “This is not my idea. This is [so-and-so’s] idea. But I wonder how [this person] will react if I say it as if it was my idea?”

and so I would do that sometimes and gauge people’s reactions. Sometimes it didn’t go very well but it was always interesting.
==
Everybody knew my name but I never knew theirs.
====
well, it is sobering to realize that for a majority of the planet, we’re not even just a number. we simply do not exist.
===
Conspiracy people are lucky in a way. They believe they are important; they have secret knowledge. They are vital and they matter because the systems at play have them in mind.

—–

I’m ok with that. Every story has its interpretation. For me, it was a story of a misunderstanding born of a premature decoupling of a relationship. but it is also possible to tease apart what you believe is likely the cause of the decoupling.

=-==

I read the decoupling as caused by me being some kind of contaminant to his ideals.

——

ah yes. Opinions expressed from secondary source materials are invalid.

===

 

A serious scholar will use any research materials available. You can start with Wikipedia, go to the references, and start following that way. The entry point should not matter so long as you start digging in .
 I don’t know what the qualities of a “serious scholar” would be. I research very deeply into topics. I’ve read thousands of papers on various things. You should see my Mendeley – and there’s more NOT in there than is in there. So what is serious?
===
 Well, I spent many years having all the answers for everybody else. But one day I realized I was being ingenuous : I did not know myself. How can I proclaim to know what is correct for most or all humanity if I don’t know the very person I am? But to do so, I needed to be able to know in their language. I know who I am intuitively but the orthodox language of academic is diverse and complicated so I had to learn a lot.
====
My interest in myself is because of my interest in other people.
People are not separate from one another when there’s communication. Maybe this relates to your notion of ideas having an existence

—-

What roadblocks do you encounter that you wish were not there?
You sent
It’s possible they come standard with the human model package
You sent
Most of mine turned out to be standardI’ve learned that I’m what’s called a “hard physicalist”, so I will tend to see a physical origin for things – or believe there is a physical origin. This does not mean simple or identifiable. There are complex hierarchies, short-circuits, messy squirting chemicals, — life is messy. — and yet I also have a “vivid inner life” and am ultimately an idealist, head in the clouds, puzzling things out.
===
Or we can return to orthodox vs unorthodox — that was the central concept and I shifted over – as I tend to
 ————-
I like the flow of conversation – the back and forth. The minor misunderstandings, the resolutions. I find it musical. I sense music in most things.
but i can’t always predict what their instruments will play. I’ll think I know their part and suddenly they surprise me
  ====
oh no no, it’s scholarly but it’s field research while also something I would do anyhow. Oh, there’s actually a branch of academia that mirrors it — eth-something
===
Well, yes. He was invested in an aesthetic – a style. I did not match his style even if we could easily have discussed compatible concepts regardless of preferred style.
===
  So to me it was equivalent to being kicked out of a store for wearing the wrong colored shoes even though I had money to buy what was in the store and there was no sign posted “do not wear those shoes”
  ====
Yes. That’s right. I often see things in terms of subcultures. And whatever my subculture clashed with his.
————————-
 I hesitate to say orthodoxy because this was exactly the one and only time I ever had that kind of reaction.

It’s something he valued highly, enough to breech friendship
—-
 I’ve learned that this is precisely where my cognitive flaw is. I even know what part of the brain it happens in: The ventral striatum is where dopamine regulates value judgement of a “good/better” kind whereas the dorsal striatum uses dopamine to judge “good or bad”. So the ventral straitum is used for learning incrementally – bit by bit, getting a little better each time, or noticing intensity differences. You see, Until you brought me here the long way, I did not see the connection completely between our discussion yesterday where you mentioned sources and that of the friend who blocked me — even though I told the story at the appropriate time. That ventral striatum apparently does not work very well in ADHD and in some other related conditions. So, for example, I won’t always sense danger: when a situation is escalating for example. But I’m fine with “good situation / bad situation” judgements.
—-
 Oh I’m not asking you to put or not put things into your story. Most stories have background materials that never make it into the story itself. They act as negative space does in art. You don’t see it even though it’s hiding there.
===
Oh yes I find that interplay fascinating. It happens in many dimensions simultaneously. Have you ever seen two people have what looks like a perfectly rational discussion but neither one really understood what the other was talking about?
1
===
It does seem to be, yes. I bring things back to communication a lot because for me it’s a central concept: the basic notions of filters on both ends, changing the very concepts being expressed. It fascinates me.
==
There’s so very many ways to get it wrong and so few ways to get it right and sometimes, there is no way to get it right.
 —–
Validation is tricky in humans. I understand how it works in communications: most of it relies on the handshaking protocols. If you get the handshaking protocols right and establish the communication parameters for that sessions and have robust error correction on both sides, it’s possible to have clear multi-directional communication
—-
 Someone who is popular may have a one way broadcast and all the listeners have to do is know the popular person’s handshaking protocol to “tap into it”. If they agree with the communication parameters, then there’s clear communication. But one way communication is relatively simple.
—-

Attachments

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


9 − = seven

Leave a Reply