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

reply to post by BDBinc


It sounds a bit like a double standard... if some one does not respect "your sovereignty"(I'm unclear what that means, in relation to posting on a public forum) you don't respect their sovereignty. If you come to a forum expecting anything, you'll most likely leave it disappointed... because the assumption everyone is or should be playing by the same rules is ideological not actual.

Clearing up what you mean by personal sovereignty might clear up, a lot of communication conflicts. I enter a forum with no expectation of content, read what is stated relate and add based on my experience... if it happens to differ from another's point of view, that's spectacular because both sides if they listen and comprehend have an opportunity to reach a common ground. Often times communication will break down, when one side has heard all they have felt they needed to on the subject to make a judgement... this is a danger to avoid in my opinion, reserving judgement indefinitely opens oneself to a much greater level of understanding than stagnation and holding a rigid point of view does.

Sorry for an earlier misapprehension of your words, I am just not familiar with some of the concepts you state.

BigBrotherDarkness
reply to post by BDBinc

 

It sounds a bit like a double standard... if some one does not respect "your sovereignty"(I'm unclear what that means, in relation to posting on a public forum) you don't respect their sovereignty. If you come to a forum expecting anything, you'll most likely leave it disappointed... because the assumption everyone is or should be playing by the same rules is ideological not actual.

Clearing up what you mean by personal sovereignty might clear up, a lot of communication conflicts. I enter a forum with no expectation of content, read what is stated relate and add based on my experience... if it happens to differ from another's point of view, that's spectacular because both sides if they listen and comprehend have an opportunity to reach a common ground. Often times communication will break down, when one side has heard all they have felt they needed to on the subject to make a judgement... this is a danger to avoid in my opinion, reserving judgement indefinitely opens oneself to a much greater level of understanding than stagnation and holding a rigid point of view does.

Sorry for an earlier misapprehension of your words, I am just not familiar with some of the concepts you state.

The concept of this poster's conditional respect I must acknowledge their sovereignty (Sovereignty: supremacy in power).

I didn't and don't ask for sovereignty so I'm not seeing a double standard .
Acknowledging sovereignty is not a requirement/condition needed for me to respect, as I said only ATS moderators should be expecting to have sovereignty under terms and conditions of content.
What judgement is in my not acknowledging their sovereignty(which is needed for their respect)?
If I know the world may be a better place if we respect without conditions ... is that now " a judgment"?

BigBrotherDarkness
reply to post by BDBinc

 

It sounds a bit like a double standard... if some one does not respect "your sovereignty"(I'm unclear what that means, in relation to posting on a public forum) you don't respect their sovereignty. If you come to a forum expecting anything, you'll most likely leave it disappointed... because the assumption everyone is or should be playing by the same rules is ideological not actual.

These were my words, taken out of context- a thread in which I had already spent pages explaining that I did not appreciate this other person "correcting" my expressions of what I feel inside, think, or believe.
He/she repeatedly told me that I believe/think/feel things that were far from the truth, and even when I politely said no, you are mistaken, that is not what I experience", they insisted they knew more about me than I do. (I do not know this person in real life and this was our first interaction on a message board).

So, my individual soveriegnty (or self ownership) is what I was refering to- respecting that I have the right and capability to speak for myself and probably know more about my internal subjective experiences than another does. I personally feel we should all be respected in that way.

I told him/her I would prefer that we each not dictate to each other what the other feel and believes, but that rather, we each speak of our own thoughts, feelings, and beliefs. Obviously they did not share my preference for that, so I agreed to come over to their preference and do the same- to dictate to them who they are and what they feel and think.

When they expressed objection to that, I simply pointed out that often, for the sake of communication, people will respond to you in your own manner, especially if you are insistant. Or -"what goes around comes around" as some like to say.

Bluesma

BigBrotherDarkness
reply to post by BDBinc

 

It sounds a bit like a double standard... if some one does not respect "your sovereignty"(I'm unclear what that means, in relation to posting on a public forum) you don't respect their sovereignty. If you come to a forum expecting anything, you'll most likely leave it disappointed... because the assumption everyone is or should be playing by the same rules is ideological not actual.

These were my words, taken out of context- a thread in which I had already spent pages explaining that I did not appreciate this other person "correcting" my expressions of what I feel inside, think, or believe.
He/she repeatedly told me that I believe/think/feel things that were far from the truth, and even when I politely said no, you are mistaken, that is not what I experience", they insisted they knew more about me than I do. (I do not know this person in real life and this was our first interaction on a message board).

So, my individual soveriegnty (or self ownership) is what I was refering to- respecting that I have the right and capability to speak for myself and probably know more about my internal subjective experiences than another does. I personally feel we should all be respected in that way.

I told him/her I would prefer that we each not dictate to each other what the other feel and believes, but that rather, we each speak of our own thoughts, feelings, and beliefs. Obviously they did not share my preference for that, so I agreed to come over to their preference and do the same- to dictate to them who they are and what they feel and think.

When they expressed objection to that, I simply pointed out that often, for the sake of communication, people will respond to you in your own manner, especially if you are insistant. Or -"what goes around comes around" as some like to say.

edit on 13-10-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-10-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)

Your words were quoted but its true they were out of context, the OP put all quotes on here out of context so as to point and laugh at them easier. Your quote was what I was responding to but the OP knocked it off didn't use the whole reply or even what it was in reference to. ( Philosophy my ar*se.)

No it was our the first interaction on ATs message board as you had posted before about HSP and your feeling overwhelmed by your emotions, thoughts and feeling.

You can change your original quote as much as you like to make it sound OK/palatable give reasons why you don't respect me or any other people who do not acknowledge your sovereignty .
I had QUOTED YOUR dictated feelings, thoughts and emotions. In no case during communication did I ever tell you you were not thinking/feeling the panic you felt. I told you why you were panicking and that you were not in the moment at the time of panic ( the point of disagreement). You should have finished communicating on the reference thread instead of turning the OP's "point and laugh" at second -person narrative thread into a WHY you don't respect people thread with unsupported accusations of narrating your life.

I would add, beware of people who talk behalf of everyone else without being the leader.

Ie, its one thing for a mod or admin of a forum to say in reponse to a thread or post:

We've had enough of that!

but another for an individual to say the same. I can see if two or more ppl consulted each other and so know they disagree on something, but to issue a blanket "we" without consent, it indicative of a highly presumtuous and or self-sentered pysche.

reply to post by BDBinc

"Beware of yourself "would have been a catchy title too.
Still no example of the narration of your life.The content of this post is not philosophy, you said you use a second-person narrative and its a tool, you picked the title for attention, used out of context quotes from other members who have also used it as a tool.
What has this content to do with philosophy? That you use it, some use it ,but others ought not use it? That when others use it it offend you?

I mentioned in the OP, that if the second-person narrative is used in literature, for literary effect, then yes it can be enjoyable. But when it is spoken in matters of discourse, as in you speaking to I, it comes off as offensive. It is only a tool when it comes to literature. It is a crutch when it comes to discourse. So I'm still unclear what point you are trying to make here.

I have read philosophy my whole life—pretty much every philosopher of note, very carefully and with due study. If you can refer to your own philosophical background and give me an example where philosophers say that rhetoric, grammar, narration, semantics and language isn't a topic of philosophy, I might agree with you.

It's easy to say it isn't philosophy—that seems all anyone can do—but its a little different and perhaps more difficult to substantiate that claim.

If you find other peoples posts in the second-person offensive maybe you shouldn't read them...
Or maybe you can respond on the thread in context to the member that offends you instead of writing a whole thread in an out of Rant segment on how other peoples posts offend you so you can point and laugh at them ( and put it in philosophy and metaphysics).

"You shouldn't do this". "You shouldn't do that". I don't see how one can be so concerned with what I should or shouldn't do, especially if one has never met me before in his life. I find that this sort of speech kind of points and laughs at itself.

I think one can say my OP is a rant if one wishes, but that doesn't change the fact that it isn't in the rant section, nor does it fit under the definition of what a rant is. If you can point out how this is a rant, rather than merely say it is, then you may have a convincing argument that I may even agree with. But until then, I don't see how this is a rant.

Do you care to tell me how you've arrived at this conclusion?

And don't you find this thread in philosophy of you pointing and laughing ugly, demeaning and condescending ?

I am a lover of Plato, Voltaire, Nietzsche, Orwell, Vidal, Chomsky and a whole list of anti-authoritarian polemicists. This is the style I grew up with, and I find it quite beautiful. The best part about it is that in its one sidedness, it brings out the worst in its opponents as soon as they work themselves into a rabid-like furor. It leads them into fallacy, as is apparent in the amount of ad hominem that is spewed in my direction, and thereby showing their true colors, and also, proving my point.

Apparently I didn't need to list examples, as they just so happened to appear in the thread. For that I thank you.

reply to post by AFewGoodWomen

In the same way that you, yourself have done in most of the previous posts I've read. I, as a fellow human being, too can divine inferences and inflection as well as context from one's words typed on a screen.

Doesn't hurt that I'm a psychology major either, I suppose.

I cannot disagree. However, I wouldn't go so far to admit that I've divined anything. I, like you, am sharing my opinion. That's as far as I would admit. I hope that would be presumed from the beginning.

But if you'd like, I can relate the behavior I've displayed the entire time I've spent in this thread, so that nothing would have to be divined. I sat, I thought, I typed, I drank coffee. That is the extent of my behavior. What I have written does not contain this behavior in the slightest; so I'm not sure how one can divine anything true from it.

If one wants to know, rather than assume, one can ask.

It doesn't hurt that you are a psychology major.

reply to post by Klassified

n the above comment, what is bolded was referring to the topic of second person speech. No matter though. I understand your point. Good video example, btw.

My misunderstanding. Thank you for clarifying.

BDBinc

The concept of this poster's conditional respect I must acknowledge their sovereignty (Sovereignty: supremacy in power).

We've been through this already, but for the sake of clarity for other readers-

Personal sovereignty, then, would imply the intrinsic authority and power of an individual to determine his or her own direction and destiny. If that sounds suspiciously like free will, it's because personal sovereignty and free will are the same thing.

Personal Sovereignty

Also sometimes coined self ownership


Yes, I prefer to respect each others personal sovereignty (or self ownership, free will...). But if someone absolutely refuses to, than there is no more reason to continue doing so in return.


I think the question is profound and important, because if a society decides that a person can not be trusted at all to give witness of what they feel and think and experience inside, then that would create some real problems! I was being told I have some sort of "panic attacks" in which I lose conscious awareness of my present surroundings. I do not ever remember having experienced something like that- ever. And yet this stranger insists I have and do. (and that i am just embarrassed to admit it).

If my word on what I have experienced inside is no longer valid, than think how easy it is to put that rich aunt conveniently in the psychiatric hospital- just claim "she sees blue monkeys all around her... she doesn't admit it, because she is embarrassed, that's all. Pay no attention to her claim that she doesn't."

In forums, this is not a serious thing- no real damage can be done from a stranger on the other side of the world making wild claims about your inner experiences.... it just blocks up further exchange on a topic.
It can, however, inspire bringing the issue to the table for discussion. Because you do find people in real life that make claim about others', and because the question of ones own psyche, free will, and self determinism comes into it. There is wide a scope that could be explored from there (if we can get past the insults and personal conflicts).

Aphorism
reply to post by BDBinc

 

"Beware of yourself "would have been a catchy title too.
Still no example of the narration of your life.The content of this post is not philosophy, you said you use a second-person narrative and its a tool, you picked the title for attention, used out of context quotes from other members who have also used it as a tool.
What has this content to do with philosophy? That you use it, some use it ,but others ought not use it? That when others use it it offend you?

I mentioned in the OP, that if the second-person narrative is used in literature, for literary effect, then yes it can be enjoyable. But when it is spoken in matters of discourse, as in you speaking to I, it comes off as offensive. It is only a tool when it comes to literature. It is a crutch when it comes to discourse. So I'm still unclear what point you are trying to make here.

I have read philosophy my whole life—pretty much every philosopher of note, very carefully and with due study. If you can refer to your own philosophical background and give me an example where philosophers say that rhetoric, grammar, narration, semantics and language isn't a topic of philosophy, I might agree with you.

It's easy to say it isn't philosophy—that seems all anyone can do—but its a little different and perhaps more difficult to substantiate that claim.

If you find other peoples posts in the second-person offensive maybe you shouldn't read them...
Or maybe you can respond on the thread in context to the member that offends you instead of writing a whole thread in an out of Rant segment on how other peoples posts offend you so you can point and laugh at them ( and put it in philosophy and metaphysics).

"You shouldn't do this". "You shouldn't do that". I don't see how one can be so concerned with what I should or shouldn't do, especially if one has never met me before in his life. I find that this sort of speech kind of points and laughs at itself.

I think one can say my OP is a rant if one wishes, but that doesn't change the fact that it isn't in the rant section, nor does it fit under the definition of what a rant is. If you can point out how this is a rant, rather than merely say it is, then you may have a convincing argument that I may even agree with. But until then, I don't see how this is a rant.

Do you care to tell me how you've arrived at this conclusion?

And don't you find this thread in philosophy of you pointing and laughing ugly, demeaning and condescending ?

I am a lover of Plato, Voltaire, Nietzsche, Orwell, Vidal, Chomsky and a whole list of anti-authoritarian polemicists. This is the style I grew up with, and I find it quite beautiful. The best part about it is that in its one sidedness, it brings out the worst in its opponents as soon as they work themselves into a rabid-like furor. It leads them into fallacy, as is apparent in the amount of ad hominem that is spewed in my direction, and thereby showing their true colors, and also, proving my point.

Apparently I didn't need to list examples, as they just so happened to appear in the thread. For that I thank you.

The thread is written and your motives for it already disclosed NOW you are trying to make make this thread about philosophy. So if I add "Plato, Voltaire, Nietzsche, Orwell, Vidal, Chomsky" to anything( after the fact) does it make it philosophy? Is philosophy any topic if you say it is,( just add links to Noam)?
If another member post offends me can I too make pointing and laughing at them in out of context quotes philosophy?
Maybe expressing offense and emotions,while dictating to people what language they can use is the NEW philosophy .

You have told me a)you were offended by things other members have said and b) you wanted to point and laugh (at out of context quotes).
I didn't ask you if you found Plato and Chomsky ugly, demeaming and condescending, I had asked you if your declared motive for the thread of pointing and laughing(at out of context quotes from other members ) and placing it in a philosophy discussion was.
I have explained that despite your new efforts to make it look like a philosophical thread it was lacking stuffing and filled all the criteria for rant . Your own words said you were offended at posts in other threads so you took them out of context so you can point and laugh.Threads taking out of context quotes from other members that offend you so as to point and laugh is a rant that is how I reached this conclusion.
*Note I did not tell you what you should or shouldn't do, I gave many examples/options on what you or anyone can do when another member offends you on a thread (in place of not posting to them and starting a new thread on their out of context posts).
Your life examples in second person narrative have not been provided by me (though you now claim it was) so if you want your life narrated firsthand its the same as everybody on this threads life( the body/mind) :You were born, you are alive, you will die.
Now you can honestly say I have narrated your birth life & death.

Bluesma

BDBinc

The concept of this poster's conditional respect I must acknowledge their sovereignty (Sovereignty: supremacy in power).

Yes, I prefer to respect each others personal sovereignty (or self ownership, free will...). But if someone absolutely refuses to, than there is no more reason to continue doing so in return.




If my word on what I have experienced inside is no longer valid, than think how easy it is to put that rich aunt conveniently in the psychiatric hospital- just claim "she sees blue monkeys all around her... she doesn't admit it, because she is embarrassed, that's all. Pay no attention to her claim that she doesn't."

In forums, this is not a serious thing- no real damage can be done from a stranger on the other side of the world making wild claims about your inner experiences.... it just blocks up further exchange on a topic.
It can, however, inspire bringing the issue to the table for discussion. Because you do find people in real life that make claim about others', and because the question of ones own psyche, free will, and self determinism comes into it. There is wide a scope that could be explored from there (if we can get past the insults and personal conflicts).

edit on 14-10-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)

Yes I understand the conditions you make for giving respect and again I do not acknowledge your sovereignty.
I do not need your respect. Self ownership was not mentioned before by you in the original thread (as a condition for your respect), not sure how you are given self ownership by others??!! Its an odd concept indeed -as you have whatever self ownership you give yourself and no one is capable of taking or giving it to you .

Your words on what you thought and felt to make you panic were never once invalidated by me. That you think about the past meanings and emotions was not disputed, I said while you were panicking you were not focused on the moment as YOU had said you were thinking and feeling PAST emotions. You are imagining the past and not in the present . Its quite an allegation to say I said you were not focused on the past thoughts, emotions and feelings as I firmly agreed (& said) you were focused on the PAST and not focused in the present.

reply to post by BDBinc

I didn't ask you if you found Plato and Chomsky ugly, demeaming and condescending, I had asked you if your declared motive for the thread of pointing and laughing(at out of context quotes from other members ) and placing it in a philosophy discussion was.

I was trying to explain to you where I was coming from and why I write the way I do by listing my influences. It was my mistake to assume we could find some sort of understanding here. I didn't realize it might go over your head.

I still have yet to see an argument why this isn't philosophy. So I'll will take a page from your playbook and assume you don't really know too much about philosophy.

I have explained that despite your new efforts to make it look like a philosophical thread it was lacking stuffing and filled all the criteria for rant . Your own words said you were offended at posts in other threads so you took them out of context so you can point and laugh.Threads taking out of context quotes from other members that offend you so as to point and laugh is a rant that is how I reached this conclusion.

This is what a rant is:

rant |rant|
verb [ no obj. ]
speak or shout at length in a wild, impassioned way: she was still ranting on about the unfairness of it all.

What criteria of a rant have I filled? I haven't shouted once.

Further, I and others are continued to be taken out of context in everything you write. So I'm still unclear why you're complaining about it. I admit I took you out of context. If you want an apology I don't mind providing one. But then I don't feel too bad about it because it appears to me that you are taking me out of context. So what is your problem?

*Note I did not tell you what you should or shouldn't do, I gave many examples/options on what you or anyone can do when another member offends you on a thread (in place of not posting to them and starting a new thread on their out of context posts).

"If you find other peoples posts in the second-person offensive maybe you shouldn't read them... ". Words written by yourself. The reply was to me and no one else. I am the "you" that was referred to. I would've prefered to hear your experience on the matter, and what you yourself do in these situations, not what I or anyone else should do. This is just another example of what I am trying to communicate.

Your life examples in second person narrative have not been provided by me (though you now claim it was) so if you want your life narrated firsthand its the same as everybody on this threads life( the body/mind) :You were born, you are alive, you will die.

Yet all I see is this narrative in your posts. Speaking for others. Attempting to hijack minds. I sincerely hope people find their own voice, rather than allow this to continue. This is the whole point of this thread, and I thank you for providing the examples I need to justify my opinion. No sarcasm here. I do appreciate it.

Now this back and forth isn't as enjoyable as my exchange with other posters. So I will finally heed your fatherly advice, and stop reading them.

Good luck!

BDBinc

Yes I understand the conditions you make for giving respect and again I do not acknowledge your sovereignty.
I do not need your respect.

Than we're good. And we can forget your objection that my returning your rude lack of respect with same was not okay. You don't want to give others respect because you don't want it from others. I have agreed to follow your preference for type of dialogue.

Self ownership was not mentioned before by you in the original thread (as a condition for your respect), not sure how you are given self ownership by others??!! Its an odd concept indeed -as you have whatever self ownership you give yourself and no one is capable of taking or giving it to you .

Self ownership IS personal sovereignty, free will... a sovereign individual, self governing....even if it was that term you misunderstood, the exchanges leading up to that point made it clear.
(quotes from my posts, in that exchange, leading up to the ones already used as example in this thread-

I won't claim to know what is going on in your head, I will point out that the words you have put up here, directly contradict everything I say and claim they came from me.

You are quite simply, wrong, and have been corrected on that. That is not what I feel, think, or experience.

Yes, I have self ownership, free will, and am a sovereign individual, whether you respect that or not.
The problem for me becomes that I would like to respect that in you too- but can't if you don't.
This is just a verbal exchange, but put it into physical terms- a stranger comes up to you and pushes you. You say "please don't do that, I would rather we talk respectfully"
and they continue doing it.
After a while, you need to respond on the same level, and push them back.
I would rather not push people. But if you insist , then I will.

Your words on what you thought and felt to make you panic were never once invalidated by me.

My repeated and clear sentences like those above show the contrary. I have never had what you are calling a "panic attack". I tried to remember an experience that might be close to what you were talking about, but it did not meet the description you described. I never lost consciousness of the present and thought I was in the past. I was talking to people around me in the present, I was even explaining my reaction to them, using the words "in the past, an event happened..." , I filled out forms in which I had to put the date and my present reason for coming in. I was fully functioning and conscious of the present.

Whatever these panic attacks are that you are describing, they are apparently much more severe than anything I have experienced. But I have explained this many times.

At this point, I get the idea that you may have gotten confused and lost in that conversation.... I don't know...but it seems you feel like you are being mocked and laughed at here, or ganged up on in a sense, and I don't really want to do that to anyone. So I would like to drop out of further analysis of our past dialogue.

reply to post by AFewGoodWomen




best response to this thread yet!!

I mean really?
If you feel someone is being condescending, you may be reading it wrong.

Aphorism
reply to post by BDBinc

 

I didn't ask you if you found Plato and Chomsky ugly, demeaming and condescending, I had asked you if your declared motive for the thread of pointing and laughing(at out of context quotes from other members ) and placing it in a philosophy discussion was.

I was trying to explain to you where I was coming from and why I write the way I do by listing my influences. It was my mistake to assume we could find some sort of understanding here. I didn't realize it might go over your head.

I still have yet to see an argument why this isn't philosophy. So I'll will take a page from your playbook and assume you don't really know too much about philosophy.

I have explained that despite your new efforts to make it look like a philosophical thread it was lacking stuffing and filled all the criteria for rant . Your own words said you were offended at posts in other threads so you took them out of context so you can point and laugh.Threads taking out of context quotes from other members that offend you so as to point and laugh is a rant that is how I reached this conclusion.

This is what a rant is:

rant |rant|
verb [ no obj. ]
speak or shout at length in a wild, impassioned way: she was still ranting on about the unfairness of it all.

What criteria of a rant have I filled? I haven't shouted once.

Further, I and others are continued to be taken out of context in everything you write. So I'm still unclear why you're complaining about it. I admit I took you out of context. If you want an apology I don't mind providing one. But then I don't feel too bad about it because it appears to me that you are taking me out of context. So what is your problem?

*Note I did not tell you what you should or shouldn't do, I gave many examples/options on what you or anyone can do when another member offends you on a thread (in place of not posting to them and starting a new thread on their out of context posts).

"If you find other peoples posts in the second-person offensive maybe you shouldn't read them... ". Words written by yourself. The reply was to me and no one else. I am the "you" that was referred to. I would've prefered to hear your experience on the matter, and what you yourself do in these situations, not what I or anyone else should do. This is just another example of what I am trying to communicate.

Your life examples in second person narrative have not been provided by me (though you now claim it was) so if you want your life narrated firsthand its the same as everybody on this threads life( the body/mind) :You were born, you are alive, you will die.

Yet all I see is this narrative in your posts. Speaking for others. Attempting to hijack minds. I sincerely hope people find their own voice, rather than allow this to continue. This is the whole point of this thread, and I thank you for providing the examples I need to justify my opinion. No sarcasm here. I do appreciate it.
Now this back and forth isn't as enjoyable as my exchange with other posters. So I will finally heed your fatherly advice, and stop reading them.
Good luck!

Only after the thread motive and content was out did you turn to using famous philosophers names and a Chomsky link. How do they possibly influence you to take peoples quotes out of context so that you can" point and laugh". None of those peoples methods include this type of personal endeavor.
I still agree with posters who identified this thread content as a rant.
The first point and laugh motive for the thread is the opposite of what you now say "hoping people find their voice" (which they already have as they are posting!) by you dictating language use on ats how do you help people who clearly have a voice find one.
Its crazy stuff, just getting crazier as you seek a noble philosophical reason to "point and laugh' at out of context quotes from other threads while dictating how others language use should be on ATS.

Bluesma

BDBinc

Yes I understand the conditions you make for giving respect and again I do not acknowledge your sovereignty.
I do not need your respect.

Than we're good. And we can forget your objection that my returning your rude lack of respect with same was not okay. You don't want to give others respect because you don't want it from others. I have agreed to follow your preference for type of dialogue.

Self ownership was not mentioned before by you in the original thread (as a condition for your respect), not sure how you are given self ownership by others??!! Its an odd concept indeed -as you have whatever self ownership you give yourself and no one is capable of taking or giving it to you .

Self ownership IS personal sovereignty, free will... a sovereign individual, self governing....even if it was that term you misunderstood, the exchanges leading up to that point made it clear.
(quotes from my posts, in that exchange, leading up to the ones already used as example in this thread-

I won't claim to know what is going on in your head, I will point out that the words you have put up here, directly contradict everything I say and claim they came from me.

You are quite simply, wrong, and have been corrected on that. That is not what I feel, think, or experience.

Yes, I have self ownership, free will, and am a sovereign individual, whether you respect that or not.
The problem for me becomes that I would like to respect that in you too- but can't if you don't.
This is just a verbal exchange, but put it into physical terms- a stranger comes up to you and pushes you. You say "please don't do that, I would rather we talk respectfully"
and they continue doing it.
After a while, you need to respond on the same level, and push them back.
I would rather not push people. But if you insist , then I will.

Your words on what you thought and felt to make you panic were never once invalidated by me.

My repeated and clear sentences like those above show the contrary. I have never had what you are calling a "panic attack". I tried to remember an experience that might be close to what you were talking about, but it did not meet the description you described. I never lost consciousness of the present and thought I was in the past. I was talking to people around me in the present, I was even explaining my reaction to them, using the words "in the past, an event happened..." , I filled out forms in which I had to put the date and my present reason for coming in. I was fully functioning and conscious of the present.

Whatever these panic attacks are that you are describing, they are apparently much more severe than anything I have experienced. But I have explained this many times.

At this point, I get the idea that you may have gotten confused and lost in that conversation.... I don't know...but it seems you feel like you are being mocked and laughed at here, or ganged up on in a sense, and I don't really want to do that to anyone. So I would like to drop out of further analysis of our past dialogue.

edit on 15-10-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)

But I did not say you were unconscious or not functioning in the panic attack you described .
I repeated what you told me you were doing which was thinking and feeling PAST emotions and meanings on the current experience. You were not focused on the moment, like you said you were experiencing PAST thoughts, past emotions and past meaning.

This thread is constructed on the offense provided by second person PAST dialog, the OP feels I am not to speak in second person narrative on ats- which the OP now has said will help you find your voice (as though you didn't/don't clearly have whatever the idea of "self ownership" means).
Don't worry it does not bother me if people "point and laugh' or "gang up" at an out of context quote - I feel sorry for them.

reply to post by BDBinc

Its crazy stuff, just getting crazier as you seek a noble philosophical reason to "point and laugh' at out of context quotes from other threads while dictating how others language use should be on ATS.

I'm not seeking anything. I am not dictating anything. Lies and dishonesty once again. Second-person narrative once again. Assumptions and projection once again. I see a reoccurring trend. Does someone not like speaking for themselves?

And yes I'm still pointing and laughing.

Aphorism
reply to post by BDBinc

 

Its crazy stuff, just getting crazier as you seek a noble philosophical reason to "point and laugh' at out of context quotes from other threads while dictating how others language use should be on ATS.

I'm not seeking anything. I am not dictating anything. Lies and dishonesty once again. Second-person narrative once again. Assumptions and projection once again. I see a reoccurring trend. Does someone not like speaking for themselves?

And yes I'm still pointing and laughing.

You said( and I quote you: using such pronouns as “I”, “me” and “myself” is the only perspective one can truly narrate through".Who are you( quoting your own words on your thread) to dictate to other members how one can speak on ATS .

I didn't say you were seeking anything but to point and laugh .
After several members called it a rant you called a philosophical endeavor (attempt at what... to point and laugh)and put a link to Chomsky .

BDBinc

But I did not say you were unconscious or not functioning in the panic attack you described .
I repeated what you told me you were doing which was thinking and feeling PAST emotions and meanings on the current experience. You were not focused on the moment, like you said you were experiencing PAST thoughts, past emotions and past meaning.

This thread is constructed on the offense provided by second person PAST dialog, the OP feels I am not to speak in second person narrative on ats- which the OP now has said will help you find your voice (as though you didn't/don't clearly have whatever the idea of "self ownership" means).
Don't worry it does not bother me if people "point and laugh' or "gang up" at an out of context quote - I feel sorry for them.

I realized after I posted that that even if I feel uncomfortable with another being mocked, or ganged up on, this is someone who is expressing that they do not want to be respected by others, so my discomfort is not shared. You are not being respected, but that is exactly what you wanted.
Why it makes you feel "sorry for them" is an interesting element, psychologically speaking- that is a logic worth exploring! But for another thread, perhaps.
Enjoy.

PS- The OP of this thread has never once said anything about what should be allowed on ATS- that is not the subject (neither was it for me, in the other thread, though you make the same assertions).

At any point you could choose to NOT make this about you- the OP presented it as something to discuss on a wider scale- the principles of communication and exchange between humans in general, as a philosophic look at questions of ethics, psychology. You are bringing the focus upon yourself- not Aphorism.