mika wrote:
>
> On May 1, 10:37 am, catherine yronwode
herb-magic.com> wrote:>> mika wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 30, 10:10 am, "Tom"
comcast.net> wrote:>>
>>>> Yes, my hell and my heaven are my own concern, not hers. Just as her
>>>> private heaven and hell are no concern of mine. Why she chose to share
>>>> them with us at this point I couldn't say.
>>
>>> Perhaps the cognitive dissonance sparked by your congeniality was too
>>> much for her to bear.
>>
>> "Too much for her to bear" is outlandishly innacurate,
>
> If you could bear it, you wouldn't have lashed out so randomly and
> visciously, thus, it must have been too much for you to bear.
Wrong. I could have born it. I willfully chose not to. I am not driven
only by pain -- i am driven by desire as well: i wanted to tell Joseph
what i thought -- and i did so.
>> but "cognitive dissonance" rings the bell, Mika. A slightly less subjective
>> term for "cognitive dissonance" is "two-facedness."
>
> There's no such thing as a "less subjective term" for cognitive
> dissonance. By definition, it is a subjective experience.
>
> You likely prefer to treat your cognitive dissonance as if it were
> something less subjective in order to avoid facing and dealing with
> it.
No, that was my poor attempt at archness, ironic speech, or something
verging on sarcastic comment. What i truly meant was this:
What you foolishly thought was my experiencing "cognitive dissonance"
was actually Tom being a two-faced person and my mentioning that to
Joseph.
>> As i said, Tom's sudden
>> submerging of his usual cruelty in favour of congenial jollity
>
> Tom isn't usually cruel. That's one of your beliefs that's
> contributing to the dissonance. Like I said, it's easier to insist
> Tom is two-faced than to face the actual subjective root cause.
We disagree. I believe that Tom is not only "usually cruel," i believe
that he delights in his cruelty and is proud of the number of times he
has hurt people's feelings. I think he is, in a minor way, a sociopath.
>>>> Not that she shouldn't have a happy birthday, though.
>>>
>>> There you go again being considerate. You're really making this
>>> difficult, damn trickster. If only you would get back into that
>>> little box already and act as others expect you to, so people won't
>>> have to question the well-defined image they have of you. Tom=Bad, le
>>> olam amen!
>>
>> Tom is not consistently a "bad" persona in his social beneer. He is,
>> rather, two-faced.
>> You seem to advocate that this is an intentional "trickster" facade that
>> Tom creates, but you have no evidence to support that premise.
>
> I was being sarcastic in that entire paragraph.
I don't get sarcasm, am not into using it, and using it around me tends
to derail conversations very quickly.
> I do not at all think
> Tom is two-faced or engaging in intentional trickster behavior. He
> has a very consistent personality here. People seem to consider him
> 'two-faced' because some of his criticism addresses such deep personal
> concerns that they can't reconcile the resulting pain with how they
> feel when his posts don't hit so close to home. It's easier to blame
> him for changing personalities than to look inside and ask "why did I
> react negatively when he wrote X but positively when he wrote Y?"
I am in complete areeement with this -- it is easy to blame Tom for
changing personalities -- after all, HE is the one writing his posts,
not me! Now, is there something about that which is simple and easy that
seems wrong to you, Mika? I ask because the I Ching praises that which
is simple and that which is easy, and i have found it to be a relaible
guide in that matter.
> A more appropriate question for you might be "why do I react
> negatively when he writes anything at all?" and "if he bothers me so
> much, why do I respond to his posts?"
Why do folks grimace when they step in dog shit?
Some things are just yicky to people, and Tom Schuler's cordially is
just yicky to me. Why? I already told you why: he is cruel for years and
then suddenly acts all nicey-poo. I think that is gross.
> If he reminds you so much of
> your rapist step father, why in the world are you engaging him in
> conversation?
Oops, false embedded premise. I did not say that Tom reminds me of my
rapist step-father. I said being wished a happy birthday by Tom reminded
me of the way my rapist step-father would be so horrible and then
suddenly come across with this weirdly cordial joviality, espcially
around conventional social situations.
> Do you think saying everything you wish you could have
> said to your dead stepfather to Tom instead is going to help you work
> out your unresolved issues?
That's nutty, Mika, and really illogical.
First, i did talk to my step-father. He knew exactly how i felt, and
those conversations left nothing that i "wish" to say.
Second, i did not say to Tom the things that i said to my step-father. I
only mentioned to Joseph Littleshoes that being wished a happy birthday
by a person who had been so awful to me and to others for over a decade
was as creepy as being wished a happy birthday by my step-father. I was
not saying anything to Tom at all. I was saying something to Joseph.
>> In other words, all we really have is the online presentation of a
>> person who acts cruel at some times and cordial at other times.
>
> That's not all we have. We also have the online presentation of
> several people who react negatively to some of his posts and
> positively to other of his posts. Seems to me that Tom is entirely
> consistent and it's other people who are "two-faced" in their
> reactions to him.
That is some bizarre twist, Mika. I cannot follow you through that one,
and have no intention of trying. Tom is a consistently vicious bully who
every once in a while acts socially cordial and then squeals like a
stuck picg if one of his former victims tells a third party that being
wished a happy birthday by such a creep was an icky experience akin to
being wished a happy birthday by a family rapist.
>> The cause of the two-facedness is not known.
>
> Sure it is. He is 'two-faced' because that's how you perceive him.
We have a serious philosophical difference of opinion. I am not one of
those people who believe that my perceptions are the be-all of reality.
I think people other than myself actually do things and that the things
they do are real, even without my perceiving them. Tom is a two-faced
person regardless of whether i read his posts or not. He has been like
that for about 15 years. I think it's chronic.
You know, you'd do a lot better in these conversations if you took a
stand for your own beliefs rather than starting every other sentence
with "you" (meaning ME). It is pointless to try to make hay here by
casting around with the same cold-reading bullshit that Tom always pulls
on folks; it is worthless currency.
Just a kindly reminder: You have no right or reason to tell me what i
think, what questions i should consider, what i "wish" i had said, what
"unresolved issues" i have, or any of that. You have the right to ASK me
what i think, and that's all.
The sooner you figure that out, the sooner you will stop looking for all
the world like a little puffed-up Tom wannabe and start looking like a
real human being.
It is still possible that you might come to your senses. Start with a
"reverse-Crowley" -- eliminate the word "YOU" from your posts for a
mointh or slash your arm with a razor blade every time you use the
second person singular.
Go ahead, give it a try
-- and give the rest of us around here some
peace for a while.
Thanks.
cat yronwode
