Is an opposing viewpoint a threat?

Or a blessing?




27 Comments

Leave a response

You must be to post a response.

  1. five2one 11 months ago

    In my field I deal with a lot of very real angels. Sooner or later others will see what I see. In the meantime, the harvest has come. But, who will it be? Americans? Jews? Everyone?

    The transfigured form is dramatic change from these very weak shells.

    Nothing could be weaker.

    Anyway, I can discuss such things, but no humans are interested, because they can not believe it.

    Isiah 65
    20 “No more shall an infant from there live but a few days,
    Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days;
    For the child shall die one hundred years old,
    But the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed.

    Why tell you or anyone such jewels? Maybe they will first attack the jewels, and then, me, the person.

    Let me see.

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

    • Author
      griz 11 months ago

      @five2one
      There’s a logic and psychological disconnect in both the form and the spirit of what you present.

      It presumes a superiority of self that seems to render all criticism as incontrovertible proof that everyone else is swine/wrong/needs to change to be more like you . . . and is somehow just folded into affirming the superiority of self.

      If even the @immortal_pirate can recognize he is imperfect, he can still value civil criticism as a learning tool. He doesn’t adopt a raiment of superiority.

      You too often do.

      Remember, if the Spirit of God affirms and accredits you . . . you will not have to strive so to “self-achieve” these things.

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

  2. immortal_pirate 11 months ago

    No, they are only opinions, and opinions are like ass holes; everybody knows one and everybody has one…

    If someone is offended or feels threatened by my point of view…grow some skin for goodness sake. Count your blessings and move on.

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

  3. Yin 11 months ago

    Depends on what was said. It also kind of depends on the person saying it. If someone thinks something is bad and they just say, “This sucks.” That is just an insult. There is nothing to be learned or even thought about. If someone says they feel it would be better if these specific things were changed to this, then that would be criticism and shouldn’t be an insult. There are some people though that personally dislike someone and just constantly hate someone’s work disguising it as criticism. That would be an insult, but those moments are probably a lot rarer than clear insults or clear criticisms. Criticism doesn’t have to be threat or a blessing though. Some criticism is just bad advice.

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

    • Author
      griz 11 months ago

      @Yin
      Hmm. I’ll have to think on the idea of “neutral criticism”. On the surface it doesn’t parse as a real thing. Criticism that is just “bad advice” can still easily fall into the categories of “blessing or curse”. But where it lands, is entirely our choice/doing.
      (We can also fold in meanings like our fellowship with them, intentions, do they care but are off-base; or just out to advance themselves over top of us? There’s a myriad of things in play that we can note and learn from).

      My personal though is that someone just saying “That/you suck” may simply be at the end of their ability to articulate their point. Which can be akin to them ceding their point?

      Constructive criticism is far more “noble”; but not everyone has educated themselves beyond just the destructive. It’s still bears valuable elements — but needs a lot more refining to find the gem in it.

      I try not to see people hating at/on me as an insult. That’s essentially giving them the keys to myself and letting them drive me where they want to!

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

      • Yin 11 months ago

        @griz Well, like, I think of wrestling. Fans are always criticizing or insulting. There are two main “good” guys. John Cena and Roman Reigns. I have criticized them myself. I feel they aren’t that entertaining as wrestlers and other guys should be in their spot, or change the characters of those two into bad guys to make their personalities work better and so the crowd doesn’t boo them out of the arena. Those that are vocal though are just a part of the fanbase though. So many vocal guys would love if Cena or Reigns quit or got fired, which they do explain why and is probably considered criticism. While I understand the frustration, that would be terrible advice. I don’t see a blessing or a curse there. You’d be appeasing the loud males and ignoring the quieter females and children (well, for the most part since there are exceptions.) They make the company a ton of money and Cena does a ton for Make A Wish. So, I just feel that the criticism to remove them is neither a blessing nor a curse, but just advice that will be ignored since they have been doing fine without it.

        I feel that even if what the person says doesn’t affect you, it is still an insult. They don’t always have the keys to anything. Also, with things like Twitter and the Mute feature, people can throw out their insults and it just drift around in the void since the person you sent it to will never see it. No keys at all there, but I’d still classify them as insults because that was the intent behind them.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Author
        griz 11 months ago

        @Yin
        Your first point is a good one. I wasn’t thinking of staged spectacles. I wonder if there’s a slightly different set of rules to that game, as the insults and criticisms are an expected part of the territory when you step into the ring\onto the game field.

        Social media might be a unique case as well, in particular because of the mute feature, and the reality that it enables cowards. There is no absolute analogy for “muting” them in the real world except perhaps killing them, which is unacceptable on most levels. That’s one of the tragedies of teaching kids to rely on bully-proof zones and safe spaces in school. It does them a grave disservice over time.

        I wonder if such features that enable one to not even hear the criticisms, or “flee from them strengthens or weakens the individual?
        My thought is that they weaken them and make them more susceptible to the real thing in the real world.

        Intentional insults are a little different, but similar rules of parryng them would apply. A pure unadulterated insult is an intent to do harm to you, often from a grunting knuckle-dragger.
        There are a lot of very good reasons both for you and the society, to not reward such a behavior particularly at expense to yourself, but to just carry on with your business as if there is no credible threat there. But that takes effort and thought to develop the proper defenses and processes necessary, and train them so they become automatic subpersonalities within you. (Which then activate automatically without effort; like martial arts training)

        You deny them access to your emotions, which is really what they wanted. Their control gambit doesn’t pay off, and they are more the fool for it.

        It would be like some deviant rushing towards a Samurai Master with a spud. They are so out-matched they are worthy only of a brush-off
        They are a pitiable creature.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

  4. Jear77 11 months ago

    There’s a difference between “constructive criticism” and “destructive criticism”

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

    • Author
      griz 11 months ago

      @Jear77
      There is but both can have a meaning and a lesson.

      As can our wanting to discredit them as a person as rapaciously as they tried to discredit us.

      Intelligence is about discussing points. When it becomes about discrediting/dismissing the person a whole different dynamic is in play.

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

      • Jear77 11 months ago

        @griz why listen to criticism meant to tear one down? It only can result in self destruction.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Author
        griz 11 months ago

        @Jear77
        Absolutely not! It’s one of the most valuable insights for building oneself up — provided toxic mindsets don’t hijack it into a different reality.

        Because someone intending to tear you down are likely coming from someone with motivation to seek out our most vulnerable points, with no thought of sparing our feelings as a friend might.

        Their success in tearing us down . . . means they found something! So we have valuable insight into areas of our psyche and being that we need to fortify and work on.

        Plus, there are few greater pleasures than to not be provoked by an enemy’s best no-holds-barred attack . . . and then to be THANKFUL to them for it!!

        This is the “heaping burning coals on their head” (Rom 12:19-20). Remembering that in the meanings of the time this was not only painful; it caused awakening; corrective [re]action; had purifying effect; had functional effect (using hot coals to shape a vessel was common).

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Jear77 11 months ago

        @griz perhaps. But if the person who says something, and really does destroy another (i.e. they do something stupid like self harm/ commit suicide), the person who didn’t put that into the equation should be held accountable for their words. That’s why cyber bullying is a crime.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Author
        griz 11 months ago

        @Jear77
        We’ve decided to incorporate it as a crime as a bit of “too little, too late” compensation for actively encouraging our young ones to be so tissue-paper, “prince and princess” fragile.

        I understand the “verbal murder” concept. It’s actually from the Bible.
        But our society’s toxic process is not aimed at the correction of the self (like the Bible), but the trying to radically control everyone else. Rather than pad the egg, we want to pad the whole wide world. Even if that means 1) the destruction of personal rights and freedoms and 2) making the egg even more fragile in the expectation of “padding everywhere”.

        We are SO screwed up in our psychology and our logic.
        Yes; in a perfect utopia people shouldn’t be hateful one to another (not even in the guise of spoiling/enabling love).
        But we should perhaps first, stop encouraging the over-production of people so fragile they self-destruct-on-command.

        Again, the ideology of trying to “control” people into an imagined utopia . . . is neo-Marxism. And it’s as toxic as a cobra. It’s something we should actively caution people out of, and not leave them to learn for themselves just how fatal it has proven itself to be over the 20th Century.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Jear77 11 months ago

        @griz things can be taken too far the other way as well. Someone says something, the offended person finds the perpetrator and beats them to a bloody pulp… or hires someone else to do so – someone who may not have as much restraint as the offended party would.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Author
        griz 11 months ago

        @Jear77
        Hmm.

        Your idea of “the other way” and mine are radically different!

        Why are you thinking violence has to be involved? (Verbal, psychological, social , physical)

        Rather than just the stoicism and strength of character to not take it personally?

        The focusaim of “everything as a personal slight” ( victimhood or slave thinking) can powerfully alter Perceptions in there for a person’s experience reality.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Jear77 11 months ago

        @griz So what does “not taking it personally” entail?

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Author
        griz 11 months ago

        @Jear77
        It would seem to entail separating\disentangling the emotional response from all of the other meanings, possible and probable.

        Which certainly is a more difficult higher cortical function process. Emotional response comes primarily from the deeper primitive brain, the hypothalamus. They are how a primitive animal would instinctually react, as an unconditioned response.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Jear77 11 months ago

        @griz is that the same thing as apathy?

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Author
        griz 11 months ago

        @Jear77
        No.

        Controlling them does not mean robbing them of their meaning. The higher cortical creature is simply choosing the meaning that will tune the perceptions to produce a desired reality; that of being a higher cortical creature of freedom and choice versus just a primitively reacting animal programmed by instinct.

        Apathy would be more a perceived absence of meaning; a meaning of “no meaning” (nihilism, defeatism, fatalism).
        And this as a chosen focus or meaning, will narrow and edit the perceptions of actual reality (a shared and transcendent construct) to match the overlay we have selected (an isolationist construction).

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

  5. saintcharlie 11 months ago

    Neither, this is entirely contextual.

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

  6. 2Thrash 11 months ago

    Usually I do. Because I think I have thoroughly thought things through before I do or say something.

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

    • Author
      griz 11 months ago

      @2Thrash
      It comes quite naturally. In the story/mythology of Adam and Eve (which is a story of our coming to self-conscious awareness), one of the first things they did was to take a criticism as a personal insult unto “the blame game”. (Adam blamed Eve and Eve blamed the serpent/adversary).

      We have to consciously create a “sub-personality” within us to have something other than the “default reaction”.

      BTW, so very nice to see you back again!

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

      • 2Thrash 11 months ago

        @griz I definitely default too much on many of my reactions.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Author
        griz 11 months ago

        @2Thrash
        It’s who we “most easily”, are.

        There’s no foul in being this way. It’s once we see we are this way and do nothing constructive about it, that the internal conflicts and incongruities arise.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

  7. Scarlett 11 months ago

    absolutely not, because there is a thing called constructive criticism that can actually make me and my life better, or I may realize something about myself I needed to know. I think it depends on the person who is doling out the criticism intentions.

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

    • Author
      griz 11 months ago

      @Scarlett
      The trick is to be able to take a criticism intended to be destructive, and use it constructively.

      I try to start with the presumption that I could be the one in error: because 1) I’m the easier person to examine for fault and 2) I can be in error.

      If I don’t find error, I can set ego to rest for now and start looking outwards for “meaning beyond self” why the criticism came. Education into the working of the greater whole, is a very constructive enterprise.

      And there’s also an added dynamic: our most “honest” criticizers, are those who hate us and consider us their enemy (perhaps for reasons only they know?).
      Because they’re not inclined to spare our feelings! They will look to attack the most vulnerable aspect of a) our point or b) our person .

      And this gives valuable insight into areas we could stand to strengthen.

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

©2019 Soul Sequel | All Rights Reserved

 
or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account