On-line personality

[thedoc]

When gaming was just starting, I was put off the idea. I bought a hobby shop in 1984 and one of the products included was D&D materials. After a few months I decided to discontinue the line and sold off what was left. Some time after that a young man came into the shop looking for D&D materials and I had to tell him that i had discontinued the product line. He then went to leave the store. The entrance to the store was a double door and I had only unlocked one of them, the other was still bolted. When he went to leave he pushed on the door that was still bolted and when it didn't move he jumped back as if he had been shocked, looked at the doors as if it might be a trap, and then pushed on the other door and when it opened, he left. My interpretation was that he was so into the characters and the game, that the fantasy world was taking over his perception of the real world. At that point I was glad that I had not gotten into the gaming world, even though I believed that I could keep the fantasy world and the real world separated, it seemed that some could not.

[Dalek Prime]

Doc, I recall finding a book that was based on die roll decision making. It was a lot of fun, but when I put the book down, I noticed I was still thinking in terms of the decision making process of the book, and what the consequences of my actions would be. It wasn't a problem, but it was noted. Of course, it only lasted a short period of time as well.

[Philosophy Explorer]

I see the name "Walker"

and think, "Oh great, more convoluted blabbing of madness and nonsense masquerading as if it were some kind of unique wisdom."

I skip over the post without reading further

and that makes me smile.

I yam what I yam and that's all that I yam.

You must be Popeye the Sailor Man

PhilX

[sthitapragya]

I can't even imagine pretending to be someone I'm not.

And I'm thankful for that, Lacewing, you're lovely just the way you are. Reading the posts so far it seems that everyone is claiming to be more or less themselves on-line, but then they would say that, wouldn't they? I'm sure in most cases it's true, albeit that some of us maybe present a slightly exaggerated version of our normal selves.
As our presence here is represented solely as text on a screen and is our only source of information about each other, would it be fair to say that we are just a group of interacting minds? Maybe what we are in our own physical world is irrelevant as far as what we do here is concerned, but then our minds are shaped by our experience in that world so maybe not, I don't know. It can all get very metaphysical if you spend much time thinking about it.

What I was trying to point out was that what we try to present and what the other person perceives are two different things. I might want to present an image of a very mature, lovable, generous and knowledgeable man but one argument with someone will display to everyone reading who I truly am. Sooner or later I will lose it. And the real me will come out. It is inevitable.

[Lacewing]

In response to Harbal...

And I'm thankful for that, Lacewing, you're lovely just the way you are.

I feel the love!

As our presence here is represented solely as text on a screen and is our only source of information about each other, would it be fair to say that we are just a group of interacting minds?

That's an interesting concept. As you pointed out, details about people are not part of these interactions -- it doesn't matter who/what someone says or thinks they are -- such things are not a distraction or influence here -- it only matters what someone is communicating. So everybody can be equal in that way, and be seen for what flows under their surface.

I think about how any of us are probably capable of "energetically being" all sorts of things -- ranging from calm and balanced to a raging maniac -- depending on all sorts of factors and choices. And, as I've said before, I notice how a lot of times it feels like I'm talking to other parts/potentials of myself on this site. When I see behavior or ideas that seem "crazy" or ego-bound to me, I want to confront that... in myself or another. This platform is like a canvas, on which I can creatively use all kinds of "brush strokes" and colorful intensity in my reasoning and challenges. And if I am only displaying my own madness, that's okay... as I trust someone will find it informative and/or entertaining to witness (just as I do). Watching ourselves and each other is a way towards refinement and expansion (I think), as long as we're not all about the stagnancy of our own egos and identification.

In response to sthitapragya...

What I was trying to point out was that what we try to present and what the other person perceives are two different things.

True! And the perceptions (of how we are received) vary from person to person. Someone that sounds like a wingnut to one person, might sound sensible to another. Or something that sounds sharp and serious, might be hilarious from another perspective.

I might want to present an image of a very mature, lovable, generous and knowledgeable man...

And if that's what you've aimed for, you've done a good job!

but one argument with someone will display to everyone reading who I truly am. Sooner or later I will lose it. And the real me will come out.

But isn't ALL OF IT the real you? Just different facets? I like seeing that range in people. I like seeing and exploring that range in myself! Single characterizations can seem fake and suspicious. Why NOT show our many creative sides when it seems appropriate to do so? Why not admit to being ignorant as well as brilliant -- or vicious as well as gentle? Sometimes we are mature and sensible and well-mannered, and sometimes we are not. It's very entertaining and informative to watch (I think) in ourselves and others when it is expressed naturally and honestly. It's like embracing who we are... and I think that takes an ability to laugh... a lot! We really are hilarious. Why would it be so serious? How can ANY OF THIS be so serious?

[Walker]

What I was trying to point out was that what we try to present and what the other person perceives are two different things. I might want to present an image of a very mature, lovable, generous and knowledgeable man but one argument with someone will display to everyone reading who I truly am. Sooner or later I will lose it. And the real me will come out. It is inevitable.

I notice your deal is to insult people, get a reaction, then call the reaction ego-attachment.
That's like baiting the bear and bitching when you get bitten.

If this method is unmindful then you should know it is immature and rather dishonest.

If it is a mindful tactic, it shows contempt for people.

Spiritual practices that correlate with ahimsa show ways to be used by energy, to be harmless, and to witness the present moment where reality exists without attachment or judgement.

Have you seen the movie based on the work of T.E. Lawrence? There is a scene in which his movie character surrenders to high energy he habitually associated with rage, is then used by this energy during which time he does witness how he is being used, however he does cause harm. This is because of two reasons. He carries weapons and the totality of the situation, which includes his existence, surrenders his mind to killing.

Killing, the extreme form of No, is sometimes followed by a more extreme form of killing. Killing the memory, pulling down statues, changing the public record.

Energy channeled through Lawrence-the-live-wire according to the necessity of the situation, which was war.

When the intent is Yes, high energy is channeled differently.

[Lacewing]

I notice your deal is to insult people, get a reaction, then call the reaction ego-attachment.

I relate to much of what sthitapragya challenges people with. I appreciate his direct and appropriately relentless approach. It appears to me that he wants people to question themselves and their thinking (which is good for all of us to do, rather than stroking and protecting our egos). I'm sure that he questions himself just as thoroughly... and I think that's why I relate to it. I'm not sure we can question others in such a way if we haven't questioned ourselves.

Whereas, your approach, Walker, seems (to me) to be making judgments about people, and telling people how it is (as you've just done with sthitapragya). I don't relate to that because I don't think you (or anyone) KNOWS to that level of detail. I see it as posturing. You're not respectfully asking questions to challenge thinking. You seem to be assuming that what you think is reality for all... and some of us are going to think that is absurd.

[Walker]

Why not admit to being ignorant...

Indeed. I think that admitting your ignorance has already increased your awareness and softened your tone somewhat.

Change is sudden but behavior often lags, like finding land-legs or sea-legs ... so perhaps a picture of passive/aggressiveness kissing its komfort zone goodbye is on the horizon.

[Walker]

I notice your deal is to insult people, get a reaction, then call the reaction ego-attachment.

I relate to much of what sthitapragya challenges people with. I appreciate his direct and appropriately relentless approach. It appears to me that he wants people to question themselves and their thinking (which is good for all of us to do, rather than stroking and protecting our egos). I'm sure that he questions himself just as thoroughly... and I think that's why I relate to it. I'm not sure we can question others in such a way if we haven't questioned ourselves.

Whereas, your approach, Walker, seems (to me) to be making judgments about people, and telling people how it is (as you've just done with sthitapragya). I don't relate to that because I don't think you (or anyone) KNOWS to that level of detail. I see it as posturing. You're not respectfully asking questions to challenge thinking. You seem to be assuming that what you think is reality for all... and some of us are going to think that is absurd.

You're free to rationally challenge anything. And if it's a ridiculous challenge according to my assessment, or enough bias is loaded into the question according to my assessment, or if I think you're just being a little p****, feel free to be ignored or addressed, according to my assessment.

If you're honest about it, my tone of knowing and confidence is what really pisses you off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bQnxlHZsjY

And before suggesting corrections for behavior, consider that I or anyone else knows exactly what we're doing.

Then the only question is, what are you going to do, to make the world a better place? Can you receive what you do not like with graciousness and be the change you want to see?

[Lacewing]

If you're honest about it, my tone of knowing and confidence is what really pisses you off.

You don't seem to know that you don't know. That kind of ignorance and arrogance is tiresome. You seem thoroughly impressed with yourself... so at least you have one fan.

[Walker]

And before suggesting corrections for behavior, consider that I or anyone else knows exactly what we're doing.

Then the only question is, what are you going to do, to make the world a better place? Can you receive what you do not like with graciousness and be the change you want to see?

Your only reaction is to say No. What's that called again?

[Walker]

If you're honest about it, my tone of knowing and confidence is what really pisses you off.

You don't seem to know that you don't know. That kind of ignorance and arrogance is tiresome. You seem thoroughly impressed with yourself... so at least you have one fan.

I know exactly what I'm doing.

I'm surrendering to Yes.

I have to.



What are you doing?

[Lacewing]

consider that I or anyone else knows exactly what we're doing.

Do you consider that others know exactly what they are doing?

Do you read and abide by your own words for others? Or do you see yourself in a position of knowing... and others in a position of fault?

Your only reaction is to say No.

Where are you coming up with this?

[Walker]

consider that I or anyone else knows exactly what we're doing.

Do you consider that others know exactly what they are doing?

Do you read and abide by your own words for others? Or do you see yourself in a position of knowing... and others in a position of fault?

Where are you coming up with this?[/quote]
The answer the to first yes. The other questions are too loaded to bother “unpacking.” Just take my word for it.

I know things that other people don’t know, and I can see the errors when people talk about those things.

Whatever I do know emerges in the context of the writing.

I could get specific about what I know. This is not the time or the place.

[Walker]

Where are you coming up with this?

You know what? I'm going to take the time. I'm going to assume you are not being a jerk. Hang-on, I'll explain. It likely will be tedious and boring.