A fresh Dialectical approach?

[AaronAgassi]

Socrates most famously declared that the unexamined life is not worth the living. This has been taken as a value proposition, but it might turn out to be good practical advice as well, indeed, as revealed by endlessly trite conversation on these very forums. Because people persist in assumptions that plainly are not operant.

There are two kinds of social myths in play: Firstly, there are expectations regarding relationships. But one only needs to look around for oneself at all to discover that the myths are, by enlarge, not true. The second kind of social myth, is the common wisdom about how to go about meeting new friends. And no matter how persisted in, alas, those myths especially do not seem to be panning out either.

In the alternative, then, I propose, instead, that we begin first by detailing those individual values which ever achieved, might best fulfill and assuage loneliness, end boredom and overcome unhappiness. Then let us imagine the optimal circumstances or situation for maximal gratification all thereof. And only then, let us strategize.

And never mind any other concepts of success, anybody else's picture of the fast track, or bankrupt homilies of social interaction.

My own personal value statement, situational preferences and broadest initial strokes strategically, may be found on my website, http://www.FoolQuest.com
Just click the "explanations" hyperlink...

 

[Simmias]

But aren't social myths the repository of our species' wisdom? One who tries to act on them impulsively will not succeed but does not the man who dwells on them, seeking meaning, not take advantage of lessons sorely learned by others?

But this is part of the strategy. The question for now is, which values, shortly put, end loneliness and overcome unhappiness?

I will suggest that one such value is a concern for the happiness of others. I suggest the value is best expressed in another cliche "People like people who like people"

 

[AaronAgassi]

Surely, our species repository of wisdom progresses only via ongoing refutation and reappraisal.

And indeed, when I speak of values, values being derivative from human needs, I mean such hoped for stimuli as we might optimistically predict could at all overcome loneliness, boredom and unhappiness. -All applicable selfishly or altruistically...

Hence, do people really like people who like people? I expect that, Empirically, even that may vary. Can it really be so simple to become beloved by all?

In any case, certainly, the less choosy anyone is, liking all people without distinction or preference, the more easily happy. But what if for anyone such simply is not the case? In the cutting prose of Kathleen Norris: "When you are unhappy, is there anything more maddening than to be told that you should be contented with your lot?"

 

[Simmias]

Indeed we must try to refute all common wisdom. To either follow blindly or dismiss out of hand is equally wasteful of opportunity. But one who tries to refute the received wisdom may be starting on a path of enlightenment on the very problem that plagues them. when there is nothing else to cling to why not cling to truism when it is offered?

Now one can try to carry out this refutation by a purely internal monologue. I submit two minds are better than one. A dialogue, if you will, is more likely to synthesize truth.

So a person has offered a truism. I have told you not to cry over spilt milk or some other blah. What does the recipient of this pearl do next? A swine would dismiss it, ignoring the kind intention that lay behind the offering. Another kind of swine would rush off as if they now had the meaning to life and when they failed they would seek comfort in another cliche. They will get nowhere.

But if we want to address our loneliness we must be men and not swine. I submit the inquiring soul now has an opportunity. It is a treasure, a chance to pick the brain of another soul with different experiences from our own. Don't we guard our treasures? I treat a treasure gently. In this case we have a human being who reached out to us. They are real. One must judge their capabilities. Not all are capable of formal Socratic enquiry. It is intimidating to today's eyes. But one may initiate an informal dialogue. And to guard one's treasure one must surely protect it. People like people who like people. One must be liked if one is to find success with loneliness. No one owes us anything, they m[/i]ust want to continue to offer it.

So ask about their favourite book already! We can pick their brains later.

 

[AaronAgassi]

Fortunately, in actuality, there is more than truism. How individuals can find themselves so bereft of all other recourse in our information age, is a question of culture, education and psychology. And yes, I certainly hope two or more heads will be better than one. Mine aches!

However I perceive that you advance some more specific suggestion as how to relate to others on this forum. But I remain unclear as to your intended specifics. Indeed, to speak of truism, me thinks you hint for me to sweeten my disposition! And you may rebuke me as a social pigmy to lack the guile. But in truth, I am not having fun. Honestly, I have held back my frustration. For while I have seen some bad manners, what is most sorely lacking amid steriotypical interaction, is openness.

 

[Simmias]

The specifics will differ just as people differ. Few will find their best friend here but it is open to all to try. Ultimately failed attempts satisfy two needs, as I see it, and are therefore worthwhile even if largely futile.

They offer, first of all, a momentary diversion from the practicalities of loneliness. They are a chance to share a funny story one saw on the news or to rant to someone about a minor annoyance. To respond otherwise, in turn, would be churlish. One must facilitate one's quest by keeping the pathways open. Build the foundations of friendship because the true friendship doesn't come ready made. We must always try to build foundations where we find land.

Secondly, they are dialogue. Few dialogues will result in a final answer. But all dialogues can be prodded, gently, to offer insight. The enquiring mind then takes that synthesis and adds it to their internal monologue. When the next dialogue begins, one is further advanced.

So one must, I submit, be likable before one will be liked. One need not be a fool because we need not indulge in idle chatter in the name of friendship, but we must force open the gates to further knowledge when we can. Try to understand the other person. Listen to what they would talk about. That, I think, is how we find someone who will indulge in meaningful enquiry.


It will not always be fun. I submit it is necessary.
And this is fun. It would be a chore if it were not also fun

 

[AaronAgassi]

Is likeability objective or subjective? In any case, it might surprise you to discover that I believe myself to be an understanding person. I certainly hope not to be churlish. For I am indeed inpatient with idle small talk. Particularly, as on occasion, when the vacuous smacks however poisonously sweet! Nor have I seen doors opened thereby on this forum, particularly. Only more of the same, stubborn and endless. And I do feel the need to draw my personal boundaries.

It seems that you are pressing tactical considerations, and thereby rejecting my suggestion, in definance of truism, of how to begin by defining values. Indeed, much as Socrates declared that justice is the greatest expedience, I myself suspect that meaning may be the greatest strategic consideration, socially.

 

[Simmias]

Likeability, as I define it, is entirely subjective. I don't see that as a weakness because, from my own life, I can offer myself objective proof of its success.

I define it as follows, for now:
The overall feeling, when examining oneself, that you would like to meet this person; that they wouldn't irritate you unduly or be blind to your feelings. It also encompasses efforts to realise our flaws as others see them and to make sensible attempts to modify what needs modified

I'd like a person like that, someone who showed me consideration. Wouldn't this be fertile ground on which to plant a friendship? To seek a meeting of minds on a common journey?

I have read your contributions to this board and I have seen many attempts you have made to offer your understanding and, uncommonly, your time. If those offers have been rejected it is to your credit that you keep trying.

But I have just read your edit
Tactics must take a back seat but I felt invited to share with the group
Would you define values further for me? It's as well not to set off on the wrong foot if we intend to reach a destination




[/i]

 

[AaronAgassi]

I would never imagine forbidding you from arguing the importance of tactics, nor any other beginning you might care to offer.

As for defining my terms, first of all, I was about to reedit again. Usage of the word: 'meaning' might be ambiguous. I was going to substitute the word: 'relevance.'

Complex systems of any kind, natural, social or technological, all survive by evolutionary improvement relevant to whatever external goal, such as food and defense in the wild or end user utility in the market. And next comes the normative stage, the refinement in efficiency of internal processes. -Which too, will be fruitful, initially... But then refinement in efficiency of internal processes may become obsessive, loosing all sight of purposeful external goals. Such are the normative death throws of complex systems. The tail wags the dog!

Specifically to our concerns, absurd social expectations eclipse all constructive purpose. As when paperwork take priority over customer service. Or social standing and ritual take precedence say, over good sex or decent food!

Love is a value because love is a need. Charity is a value because someone will need it. Democracy is of value because it does anyone any good in the pursuit of happiness, the striving in fulfillment of needs.

Homo Sapience differs from other animals on two important fronts:
First of all, whereas, many other animals only rut seasonally, we think of sex on an average every seven seconds... -all day year round!
Secondly, competition within our species forced evolution of the human brain beyond the actual needs of coping with the natural environment, thereby creating unique stimulus needs to our species, the unique human social intelligence.

For more, again, set your browser to my website, http://www.FoolQuest.com and click the "explanations" hyperlink...

Alas, however, endless socially deferred gratification has suppressed stimulating and gratifying interaction and intimacy of any kind. Whereas, in truth, often, stimulating and gratifying interaction is what is truly most productive, even in all practical consideration. -the advantages of real dialogue over monological gainsaying being prime example...

All of the above is why I find myself exhorting all and sundry to imagine for themselves the stimuli that would gratifyingly assuage loneliness, and the circumstance wherein such might most readily be accomplished, before only then constructing any plan of action, let alone grasping at common wisdom.

 

[Simmias]

We are in agreement as to the solution, though we must test the depth of that agreement. It would indeed be of benefit for most of us to sit and fearlessly and openly work through problems in a dialogue. To do so with minds as lonely as one's own would seem a gift of great potential. To refuse to deal with a problem does beg the question of whether the problem is being taken seriously.

Should one be exhorted to do so? The intentions are good but is the method? Socratic dialogue is a powerful tool but one which most are unfamiliar with. I suggest again that to be thrust into it unawares is a brutal and bewildering experience. One must know the rules of the game before indulging in it, before any benefit can accrue. Perhaps this thread will serve as a demonstration of the value of rigorous proposition testing. Maybe then your exhortations will be received gladly because people understand why you ask such seemingly blunt questions of them. It is my hope that this becomes the case.

I find myself suggesting that a such a technique should be introduced by gentle degrees. The technique can be applied in a formal way, as here, or in a conversational way. I submit again that a concern for the happiness of others is the key to creating the conditions for such a dialogue to flourish. If one's attempts are thwarted one must surely try new methods? The goal is the same and the results are the same. Surely a bit of small talk is a small price to pay for this?

So I find myself stronger than ever in my assertion that concern for the happiness of others is a value. It is altruistic but also in one's self interest. Is this not a kind of charity, to be flexible in one's expectations for a greater good?

But what values should we discuss? Are we still too close to the tactical for now?

 

[AaronAgassi]

Surely, I cannot ever remember denying the value of concern for the happiness of others, or of altruism generally! Indeed, obviously such is the crux of my inquiry. Perhaps you actually mean, more precisely, the comfort of others, which also must seem of some value. The question, however, is of priority and trade-offs. And I take it that your thrust is that, indeed, the comfort of others paralyzed with trepidation is paramount to ever coaxing them forward.

And yes, this still seems, and legitimately so, a tactical consideration. And by no means would I actually refuse to discuss it. -Or even to consider the prospect of a more sensitive and tactful Dialectic! -Though, concievably, the result might seem more Freudian than Socratic...

Nevertheless, my open question to you personally, as to all and sundry, remains distinct, and still stands, as to what kind of experience would fulfill and alleviate loneliness, boredom and unhappiness. Then, what sort of conditions might best facilitate whatever said beneficial interactions and stimuli. And only then, strategy towards accomplishment thereof.

Are you interested? -Either for your own sake, or as public demonstration or experiment?

Or do you see some problem with such an undertaking itself?

 

[Simmias]

Thank you. I think I have a clearer indication of where we should be starting our enquiry.

So, the experience that would alleviate boredom, loneliness and unhappiness?

Of course it should be developed and defined further but as a start I will suggest:

A new and developing certainty that another person, however remote the physical presence, takes an interest in your life. To know that someone will always listen to your thoughts and offer considered and sensitive advice. Relevant advice, tailor made by one who both knows and cares about you. This exchange is without doubt to be two way and biographical details emerge in due course. Small talk is the grease on the wheels that allows a bond to develop
There is an experience of knowing that you have positively touched the life of another and it is satisfying. One is no longer alone. There is another mind, as soul if you will, that responds uniquely when one "speaks"
In essence it is the setting aside of part of your mind to care about another. It distracts from loneliness and helps alleviate it.[/i]

That was my experience on this site. It is my starting place in describing the experience that allows me to say I am no longer lonely. Where is my definition lacking? Do you have a model in mind, a vision of what success looks like?

And yes,I agree, the comfort of others is a much better phrase for what I am aiming to describe Their happiness is their own affair but their comfort is in our hands.
I am interested in this personally but I would also like to see it demonstrate the Socratic method .Perhaps someone else will make a point of their own and the discussion widens. At best it will become accepted and offer a method, on this board, to deal with loneliness other than hugs and sympathy noises. I don't know what it would be at worst. A disappointment?

 

[AaronAgassi]

In a word: friendship. Any two or more willing may undertake such an interaction. And anything less is mere acquaintance. In principle, friendship is simple. -In principle. The questions of the obstacles to friendship, and better conditions for attaining and sustaining friendship, however, are by far more complex.

And what I see most missing is simple candor.

Indeed, as for small talk, often that just feels like an endless and toxic delaying tactic, and that's why I am uncomfortable and won't take the bait. Because what they demand for their own comfort is not empathy, but to the contrary, endorsement of their closed and self destructive way of life and conformity thereto. They will never accept me nor Socratic Method either, I fear. But browse this forum for yourself: They can go in this way forever!

I hope that you won't mind me repeating what you messaged to me privately: They do not engage one another in dialogue, but only post monologues! Indeed, and for all the encounter group affectation of SHARING, if they ever come together at all, it must be more furtively than mice under cover at a cat sanctuary! This forum is clearly not a social environment supportive or conducive to friendship.

 

[Simmias]

Then let us add candor to my definition of the experience that banishes loneliness, boredom and unhappiness at one fell swoop.. I, for one, need it in a friendship and without it I would merely have an acquaintance. I still maintain that I found friendship here.

Would you define friendship for me? While I accept your statement that it is essentially simple experience teaches that it is anything but. Can we deny that others tell the truth when they say they have dozens of friends? Surely they must be happy with superficiality but yet they claim to have friends and they seem happy. Their definition of friend is very different from mine bt yet I must allow that they have found the friends they need.

What does friendship look like to you? How would you recognise it?
Many uses can be made of this forum. If you mean this particular forum is not conducive to friendship then I partly accept that; It would be good to see more than one approach to things. But the loudest members aren't the only members. We must search out people we would like to consider possibly being friends with. We all have one thing in common and that's a good start. We must find ways to begin speaking to those we may eventually befriend. Should we care too much what those first words are if they get the job done. Small talk need not be vacuous, it need only allow room for an easy response to be made. It is a key to the possibility of the deeper dialogue that you seek.
But in general do you allow a forum can be an ideal way to meet a new friend?

 

[AaronAgassi]

I thought that I was clear that I found your own description that I summed up as friendship, all quite adequate. Some people, enviably enough, even so have many real close friends. But often popularity, so called, may only be superficial. Indeed, to make the most extreme and paradoxical case, typically "popular" bullies are actually only widely feared and actually despised!

But yes, I'm all for seeking out more receptive prospective connections. Not that I'm all that clear how. You insist that some kind of genial small talk is key. Naively speaking, however, my first thought might be, rather that "burying the headline," actually to come right to whatever the point and advertise anything of value. Even a question or prompt, however open ended, can be all focused so that the response will be revealing and ay all to whatever the point.

 

[Simmias]

Thank you for clarification, I had misread and thought you had offered an alternative to my description. I do wonder if that now we have a description of the end result it is now time to start addressing the prerequisite conditions necessary to attain such.

Shall we try now to shed light on the ways of seeking prospective connections of a quality nature? Small talk is a key but it is not the only key, I imagine. That bait we offer as attraction must also do its job. It is not naive, I don't believe, to offer that which is actually available. But the packaging must attract interest if the product is to be taken from the shelf and examined. Only then does its quality, or lack of, have any relevance.

I see your reputation has gone up over night. Is it possible people are now becoming, at last, more receptive to what you are trying to do?

 

[AaronAgassi]

Why is it so popular simply to fake attention of which we are all so starved? Why aren't more rigorous groundwork and creative problem solving more appealing as expression of real care? Where is the sense of crisis?

 

[Simmias]

As to why faking attention is popular? I don't know but it seems to be a common response. But not common to all people. I do not suggest seeking connections with people who are fake but rather using the resources we have. Here, for example, is a place where one may be asked for advice, read the member's prior posts and then respond. How else will a close friendship develop other than with the sharing of minds? Well, here is opportunity greater than will ever be found in any number of bookstores and coffeeshops!

. Ignore the fake and seek out those who may interest you as potential future friends. Give what they have said in other threads some thought, consider you response and then reply. It need not be vacuous but if you offer sympathy as well as hard questioning then I would argue the response will be more conducive to further dialogue. If dialectic thinking is, as I contend, harsh in today's mind it is perhaps better to explain before operating. A wise doctor calms their patient before carrying out surgery. His bedside manner is not necessary to the surgery at hand but he must have a reason for calming his patient, surely? Is it not in his self interest to make sure that the patient is aware of what is about to happen?

Is dialogue about loneliness a means or an end though? It seems to me that pursuing a friendship is a far more realistic way of dealing with loneliness itself. The questions will be asked precisely because of the friendship somehow built but they will not build the friendship. Discourse of this sort is incidental to the hard business of killing loneliness. It is action that counts.

Thus rigorous groundwork in friendship building allows an environment where creative problem solving can flourish. Each is as important as the other, I suggest. To my mind this end, friendship, justifies the means and to neglect the small things puts at risk the achievement of great things.

Is there a crisis? I only see opportunities.

 

[AaronAgassi]

I am certainly having trouble wading through the posts seeking out people and points to answer on topic, much as I do try. Many threads just leave me stymied for any response at all. What to do?

Perhaps you are correct that the most venial can be the most visible. Many people play games and demand attention, but then they don't want others to look too close! And it might be handy to be able to spot them sooner and avoid them, instead of having to sound them out and come into strife. But even if I did, there are those who will object even to serious conversation between others entirely. -self appointed small talk police! And they can be extremely abusive with utter impunity. I see it all the time! That is why I see such obstacle in the very social paradigm.

As for a more soothing approach, I must admit that might not be my style. I will always strive to reassure others who exhibit distress, but I find people who start out too apologetic and conciliatory actually somewhat off putting. Rather, for me, a connection occurs when another does appreciate the real effort of thought that I am putting into whatever their troubles and responds with any openness and cooperation. It is important to be understood as a straight shooter, in order to be able to offer vital criticism. Too much soft sell may even be injurious to such credibility. The doctors with the best bedside manner are the ones who have conned me the worst and wasted my time the most egregiously!

Certainly I have no objection to seeking friendship. But my best way to be a friend in such an unhappy community, is to make some real effort with other who suffer. It's all fine and good to express sympathy, and even to reflect and help clarify the feelings and perceptions of others when isolation has clouded their self insight. But how true is my sympathy should it fall short of actual help, even problem solving from a distance online? I am tired of people who sooth others only in order to keep them passive! Indeed, I see crisis in so many people struggling so long and fruitlessly with loneliness. And that is why I am frustrated that then they don't take the challenge more seriously. And yes, that rather dims my own sense of opportunity.

Also, as crucial and fundamental as is the value of friendship, perhaps group dynamics is also deserving of our attention, simply in order to be able to do more and live in greater security, as the latter are also values that I am missing. But I can leave that up to you. If you have a technique that is working, then who am I to scoff? Nevertheless, also even my friendship needs may still differ somehow from yours.

My initial point has only been that instead of people making great sacrifice enduring stressful and unfulfilling interaction all in deferred gratification towards some hoped for end payoff, it might be better first to define whatever interactions would better gratify, before executing any laborious strategy from common wisdom which may be discovered to be quite irrelevant. Instead, any better informed cooperation might be more fulfilling.

Consider, for example, our unhappy ordeals of courtship exactly as suffered by so many on this forum: Can't you imagine better? By design, no one's needs are met. No doubt that better strategy is the very least of it. Even such considerable improvement as ever achievable by successful cultivation of more functional social networks would only make for a good start.

 

[Simmias]

I am bubbling with the desire to go tactical but I shall restrain myself a while longer.
There is a trap, I fear, in hoping to find friendship in initial contacts. It is a richer offering you make than mere hugs and stale words but it falls on ground that has not yet been prepared There is a question looming too that we shouldn't ignore; What must a man do when experience shows him that his attempts are simply fruitless?
He must then make decisions about what he tries next if he is not always to remain frustrated. He must know whether the prize is worth the effort or whether he is content just to dream of success.

I believe I can demonstrate that the conditions for friendship exist here, on this very site. But first I must know this:

What are Aaron's friendship needs? What would gratify?
We can thrash about in the hypothetical forever but it seems a missed opportunity not to talk from the examples we know best. The tactical will be richer if it has relevance to us.

Group dynamics are certainly worthy of attention but I will leave that to you to introduce. At the moment I'm wrestling with the temptation to send you "50 tried and tested icebreakers to end loneliness and attract women"