Beware of those who speak in the second-person narrative.

Aphorism
reply to post by mikegrouchy

 

I've never read that thread and I don't understand your point. Care to explain the relevancy?

...or do you mean:

"You've never read that thread and you don't understand my point." ?

...see how that works...or doesn't??? Kind of like the examples listed on this thread.

This sounds like petty nitpicking.

By the very logic of this argument, we should then "Beware of those who speak": With accents, in poetry, with odd body language, with voices which have very deep baritone, or very high pitch, of those who slur their words because of medical conditions.

At is point we continue ad infinitum of those we need to "Beware of", to no end what so ever.

I see speaking in second-person narrative as a personal "choice and style," and frankly, there is much more relevant topics we should be discussing: How to end corruption, greed, fascism, war, disease, sexual immorality, division, etc

reply to post by dominicus

This sounds like petty nitpicking.

By the very logic of this argument, we should then "Beware of those who speak": With accents, in poetry, with odd body language, with voices which have very deep baritone, or very high pitch, of those who slur their words because of medical conditions.

I think it's quite petty to think that one can speak for another. It's not only petty, but irrational, authoritative, assumptive and simply wrong. If one is comfortable operating in this manner, then who am I to say?

Also, that is not the same logic. This seems to be a growing trend.

reply to post by Aphorism

Have you ever argued with someone and within a few moments they begin to narrate your life?

This is one of my shill spotting methods.

I rarely use the word "you" and opt for "person" or "one" when relaying observation. I will us the word "you" if there has been a meeting of the minds.

Second-person narrative sounds less manipulative when it includes qualifiers...any other method of use is a red flag, often signaling a superior tone. Authority figures use it to stamp the certification of thier own 'assumed' power...parents, teachers, principals, law enforcement, judges, doctors...it is similar to ad hominem in many ways...without the obvious insulting tone...

Psychologically 'getting into someone elses' shoes' (as reflection) can be a good thing, telling them what they think is a bridge too far...then, it is a game...

Å99

reply to post by Aphorism

I think it's quite petty to think that one can speak for another. It's not only petty, but irrational, authoritative, assumptive and simply wrong. If one is comfortable operating in this manner, then who am I to say? Also, that is not the same logic. This seems to be a growing trend.

If we are going to sit in room, brainstorm, think tank, about reality and what reality consists of, what are the world's and humanities problems and how can we solve them, you will never find a person in such a meeting, complaining about narrative.

Its just common sense. If you look around the world, the brightest, smartest, highest IQ's, humanitarians, philosophers, etc are not sitting around complaining about narrative. They are instead trying to figure out how to solve problems.

This is something that can be found in a book entitled, "Don't Sweat The Small Stuff."

I'm not speaking for you, but your annoyance with "narrative" is relative. Others are not annoyed by this and accept people as they are. (so Both PArties can't be right. It eaither is, or isn't annoying)

So in all honesty, who is the one that has it better in life, the one who accepts and is at peace, or the one who is annoyed and needs to warn?

reply to post by dominicus

If we are going to sit in room, brainstorm, think tank, about reality and what reality consists of, what are the world's and humanities problems and how can we solve them, you will never find a person in such a meeting, complaining about narrative.

Its just common sense. If you look around the world, the brightest, smartest, highest IQ's, humanitarians, philosophers, etc are not sitting around complaining about narrative. They are instead trying to figure out how to solve problems.

This is something that can be found in a book entitled, "Don't Sweat The Small Stuff."

I'm not speaking for you, but your annoyance with "narrative" is relative. Others are not annoyed by this and accept people as they are. (so Both PArties can't be right. It eaither is, or isn't annoying)

This thread isn't a complaint. It's a matter of pointing out absurdities. It's an observation. I am not annoyed; I am in great spirits. This is what assumptions such as these lead one to—always the wrong answer. No one knows my intent behind expressing my thoughts; no one knows my reasoning behind my thoughts; and no one is capable of discerning these unless I was to outright say so, which I haven't.

Truth is, I am not annoyed; I am not complaining; I accept people for who they are. The simple answer is no one has any clue as to to my intentions or frame of mind. So why do they pretend that they do?

The brightest people never seem to stoop to such a rhetorical technique unless they were artistically applying it to their literature.

So in all honesty, who is the one that has it better in life, the one who accepts and is at peace, or the one who is annoyed and needs to warn?

I'm not sure how narrating another's life brings peace. In fact, it is not in any way acceptance to speak for another. Someone who accepts another would also accept that they are able to speak for themselves.

reply to post by akushla99

Second-person narrative sounds less manipulative when it includes qualifiers...any other method of use is a red flag, often signaling a superior tone. Authority figures use it to stamp the certification of thier own 'assumed' power...parents, teachers, principals, law enforcement, judges, doctors...it is similar to ad hominem in many ways...without the obvious insulting tone...

Psychologically 'getting into someone elses' shoes' (as reflection) can be a good thing, telling them what they think is a bridge too far...then, it is a game...

I agree wholeheartedly.

Empathy is a valuable tool for understanding another's motives when compared to one's own.

But telling another what they think and how they feel is merely a projection of one's own thoughts and feelings, and not the one that they are dictating for. It is basically slander and libel.

reply to post by Aphorism

This thread isn't a complaint. It's a matter of pointing out absurdities.

Definition of absurd:

ab·surd (b-sûrd, -zûrd) adj. 1. Ridiculously incongruous or unreasonable. See Synonyms at foolish. 2. Of, relating to, or manifesting the view that there is no order or value in human life or in the universe. 3. Of or relating to absurdism or the absurd. n. The condition or state in which humans exist in a meaningless, irrational universe wherein people's lives have no purpose or meaning. Used chiefly

It's an observation.

Relative never the less right?

One has observed that is a rather clever way of formulating statements without self reference.

When Producer Rick Rubin was working with Johnny Cash, he told him to try and take all the "I's & Me's" out of his lyrics. That advice stayed with him for the rest of his life, applied to life and lyrics both. Cash enjoyed the challenge.

I am not annoyed; I am in great spirits. This is what assumptions such as these lead one to—always the wrong answer. No one knows my intent behind expressing my thoughts; no one knows my reasoning behind my thoughts; and no one is capable of discerning these unless I was to outright say so, which I haven't.

So the correct reasoning and motivation behind this thread is...................

Truth is, I am not annoyed; I am not complaining; I accept people for who they are. The simple answer is no one has any clue as to to my intentions or frame of mind. So why do they pretend that they do?

IF you know yourself completely, then you know the nature and operation of all of humanity to certain general degrees

I'm not sure how narrating another's life brings peace. In fact, it is not in any way acceptance to speak for another. Someone who accepts another would also accept that they are able to speak for themselves.

Sure enough. So tell me again why I should, "Beware of those who speak in second-person narrative,"? What is the exact threat/risk that I should beware of?

reply to post by Aphorism


I used to write a lot of articles for a spiritual communities forum. I always used pronouns in a logical manner...including liberal use of 'I'.

I was admonished by the "grand poobah to stop being so 'non-spiritual'...so self-centered... because 'truly' spiritual people knew to only write with 'we"
.because 'WE' are all one.

Eventually I was asked to leave because of my desire to be accurate and not 'spiritual'.

Also a common delusion in my opinion is that we should all be denying our egos existence...and thus 'proving' how ascended we are. In my opinion that is beyond deluded.. it's mentally unhealthy not to mention NOT how genuine spiritual growth works.

I'm generally the odd man out, because I won't suck up to anyone so that I might so-called fit in.

I don't like that royal we crap... but in most spiritual forums it seems to be expected?

Good post!

KPB

reply to post by Aphorism


honestly this should be in rant

Aphorism
reply to post by akushla99

 

Second-person narrative sounds less manipulative when it includes qualifiers...any other method of use is a red flag, often signaling a superior tone. Authority figures use it to stamp the certification of thier own 'assumed' power...parents, teachers, principals, law enforcement, judges, doctors...it is similar to ad hominem in many ways...without the obvious insulting tone...

Psychologically 'getting into someone elses' shoes' (as reflection) can be a good thing, telling them what they think is a bridge too far...then, it is a game...

I agree wholeheartedly.

Empathy is a valuable tool for understanding another's motives when compared to one's own.

But telling another what they think and how they feel is merely a projection of one's own thoughts and feelings, and not the one that they are dictating for. It is basically slander and libel.

*thumbs up*

'Projection' is fear masquerading as empathy...and some shoes don't fit..."And I never gave [you] permission to walk in my shoes"!

Å99

Why let it irritate you?

Maybe there's a lesson to learn there.

reply to post by Aphorism


One of these days young one, you will understand......

hknudzkknexnt
reply to post by Aphorism

 

honestly this should be in rant

Boom, hit the nail on the head!!!!

reply to post by Aphorism


yep - that is how most people argue [ attack / vent] in the real world as well as forums.

Just walk away.

Good OP BTW.

reply to post by hknudzkknexnt

Honestly this should be in rant

Honestly it isn't. Language is a philosophical topic.

reply to post by KellyPrettyBear


I agree with you friend. There seems to me an underlying current of a "holier than thou" attitude under this form of narrative. It's subtle, but I cannot help but notice it.

It continues in this very thread in a sort of abstract sense, when people are telling me I am irritated or annoyed or that I'm ranting. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rather than make a point or argument for or against mine, the modus operandi seems to slander him who speaks, rather than make a point of one's own.

reply to post by Aphorism


In this crazy 'spiritual game' that people want to play..
(and it's still 'spiritual', even for atheists.. as in this
case 'spiritual' really just means the human puzzle..
and that affects everyone).. it's so dog eat dog.

You might see, as I do, (you might! not saying you do)
that everyone feels a deep need to validate their
particular 'spiritual view', in order to justify their
lives.. and to solidify the vapor at the heart of the
human animal.

So everyone has to be right... and subtly.. or overtly..
they need to paint a picture of themselves at the top
of the food chain..

Even if someone follows one of the traditional systems,
still ... it's 'their special understanding of the same old
shieiss that has never worked for anyone.. that they
press on everyone else..

Just once I'd like someone to say, "hey dude! I think
you got something there! Hey! You know what? Lets
do a double blind study and see how your theory
performs! dude you rock!

You never hear that.

I could fill an entire forum with just my thoughts
that I've been pondering for almost 50 years.. and
guess what? I don't think that I want to.

Everyone is so focused on themselves, or in search
for some 'quick fix', that I'd be talking to myself.

As I already talk to myself and answer.. I might
as well save all the typing.

But this response isn't about me.. this response is
my agreeing with you.. and feeling a tingle of
response from you, that I responded to you without
being a dikhead. Of course i'm very capable of being
one of those.. and that you appreciated it.

So that makes me feel good.

Hang in there brother.

KPB

reply to post by Aphorism


Beware of the so called metaphysical leaders project Camelot, Icke. Wenber and Basiago theyre loons after your cash