From: vanyel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alan Williams)
Subject: Re: Alan Williams: Paradigms of Dissonance (was Re: Faggots) 
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:12:22 GMT

In <1992Sep24.005107.3002@macc.wisc.edu> anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:

>In article <vanyel.717265246@camelot>
>vanyel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alan Williams) writes:
>>In <1992Sep23.121836.29847@macc.wisc.edu>
>>anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
>>>Alan Williams needs to spend a lot of time thinking about
>>>how he thinks.
>>You know, Jess, I'm getting *PRETTY FUCKING SICK* of this
>>"you should spend time learning how you think" bullshit.
>Look, Alan, if you're absolutely determined to see
>everything anyone says to you or about you in such terms as
>that, you're operating behind such an impenetrable wall of
>cognitive dissonances that nothing can reach you.

>You seem to think I'm flapping my lips in the service of my
>ego -- but Alan, I don't need that, don't need it at all.
>You seem think it all has something to do with your agreeing
>with me or not.  It doesn't, Alan, it doesn't have a blessed
>thing to do with that.

>What it *does* have to do with -- you're not the only one
>who doesn't see it, but nearly everyone does -- is caring.

Caring?

Jess, considering the immensely high propensity of flames running rampant
throughout this newsgroup--and I mean flames of all natures, to all
people--I find it very difficult to believe that the word "caring" fits
into this picture whatsoever.

>I certainly don't have a corner on caring (or on anything
>else), but no matter how it strikes *you*, everything I do
>here (with the exception of obvious gags and camping it up
>with the cohort) -- and I mean *everything* -- is motivated
>by caring for others, for the outcomes of their lives, for
>the physical and emotional environments in which they live.

>The reason I keep going on about your mindset ...
>... has nothing whatever to do with anyone being "right" or
>"wrong."  Those terms are entirely inappropriate to the
>circumstances here.

I disagree, Jess.  I think the terms "right" and "wrong" have, in one way
or another, made their way across the bandwidth at a reasobnably high rate
of passage lately.  I'm reminded of a remark you made in another thread
regarding changing mine and Justin's thoughts.  The impression I received
(and you posted the remark I'm thinking of) is one of attempting to steer
Justin and me down the "correct" path of thought.

That doesn't sound like a discussion; it sounds like thought control.

>I talk about "thinking about it more" because that's a key
>that would (if only you would try it) open a great many
>doors for you.  I use the phrase "cognitive dissonance" in
>its clinical sense: the issue is not "are you wrong," but
>rather "are your thoughts really appropriate to your
>context" and "is what you're thinking an obstacle to
><whatever>."

Jess, it seems to me you've completely missed the problem.  Ever hear of
the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator?  According to that lovely little
instrument, I'm *extremely* introverted, with "introverted" bearing a
meaning akin to "introspective."  I find it more than a little ironic that
you're telling me, of all people, to stop and think.

Jess, that's *all* I do.  My brain doesn't shut off.

>So when you say things like ...
>>Why don't *you* stop and think a little?
>... it seems a little foolish, since I'd been thinking for
>35 years (and about these things, too) by the time you were
>born.  Now seniority can be (and often is) overrated, 

As it is here, I think. . . .

>but I
>think it makes little sense to dismiss it out of hand, as
>you routinely do.  As I say, if you're going to continue to
>do that, there isn't a thing I can do about it.  Reacting
>defensively, as you predictably do, is actually quite
>counterproductive.

I'm a little confused here, Jess.  What does your age have to do with
anything?  Age doesn't mean *anything*, Jess.  If it did, my father
wouldn't be starting to watch programs about homosexuality so he can
understand me.

"Not by age, but by knowledge, does one acquire wisdom," goes a saying I
once heard (don't remember where, but I think it's Roman).  I might also
point out that age isn't exactly a factor in the mental development (or
lack thereof) of serial killers, either.

Thus far, you've given me no reason to believe that your viewpoint bears
greater weight over the viewpoints of others in this newsgroup.  Those
motssers who've taken time to discuss matters with me, rather than resort
to flames when I disagree, bear more weight in my evaluation process.

For instance, after some initial attacks Bob Sarver e-mailed me and asked me
to discuss *rationally*, via e-mail, the reasons why I disagree with him.
Though we don't see eye-to-eye on a variety of matters, I notice that Bob
took time to *talk*, and now, though we don't agree on all things, we can
at least defend each other's right to expression here.

Why don't I do the same with you, Jess?  I don't know.  Perhaps it's
because I hold grudges, after the way you jumped on the "prejudice"
bandwagon during the time I was being flamed for not having a preference
for nelly behavior.  It took David Parsons (apologies if I got the wrong
name) to point out that my posts didn't contain the kind of insinuations
you and others saw in them.  Every time I tried to re-word what I meant,
hoping this time you and the others would understand what I was saying, I
was accused of "backtracking"--undoubtedly another of those "smokescreens"
you would have me believe I'm so efficient at wielding.

The evidence suggests, to me at least, that you'd rather indulge in your
pop psychology than listen to what I have to say--that my words are
automatically discounted because they come from someone whom you don't
believe thinks clearly enough.  I call that a value judgement that most
certainly isn't in my favor, and I think it's the kind of judgement that
suggests you may have your own prejudices (though I don't know what they
would be).

>>I've been *trying* to follow my principles, and my beliefs,
>>which it seems are Not Good Enough for Jess (tm).
>Your "not good enough" remark is one of those cognitive
>dissonances I mentioned above: in this case, it helps
>you avoid coming to grips realistically with the world
>around you.

How do you define "realistically"?  If you mean dealing with the characters
on soc.motss (something I would hardly consider the Real World), then my
actions certainly wouldn't look realistic to you.  But let's consider
something again--you don't see me in person.  You don't hear my voice, see
my facial expressions, watch my gestures.  And reciprocally, I don't see
you.  I don't get any more instantaneous feedback than you get
instantaneous information.

You'd find a Real World encounter with me undoubtedly different than the
encounters you have here, if for no other reason than because my
non-verbal cues might suggest other meanings than the ones you pick up
here.  I would undoubtedly find the same instance with you.

Someone once told Justin that he has to think of what he wants to say as
the equivalent of saying this in a room filled with 70,000 people.  I
disagree with this analogy, if for no other reason than because I believe
our behavior *always* changes in a face-to-face encounter.

But I digress.

>No one would disagree with your desire to discover and live
>by your own principles -- doing that is key to any sentient
>life.  But if you (continue to) evaluate princples in terms
>of competitive concepts like "right" and "wrong" (and "good
>enough" is one of those), you're actually interposing
>significant obstacles between yourself and the goals you
>seek.

The only time I've ever seen the "competitive concepts" in action, Jess,
has been on this newsgroup.  I don't encounter this in real life.  I
encounter the opposite, in fact.  Remember Emerson: "a foolish consistency
is the hobgoblin of little minds"?  The people I know in the Real World
seem to live by it.  They don't go around demanding that everyone else
re-think positions on various matters every time there's a disagreement.  I
don't discuss things in this manner.  I bring up my viewpoint when I feel I
should bring it up, and I compare it with the viewpoints of others.

Here, however, the general quality of flames directed to the Entropic One,
among others (for suggesting an alternative method of discourse beyond
flames), suggests that an exchange of viewpoints isn't expected, required,
or wanted.

>One reason you've served as the magnet for ridicule is your
>stubborn refusal (basically, it's a weak, defensive posture)
>to clean up your own thought processes -- not to please me
>or meet my standard (or any of the shibboleths you attack in
>your postings) -- but rather to cast some light into the
>darker parts of your own dissonances.

On "magnet for ridicule": Your explanation is highly reminiscent of the
ones I've received throughout my life whenever someone picked on me--a
distinct taste of "It's your fault and no one else's," lightly seasoned
with "Wny can't you be like everyone else?"

On "cleaning up" my thought processes:
That sounds like an *incredibly* subjective thing, Jess.  Who says my
thought processes are so muddy?  You?  And why are *you* such an expert at
this?

The only exposure you get to me, Jess, is through this medium.  Who's to
say that this medium does or doesn't distort the messages I try to send?
And who's to say that the distortion isn't as much from the receiving end
as it is from the sending end?

>>I don't think gays accomplish much by becoming an exclusive
>>social club dedicated to tossing out epithets instead of
>>discussing issues.
>But you will admit of no differences of opinion about such
>tactics, for one thing.  For another, that whole line of
>argument is another of the famous smokescreens in your
>thought process.

Smokescreens?  I find it continually amazing that saying things the way I
see them is a "smokescreen," Jess.

What about *your* smokescreens, hmm?  It seems you've got a penchant for
going onb about muddied thought processes whenever you disagree with
someone, as if you think all we have to do is think clearly and we're "all
better" or something.  I ask again: Who's to judge the clarity of our
thought processes?

>>I *do not* think being gay means fitting into a homogeneous
>>pool, but the continual straight-bashing in which you engage
>>is certainly indicative of such an attitude.
>What is this, if not a major statement contrary to fact?
>"Straight-bashing" hardly applies to me ...

What it happens to be is a statement, admittedly misdirected, that nonetheless  sums up my feelings regarding the cliquish nature of soc.motss as I have
encountered it.

Nor am I the only person who notices this clinquishness.  Check back with
the posts spreading from the root thread, and you will see that others have
commented on the right of any one person (or group of people) to determine
what may or may not be posted here.  If that's a product of "smokescreens"
and "cognitive dissonance," Jess, then I find myself compelled to wonder
just who's suffering from it.

>>Maybe if you, Arne, Melinda, Jack, and all those other
>>heterophobes
>... and it doesn't apply to any of them, either.  To see
>what they say in any such terms is completely to misread and
>misinterpret what they're saying.

And who, then, is to say that no one has misinterpreted people like Justin
Sullivan and Bob Sarver?  And when you think about it, who's to say you
haven't even misinterpreted (heaven forbid) me?

>In the context, you *create*, for your own consumption, the
>*illusion* that they or I am doing something that inhibits
>you ...
>>shut up for a while and let the more moderate of us motssers
>>have a chance,
>...  for the fact is, you do not have to wait one
>millisecond for anyone to "shut up" (or do or don't do
>anything else) so that you (or anyone else) can have "a
>chance." That you would make such a remark evidences yet
>another cognitive dissonance of note.

I find it amazing, Jess, that you can honestly believe that the continual
barrage of flames couldn't, after a while, become so overbearing on the
bandwidth that some individuals may feel intimidated by posting--that some
individuals aren't so turned off by the prospect of being continually,
mindlessly, flamed that they choose not to post.  Instead, the whole
barrage of flames--mine and others'--is apparently an *illusion*, created
*solely* by me.

I find that extremely tough to believe.

>>you might find we have something intelligent to say after
>>all.
>The only one who's stopping you is you.  And many people
>would be glad if you did say something intelligent after
>all.

This, for example, is a flame.  I've been trying to respond to this
rationally, Jess, but you've gone and fouled it all up.  You've decided to
apply your own criteria for intelligence--criteria sadly in need of work--
to the posts on here.

The rest of this post certainly doesn't merit any further discussion.
You've just managed to prove my point after all, I believe. . . .

--

 _______________ Alan Williams | vanyel@camelot.bradley.edu _________________
 \/ "Well, you're a couple of fine kidnappers.  You know that the fellas   \/
     you kidnapped got here before you did?" --Groucho Marx, _Horsefeathers_