Lately I've been fascinated by the speeches of Alan Watts. I have found them to be so helpful. I feel like I'm on the cusp of understanding something, but I'm not quite there yet. I've struggled with addiction for most of my life (food), and recently found out that Alan Watts, as wise as he was, also struggled with his own addiction (alcohol). I'm listening to one of his speeches now and this really stood out to me:
Is it simply a vicious circle? I could ask why have you come here this afternoon. What were you looking for? Would it be too presumptuous of me to say that you were looking for help? That you hoped you would hear somebody who had something to say that would be of relevance to you as members of a world which is running into the most intense difficulty? A world beset by a complex of problems any one of which would be bad enough. But when you add together all the great political, social and ecological problems with which we are faced they are appalling.
And one naturally says the reason why we are in such a mess is not simply that we have wrong systems for doing things, whether they be technological, political or religious. We have the wrong people. The systems may be all right, but they are in the wrong hands because we are all in various ways self-seeking, lacking in wisdom, lacking in courage, afraid of death, afraid of pain, unwilling to cooperate with others, unwilling to be open to others.
And we all think that's too bad, it's me that's wrong. If only I could be the right person. Is this man going to tell me something that will help me to change myself so that I will be a more creative and cooperative member of the human race? There is the obvious difficulty that if I am in need of improvement, the person who is going to do the improving is the one who needs to be improved. There, immediately we have a vicious circle.
I have lived the vicious circle for most of my life. The advice following is to be the observer, take a step back to not get carried away by your own stream of consciousness. You can try asking for grace, but it may not work. If you're still seeking, spirituality will only be the new candy bar or drink you're seeking.
So if I'm understanding correctly, I must stop seeking. This would be fitting with Buddhist teachings. This is the point I've been stuck on for quite some time. I can't get past it. Because isn't all that's left beyond seeking... death? The end? How does human life persist past this point? I've had moments in my life where I've temporarily been able to let go, and I am never able to sustain it because I have to come back down to earth to live. To wear the human mask and take on all that entails.
We aren't better because we want to be. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. All the do-gooders in the world--whether doing it for others or doing it for themselves--are troublemakers. Kindly let me help you or you'll drown, said the monkey putting the fish safely up a tree.
It makes perfect sense for helping others, but when I try to live a healthier lifestyle and be a better parent, how am I putting myself, the fish, up a tree? He says it's full of conceit, and that if I really knew what was best for me, that it would have happened by now. This part is depressing because it's basically stating that what is best for me is to have this struggle and to maybe go on and develop diabetes and die from it. But it feels bizarre and wrong for me to just accept something like that. Why live at all if you are just going to throw your hands up and say this is just how it is when things get hard?
It has become so tedious and repetitive. The older I get, the more death seems like a such a relief. So is that why I'm hastening it with compulsive bad habits? It feels like there's something more here, but I'm unable to comprehend what that is.
How am I to get out of my own way?
Okay, I'll take you up on that and report here since it's relevant to the discussion. The other day I reported someone for calling a celebrity they disliked an "insane dangerous psychopath" because they didn't believe her accusation against Marilyn Manson. You told the user they probably shouldn't do that, but let it slide because you don't know enough about the situation. All you did was embolden that user who went on to say that the celebrity in question is clinically a psychopath, as if they're a doctor able to diagnose something like that, and they picked apart her parenting which is irrelevant to what may or may not have happened between her and Manson decades ago. The whole time providing no sources, because the sources for such claims are gossip rags that can't be trusted. I tried talking sense into the person myself, they called me gross and doubled down that it's valid for them to be throwing diagnoses at strangers.
They were not engaging in good faith. When someone resorts to aggressive name-calling and severe accusations they're unable to back up with evidence, that is bad faith argument and it needs to be more than tiptoed around as you did. I stopped engaging because the both of you made it clear that it would not be possible for me to have a conversation in good faith without having insults hurled at me.
Why do the rules only apply to some people, and not others? Why let the name-calling slide when the motto is "bee nice"? Is there a case when it's okay to call someone a "dangerous insane psychopath" and we're not talking about a convicted felon with APD? Is it because she's a celebrity that you're happy to facilitate a space where she's so aggressively slandered? I'm trying to understand here. Even if you needed the facts before making a decision, It's easy to search up that Manson has already been tried and convicted of the sexual assault he committed in public back in 2001, that it was at least the second time he committed such an assault in front of his crowd, and that he has a growing list of accusers that is in the double digits now. There's no possibility that he is innocent in all of it, since at least two cases of sexual assault against nonconsenting individuals were witnessed and one case already convicted.
I was so put off of this site after seeing your response to this person with an obvious vendetta against Manson's accuser for who knows what reason. If you keep the users who resort to name-calling and unfounded accusations unchecked, you're going to lose engagement from the people who behave themselves. If you're wondering what I'm looking for here in response, a simple "Sorry, I'll do better" will suffice. And then do better. Delete and ban offensive name-calling and obvious slander that damages the credibility of women who speak out against their abusers.