MetabolicTrash
Member
Have you not noticed this who always make sure to know "their place" in social orders/groups? It's not even an involuntary thing -- I'm talking one knowing "where they stand" because it is relevant to them to consider such a thing. Examples include people who deliberately make it known what place they supposedly hold in the workplace; at home; with family; etc. When you give yourself a "mark" you live by said inscription in sorts. How will anyone know to what order I peck; what pardon I beg; what "placement I occupy" if I am not to give some proverbial, indiscrete, indeterminate, or just "impenetrable" essence as I flow?
Who is the man or woman who makes clear their mark? The one who fears losing it? Where does one stand when their "place" is questioned/called in? They revert -- politics, political identity, sexuality, etc. It's easy to use clever ways to call up when they arise in "need" so we can fall back on. You know of those people who act all tough and mighty, but always have protection on speed dial? Police, spouse, relatives, etc. -- tough because they "know where they stand" perhaps? How tough would you be with no immediate support system at your disposal? Would you stand up to people if you knew there was no close social support, legal support, or societal confinements that generally come to your aid should your position become threatened or shaken? Ego is at the seat of all destruction -- the indirect mechanism through which you expect others to both know where you stand and you also must know it -- it's like a two-way street despite power imbalances being probable depending on the relationship, context or expected "formalities" given.
It's not sensible that one who cares little over some heavily-implied position, rank or sense of being in relation to others would pose a death grip to maintain themselves and/or eradicate those who alter or attempt to alter their standing in life. At the same time pity casts a shadow toward those who are self-victimized you can see the irony when those of such make clear their destiny or surroundings rather than improve the injustice. Victim mentality and helplessness can hand-in-hand perhaps -- a reasoning behind this is that some will hold on to their standing or identity as being of "subpar presence" but will not combat the factors that lead or keep them there. What value is the identity of poverty? Probably merely the exclamation that one in misery must make said misery or woes their identity -- a kind of backwards way of imprinting a characteristic upon ourselves. Instead of marking yourself as the victor who endured the unjust challenges you become the loser who endures the unchangeable darkness of life that cannot be brightened -- or the victim, pitied one, etc. You view the world as darkness, but you yourself are the "realistic" person who identifies as the struggling -- the way to express oneself as a formidable being who succumbs to the pressures of malady or mishap but strongly antagonizes the sense of something beyond it -- or something better.
What identity can you hold on to when it is shown that you yourself are unwilling to change -- not that you can not change? When the world is against us all we can play victim -- but when we can band together or at least broaden our horizons and change our physiology then we are more responsible in a sense, although doesn't discredit unfairness in an in a more inexplicable, exogenous manner. The real question here is that victimization is partially a possible cry for self-sustainment, character cues, physiology degradation/slowing and identity by using resources that protect one's shortcomings or fallbacks, but refuse to stand on your own feet and advance with out taking the toll of burden and self-imposed limitations you allow to exist around you. After all, what can one do? We do what we must, but when you call in to question the "Why?" or "Who must?" you come full-circle: unable to see past victimhood because your limited view of the world only enables you to fulfill your implicated or implied destiny and no other. Nothing in my view screams more self-limitation than arguing for a position you hold as if it's a requirement for you to hold it with out further consideration, understanding, or questioning of life itself in a more philosophical way. The "Why of the why?" might say more than its own vague repetition might suggest, but not questioning your path is technically like allowing yourself down one road whether you like it or not while also holding on to anger, resentment or etc. but refusing to re-evaluate your value to the world.
Since it doesn't benefit one "stuck" in a tough place to see beyond their implicit circumstances you can't have a "progressive victim" or target -- the very nature of such is that of always maintaining identity as one of an unfortunate illness, malady or control that you must endure. The opposite I think of the victim is the one who pursues regardless -- they don't necessarily need the ego & support to remain "sane" and structured/versatile but can have such means without holding on to anything else including their own possible inflated sense of self or self-made value/mark within confines that heavily are relied upon for social, professional or etc. standing.
One example might be what I call the refusal of giving from those "beneath" you. Would you accept money from someone who you know or believe strongly has less than you? What -- if anything -- might this call in to question? Your prospects? Your social standing? The questioning of your own sanctity, morality, essence or just purely ego? Maybe those with the lowest egos will accept all in a sense -- after all, with less ego do you care where "up" or "down" is in relation to you so much? With a less power hungry drive, do you worry over your shaken image socially and professionally from accepting something of one lower "value" than you? How many rich, billionaires or etc. would happily accept a gift from a poor person that was made out to them directly? This does not have negative social implications to you? Does it not question their status or ego if they are receiving aid or something of benefit or gain from one obviously beneath you? Sure, everyone can ponder but really the best character assessment might be clear when no one else is watching or knowing what you choose to do, receive or interpret. Do your actions flow naturally with relation to your implied social standing, ego and context of self-assurement in various ways? Do you just live, give, receive and operate without confines as to clearly what a giving, receiving or value exchange must mean across your own self-identity and social standing specifically?
Simply put we can call in to question where we "stand" depending on what we take and/or give to and from others of different "standings." What is it saying if we take something from someone from less in some sense, even if they insist it as such? Is it less valuable from the lower-valued gifter? Embarrassing? Insulting? What about accepting gladly something from those we deem "higher ups" with out a thanks? "We deserve from 'X' particular 'betters', but push away the 'lesser' because it lowers us to them" -- maybe in a sense it does seem/work that way. I don't think many would gladly accept gifts from poor, social outcasts as serious tokens nearly as much as one would feel more entitled to something from certain "higher ups" they feel should be granting them more of what they feel is deserved. But if it's the same thing either way, what else besides ego (for the most part) dictates how one should respond to it? Maybe some of us are just "too good" to get $25 from a poor person, but it's more "uplifting" the opposite way to a degree -- how much is ego vs. morality I can't say, but I get the feeling that it isn't usually "right" in my view. People often feel sorry for the poor giving them things like they're above them and/or embarrassed receiving from their "lesser ranks" in walks of life, but would possibly gladly take tons of money given to them for absolutely nothing from some particular rich people and not find that morally questionable. Funny enough the act of receiving from the "greater" is seen as a just equalizer, but receiving some aid from the "lesser" might resonate more as pitiful or status degrading, calling in to question possibly just how some people value rank and social image or victimhood of a certain degree even over undue social questioning of themselves and others. If you truly did not care about where you "stand" and what it says about your ego I think one ought to feel okay getting aid or help from either "side" and not feel threatened over something less fortunate helping them in ways.
Who is the man or woman who makes clear their mark? The one who fears losing it? Where does one stand when their "place" is questioned/called in? They revert -- politics, political identity, sexuality, etc. It's easy to use clever ways to call up when they arise in "need" so we can fall back on. You know of those people who act all tough and mighty, but always have protection on speed dial? Police, spouse, relatives, etc. -- tough because they "know where they stand" perhaps? How tough would you be with no immediate support system at your disposal? Would you stand up to people if you knew there was no close social support, legal support, or societal confinements that generally come to your aid should your position become threatened or shaken? Ego is at the seat of all destruction -- the indirect mechanism through which you expect others to both know where you stand and you also must know it -- it's like a two-way street despite power imbalances being probable depending on the relationship, context or expected "formalities" given.
It's not sensible that one who cares little over some heavily-implied position, rank or sense of being in relation to others would pose a death grip to maintain themselves and/or eradicate those who alter or attempt to alter their standing in life. At the same time pity casts a shadow toward those who are self-victimized you can see the irony when those of such make clear their destiny or surroundings rather than improve the injustice. Victim mentality and helplessness can hand-in-hand perhaps -- a reasoning behind this is that some will hold on to their standing or identity as being of "subpar presence" but will not combat the factors that lead or keep them there. What value is the identity of poverty? Probably merely the exclamation that one in misery must make said misery or woes their identity -- a kind of backwards way of imprinting a characteristic upon ourselves. Instead of marking yourself as the victor who endured the unjust challenges you become the loser who endures the unchangeable darkness of life that cannot be brightened -- or the victim, pitied one, etc. You view the world as darkness, but you yourself are the "realistic" person who identifies as the struggling -- the way to express oneself as a formidable being who succumbs to the pressures of malady or mishap but strongly antagonizes the sense of something beyond it -- or something better.
What identity can you hold on to when it is shown that you yourself are unwilling to change -- not that you can not change? When the world is against us all we can play victim -- but when we can band together or at least broaden our horizons and change our physiology then we are more responsible in a sense, although doesn't discredit unfairness in an in a more inexplicable, exogenous manner. The real question here is that victimization is partially a possible cry for self-sustainment, character cues, physiology degradation/slowing and identity by using resources that protect one's shortcomings or fallbacks, but refuse to stand on your own feet and advance with out taking the toll of burden and self-imposed limitations you allow to exist around you. After all, what can one do? We do what we must, but when you call in to question the "Why?" or "Who must?" you come full-circle: unable to see past victimhood because your limited view of the world only enables you to fulfill your implicated or implied destiny and no other. Nothing in my view screams more self-limitation than arguing for a position you hold as if it's a requirement for you to hold it with out further consideration, understanding, or questioning of life itself in a more philosophical way. The "Why of the why?" might say more than its own vague repetition might suggest, but not questioning your path is technically like allowing yourself down one road whether you like it or not while also holding on to anger, resentment or etc. but refusing to re-evaluate your value to the world.
Since it doesn't benefit one "stuck" in a tough place to see beyond their implicit circumstances you can't have a "progressive victim" or target -- the very nature of such is that of always maintaining identity as one of an unfortunate illness, malady or control that you must endure. The opposite I think of the victim is the one who pursues regardless -- they don't necessarily need the ego & support to remain "sane" and structured/versatile but can have such means without holding on to anything else including their own possible inflated sense of self or self-made value/mark within confines that heavily are relied upon for social, professional or etc. standing.
One example might be what I call the refusal of giving from those "beneath" you. Would you accept money from someone who you know or believe strongly has less than you? What -- if anything -- might this call in to question? Your prospects? Your social standing? The questioning of your own sanctity, morality, essence or just purely ego? Maybe those with the lowest egos will accept all in a sense -- after all, with less ego do you care where "up" or "down" is in relation to you so much? With a less power hungry drive, do you worry over your shaken image socially and professionally from accepting something of one lower "value" than you? How many rich, billionaires or etc. would happily accept a gift from a poor person that was made out to them directly? This does not have negative social implications to you? Does it not question their status or ego if they are receiving aid or something of benefit or gain from one obviously beneath you? Sure, everyone can ponder but really the best character assessment might be clear when no one else is watching or knowing what you choose to do, receive or interpret. Do your actions flow naturally with relation to your implied social standing, ego and context of self-assurement in various ways? Do you just live, give, receive and operate without confines as to clearly what a giving, receiving or value exchange must mean across your own self-identity and social standing specifically?
Simply put we can call in to question where we "stand" depending on what we take and/or give to and from others of different "standings." What is it saying if we take something from someone from less in some sense, even if they insist it as such? Is it less valuable from the lower-valued gifter? Embarrassing? Insulting? What about accepting gladly something from those we deem "higher ups" with out a thanks? "We deserve from 'X' particular 'betters', but push away the 'lesser' because it lowers us to them" -- maybe in a sense it does seem/work that way. I don't think many would gladly accept gifts from poor, social outcasts as serious tokens nearly as much as one would feel more entitled to something from certain "higher ups" they feel should be granting them more of what they feel is deserved. But if it's the same thing either way, what else besides ego (for the most part) dictates how one should respond to it? Maybe some of us are just "too good" to get $25 from a poor person, but it's more "uplifting" the opposite way to a degree -- how much is ego vs. morality I can't say, but I get the feeling that it isn't usually "right" in my view. People often feel sorry for the poor giving them things like they're above them and/or embarrassed receiving from their "lesser ranks" in walks of life, but would possibly gladly take tons of money given to them for absolutely nothing from some particular rich people and not find that morally questionable. Funny enough the act of receiving from the "greater" is seen as a just equalizer, but receiving some aid from the "lesser" might resonate more as pitiful or status degrading, calling in to question possibly just how some people value rank and social image or victimhood of a certain degree even over undue social questioning of themselves and others. If you truly did not care about where you "stand" and what it says about your ego I think one ought to feel okay getting aid or help from either "side" and not feel threatened over something less fortunate helping them in ways.
Last edited:
