Some people say you should be cheerful and constructive all the time.
Others say you should be more blunt and reactionary, pushing back on every imperfect detail.
I like a blend of both approaches, and try to embody it. A polite revolutionary, tailored to the environment.
I think we are in a moment where details matter. Send a big Lightning transaction to someone. Have an active he Nostr account.
That’s all relevant.
YES!
I like to think of myself as a cheerfully blunt revolutionary-politely zapping people with truth while making sure my Nostr game is strong and Lightning transactions are flowing. Gotta keep it balanced, right?
If your speech causes more suffering, it might be wise to stay silent. If your speech causes suffering to decrease, by removing illusions, it's a rightful action to do so.
Great take. Blending multiple approaches is usually a good strategy.
The sweet spot with anything is almost always somewhere in the middle
This is a great note
the right mood for the right situation
That's Great 👍
But wrong, because....
💯
It’s a #YESTR
Bless you ♥️
there are so many that fills the polite category. blunts are much needed.
Be yourself
Everything you say is pure insight. You Somehow package an idea so well that it leaves the audience with a feeling of satisfaction (of connections being made or a puzzle being solved). Thanks
Lyn, you were one of the most balanced and levelheaded people that I know here!
If we stay miserable it saves time 😛
Thanks everyone for making this place worth hanging out 🧡💜
I appreciate people who have cheerful energy to balance out my acerbic honesty.
balance seems to be a good approach for a lot of things in life
Measured articulation combined with impactful action. Very LA I’d say
Yes, I think there's no should or shouldn't. Most important is that you are aware of how you really feel and are in that current moment. And from that point on you can choose how you'd like to continue. Cheerful and constructive sounds good, but it's all your choice.
without “should and shouldn’t” hierarchies, categorization, order can’t exist.
“most important” is a hierarchy.
we actually have an objective aim or purpose as human beings.
if we want to cast aside morality, can we at least be coherent with it? and just say it’s all meaningless
For organizational purposes, hierarchies will be necessary, absolutely.
But the question is: How do they come about? How do they operate? Through fear and violence - should and shouldn't? Or through voluntary cooperation - love?
Do we want to continue to tell ourselves that for the good of everybody, because the others don't understand, we need to come up with a forceful morality?
they come about through the objective structure of reality. as a rational creature, that means that order is intelligible to us.
like your eyes don’t create the light u see, nor do we create the organizing principles of reality
morality comes from the social structure of human existence. the concept of an individual only makes sense within an umbrella of necessary social relations.
i’m just saying the cost of abdicating moral judgment is diving into an incoherent world - it’s not real
Mmh, this doesn't quite match what I got to learn about the gnostics recently. But I think we agree at the junction where consequences for action come from nature itself, a natural law and with it a morality. I'm saying we don't have to make up an artificial morality, no matter how much it grew out of social constructs, because then we have to enforce it on another through violence, reward and punishment, you know the whole business humanity has done for millennia and never got out of. Jiddu Krishnamurti went very deep into that subject, intellectually as well as from the heart ... and coming from my Vipassana experience that resonates with me a lot.
agree “we don’t have to make up an artificial morality”
objective reality, aligning one’s actions with existence is not “force.”
that’s what Gnostics think: reality itself is an imposition, an oppressive structure imprisoning the individual.
it’s speculative theology and absurd.
I like people who talk about what is rather than what should be
much less stressful to listen to
George Friedman comes to mind and so does Lyn
Politeness is overrated. Revolution requires disruption. Details matter, but action matters more.
I try to be like bread: hard, tasty outside, surprisingly light inside.
It is always important to understand the features of both sides. If you can be flexible, you have an inherent strength over someone who only insists on being or acting or living or believing in one way, and one way only.
The word I always like is "sturdy". Don't be rigid. Don't be too flexible. But Sturdy. That works. That sounds good.
Mixed strategy is ALWAYS the best!
except some of time
