BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Temple >

Can you stop it just by not believing in it?

  
  

Page: 12(3)

 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:22 / 18.04.05
I think it's a tribute to the bloke in The Adventure Game who talked backwards.
 
 
Seth
12:56 / 18.04.05
Quantum: Yes It's Desirable To Avoid Distress.

Is distress a synonym for "hurt" and "pain" for you?
 
 
---
13:30 / 18.04.05
More importantly, what does everything after the word "department" there actually mean?

That's just what I was thinking.
 
 
Unconditional Love
16:49 / 18.04.05
mean?
 
 
Quantum
17:15 / 18.04.05
Seth- yes, hurt/pain/distress pretty much synonyms to me.
Netaungrot you mentalist, you are conforming to a common stereotype that has occurred here before (and many other places I suspect). Huge ego, overinflated idea of own intelligence, defensive at the drop of a hat. (I should know, we can smell our own.)

I was hoping you were deliberately antagonising people to exemplify the nature of magickal attack (to wrench the thread back on topic) but it appears not. Suspending disbelief, switching between reality tunnels, any kind of paradigm manipulation is dependent on a strong metaparadigm- wouldn't you agree?

And if that metaparadigm includes a belief in the reality of magic, how can you switch that off? Isn't there a danger of infinite regress to meta-meta-metaparadigms and such nonsense? Are you implying that you have a fundamental ability to *decide* what to believe independent of your own beliefs/meta-beliefs etc? How did you achieve this marvellous power?
 
 
· N · E · T ·
01:26 / 22.04.05
Suspending disbelief, switching between reality tunnels, any kind of paradigm manipulation is dependent on a strong metaparadigm- wouldn't you agree?

And if that metaparadigm includes a belief in the reality of magic, how can you switch that off? Isn't there a danger of infinite regress to meta-meta-metaparadigms and such nonsense? Are you implying that you have a fundamental ability to *decide* what to believe independent of your own beliefs/meta-beliefs etc? How did you achieve this marvellous power?

Sure, dependent on a strong metaparadigm. . . You seem to conflate the metaparadigm for the paradigms it operates upon. My metaparadigm acts like a gearshift for programs such as magick, transcendentalism, nonsense, spiritualism, mysticism, logick, etcetera, and so on ad infinitum.

Yes, the parlous infinite meta regress killed my mother, thanks for bringing it up you filthy bastard. PLATO! You gonna die fo dis!

I maintain the fundamental ability to *decide* what to believe expands with practice. A marvellous human power laying dormant among most due to the prevelance of demotivating inhibitory memes among others.
 
 
trouser the trouserian
03:53 / 22.04.05
Are you talking about "paradigms" in the sense that Kuhn uses the term or just channeling Dilbert's pointy-headed boss?
 
 
· N · E · T ·
16:17 / 22.04.05
A little bit of both and neither, trouse.
 
 
Seth
16:49 / 22.04.05
Quantum - yes, hurt/pain/distress pretty much synonyms to me.

The reason I ask is because I’m increasingly of the opinion that there’s some pain, hurt and distress that it’s totally appropriate to feel. Of course, the overall idea is to live a full and rich life while minimising one’s exposure to hurt, but…

…are we talking short and long term, here? I mean, learning to discipline myself when growing out of bad old habits can hurt. In that instance I’d welcome pain in the short term for what I’d get out of it long term.

…is it inappropriate to feel guilt when I’ve unnecessarily hurt someone I love? Or even someone I don’t feel love for? Is it wrong to feel bad when you realise you’ve done something that you think is bad?

…is it alright to avoid pain when something horribly unexpected happens, like a bereavement? Some people emotionally lock down and carry it with them for years because they want to avoid the pain at the time.

…is it necessarily wrong to take a hit, feel like shit, accept it and roll with it, knowing that you’re designed to heal and that you’ll bounce back pretty quick?

Life can occasionally be pretty fucking difficult, and sometimes our automatic defences and coping strategies make it more so. While it’s true that life can generally be a lot easier and happier than a lot of people make it (by making good decisions, planning ahead, not opening yourself to unnecessary risk and using a few change techniques from time to time), I reckon it’s also true that there’s a legitimate amount of pain that it’s ok to feel.

In a way all pain is ok to feel, because the best way to deal with emotions is to accept them and allow them to blow through you, knowing that something else will soon come to take its place. Probably the worst thing you can do is to instantly attempt to take control of them, repress them or try to magic them away just because they make you feel bad.

I’m aware this point of view may be unfashionable. Especially if you’re in a lot of pain, in which case I hope you make things as good in your life as you can. If it helps, I realised a lot of this when I was hurting badly. It seemed to help considerably, and I think I bounced back with a better handle on myself than I’d have had if I’d gone for the faster options.

Relevance to the thread? If you change your attitude to pain then you change your attitude to attack and defence, in that you might choose not to defend yourself. How might that change the situation?
 
 
Seth
14:46 / 28.04.05
I've thought about this a little, and have decided to bump this because I'm genuinely interested in people's answers to that last question of mine. Hopefully everyone will be nice to each other...
 
 
electric monk
15:33 / 28.04.05
Having a lot of trouble formulating a coherent response, so I'm just going to run with this thought and see where I get.

I remember learning in grade school science that there was a purpose behind physical pain. If one puts one's hand on a hot stove burner, one feels pain and does damage to the body. The point of the pain is to teach one to avoid situations and actions where one could easily get hurt. If one didn't have this self-preservation mechanism, one would do untold damage to the body and probably die off in short order. So, pain and learning are interconnected at some point in our continuum of experience. Think of the pain that accompanies some rites of elightenment (hanging from hooks, crucifixion of Norse gods to procure the runes, demons/angels tearing apart and reassembling the body, the Hanged Man of the Tarot). Think, too, of the fear that exists in one in those moments.

Probably the worst thing you can do is to instantly attempt to take control of them, repress them or try to magic them away just because they make you feel bad.

Too right. And perhaps an effective reaction to attack? Crazy Jane's experience in the Tearoom of Despair comes to mind, but then I'm an unrepentant fanboy with too much graphic fiction in the closet.

"That's okay. I kind of like it here."
 
 
· N · E · T ·
16:48 / 28.04.05
In a way all pain is ok to feel, because the best way to deal with emotions is to accept them and allow them to blow through you, knowing that something else will soon come to take its place. Probably the worst thing you can do is to instantly attempt to take control of them, repress them or try to magic them away just because they make you feel bad.

In general, this follows my philosophy on pain too. For the majority of circumstances, this advice holds true. But perhaps you've gotten too general. All pain? What about people who suffer from fibromyalgia, multiple sclerosis, or cancer related pain? Many debilitating pains refuse to "blow through you" and deserve rapid assuagement.
 
 
Unconditional Love
17:11 / 28.04.05
pain is a very intresting physical feeling, emotion and mental consequence, you have to remember that when invoking pain you invoke pleasure, evoke if you like depending on your preference.

i enjoy having my legs stretched in kung fu, because of the pain,i feel far more alive from the pain, especially if somebody else is pushing the leg causing the pain, yesterday we were stick fighting, me and a young lady, and there was a particular movement involving smashing the stick down on the inside of the elbow joint, i was a little vigourous, she complained, but then it was tit for tat as we were practicing, each inflicting pain on each other. " did i get you back" "yes" , notice how much children relish in causing pain til they are told it is wrong? it isnt. pain in some contexts is very enjoyable and stimulates as in fighting and sex, in other contexts it could be considered highly undesirable, but pain is an ongoing reality of living, as are disease and death, to deny them and not grow accustomed to them, or to seperate pain from pleasure is a fools way as far as i am concerned its the unacceptence of all of experience, trying to dislocate certain parts of life to make it more desirable, very much a control freaks games.

the devil will have his due.
 
 
Seth
22:15 / 28.04.05
Netaungrot: Yup, that's what I was going for. I was only referring to emotional pain.

And yeah, I was being too general. There comes a time when you can be wallowing in it, past the point of legitimate hurt. That's the best time to get up, dust yourself down and start moving again.

The question remains: how might a different attitude to pain change the way you respond to how you perceive an attack? And then how might that different response change the situation?

wolven angels of clay may be onto something interesting...
 
 
· N · E · T ·
00:03 / 29.04.05
how might a different attitude to pain change the way you respond to how you perceive an attack? And then how might that different response change the situation?

Given the complexity of any given human situation, even a small change in one's response may produce a quite drastic change in the situation. In deed. . .

Though I would posit a cautionary bit of psychological research - the congruency of behavior to attitude has a direct correlation to the specificity of the said attitude.
 
 
Seth
09:41 / 29.04.05
Though I would posit a cautionary bit of psychological research - the congruency of behavior to attitude has a direct correlation to the specificity of the said attitude.

Tell me more. I'm interested in how you'd go about doing that research, and whether you'd be up for nailing this down to a few hypothetical examples.
 
 
· N · E · T ·
17:07 / 29.04.05
Unfortunately I cannot claim credit for the research. Here are some places to find it though:

Armitage, C. J., & Connor, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471-499.

Six, B., & Eckes, T. (1996). Metaanalysen in der Einstellungs- Verhaltens- Forschung. Zeitschrift fur Sozialpsychologie, pp. 7-17

Wallace, D. S., Paulson, R. M., Lord, C. G., & Bond, C. F., Jr. (2004). Which behaviors do attitudes predict? Meta-analyzing the effects of social pressure and perceived difficulty. Unpublished manuscript, Fayetteville State University.

Also, I imagine the information is available in many up to date social psychology and psychology textbooks.

One example might involve an attitude towards recycling. According to more than 700 studies and a quarter million participants (see above sources), a person with an attitude toward recycling would indeed predict participation in recycling, but general attitudes toward environmental issues would not.
 
 
Chiropteran
17:34 / 29.04.05
If I'm following this correctly, then a more topical example might be the more general "not all pain is bad" versus the more specific "the Great Spirit is giving me this pain as a gift, to force me to prove my spiritual strength in the face of adversity." The person who believes the latter should, hypothetically, be more likely to directly engage with their pain or its immediate source in an active, dynamic way (as opposed to passively "suffering"). Is that pretty much it?
 
 
Seth
10:54 / 01.05.05
Yup, someone who doesn’t reject all pain out of hand is more likely to accept their emotions and learn from any situation they’re presented with. That’s healthy, IMHO.

What I’m wondering about is how your actions interact with the systems of which you’re a part…

Let’s say you have two people interacting. One of them chooses to attack, to insult or ask aggressive questions. The second person can choose to respond in a number of ways. They could attack back. They could take the defensive. They could roll with the punch, not react, and respond with what they want to respond with.

Each choice is likely to affect a different response in the person who chose to attack.

Now let’s make it more ambiguous. Again two people, but one of them perceives they are being attacked: the person they perceive to be attacking may or may not be. What choices might the person have then?

I’m interested in how our observation of the situation effects what is taking place. The instant in which we perceive the situation to be about attack and defence is the instant the situation is polarised, limiting options. That’s why the “you’re just being defensive” response can be so effective – it limits the options of the other person, because a huge range of their valid responses can be dismissed. It usually says more about the person labelling as defensive than it does about the person they’d like to appear to be describing.

What happens if you begin to use other criteria for describing the situation? “Attack” instantly connotes a set of actions and reactions that “interacting” might not. Your response will change the situation between you and the other person, and jumping to shout attack might not necessarily produce the best result for you or anyone else.

See also Vadrice’ post to the first page of the thread…
 
  

Page: 12(3)

 
  
Add Your Reply