Could you possibly rest at ease with me, that you've made yourself clear, and that your continual reminders of your "feelings" or lack thereof serve no purpose other than to embarrass me. I'm certain it's not intentional. It's just that I'm quite sensitive, and I hate to regret being vulnerable or...heartfelt.
My mind is not open, in the sense of the song posted, to developing a "holding hands" kind of relationship. I know you didn't say or suggest that directly, but I felt the need to clarify and remove the ambiguity inherent in both my post and your response to it.
I'm sorry if I keep coming back to the topic, but I want to be clear and that I won't be renewing my once more flirtatious demeanor. And I'm not at ease with you. I'm concerned about you. I'd like to be able to return to the way we used to banter back and forth, but that may take me a while.
Anyways, the reason I posted this thread was a play on the Shroedinger's Cat paradox of existence... that something "exists" or is currently believed to exist under the tenets of "science" ONLY if it is externally "observed".
And this is, IMO, the great "weakness" of science and the scientific method". And this "weakness" is also inherent in the philosophy of "existentialism" and its' self-limitting "phenomenological" methods. These methods may both "miss" things "unobserved" and/or "unfelt" AND miss things "hiding in plain sight", which is the topic of the post "previous" to this on "Blending in".
...and just in case you're wondering where all this is headed (philosophically speaking), after dabbling in the works of Camus, Heidegger and Sartre, I'm rather taken by the work of Wyndham Lewis.
I'm concerned because NG e-mailed me recently and told me that you had accused her of being me... much as you had previously accused nicrap of being me. She was concerned and wondering "why" you might have done that. I told her that my multiple identities have made you both distrusting of me and somewhat paranoid. It is something I deeply regret and wish I could reverse.
...and in case you're wondering, no, NG and I have no communications "back-channels" and do not talk about you or anyone else. I think I've only corresponded with her 3-4 times "off the record" (her blog), and that primarily to obtain her Nietzsche paper and provide feedback.
And I hope you don't take all this as a reason to feel "embarrassed". Friends worry about their friends. They want them to feel "at ease" and not "embarrassed" because frankly, there's nothing to be embarrassed about.
Being distrustful is one thing, but as the oracle at Delphi says, "nothing to excess".
You don't think it hurts me deeply to know how distrustful I've made you feel towards both myself and others? So much so that you lash out at them?
I'm truly sorry for having hurt you. But if you need to take it out on someone, please, take it out on me. I'll be here. You won't need to go in search of me anywhere else.
I spoke up for myself, what I thought. I will always do that.
If you disappear in anger or to "punish" me for things like this, so be it. It's how I am.
You have said many contradicting things regarding other avatars...things which lead me to believe that you are using those avatars to impersonate other people in your attempt to better understand them (I guess). Whatever. It's none of my business why you do it.
To do things a bit differently, of course. My approach to blogging has always been structured so as to best position myself to be able to combat left-wing trolls, not "blog" about things that interest me. In this scheme, my blogs represent "ground" to be sacrificed in a troll war... both "bait" and territory to be razed. The same goes for my avatars and sock puppets.
Old habits are hard to break... when the Left is "in" power (as they are now), they're far less aggressive and destructive. But this "lull" in the culture war isn't going to last forever. When the Republicans take back the House in November, the trolls are going to come flying out of Move-On.org and KOS-land with a mission to disrupt and destroy the right-wing blogosphere.
Well, it's always good to learn from one another. I've been quite flip about blogging in certain aspects when I probably should have been more serious. But that's the great thing about mistakes! They help to makes us who we are today...hopefully for the better. :-)
My eyes are wide open.
ReplyDeleteAre yours?
My eyes may be, but my mind most certainly is not.
ReplyDeleteYou mind is not open in what way?
ReplyDeleteI hate to assume.
However, I'd like to ask a favor.
Could you possibly rest at ease with me, that you've made yourself clear, and that your continual reminders of your "feelings" or lack thereof serve no purpose other than to embarrass me. I'm certain it's not intentional. It's just that I'm quite sensitive, and I hate to regret being vulnerable or...heartfelt.
Anyway, enough said.
Friend to friend. Nothing contentious.
My mind is not open, in the sense of the song posted, to developing a "holding hands" kind of relationship. I know you didn't say or suggest that directly, but I felt the need to clarify and remove the ambiguity inherent in both my post and your response to it.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry if I keep coming back to the topic, but I want to be clear and that I won't be renewing my once more flirtatious demeanor. And I'm not at ease with you. I'm concerned about you. I'd like to be able to return to the way we used to banter back and forth, but that may take me a while.
And I'll try not to embarrass you any more.
Anyways, the reason I posted this thread was a play on the Shroedinger's Cat paradox of existence... that something "exists" or is currently believed to exist under the tenets of "science" ONLY if it is externally "observed".
ReplyDeleteAnd this is, IMO, the great "weakness" of science and the scientific method". And this "weakness" is also inherent in the philosophy of "existentialism" and its' self-limitting "phenomenological" methods. These methods may both "miss" things "unobserved" and/or "unfelt" AND miss things "hiding in plain sight", which is the topic of the post "previous" to this on "Blending in".
...and just in case you're wondering where all this is headed (philosophically speaking), after dabbling in the works of Camus, Heidegger and Sartre, I'm rather taken by the work of Wyndham Lewis.
ReplyDeleteWhy are you concerned about me?
ReplyDeleteWhat do you suppose is the matter?
I'm concerned because NG e-mailed me recently and told me that you had accused her of being me... much as you had previously accused nicrap of being me. She was concerned and wondering "why" you might have done that. I told her that my multiple identities have made you both distrusting of me and somewhat paranoid. It is something I deeply regret and wish I could reverse.
ReplyDelete...and in case you're wondering, no, NG and I have no communications "back-channels" and do not talk about you or anyone else. I think I've only corresponded with her 3-4 times "off the record" (her blog), and that primarily to obtain her Nietzsche paper and provide feedback.
ReplyDeleteAnd I hope you don't take all this as a reason to feel "embarrassed". Friends worry about their friends. They want them to feel "at ease" and not "embarrassed" because frankly, there's nothing to be embarrassed about.
ReplyDeleteI simply don't know what to say anymore.
ReplyDeleteI'm overcome with thoughts and feelings, too much to say and I don't even want to feel it all.
ReplyDeleteSomeone once told me not to trust anyone on-line. Unfortunately, heartbreakingly, I took that advice, and I can't seem to shake it.
Being distrustful is one thing, but as the oracle at Delphi says, "nothing to excess".
ReplyDeleteYou don't think it hurts me deeply to know how distrustful I've made you feel towards both myself and others? So much so that you lash out at them?
I'm truly sorry for having hurt you. But if you need to take it out on someone, please, take it out on me. I'll be here. You won't need to go in search of me anywhere else.
I didn't lash out.
ReplyDeleteI spoke up for myself, what I thought. I will always do that.
If you disappear in anger or to "punish" me for things like this, so be it. It's how I am.
You have said many contradicting things regarding other avatars...things which lead me to believe that you are using those avatars to impersonate other people in your attempt to better understand them (I guess). Whatever. It's none of my business why you do it.
Ever just wish you could just START FROM SCRATCH?
All the time. Especially now.
ReplyDeleteFor the purpose to avoid these pains (me) altogether, or to do things differently?
ReplyDeleteTo do things a bit differently, of course. My approach to blogging has always been structured so as to best position myself to be able to combat left-wing trolls, not "blog" about things that interest me. In this scheme, my blogs represent "ground" to be sacrificed in a troll war... both "bait" and territory to be razed. The same goes for my avatars and sock puppets.
ReplyDeleteOld habits are hard to break... when the Left is "in" power (as they are now), they're far less aggressive and destructive. But this "lull" in the culture war isn't going to last forever. When the Republicans take back the House in November, the trolls are going to come flying out of Move-On.org and KOS-land with a mission to disrupt and destroy the right-wing blogosphere.
Well, it's always good to learn from one another. I've been quite flip about blogging in certain aspects when I probably should have been more serious. But that's the great thing about mistakes! They help to makes us who we are today...hopefully for the better. :-)
ReplyDeleteIndeed.
ReplyDelete