## Intersubjective consciousness

1678910Next
• 2.4k

Ah. I haven't been there so long, I forgot how it works. I'll try again
• 76
Dialogue is a method, its a method of communication.. Its the child side of the patient which would require strengthening as their adult tends to follow.on automatically, taking it of course that they are an adult. Most of the above is inaccurate in my view,
• 2.4k
Another broken link I fear, leaving me with very little clue what you are saying. Are we in the transactional analysis world of child, adult, parent?
• 76
Yes, Im not aware of a multitude of different worlds when referencing ones child, parent, and adult. I do nt tend to more communication than I consider adequate. Moving on from here though, whilst an interesting hobby, I do nt disagree that, I do nt consider that this process of endlessly digging deeper for hidden value has any value in the real world. Keep it simple, keep it available keep it brief, allow the individual mind to adapt a little to suit them, and leave it alone. No other system of communication works for the world where it concerns social psychology, do this and one can both successfully direct and cure.. Less than this, which is all that most accomplished minds are capable of as we should all already well know by now, and it becomes again no more than an obscure hobby. Not only this, but digging deeper is as likely to take one further from reality than it is closer, and everybody which hangs onto ones every last word with you.
• 11.2k
Ah. I haven't been there so long, I forgot how it works. I'll try again
I remember reading this post like 1-2 years ago or something, and I re-read it. To be entirely honest, your writing on many issues is interesting and original, but that doesn't mean it's right.

For example, the views on race that you express with regards to counselling - it's not that they are false, but they are limiting, and only apply in certain circumstances, not across the board. I've never cared when people discriminated against me for example. Eastern Europeans are often thought to be thieves by you British - so what? It would be a shame if Agustino cares what the British think, when the British don't care what Agustino thinks, wouldn't it?

This is why Peterson is right. The individual always holds the real power. It is not society, or the group that wields power, it is the individual. And when the individual surrenders this internal power onto society, that is the only time when he or she can be truly disgraced.

With regards to discrimination from me (a white man) towards other races - I never even think about it. I've had black, white, yellow - all kinds of skin color friends. Even some of my girlfriends have been of other races. All human beings are the same, why does it matter the race? I can get along with blacks, with whites, with any skin color out there.

So what if people (or my society) is racist and mocks me for spending time with people of different skin colors (for example)? Doesn't matter what others say. I can care less. Indeed, it would be a shame if I stooped to the level of caring what X or Y thinks of me.
• 2.4k
To be entirely honest, your writing on many issues is interesting and original, but that doesn't mean it's right.

Yeah, let's not go into the rights and wrongs of it here. "Interesting and original" becomes "madness" when you accuse the department handing out the certificates of being racist and using racist course materials. You can agree or disagree; you can go read the book I was discussing and give your own critique; that's not the point. What happened is that I got from the experts no response, no critique, no defence, I simply didn't get accepted on the next course. And that is why Peterson is wrong. Speaking uncomfortable critical things to power, true of false, is dangerous.

So what if people (or my society) is racist and mocks me for spending time with people of different skin colors (for example)? Doesn't matter what others say. I can care less. Indeed, it would be a shame if I stooped to the level of caring what X or Y thinks of me.

This is bollocks too. If we decide you are mendacious ignorant foreigner who doesn't deserve to be here and cannot be trusted to do a job, you get no work and get sent back to from where you came. Caring or not caring is irrelevant.
• 11.2k
Speaking uncomfortable critical things to power, true of false, is dangerous.
I agree. But why is it that you decided to speak openly about it to them, instead of taking a more round-about way of approaching it? Is it just because you wanted to choose being honest at all costs and expressing what you think regardless of consequences? I mean, changing the system requires the right degree of give-and-take, or compromise. You can't do business (and by business, I don't mean just financial business, but any kind of business) with someone if they don't perceive that you're a trustworthy person who is willing to listen to them and compromise on things. If you don't give that impression, then you are seen as dangerous, and people don't want to have anything to deal with you (simply because they feel they can't predict what you'll do next), unless there are other circumstances that help you, like a lot of money in the game.

For example, someone like Steve Jobs can afford to even start swearing and cursing one of his suppliers because there's a lot of money in the game. Even if Steve shows himself to be a dangerous guy who speaks his mind, that guy will take it (to a certain degree of course), because the rewards are worth it. But someone like me, who is still a small entrepreneur, can't do that. Sometimes I know what must be done, but instead of telling someone "do this", I must say "what is your opinion, should we do this?" - it's a way of conveying to the other person that I will choose not to be threatening or dangerous in our relationship.

This is bollocks too. If we decide you are mendacious ignorant foreigner who doesn't deserve to be here and cannot be trusted to do a job, you get no work and get sent back to from where you came. Caring or not caring is irrelevant.
Sure, that will be your loss. Why do I care? It's not me losing, it's you losing my valuable talent and hard work.
• 11.2k
The issue I'm trying to underline above relates to honesty and openness. The point being that I don't think speech which causes conflict is honest speech, even when dealing with an injustice. To me, honesty isn't merely a matter of intent, or of self-expression. It's also a matter of communicating in such a way to make yourself and your intentions understood to the other. For example, if you say the truth to someone, and due to your speech, you make them feel threatened, then you have failed to be honest (supposing now that you didn't intend to make them feel threatened, you just intended to communicate the truth to them).

So speaking uncomfortable truths to others can be done honestly, or dishonestly. I think that often speaking an uncomfortable truth honestly takes skill. It's not easy to do. Peterson is right that speaking the truth honestly is the most important thing - but it is difficult. In any regards, speaking the truth honestly should be the least dangerous alternative there is (though it may still be very dangerous).
1678910Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal