Tuesday, 8 August 2017

Effects of the lunar eclipse/ Coding liberals.

I have gone to some lengths to be able to write this blog today, and when I am actually sitting down here I do not have a great deal to say!

However, let's have a go. Firstly, the lunar eclipse finished yesterday and there have been four events in four days for me personally:

A) A work do because someone has left.
B) A powerful dream related to my current progress
C) Meeting with a family member that was deeper than normal
D) Meeting with a close friend.

Two of these reflected an eclipse related movement, the other two did not, in that there was the metaphysical potential there but it did not happen.

a) My work do someone left which fits a closing cycle, and it became clear I have been noticed by some people I previously had considered probably did not notice me.
b) The dream was powerful but I could not follow it up. So it ended with instead of me being able to act on it only reflecting and feeling very bad about the reasons I could not follow up on this dream. I.e. worldly darkness. If I had have been able to and it had been successful my whole life would have changed and a lot would have been left behind in my understanding.
c) Meeting with a family member has lead to understanding on my father, which potentially ends an unspoken wall between us.
d) The close friend expressed that he did not want to talk about politics in even the milder disconnected sense of the word, plus has other personal tendencies of shutting things down. Although someone may think that this does reflect the end of a cycle in fact, shutting down communication and philosophical thought like this will only serve to make troublesome emotional trends longer.

I obviously need to set up a set of rules to relate online. I have found three types of leftist where the conversation ends predictably. (In fact I do not think I have met one outside this pattern):
Code 1: People that try and assert an emotional reality over a factual one and are emotionally wounded when they lose.
Code 2: People that will refuse to give a source because they have been actively lying and will simply ignore you and insist you are a troll to anyone who tries to interact with you.
Code 3: People that simply can’t accept new information and will offer a point, you respond to it, then they offer it again like a broken record
I remember three recent good examples of these sorts of behaviour. There are also other problems with online communication. If you talk on a public message board about people who you are having arguments with with whom the situation does actually blow over, or if you mention other usually hidden things in life, then the very permanent words on a chat board could potentially serve to harm the person stating them!

What is also interesting about these three codes is that they require opposing responses. Code 3 types of individuals are often hard- ish people. Angry indviduals who will argue your every small point. Code 1 type of individuals are opposite to that. Rather than dogged arguing while not being sidetracked by their personal attacks they actually respond to the doggedness with the pathetic victim card.

With Code 1's perhaps it is easier to say reasonably nice things to allow them to save face, with Code 3's any sense of kindness will be met with aggression or the claim that their points are correct.

It is worth digging out these arguments I think to represent them by real conversations, because liberals will, because they emotionally prefer it, try and state that they do not exist. The other thing a liberal might do is to state, without evidence that right wing people are just as bad. I cannot see how that can be defended against but at least having the nasty or pathetic liberal conversations to hand to show they really exist makes a movement towards a proof of sorts. Also, it is not a relevant point if I say that I am not arguing with the right anyway, but to them it still is.

Another thing they do is tell you you are arrogant because the things you are saying 'cannot be questioned'. But if one person has done hundreds of hours of research and online communication and another has done none then that is the result you would expect. The online dictionary definition of arrogance is making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud. Accusations of arrogance have to, if they are correct (but when has a liberal ever cared about that?) be met with proof that the superior knowledge is a pretension or inaccurate claim. Not simply the natural result of a knowledge difference in a specific area.

An astrological book by one of the best authors there is (in my opinion of course); Liz Greene, explained how when a man was going to die one year and a bit more beforehand his children were letting go of him and his impact on their lives. With any large societal change I imagine that same trends would be apparent. Is it that those who resist the trend, those who are not emotionally easy going enough to explore emotions and as a result let certain things go... That will have a problem with this shift?

I want to state clearly though that personally, I do not find that any of these problems are there in offline communication. Dealing with the emotions and reality of real people is not quite the same! Code 1 and code 3 are not so separated in real people.

No comments:

Post a Comment