The Musings of an Asshole
From time to time, it has been brought to my attention that I am an asshole.
Now, this descriptive noun has many uses, so without any context, it's hard to figure out just what it is supposed to say about me, when applied. I know that I am not ill-tempered, violent, vulgar, abusive, inconsiderate, insensitive, callous, unreliable, dishonest, deceitful or aggressive, so I'm sure it isn't for anything so overt. After a lot of careful thought, I think I've narrowed it down to a couple of things:
1. I often put principles before people.
and
2. People do not take me with a grain of salt often enough.
The kinds of principles I'm talking about pretty much all hinge on the central principle of truth: Being honest with others, honest with yourself, being careful with how you present and use the truth (presentation and motives for use are equally important in the equation, make no mistake), conveying the truth efficiently, and not being afraid of the truth - things of that sort. As much as I would never let go of these principles, they are, because of the nature of truth, the very beginning of many problems.
The truth is an elusive and subjective entity. It's relative. Sometimes paradoxical and difficult to understand. Some truths are more self-evident to different people, at different times. It's not uniform, and by that definition, not reliable. I acknowledge these things. I am aware of them. Still, I am relentlessly willing to hold the truth above most any other thing, as obscure as it may be at times.
Absolute truths are nearly impossible to come by and fully comprehend, if they exist at all. In our present culture, there is a preference for absolutes. The reliable. The facts. The cold hard evidence. Opinions, musings, and 'interpretation' are shunned, relegated to an inferior status. But when you realize that truth is almost never a static thing that exists in a vacuum, the best truth you can figure out with what is available, and the best ends you can think of for using that truth, become, well... the best you have.
Now we're starting to run into the problem. We're dealing with 'bests', and the understanding of what's best depends entirely on subjective values and perception. Maybe I can't see why something would be best. Maybe you don't care why something else would be best. Maybe we're both right, given our differing contexts. Maybe we're both completely oblivious to the 'real' best solution. Is this a handicap? I think it only becomes one if you fail to remember that this is the way it works. If you forget about subjectivity and context, your communication with others will be handicapped.
Why do I often put principles before people? Really, these two things don't exist on the same scale, because many of my principles involve giving due consideration to people. By 'putting before' I mean I will sometimes go to certain lengths to explain or adhere to a carefully thought out principle, even if there is a risk that people will disagree with me, either because they don't value the same things or they misunderstand. I like to be honest and open with whoever I interact with. I prefer environments where I can freely share thoughts and be assured that all the information will be used responsibly and productively (which is what I try to do with information that is sent my way, as well). This, of course, isn't possible with all people, and I acknowledge that - I have no illusions there. But occasionally I get into a position where I am communicating and the most honest information I can give is not taken with the proverbial grain of salt; that is: information that is understood as coming from a subjective viewpoint of limited understanding, but whose content may still be useful to thought-processing, and is totally able to be cast aside without consequence if it is deemed unuseful.
Maybe I live in a dreamworld, but I figure the only way anything I say can have any effect on another is if they view it as capable of altering the world they care about in some way. Or, my opinion has some value to them. If something I say is of no consequence and the person doesn't care about me, as far as I understand it, there are really no grounds for having any feelings on it whatsoever. This is why I never believe anyone who angrily tells me that I'm a witless idiot who can go to hell for all they care. They do care, about something, even if I can't put my finger on what.
A quote jumps to my mind:
"In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves." ~Buddha
When I communicate, truth is my primary concern, most of the time. I can get pretty anal about it, too, I know. There are very few times where I just shoot the shit and don't pay too close attention to what I say. Maybe there should be more of them, but presently, they are rare. I have a desire for any communication I have to be happening with someone who at least understands my stance, because I feel that's where the most progress can be achieved. I will sometimes try and promote understanding in places where I am not finding it, simply because it's hard to get anywhere if there's no common ground. But, in explaining, I'm not asking for my stance to be accepted, just comprehended. I think the assumption that I want you to accept my elucidations as truth, ipso facto, is why I've been called an asshole at times.
That's what I do. As we can see, this overly-verbose post has been brought about because of the times where the information: "You're an asshole" (or a variety of other titles) has been shared with me. If someone were to come to me and explain why this stance might not be one to take sometimes, I would use that same stance, that same spirit of truth, to try and understand why that might be the case.
I suppose this entry is a bit of a log, outwardly showing a sample of the process that I go through with information. I like to think that I will give serious consideration to anything, and serious practice to anything that consideration deems worthwhile. That even includes advice to not take things so seriously ;)
This has been fun, thanks for reading.
Now, this descriptive noun has many uses, so without any context, it's hard to figure out just what it is supposed to say about me, when applied. I know that I am not ill-tempered, violent, vulgar, abusive, inconsiderate, insensitive, callous, unreliable, dishonest, deceitful or aggressive, so I'm sure it isn't for anything so overt. After a lot of careful thought, I think I've narrowed it down to a couple of things:
1. I often put principles before people.
and
2. People do not take me with a grain of salt often enough.
The kinds of principles I'm talking about pretty much all hinge on the central principle of truth: Being honest with others, honest with yourself, being careful with how you present and use the truth (presentation and motives for use are equally important in the equation, make no mistake), conveying the truth efficiently, and not being afraid of the truth - things of that sort. As much as I would never let go of these principles, they are, because of the nature of truth, the very beginning of many problems.
The truth is an elusive and subjective entity. It's relative. Sometimes paradoxical and difficult to understand. Some truths are more self-evident to different people, at different times. It's not uniform, and by that definition, not reliable. I acknowledge these things. I am aware of them. Still, I am relentlessly willing to hold the truth above most any other thing, as obscure as it may be at times.
Absolute truths are nearly impossible to come by and fully comprehend, if they exist at all. In our present culture, there is a preference for absolutes. The reliable. The facts. The cold hard evidence. Opinions, musings, and 'interpretation' are shunned, relegated to an inferior status. But when you realize that truth is almost never a static thing that exists in a vacuum, the best truth you can figure out with what is available, and the best ends you can think of for using that truth, become, well... the best you have.
Now we're starting to run into the problem. We're dealing with 'bests', and the understanding of what's best depends entirely on subjective values and perception. Maybe I can't see why something would be best. Maybe you don't care why something else would be best. Maybe we're both right, given our differing contexts. Maybe we're both completely oblivious to the 'real' best solution. Is this a handicap? I think it only becomes one if you fail to remember that this is the way it works. If you forget about subjectivity and context, your communication with others will be handicapped.
Why do I often put principles before people? Really, these two things don't exist on the same scale, because many of my principles involve giving due consideration to people. By 'putting before' I mean I will sometimes go to certain lengths to explain or adhere to a carefully thought out principle, even if there is a risk that people will disagree with me, either because they don't value the same things or they misunderstand. I like to be honest and open with whoever I interact with. I prefer environments where I can freely share thoughts and be assured that all the information will be used responsibly and productively (which is what I try to do with information that is sent my way, as well). This, of course, isn't possible with all people, and I acknowledge that - I have no illusions there. But occasionally I get into a position where I am communicating and the most honest information I can give is not taken with the proverbial grain of salt; that is: information that is understood as coming from a subjective viewpoint of limited understanding, but whose content may still be useful to thought-processing, and is totally able to be cast aside without consequence if it is deemed unuseful.
Maybe I live in a dreamworld, but I figure the only way anything I say can have any effect on another is if they view it as capable of altering the world they care about in some way. Or, my opinion has some value to them. If something I say is of no consequence and the person doesn't care about me, as far as I understand it, there are really no grounds for having any feelings on it whatsoever. This is why I never believe anyone who angrily tells me that I'm a witless idiot who can go to hell for all they care. They do care, about something, even if I can't put my finger on what.
A quote jumps to my mind:
"In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves." ~Buddha
When I communicate, truth is my primary concern, most of the time. I can get pretty anal about it, too, I know. There are very few times where I just shoot the shit and don't pay too close attention to what I say. Maybe there should be more of them, but presently, they are rare. I have a desire for any communication I have to be happening with someone who at least understands my stance, because I feel that's where the most progress can be achieved. I will sometimes try and promote understanding in places where I am not finding it, simply because it's hard to get anywhere if there's no common ground. But, in explaining, I'm not asking for my stance to be accepted, just comprehended. I think the assumption that I want you to accept my elucidations as truth, ipso facto, is why I've been called an asshole at times.
That's what I do. As we can see, this overly-verbose post has been brought about because of the times where the information: "You're an asshole" (or a variety of other titles) has been shared with me. If someone were to come to me and explain why this stance might not be one to take sometimes, I would use that same stance, that same spirit of truth, to try and understand why that might be the case.
I suppose this entry is a bit of a log, outwardly showing a sample of the process that I go through with information. I like to think that I will give serious consideration to anything, and serious practice to anything that consideration deems worthwhile. That even includes advice to not take things so seriously ;)
This has been fun, thanks for reading.
posted by Jasper C. Coligny at 2:08 PM
0 comments
