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

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)

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?

Like I have said, contrary to the OP, I find it annoying sometimes. The reason is that I find it an obstacle to communication. The Brightest IQ'sn humanitarians, philosophers, etc., while trying to figure out how to solve problems, do not spend time dictating to each other what the other one has going on inside their mind. -Each one speaks for their own mind! I come from a family of philosophers, and all their collegues and friends are philosophers, and I have met some highly esteemed minds and listened to their debates around the dinner table..... even when they are shrinks as well, they let each person speak for themselves.

(and here I make distinction between speaking of someone elses actions and words, and their internal thoughts, feelings, and motivations.)

I have found that while we try to exchange information or views, having someone repeatedly counter my expression of what I feel or think stops up all further exchange. You feel this- no, I feel that. No, you feel this... NO I feel THAT.... you feel this, just admit it... NO, that is NOT what I feel..

The deal seems to be- either you accept my version of who you are inside, or no further exchange will happen here. I will dictate who you are, what you feel and what you think, you will agree to adopt it and change whatever I tell you to change inside. No solutions to any problems outside will get solved until you have agreed to accept and become whatever character they are wanting to interact with.

(I don't want to try analyzing the motivations for doing this, there are probably many different types of motivations)

This is where a difference could be made between dealing with exterior problems or questions, and being "spiritual".... when you're being "spiritual" you are delving into your inner world and interacting with internal characters and objects- NOT the material and physical objective reality, which has separate individuals and objects. Things and others that are "not I".

I don't think it is "bad" to spend time in these sorts of transference and projective exchanges, people can work out personal stuff that way.... but it seems more effective if we can recognize when we are doing that and make a distinction between getting together to help each other solve our internal questions and problems, or the external ones.

reply to post by Aphorism


i think the real problem is almost everyone * except for a small percentage* is full of themselves.

If anyone has learned anything from this site, Seek knowledge elsewhere.

Critics or not. Above top secret is not above anyone else. And neither are its members.

On your way to hades and never coming back, whats the point in arguing with that?
This would be the last place i would come to spread my knowledge of aliens as i have learned.

I get better results on a one by one basis rather than arguing with neck beards and old people in forign countries.

I didn't say a you're but i really don't care about narating your life, i do it well enough without saying anything lol.

Pleiadians suck, Shapeshifting black aliens are better.

reply to post by AnuTyr

AnuTyr
reply to post by Aphorism

 

Pleiadians suck, Shapeshifting black aliens are better.

Where the heck is that from??

Is it modern or antiquity?

reply to post by AbleEndangered


en.wikipedia.org...

Apep (/ˈæˌpɛp/ or /ˈɑːˌpɛp/) or Apophis (/ˈæpəfɨs/; Ancient Greek: Άποφις; also spelled Apepi or Aapep) was an evil god in ancient Egyptian religion depicted as a snake/serpent and a dragon, the deification of darkness and chaos (ı͗zft in Egyptian), and thus opponent of light and Ma'at (order/truth), whose existence was believed from the 8th Dynasty (mentioned at Moalla) onwards. His name is reconstructed by Egyptologists as *ʻAʼpāpī, as it was written pp(y) and survived in later Coptic as Aphōph.[1]

Ra was the solar deity, bringer of light, and thus the upholder of Ma'at. Apep was viewed as the greatest enemy of Ra, and thus was given the title Enemy of Ra.

As the personification of all that was evil, Apep was seen as a giant snake/serpent, or occasionally as a dragon in later years, leading to such titles as Serpent from the Nile and Evil Lizard. Some elaborations even said that he stretched 16 yards in length and had a head made of flint. It is to be noted that already on a Naqada I (ca. 4000 BC) C-ware bowl (now in Cairo) a snake was painted on the inside rim combined with other desert and aquatic animals as a possible enemy of a deity, possibly a solar deity, who is invisibly hunting in a big rowing vessel.[3]

Also, comparable hostile snakes as enemies of the sun god existed under other names (in the Pyramid Texts and Coffin Texts) already before the name Apep occurred. The etymology of his name (ꜥꜣpp) is perhaps to be sought in some west-semitic language where a word root ꜣpp meaning 'to slither' existed. A verb root ꜥꜣpp does at any rate not exist elsewhere in Ancient Egyptian. (It is not to be confused with the verb ꜥpı͗/ꜥpp: 'to fly across the sky, to travel') Apep's name much later came to be falsely connected etymologically in Egyptian with a different root meaning (he who was) spat out; the Romans referred to Apep by this translation of his name. Apophis was a large golden snake known to be miles long. He was so large that he attempted to swallow the sun every day.

Set eventually became thought of as the god of evil, and gradually took on all the characteristics of Apep. Consequently, Apep's identity was eventually entirely subsumed by that of Set.[4]

Battles with Ra

Tales of Apep's battles against Ra were elaborated during the New Kingdom.[6] Since nearly everyone can see that the sun is not attacked by a giant snake during the day, every day, storytellers said that Apep must lie just below the horizon. This appropriately made him a part of the underworld. In some stories Apep waited for Ra in a western mountain called Bakhu, where the sun set, and in others Apep lurked just before dawn, in the Tenth region of the Night. The wide range of Apep's possible location gained him the title >World Encircler

reply to post by AnuTyr


Yeah, I have seen a lot of "Serpent" stories.

The Shapeshifting cat lines up with this story:

news.discovery.com/history/religion/shape-shifting-jesus-described-in-ancient-text-130313.htm
news.discovery.com...

www.livescience.com/27840-shape-shifting-jesus-ancient-text.html
www.livescience.com...

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2293301/Shape-shifting-Jesus-spent-supper-Pontius-Pilate-claims-just-deciphered-1-200-year-old-Egyptian-manusc ript.html
www.dailymail.co.uk... -manuscript.html

Cat Rabbit looking creature drawn all over the manuscript.

I haven't come across Apep or the story of Ra's shapeshifting daughter. Thats so cool!

It reminds me of the Dominion, and Odo from Star Trek Deep Space Nine.

The tree, the snake, the Hieroglyphics are all amazing.

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Apep_2.jpg
upload.wikimedia.org...

We really through this guys thread for a loop, I hope he is ok with it...



I've researched both those videos.

The flying pencil conveniently exits perfectly perpendicular to the viewer, no cloak engaged. Those large pillar craft look like Thick clouds during the day. Not necessarily buried in cloud.

I was crazy about the ISS Cigar UFO, some are saying they found a source video that matches it, and it may. My enthusiasm levels dropped when I seen it. It was clever, the way the cigar was slightly bent in front like it was warping space. There was a small give away in the CGI composite surrounding the stationery object as it passes by.



Cool thread OP, it drew me in, and that papyrus of the snake, cat and tree caught my interest.

I feel the technique of Narration can work if the Narrator finds a fair neutrality.

Like the Narrator placed himself in the other debaters shoes.

Aphorism

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

Where does the fear lie?

Who is frightened of what?

reply to post by Itisnowagain

Where does the fear lie?

Who is frightened of what?

It's only a catchy title meant to draw people in.

When I started posting on ATS I was probably in the category of people described by the OP, but only in the sense that I was using "you" where I should have used "one".

Doing so leads to a lot of confusion in discussions. That's what led me to start being careful to use "one" as an impersonal pronoun that couldn't be taken personally by the one I was addressing.

reply to post by DaRAGE


One problem with the whole "you" and "your" assentation is that in colloquial American English, "you" has replaced "one" or "a person" in reference to a general third party.

"One had better be careful walking at night," has been replaced with "You'd better be careful walking at night" as a general warning to no one in particular, for example.

reply to post by Aphorism


Good thread. All the people that talk like this need go back to the basics. It is condescending. It means they should be the ones listening taking notes and keeping their mouth shut. What do you think about them saying, "we," instead of "you?"

reply to post by Aphorism

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.

Slander and libel? Not over the kind of quotes in your OP or other kinds of statements like what you’re talking about here. ‘One’ should consult a lawyer.

As for “second-person narrative”, literary tools or devices are not ‘rules’ and they are certainly not ‘laws’. Literary devices are for writing literature. We are not writing literature on ATS. People speak in casual and informal discussions.

We have to learn how to let go of the opinions of others that we don’t agree with. If someone says “I think you blah, blah, blah”, then that’s their opinion and people give their opinions in open discussions. If it’s right, it’s right. If it’s wrong, then it’s wrong. Accept it or deny it. But to say that if someone says “you” then their opinion can’t be right, or that it means they are automatically being condescending or superior would not be correct. People speak out of their own personal authority. Whether or not you take that as some kind of authority over you is your choice.

If you think that people can’t see through you when you’re talking to them or reading what you write, you would be wrong. Sometimes people project, but sometimes they can be right.

Aphorism
reply to post by hknudzkknexnt

 

Honestly this should be in rant

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

This is a rant. The use of pronouns is not a philosophical topic.

Aphorism
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Where does the fear lie?

Who is frightened of what?

It's only a catchy title meant to draw people in.

The “Beware” in the title of this thread is for those who are easily offended or feel threatened by the opinions of others.

reply to post by Aphorism


What the Op is describing is not second person narrative. It is simply personal criticism.

What the OP seems to want is second person narrative.

I would guess any criticism in previous posts was probably well earned.

reply to post by hellnotes


Did I touch a sore spot?

You're angry. You'll get over it.

Aphorism
reply to post by hellnotes

 

You're angry. You'll get over it.

Are you telling someone what they are?

Aphorism
These aren't simple observations; these are wild guesses and stabs in the dark. How reckless with the truth can we be?

Notice how instead of speaking about their own insights, what has happened to them in their own case and how they deal with it, they speak from an angle of authority, attempting to bully one’s thoughts by looking down at a condescending height and telling it like it is—or at the very most, how they think it is.

But as soon as they open their mouths and attempt to speak for me, they utter nothing but lies, for it is only themselves they can speak for, and it is only themselves they can live through.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

Are you telling someone what they are?

Obviously.

irony 1 |ˈīrənē, ˈiərnē|
noun ( pl. ironies )
the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect: “Don't go overboard with the gratitude,” he rejoined with heavy irony.
• a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result: [ with clause ] : the irony is that I thought he could help me.
• (also dramatic or tragic irony )a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character's words or actions are clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.
ORIGIN early 16th cent. (also denoting Socratic irony): via Latin from Greek eirōneia ‘simulated ignorance,’ from eirōn ‘dissembler.’

reply to post by Aphorism

The name has changed but the character remains.
Maybe 'Ironic' would have been a better choice.

reply to post by Aphorism

Or 'Disingenuous'?

dis·in·gen·u·ous

/ˌdisinˈjenyo͞oəs/


Adjective


Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.


Synonyms


insincere - false - devious - hollow-hearted

reply to post by Aphorism


Pot kettle black.

As generally understood, the person accusing (the "pot") is understood to share some quality with the target of their accusation (the "kettle"). The pot is mocking the kettle for a little soot when the pot itself is thoroughly covered in the same. An alternative interpretation, recognised by some,[1][2] but not all,[3] sources is that the pot is sooty (being placed on a fire), while the kettle is clean and shiny (being placed on coals only), and hence when the pot accuses the kettle of being black, it is the pot’s own sooty reflection that it sees: the pot accuses the kettle of a fault that only the pot has, rather than one that they share.

en.wikipedia.org...