4 ms·

Don't you wish well on people you don't want to associate with? It would be interesting if you didn't, imo.

by dmos62 6mo ago

latexr 6mo ago
> people you don't want to associate with That’s an oversimplification of what your parent comment said, which was someone who has betrayed your trust. > It would be interesting if you didn't Why? What’s interesting about it? You don’t have to actively wish harm on people who harmed you, but there’s nothing strange about not wishing them well.
- dmos62 6mo ago
  You make it sound like wishing harm or wishing wellness are activities while not wishing anything is just the default passive state. To me the default posture is not indifference, but wishing wellness. We throw around words like "interesting", which is a subtle way to say "not normal", which is a subtle way to say that that's not how we would behave and that we think that others shouldn't behave that way either. So I take back what I said about what is interesting to me, and I'll just say that I wish it was normal to wish well to others, regardless of their actions or repercussions you impose on them.
  - latexr 6mo ago
    > You make it sound like wishing harm or wishing wellness are activities while not wishing anything is just the default passive state. Not what I said. > To me the default posture is not indifference, but wishing wellness. Same here. I’m not convinced that’s the default state for everyone, though. David Foster Wallace’s “This is Water” comes to mind. > We throw around words like "interesting", which is a subtle way to say "not normal", which is a subtle way to say that that's not how we would behave and that we think that others shouldn't behave that way either. Sure, I get that. Though you’re still answering as if what was in question was the neutral state of “people you don’t associate with” rather than the negative state in question mentioned by your original parent comment of “someone who has wronged you”. > I'll just say that I wish it was normal to wish well to others, regardless of their actions or repercussions you impose on them. Interesting. No criticism on my part. My wish would rather be that we don’t wrong each other (which, crucially, requires intentionality) in the first place. And while I don’t typically wish ill on others, I don’t think it’s wrong to not wish well on those who cause harm. If you’re a despot oppressing millions of people for your own selfish benefit, I don’t really think wishing you well is a positive action. But again, no judgement, I was trying to understand your position, so thank you for clarifying. Have a nice weekend.
  - BugsJustFindMe 6mo ago
    > You make it sound like wishing harm or wishing wellness are activities while not wishing anything is just the default passive state. To me the default posture is not indifference, but wishing wellness. It looks like you've misinterpreted both what I said and what latexr said. Allow me to clarify and reorient the conversation back to the original direction... First, neither of us is the universal subject. Your default feeling and my default feeling are not "the" default feeling. There's no such thing as "the" default feeling. Second, nothing I or they said has anything to do with any "default passive state", because this is not a "default passive" situation. The word "betray" here is important. "Betrayal" happens actively, not passively. Feel however you want to feel about your passive default situations. This situation is different. The only way someone can "betray" trust is by invalidating trust on purpose. If they harm you on purpose without trust, they have not betrayed any trust because there was none. If they invalidate trust accidentally, they have not "betrayed" the trust. They only "betray" your trust if you put trust in them and then they invalidate the trust intentionally. > I'll just say that I wish it was normal to wish well to others, regardless of their actions How very noble. Anyway, sorry Siddhartha, if someone actively "betrays" me they can go die in a fire. That has nothing to do with my "default passive" feeling about people.
    - dmos62 6mo ago
      I agree there's no universal default or normal. That was my point too. We are in agreement that betrayal and purposeful harmfulness don't have a default reaction. I expressed how I choose to react, and you expressed how you choose to react. Our choices don't match, and I think that's ok. I've not read Siddhartha. I take it you didn't like it.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
blitzar 6mo ago
No, if I believed wishes, hopes and prayers affected anything why would I waste the finite quantity of them on random people let alone people I professionally separated myself from? As Donald Draper once said "I don't think about you at all."
- dmos62 6mo ago
  If you would rewatch Mad Men, you might notice that Donald Draper is not well adjusted. It's not subtle either. What makes you say that wishes are finite? Do you ration them out to your loved ones?
  - blitzar 6mo ago
    We have finite time, considering ones wishes towards someone takes a portion of that time even if it is a very small fraction of time.
    - dmos62 6mo ago
      If we get into it, I think that beliefs are a better abstraction that wishes. Beliefs structure relationships. How does a person believe that he relates to another person. So when I think of "wishing someone well", it's an English-language nuance that makes it an activity, but in reality it's a choice of what beliefs I hold. And, I find, the only beliefs that are a chore to carry around are those that don't serve me.

Don't you wish well on people you don't want to associate with? It would be interesting if you didn't, imo.

by dmos62 6mo ago

Don't you wish well on people you don't want to associate with? It would be interesting if you didn't, imo.

> people you don't want to associate with That’s an oversimplification of what your parent comment said, which was someone who has betrayed your trust. > It would be interesting if you didn't Why? What’s interesting about it? You don’t have to actively wish harm on people who harmed you, but there’s nothing strange about not wishing them well.

dmos62 6mo ago
You make it sound like wishing harm or wishing wellness are activities while not wishing anything is just the default passive state. To me the default posture is not indifference, but wishing wellness. We throw around words like "interesting", which is a subtle way to say "not normal", which is a subtle way to say that that's not how we would behave and that we think that others shouldn't behave that way either. So I take back what I said about what is interesting to me, and I'll just say that I wish it was normal to wish well to others, regardless of their actions or repercussions you impose on them.
- latexr 6mo ago
  > You make it sound like wishing harm or wishing wellness are activities while not wishing anything is just the default passive state. Not what I said. > To me the default posture is not indifference, but wishing wellness. Same here. I’m not convinced that’s the default state for everyone, though. David Foster Wallace’s “This is Water” comes to mind. > We throw around words like "interesting", which is a subtle way to say "not normal", which is a subtle way to say that that's not how we would behave and that we think that others shouldn't behave that way either. Sure, I get that. Though you’re still answering as if what was in question was the neutral state of “people you don’t associate with” rather than the negative state in question mentioned by your original parent comment of “someone who has wronged you”. > I'll just say that I wish it was normal to wish well to others, regardless of their actions or repercussions you impose on them. Interesting. No criticism on my part. My wish would rather be that we don’t wrong each other (which, crucially, requires intentionality) in the first place. And while I don’t typically wish ill on others, I don’t think it’s wrong to not wish well on those who cause harm. If you’re a despot oppressing millions of people for your own selfish benefit, I don’t really think wishing you well is a positive action. But again, no judgement, I was trying to understand your position, so thank you for clarifying. Have a nice weekend.
- BugsJustFindMe 6mo ago
  > You make it sound like wishing harm or wishing wellness are activities while not wishing anything is just the default passive state. To me the default posture is not indifference, but wishing wellness. It looks like you've misinterpreted both what I said and what latexr said. Allow me to clarify and reorient the conversation back to the original direction... First, neither of us is the universal subject. Your default feeling and my default feeling are not "the" default feeling. There's no such thing as "the" default feeling. Second, nothing I or they said has anything to do with any "default passive state", because this is not a "default passive" situation. The word "betray" here is important. "Betrayal" happens actively, not passively. Feel however you want to feel about your passive default situations. This situation is different. The only way someone can "betray" trust is by invalidating trust on purpose. If they harm you on purpose without trust, they have not betrayed any trust because there was none. If they invalidate trust accidentally, they have not "betrayed" the trust. They only "betray" your trust if you put trust in them and then they invalidate the trust intentionally. > I'll just say that I wish it was normal to wish well to others, regardless of their actions How very noble. Anyway, sorry Siddhartha, if someone actively "betrays" me they can go die in a fire. That has nothing to do with my "default passive" feeling about people.
  - dmos62 6mo ago
    I agree there's no universal default or normal. That was my point too. We are in agreement that betrayal and purposeful harmfulness don't have a default reaction. I expressed how I choose to react, and you expressed how you choose to react. Our choices don't match, and I think that's ok. I've not read Siddhartha. I take it you didn't like it.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

blitzar 6mo ago

No, if I believed wishes, hopes and prayers affected anything why would I waste the finite quantity of them on random people let alone people I professionally separated myself from? As Donald Draper once said "I don't think about you at all."

dmos62 6mo ago
If you would rewatch Mad Men, you might notice that Donald Draper is not well adjusted. It's not subtle either. What makes you say that wishes are finite? Do you ration them out to your loved ones?
- blitzar 6mo ago
  We have finite time, considering ones wishes towards someone takes a portion of that time even if it is a very small fraction of time.
  - dmos62 6mo ago
    If we get into it, I think that beliefs are a better abstraction that wishes. Beliefs structure relationships. How does a person believe that he relates to another person. So when I think of "wishing someone well", it's an English-language nuance that makes it an activity, but in reality it's a choice of what beliefs I hold. And, I find, the only beliefs that are a chore to carry around are those that don't serve me.