Re: [DNG] Mutuality and harmlessness
Dear Steve. Martin Steigerwald - 27.11.18, 10:30: > I skip responding to the other posts and instead let all the different > colors expressed there just be. Of course, I let your opinion also be, Steve. As there really i no "instead". I can also let an opinion be I reply to. Thanks, -- Martin ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Mutuality and harmlessness
Dear Steve. Steve Litt - 25.11.18, 19:18: > On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 09:27:20 +0100 > Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > Hello Spiral of Hope. > > > > Thank you for your point of view. > > > > spiralofhope - 24.11.18, 18:24: > > > Now > > > > > > > what happens if I let go any belief that some of them are true > > > > or > > > > right, preferably my own, and some of them are false or wrong, > > > > preferably those of apparent others? What is beyond true or > > > > false, > > > > beyond right or wrong, beyond black or white, beyond left or > > > > right? What if, just what if this world is not binary, like a > > > > computer? What > > > > if, just what if this world has all the different colors and > > > > none > > > > of them are right or wrong? > > > > > > The binary is real. > > > > For me it is not. It is just part of the illusion. > > Genocide is wrong, full stop. > > I know you know this, but say it just in case there's any moral > equivocator who really believes there's no right or wrong in any > context: That's very dangerous. Just this for clarification: I named the thread "Mutuality and harmlessness". I also wrote: > Years ago I read a brilliant book titled (translated from german): "If > it hurts, it is no love". This is how I see love still: True love > never ever hurts. If it hurts, it is no love. I remember I wrote something along the lines of as well: If I hurt apparent others, I hurt myself. However I did not find it as I looked a moment ago. So I really see nothing in what I wrote which would support engaging in killing other people, engaging in genocide. As far as I see the belief in right or wrong, in good or bad – "You are a threat, cause you are bad" – and the wanting to control an apparent other's experience that I often saw coming along with it, is what motivated killing, what motivated genocides. Of course I can believe anything I like… however if I want to change the belief of any apparent other to align with my beliefs, that is where the trouble starts. Human beings used religions with a strict set of beliefs what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is bad, what is divine and what is evil to bring a lot of suffering among them. Just as an example. If any belief in right or wrong, good or bad, divine or evil every stopped human beings from harming each other… the prisons of this world would be empty. There are not. If I drop any beliefs in good or bad, right or wrong, divine or evil… why would I even want to harm anyone else? Does that mean I need to let people get away with any violence, with any abuse they come up with? No. Does that mean I should refrain from standing up for civility, mutuality and harmlessness? No. But when I stop standing up for this from the place of right or wrong, good or bad, divine or evil, when I start standing up for this from a place of love and freedom I stand up for this from a very different place. If anything in this world is loved into existence by the one self, which many call God, everything is sacred. I skip responding to the other posts and instead let all the different colors expressed there just be. Thank you, -- Martin ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Mutuality and harmlessness
On November 24, 2018 2:15:39 PM GMT+03:00, Martin Steigerwald wrote: >Dear readers, > >After all what I let go and what I learned in the process of doing so, >I >totally agree with had I heard during some recordings I used. There are > >two essential aspects for any relationship: Mutuality and harmlessness. > >In the current discussions on this list I have seen a great lack in >harmlessness. > >I feel uneasy about posting to this list, cause I absolutely do not >enjoy receiving a mail with a personal attack. I still dare to write >this mail as I know I can let go of any hurt. Also I am free to tell my > >mail server to block mails from persons attacking me or unsubscribe at >any time. > >However I certainly prefer dng-ml being a supportive and safe space for > >discussing all things Devuan. > >I commit to contribute to that by letting go, by carefully writing >mails >and by speaking my own truth. I commit to let go wanting to control any > >other's experience, opinion, belief or preference – especially as there > >are no other. It is not upon me to tell someone else what to think, >what >to believe, what to propose or what to agree with. So I commit to agree > >to disagree wherever there is disagreement or different opinions. > >That appears to happen a lot in this human condition. Ask ten people >about anything and you are very likely to get different answers. Now >what happens if I let go any belief that some of them are true or >right, >preferably my own, and some of them are false or wrong, preferably >those >of apparent others? What is beyond true or false, beyond right or >wrong, >beyond black or white, beyond left or right? What if, just what if this > >world is not binary, like a computer? What if, just what if this world >has all the different colors and none of them are right or wrong? > >Thank you. >-- >Martin Womp womp. m712 -- https://nextchan.org -- https://gitgud.io/blazechan/blazechan I am awake between 3AM-8PM UTC, HMU if the site's broken ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Mutuality and harmlessness
On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 20:40:28 + blinkdog wrote: > This discussion reminds me of a particularly apt web comic: > > https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-11-01 That's awesome. And correct-ish. It's not objectively wrong to scare children. Still, anyone who disagrees is _a monster_ (under the bed). > Don't forget to click the red button for the extra panel. If you didn't mention it, I wouldn't have noticed! ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Mutuality and harmlessness
On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 09:27:20 +0100 Martin Steigerwald wrote: At this point I'm trying to understand your perspective better, since maybe there are things to learn. I did notice I can articulate myself a bit better now. So even if it's a perspective either alien to you or not useful to you, I hope you can clarify yourself if you need to. Ultimately what I've learned is: Sometimes it's pointless or harmful to engage in a contest of opinions > spiralofhope - 24.11.18, 18:24: > > The binary is real. > > For me it is not. It is just part of the illusion. I had some time to think about this topic, and postmodernist opinion-based reality came to mind. I'm not applying that to you, but I wonder if that's what colored my earlier response. I like the separateness you described for yourself. Do I understand your perspective something like so?: It's efficient and less egoistic (or just less stressful) to withdraw from fighting to determine the very existence of a scale or axis that has a binary perspective. Though I am thinking of your perspective tentatively, as though you are saying that "you don't participate" rather than you saying "it doesn't and can't possibly exist". Your forest example shows that you can gel into a solid opinion, ethic, and action. > Or does that even mean I am not engaging with… what you called self- > improvement? I do… I get that now, thinking of your forest example. > Looking into memory, whenever I attacked someone > else in person all I received is: Resistance. Yet, resistance does > not ever help to change anything. A side note: This could spin off into discussing the value of antagonism. For example, I think it says a lot that we now think of "argument" negatively. > Yes, even gender does not appear to be binary. I'm leaving that alone, but I'm told that's a red flag indicating postmodernist ideology. > Actually when I attack some apparent other in person, all I do is to > hurt myself. I opted out of the hurting cycle, cause it does not > contribute to happiness. That's wrong. Technically and objectively wrong. That's the toxic feminine (and contemporary postmodernist) perspective. Mothering and avoiding hurt is _not_ the always best way, it is _not_ always helping, and it does _not_ always contribute to happiness. Not nearly in the long-term way. It's just neurotic dodging. (though the opposite, whatever those things are, certainly aren't better) There is the concept of helping someone face toward the outside of their safe bubble, even pushing them toward it or out of that comfort zone. This has been demonstrably successful for stronger, healthier, happier people. That does begin with the very difficult problem of resistance (a good description), and overcoming it (ethically). Being pushed, or especially pushing one's self out of comfort is terrifying but incredibly valuable long-term. I think this comment still applies: > Nobody loves you who withholds their opinion to save your ego. Maybe I should also say things like: - expressing love isn't always about comforting - comfort isn't happiness - improvement hurts now, but is rewarding later I think these ideas are what I was getting at when I link a too-strong concern for happiness or love with lacking self-improvement. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Mutuality and harmlessness
Hendrik Boom - 25.11.18, 15:32: > On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 09:27:20AM +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > I can be perfectly honest to some apparent other, without ever > > choosing to hurt him, her or cis. (There may be other words or ways > > to refer to non binary genders in English. Yes, even gender does > > not appear to be binary.) > > Note: The prefix cis- is used to refer to the traditional binary > genders. For example, I am a cis-male. This means to a first > approximation that I was born male and am still male. Oh okay, then I made a mistake on the wording. Thanks for letting me know. Ciao, -- Martin ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Mutuality and harmlessness
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Sunday, November 25, 2018 12:18 PM, Steve Litt wrote: > > For me there is no right or wrong. At least not a generally accepted > > one. Right or wrong in itself is an ego thing. Ask 10 people about > > what they deem right and wrong and receive 10 different answers. > > Not on genocide. But on most things, there's certainly room for > disagreement. This discussion reminds me of a particularly apt web comic: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-11-01 Don't forget to click the red button for the extra panel. Patrick ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Mutuality and harmlessness
On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 09:27:20 +0100 Martin Steigerwald wrote: > Hello Spiral of Hope. > > Thank you for your point of view. > > spiralofhope - 24.11.18, 18:24: > > Now > > > > > what happens if I let go any belief that some of them are true or > > > right, preferably my own, and some of them are false or wrong, > > > preferably those of apparent others? What is beyond true or false, > > > beyond right or wrong, beyond black or white, beyond left or > > > right? What if, just what if this world is not binary, like a > > > computer? What > > > if, just what if this world has all the different colors and none > > > of them are right or wrong? > > > > The binary is real. > > For me it is not. It is just part of the illusion. Genocide is wrong, full stop. I know you know this, but say it just in case there's any moral equivocator who really believes there's no right or wrong in any context: That's very dangerous. By the way, you're the OP of this thread, and I agree with you that there have been entirely too many and too vicious personal insults in this thread. > Cause whenever I > really check… it is not there. Whenever I really checked whether > there is actually a me with all the rights, wrongs, goods or bads, > all the story, all the drama, without going into memory… I never > found it. > > However do not take my words for granted. Feel free to check for > yourself. [snip spiral's text] > > For me there is no right or wrong. At least not a generally accepted > one. Right or wrong in itself is an ego thing. Ask 10 people about > what they deem right and wrong and receive 10 different answers. Not on genocide. But on most things, there's certainly room for disagreement. > Now, > which one is wrong and which one is right? Of course you can fight > epic battles over that, like a systemd versus init freedom battle, a > vi versus emacs battle, a GNOME versus KDE battle, a Debian versus > Devuan battle, The preceding battles are so different from each other they're almost not in the same category. Neither vi nor emacs ever wrote any code to sabotage use of the other. GNOME vs KDE is a false choice: There are tens of excellent WM/DE's to choose from. The systemd thing is much more than init freedom (this from the guy who, as far as I know, first used init freedom as a talking point in the debian-user civil war). It's about incredibly bad architecture. It's about sabotage. It's about attempted monopolism. It's about the destruction of interchangeable parts. It's about barriers to DIY. It's about respect for users. Obviously there's no right answer in vi vs emacs: Depends entirely on your priorities. On the other hand, if you're a Linux user, systemd tends to be wrong, due to monolithic entanglement reducing user choices and increasing complexity. [snip a couple sentences I didn't understand] > I decide to choose my time more > wisely however instead of potentially sinking an unlimited amount of > time into it. The preceding is a wise policy unless the wrong is something incredibly wrong. SteveT Steve Litt November 2018 featured book: Manager's Guide to Technical Troubleshooting Brand new, second edition http://www.troubleshooters.com/mgr ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Mutuality and harmlessness
On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 09:27:20AM +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > I can be perfectly honest to some apparent other, without ever choosing > to hurt him, her or cis. (There may be other words or ways to refer to > non binary genders in English. Yes, even gender does not appear to be > binary.) Note: The prefix cis- is used to refer to the traditional binary genders. For example, I am a cis-male. This means to a first approximation that I was born male and am still male. -- hendrik ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] Mutuality and harmlessness
Hello Spiral of Hope. Thank you for your point of view. spiralofhope - 24.11.18, 18:24: > Now > > > what happens if I let go any belief that some of them are true or > > right, preferably my own, and some of them are false or wrong, > > preferably those of apparent others? What is beyond true or false, > > beyond right or wrong, beyond black or white, beyond left or right? > > What if, just what if this world is not binary, like a computer? > > What > > if, just what if this world has all the different colors and none of > > them are right or wrong? > > The binary is real. For me it is not. It is just part of the illusion. Cause whenever I really check… it is not there. Whenever I really checked whether there is actually a me with all the rights, wrongs, goods or bads, all the story, all the drama, without going into memory… I never found it. However do not take my words for granted. Feel free to check for yourself. > Without it, you never know if you are wholly wrong. You pretend you > cannot ever be wholly wrong, and demand that nobody tells you when you > are. You never get help correcting, or can even think to […] > Being wrong is common, (even normal before becoming less-wrong). > Being told one is wrong should be normalized. Accepting one is wrong > should be desirable. Going from being told one is wrong to being > helped to be right should is .. Good. There must be a wrong and a > right. […] For me there is no right or wrong. At least not a generally accepted one. Right or wrong in itself is an ego thing. Ask 10 people about what they deem right and wrong and receive 10 different answers. Now, which one is wrong and which one is right? Of course you can fight epic battles over that, like a systemd versus init freedom battle, a vi versus emacs battle, a GNOME versus KDE battle, a Debian versus Devuan battle, a you name it versus you name it battle, a it does not even matter at all versus it does not even matter at all battle or whatever battle you can imagine. I decide to choose my time more wisely however instead of potentially sinking an unlimited amount of time into it. There is a truth beyond all that, but it has nothing to do with the ego. Does that mean I do not stand up for the causes that are important for me? No, not at all. Recently I just stood up for the protection of the Hambacher forest as a part for my long time engagement for the end of burning coal for energy. And that is just one example. However whenever I clearly see that there is not one right or wrong… I do it from a very different perspective and with a lot more sustainable and long lasting results. It is even much more enjoyable and it helps me to let go of the suffering related to it. The more I open up to the perspective of the so called other, the more ways open up to me to actually facilitate change. I helped to initiate the fruitful cooperation between Debian and Devuan developers this way. Or does that even mean I am not engaging with… what you called self- improvement? I do… I easily spend several thousand of dollars on it in the last years. However… the more I dig into this, the more the perfection that is already there, the perfection within the seeming imperfection, the harmony beyond everything reveals itself to me. For me todays it is more and more about letting go of any arbitrary limitation I created and open up to my true potential that has been there from the beginning of all time already, just waiting for me to uncover it again. > Nobody loves you who withholds their opinion to save your ego. Telling my ego's opinion does not require myself to attack other people in person. Looking into memory, whenever I attacked someone else in person all I received is: Resistance. Yet, resistance does not ever help to change anything. Resistance is the clue that keeps stuck in the status quo. Yes, that is even how I reacted most of the time I felt personally attacked. I know a different way meanwhile. I can be perfectly honest to some apparent other, without ever choosing to hurt him, her or cis. (There may be other words or ways to refer to non binary genders in English. Yes, even gender does not appear to be binary.) Actually when I attack some apparent other in person, all I do is to hurt myself. I opted out of the hurting cycle, cause it does not contribute to happiness. Years ago I read a brilliant book titled (translated from german): "If it hurts, it is no love". This is how I see love still: True love never ever hurts. If it hurts, it is no love. Loving what is as part of the evolving perfection, just exactly as it is, opens up ways to change it. I stand by it, I commit to harmlessness in relationships everywhere and here on this list. If you disagree, feel free to disagree as much as you'd like to. It does not change my commitment. In this case however I see nothing left to discuss between us for now. I may choose not to reply any further due to
Re: [DNG] Mutuality and harmlessness
--- This is a bike shed topic for me. Incoming bullshittery. :) --- On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 12:15:39 +0100 Martin Steigerwald wrote: > Now > what happens if I let go any belief that some of them are true or > right, preferably my own, and some of them are false or wrong, > preferably those of apparent others? What is beyond true or false, > beyond right or wrong, beyond black or white, beyond left or right? > What if, just what if this world is not binary, like a computer? What > if, just what if this world has all the different colors and none of > them are right or wrong? The binary is real. Without it, you never know if you are wholly wrong. You pretend you cannot ever be wholly wrong, and demand that nobody tells you when you are. You never get help correcting, or can even think to self-correct. You never improve. You never examine ethics or philosophies and aspire to greatness. You close yourself off, becoming bigoted by demanding open acceptance to your unwillingness to pursuit it. Core philosophies absent of permanent-improvement are poison to the self, and when they are enforced for others, even and especially "to protect them", they are cancer to others. Being wrong is common, (even normal before becoming less-wrong). Being told one is wrong should be normalized. Accepting one is wrong should be desirable. Going from being told one is wrong to being helped to be right should is .. Good. There must be a wrong and a right. -- Nobody loves you who withholds their opinion to save your ego. The thing of it is that the more antagonistic someone is, without trolling (e.g. they have expertise you accept), the more terrifying their criticism becomes. "Oh shit, what if LVM+encryption+btrfs really _is_ a hot mess that solves problems I don't have and gives benefits I don't use by introducing risks I can't recover from?" Yes the problem is that they and their communication are not tailored to your tender needs, but also that one demands being treated tenderly in the first place by pretending that being wholly wrong isn't a thing. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
[DNG] Mutuality and harmlessness
Dear readers, After all what I let go and what I learned in the process of doing so, I totally agree with had I heard during some recordings I used. There are two essential aspects for any relationship: Mutuality and harmlessness. In the current discussions on this list I have seen a great lack in harmlessness. I feel uneasy about posting to this list, cause I absolutely do not enjoy receiving a mail with a personal attack. I still dare to write this mail as I know I can let go of any hurt. Also I am free to tell my mail server to block mails from persons attacking me or unsubscribe at any time. However I certainly prefer dng-ml being a supportive and safe space for discussing all things Devuan. I commit to contribute to that by letting go, by carefully writing mails and by speaking my own truth. I commit to let go wanting to control any other's experience, opinion, belief or preference – especially as there are no other. It is not upon me to tell someone else what to think, what to believe, what to propose or what to agree with. So I commit to agree to disagree wherever there is disagreement or different opinions. That appears to happen a lot in this human condition. Ask ten people about anything and you are very likely to get different answers. Now what happens if I let go any belief that some of them are true or right, preferably my own, and some of them are false or wrong, preferably those of apparent others? What is beyond true or false, beyond right or wrong, beyond black or white, beyond left or right? What if, just what if this world is not binary, like a computer? What if, just what if this world has all the different colors and none of them are right or wrong? Thank you. -- Martin ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
