LaskyaClaren

Madelaine McMasters wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: your perception makes me what I seem to you. Your perception also makes you what you seem to you. Yeah, but that just makes me one more reader and interpreter of myself. What if you're a better reader than I am, and I've just completely missed the important bits of the story? What's a better reader? Wouldn't that depend on your goals (if you knew them)? We've probably all had the experience of knowing someone who we thought read us better than we did, but didn't think they could read us at all. At any moment, I could make a random observation about you that gives you insight. Don't give me credit for that. Yeah. Actually, I hate that. It makes me feel vulnerable and a bit naked. I think this is why therapists often say "just talking about things helps". I enjoy doing that. Which may be one of the reasons people are reluctant to go out for a coffee with me sometimes . . . If everybody reads you differently than you read yourself, you might have to allow for the possibility you're illiterate. Now the question is, who are you unable to read, yourself or them? But I can "read" chapters that they can't see! I don't think that that necessarily qualifies me as a better reader of myself -- but it does help explain why there may be a big difference. ... waits for your naked self to pick up your coffee cup. Well, couldn't I argue that I can read chapters (of you) that you can't see? All those people who think I'm intimidating must be reading something I write without knowing, and cannot read. Yes, you know you keep some secrets. You also don't know you reveal others. That's your inner tiger, you little monkey! (I can't lay claim to that analogy, it's popular in "free-will" discussion circles.) Before the chapter analogy confuses us further, let's just get back to where we've already agreed that we have different perspectives. None of us sees ourselves as others do. I don't notice how my body language changes when I'm in a conversation with someone who's making me uncomfortable. And the person who's making me so may not be consciously noticing it either, but gets the feeling she's on to something because some subconscious process is reading me like a book. In another reply to me, you said you were fascinated by my "binary" self. You're self-reflective. We've seen you do it, right here in this thread. You just haven't put a name on that self-reflection. I've named mine Snugs, and I have fun with it. Snugs is also a way to practice the defensive art of self deprecation. A year or two ago, I had a long discussion with Carole Franizzi, who thought I was daft because I said we can access our subconscious if we try. It's a tenuous connection, but many people make it. Meditation is a scheduled way to do it, but I hate scheduled activities, so I try to make my mindfulness run 24/7. There isn't a day goes by that I don't catch my subconscious making an outright mistake, drawing a curious conclusion, or revealing biases and bigotry I'd rather not own. ... waits for you to set down your coffee cup. I'm not trained in psychology or psychiatry, and find Freud, Jung, and Lacan a bit annoying when I am forced to encounter them, so I'm always a bit uncomfortable, maybe, with what often seem to me reductive divisions like id, ego, and superego, and maybe even "unconscious." I suppose I sort of think of the latter not as a distinct thing only accessible by crossing a certain boundaryline, like the Lethe or the Acheron, but rather interpenetrating in sometimes surprising ways with my conscious self. And I think I can "read" evidence of what it's about in my own actions, through self-reflection and awareness. I have a sort of analogue, maybe, to Snugs. You called it me being "cute" in my feed, and perhaps it is, but I tend to think of it as my "fluffy" self. It's not exactly my airheaded alter-ego, but it is, I think, "designed" (at some level) to be both more approachable, and maybe even "likable" than what I think of as my more "normal" self. And it is self-deprecating, in a way that sometimes actually disturbs me. I use it, maybe, a bit here in this thread. I think I may have created it, some time ago, in response to the perception from others that I was sometimes over-earnest or even (although I hate the term) "shrill." It may also be gendered. I have a friend who has a young daughter, about 17 or so. She's a really bright and articulate young woman, and you can hear her intelligence when you speak to her very clearly. Except when she talks to a certain kind of male, of a more mature age and with some authority. Then, without necessarily becoming dumb, she employs a different, rather "cute" and slightly coying "girlish" voice. I was, at one time, going to speak to her about this -- and then realized that I do the same thing, to a degree, myself, when I become "fluffy."

Madelaine McMasters wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: Dillon Levenque wrote: Well, on the subject of counterfeit, who are you to be asking me this question?: "Seriously, Dillon (if that is your real name!)?" Hmmph. At least it's the same name I had the first time we crossed paths. LOL Well, it was sort of ironic . . . (PS. To partially answer, also, a question Maddy once asked me, try rearrange the letters in my first name, and you'll come close to something recognizable. Maybe. ) Yak Las! One of the reasons people are reluctant to go out for a coffee with you sometimes. *sigh*

Dillon Levenque wrote: Well, on the subject of counterfeit, who are you to be asking me this question?: "Seriously, Dillon (if that is your real name!)?" Hmmph. At least it's the same name I had the first time we crossed paths. LOL Well, it was sort of ironic . . . (PS. To partially answer, also, a question Maddy once asked me, try rearrange the letters in my first name, and you'll come close to something recognizable. Maybe. )

Irihapeti, on the basis of the (relatively little) that I've seen of you here, and of what others have said about you, I'd say this is a truly generous offer. I'd be honoured to be you. Except that I'd do a lousy job of it. You are a much better you than I could ever be: I'd have counterfeit written all over me. But thank you. -)

Kenbro Utu wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: My badge looks pretty sharply focused to me! Maybe you do need glasses? I am glad at least part of you has obtained a clarity of focus. Although now, your views do seem to be a bit slanted, to the right actually. Perhaps this is an insight into your political leaning. Edited to correct "left" to "right." Though you are slanted towards my left, you are actually slanted towards your right. Perhaps I was projecting. After I woke up this morning, and went out for a coffee, the barista winked at me and called me "Comrade." So you can draw your own conclusions. I did.

Dresden Ceriano wrote: My carrot slants to the left, as do my political affiliations... which means that I'm probably as unbalanced as most people think I am. ...Dres Is that an actual anatomical thing, that slanting? Or just folklore? (In carrots, I mean, of course.)

Dresden Ceriano wrote: I see no reason why we can't all tuck our peas and carrots between our legs. ...Dres *wants points for elevating the level of intellectual stimuli contained within this thread* I think I used to know how to reply to stuff like this, but I've forgotten.

Perrie Juran wrote: I don't actually much like chocolate. I think I prefer peas and carrots.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: your perception makes me what I seem to you. Your perception also makes you what you seem to you. Yeah, but that just makes me one more reader and interpreter of myself. What if you're a better reader than I am, and I've just completely missed the important bits of the story? What's a better reader? Wouldn't that depend on your goals (if you knew them)? We've probably all had the experience of knowing someone who we thought read us better than we did, but didn't think they could read us at all. At any moment, I could make a random observation about you that gives you insight. Don't give me credit for that. Yeah. Actually, I hate that. It makes me feel vulnerable and a bit naked. I think this is why therapists often say "just talking about things helps". I enjoy doing that. Which may be one of the reasons people are reluctant to go out for a coffee with me sometimes . . . If everybody reads you differently than you read yourself, you might have to allow for the possibility you're illiterate. Now the question is, who are you unable to read, yourself or them? But I can "read" chapters that they can't see! I don't think that that necessarily qualifies me as a better reader of myself -- but it does help explain why there may be a big difference.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: I've also led a charmed life. As a loner, I don't often get close enough for the kind of rejection that would deeply hurt me. When it happens, I work to understand why, but probably don't make significant changes. I just get better at avoiding future incidents. But, I have felt my otherness since I was quite young. That might be why I'm a loner. I'm an observer by nature. Now and then I'll catch "myself" doing something curious and I'll try to grab hold of it for examination. And it's then that I discover that I'm more like other people than I'd believed, or they're more like me. I see a "oneness" in the sense that I'm a little monkey (my "rational", conscious self) riding a tiger (my "irrational" subconscious selves) crafting stories to explain the paths I take, as if I'd chosen them "all by myself!" when I have only a vague comprehension of what's carrying me around. From what I have seen, I think there's more commonality in the tigers than in the monkeys. My monkey is a loner, my tiger isn't. This is how a loner ends up writing walls-of-text. Sometimes I will throw myself into a new and potentially uncomfortable experience, hoping to catch that tiger by the tail, if only for a moment. That's interesting. I've always been fascinated by your tendency to think of yourself, or at least characterize yourself, in binaries. Maddy and Snugs, the monkey and the tiger (which would, btw, make a brilliant fable: I think you should work one up!) I feel a oneness, I guess, in that there is obviously something holding my fragmented paragraphs and sentences together. And clearly others perceive that in me -- or, again, I wouldn't have been so easily identified when I started posting here again. I do like feeling in control of myself. I think it's one of the reasons why I pay attention to the way that I write: I'm seldom slapdash (although I do sometimes, usually to my regret, write without thinking very carefully). I don't think I generally like putting myself in uncomfortable "new" situations. Although, maybe joining SL in the first place was that. And maybe, in a way, this thread is too.

Perrie Juran wrote: But have you really kept your peas and carrots to yourself in this Forum? Granted that I myself haven't shown all my contents here in this Forum except to a select few number of people. I'd guess if someone made a concerted effort they could xray my can and get a better view of all the contents. But another question we could ask is do you want to be a different person here? I don't really have an option about keeping my peas and carrots to my self: *I* am not here. To some degree (at the risk of sounding really pompous) we are all defined here by the fact that we are absent. My peas and carrots are slowly coming to a boil thousands of miles away from the server where this text appears. That's in particular surely what makes onilne communities and identity so interesting? My words are a stand-in for me: they represent me, and maybe even shield me from view, rather than being transparencies that allow you to glimpse into my soul. Now, the degree to which I reveal "myself" (whoever that is) will depend on 1) my willingness and ability to use language to present something that is a reasonable simulation of myself, and 2) your ability to read and interpret it. And, of course, xrays are the not only way to scan contents: different kinds of machine will discover different "truths" that may not always be obviously compatible. In terms of what I want, I suppose what I aim for is being "more like" my preconceived notion of what I am, or want to be. Sometimes, I think, I've succeeded at that, and sometimes failed miserably (and been left really embarrassed as a result). Interestingly, the way I've measured my success at being a better "me" is by the way others have responded to that presentation.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: your perception makes me what I seem to you. Your perception also makes you what you seem to you. Yeah, but that just makes me one more reader and interpreter of myself. What if you're a better reader than I am, and I've just completely missed the important bits of the story?

Madelaine McMasters wrote: I've no idea what Thandie is talking about, but I could listen to her all day... There may well be an authentic self. That it's difficult to see doesn't mean it's not there. Throw more experiences at it, you might glimpse its outline. Over-thinking is a misnomer. Under-doing is the problem. I hesitate to criticize Thandie's view because her experiences have been so very different from mine. I've really been fortunate that I've seldom found my "selves" rejected. I've been surrounded by love and acceptance all of my life. But maybe that makes self-critique all the more important? I don't think I believe in "oneness." I'd love to, and maybe for some it is a necessary belief, but mostly I think, despite the fact that I have been accepted and supported, that we are always groping rather blindly to connect, and that the words we use are both the only means we have to do so, and at the same time the biggest impediment to success. And if there is, under all of that, an "authentic self," I think it is rather like God or "The Theory of Everything": way too complicated to ever more than vaguely comprehend. I do like your point about doing, though.

Perrie Juran wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: It's a curious thing to ask others who you should be. Let's wonder for a moment if this is an aspect of your character that survived your amnesia. Was the original you a construction designed to please others? I'd think long and hard before trying that again. You've been given a rare opportunity to create yourself anew. Rather than submit to design by committee, look within for a glowing ember you can fan. But don't do that until I can create an alt named ember. Maybe I over-think it. I am always very aware of how I present in these sorts of contexts, particularly online. Perhaps too much so, although self-awareness and self-critique is not a bad thing, I guess. But none of us here is really "authentic," in part because there is no single authentic self for me to discover, and in part because the medium also shapes us. And also the community within which we find ourselves. To some degree, what I "am" here is a function of how I am "read" (because here I am, mostly, text, right?). That was one of the most interesting things about reappearing here with a new avatar -- on the one hand, it didn't take people too long to suss out my former identity -- and it took even less time to feel that I'd been forced into assuming, again, that particular articulation of myself. Or maybe that would've happened again anyway? Changing the label on the can doesn't change the contents in the can. Unless you make a concerted effort to seperate the carrots from the peas people will recognise the soup. Yeah, but you don't SEE the contents -- I keep my carrots and peas to myself: you can merely assume that they are there on the basis of what appears on the can. All you get is the label. That label could say anything I choose it to say. And once you've decided that I AM carrots and peas, it's going to be pretty hard for me to convince you that I'm actually mushrooms and asparagus. Whatever my actual calorie count and fat content, you're perception makes me what I seem to you.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: It's a curious thing to ask others who you should be. Let's wonder for a moment if this is an aspect of your character that survived your amnesia. Was the original you a construction designed to please others? I'd think long and hard before trying that again. You've been given a rare opportunity to create yourself anew. Rather than submit to design by committee, look within for a glowing ember you can fan. But don't do that until I can create an alt named ember. Maybe I over-think it. I am always very aware of how I present in these sorts of contexts, particularly online. Perhaps too much so, although self-awareness and self-critique is not a bad thing, I guess. But none of us here is really "authentic," in part because there is no single authentic self for me to discover, and in part because the medium also shapes us. And also the community within which we find ourselves. To some degree, what I "am" here is a function of how I am "read" (because here I am, mostly, text, right?). That was one of the most interesting things about reappearing here with a new avatar -- on the one hand, it didn't take people too long to suss out my former identity -- and it took even less time to feel that I'd been forced into assuming, again, that particular articulation of myself. Or maybe that would've happened again anyway?

Canoro Philipp wrote: you are your desires, follow them and you will build yourself, and as time goes on, you will have a clearer picture of who you are. don't feel bad for not knowing everything about you, just enjoy life and everything will come into place, the opportunities you will take will be chosen by the personality your history will make, and with time you are going to be able to establish who you are perfectly. Canoro, in general, I think you say much that is wise here. That wisdom comes from a good and empathetic heart, which makes it all the more valuable. Thank you. I love the idea of building my own story, and my own identity. The thing is . . . I don't really "trust" my desires. I don't always know where they come from, and I am suspicious of where they will take me. But that fear and suspicion is also "naturally" who I am -- denying them is denying an important part of who I am -- or think I am.

Dillon Levenque wrote: Kenbro Utu wrote: On casual observation of your background image on your forum badge, I would say you have trouble focusing. Thank you for pointing that out. All this time I thought it was me who was having trouble focusing on that badge. Now I see it could be Laskya's issue. Things like this are so much easier to deal with when it's someone else's fault. Seriously, Dillon (if that is your real name!)? My badge looks pretty sharply focused to me! Maybe you do need glasses?

Kenbro Utu wrote: On casual observation of your background image on your forum badge, I would say you have trouble focusing. I think that may be a little unfair. I mean, I don't yet really know who I am, or what I'm like, but I do think that I am capable of very intense focus, even when multitasking. For instance, last night I made what was really a pretty complicated dinner, without mishap, despite the fact that it necessitated a multiple focus on many moving parts. Without focus, it would have been a disaster: it included brussel sprouts, and rice, and a really nice new recipe I tried with a coriander-cumin rub that worked surprisingly well. Of course, the nice thing about using a rub, rather than a marinade -- well, the TWO nice things, really -- is that it is lower in calories than a standard marinade because there is no oil involved, AND it takes much less time, because you don't have to do it hours in advance. I mean, seriously, who can just say, in the middle of their work day, "Oh, I have to pop off now and prepare a marinade, because it has to be prepared exactly 6 hours in advance of cooking." Well, no one, really. No one with a really active life, anyway, and I think that includes stay-at-home people, whatever their gender or the nature of their work at home, because doing anything around the house, or even working from a home office, requires stretches of time, and you can't just wonder off in the middle of doing something important to do something else . . . Sorry. What were you saying again?

Perrie Juran wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: Perrie Juran wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: Hi all. I have suffered a calamitous system failure, and my hard drive seems to have irrecoverably died. As I opened my eyes this morning, all I could see was the Blue Screen of Death. As the result of this sudden onset of digital amnesia, I no longer know who I am!!!!!! As I don't flatter myself that anyone else will remember who I am either, I'm looking for suggestions. Who should I be????? Please help. Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter. Have you forgotten me also? All the days and hours we spent together? All the time we spent whisperring sweet nothings in each other's ears? All of our plans for the future? How we were going to be married on Mars and then run off to explore the Universe together? Our plans for having children and raising them together? The life we were going to build together? Have you forgotten all of this also? Oh, goodness! Of course not, um . . . Perrie. And the way we, uh . . . held hands (you have hands, right?) while . . . walking? flying? . . . through Alpha Centauri. Or was it through Bob's Nawlins Crawdads Emporium? After we've known each other SO well for . . . well, gosh, how long has it been? A pretty long time, I'm sure! You don't have any, you know, promises from me in writing, do you? You don't, right? The night we were going to go take care of our pre-nuptials some fool at LL decided to do an unscheduled maintenance and logged us out. We are supposed to be meeting with your Attorney again next week. I think her name is Maddy but I'm not sure. I might still have chat logs though if you'd trust them. I think I saved them when I did my last clean install. I will need to search. And it was the Hand of God we were exploring that night. We were seeking her blessing. Oh, what a lovely picture of that space thingy. It's very pretty. Gosh, that all sounds just wonderful. I mean really very nice. Thing is . . . I just got this IM in-world from this bisexual furry skunk dude who says we were once married so, yeah, I don't think I can do that now. Also, I really have to wash my hair. But thanks! Some other time, maybe?

Perrie Juran wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: Hi all. I have suffered a calamitous system failure, and my hard drive seems to have irrecoverably died. As I opened my eyes this morning, all I could see was the Blue Screen of Death. As the result of this sudden onset of digital amnesia, I no longer know who I am!!!!!! As I don't flatter myself that anyone else will remember who I am either, I'm looking for suggestions. Who should I be????? Please help. Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter. Have you forgotten me also? All the days and hours we spent together? All the time we spent whisperring sweet nothings in each other's ears? All of our plans for the future? How we were going to be married on Mars and then run off to explore the Universe together? Our plans for having children and raising them together? The life we were going to build together? Have you forgotten all of this also? Oh, goodness! Of course not, um . . . Perrie. And the way we, uh . . . held hands (you have hands, right?) while . . . walking? flying? . . . through Alpha Centauri. Or was it through Bob's Nawlins Crawdads Emporium? After we've known each other SO well for . . . well, gosh, how long has it been? A pretty long time, I'm sure! You don't have any, you know, promises from me in writing, do you? You don't, right?

Griffin Ceawlin wrote: “You have brains in your head. You have feet in your shoes. You can steer yourself any direction you choose. You're on your own. And you know what you know. And YOU are the one who'll decide where to go...” . . . and becoming more simple minded with each post that I read. I am becoming concerned that "me" is someone who might actually have bought into this sort of life-affirming, self-realizing . . . stuff. It's a disturbing thought.

Griffin Ceawlin wrote: "Today you are you, that is truer than true. There is no one alive who is you-er than you." OMG that is so sweet! Thank you! :-) Maybe I am a sentimentalist? Or an early reader? (Or just endearingly simple minded . . .)

Phil Deakins wrote: I can help you. You're the person who I loaned L$100k to earlier this week, with the promise that you would pay it back before this weekend is over. I hope that helps, and I look forward to receiving your repayment. Hmmm. Um, yes. But, according to Locke, one is justifiably held accountable only for those actions performed by a self to whom one's present consciousness extends, that is, it is only for those actions I remember performing that I can justifiably be held morally responsible. As Locke puts it, if I am punished for the actions of a self whose thoughts and experiences I do not remember, “what difference is there between that punishment, and being created miserable?” (Locke 1694, 51) Thus, on the Day of Judgment, “The sentence shall be justified by the consciousness all persons shall have, that they themselves, in what bodies soever they appear, or what substances soever that consciousness adheres to, are the same that committed those actions, and deserve that punishment for them” (Ibid.). ( Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) So, yeah. No, I mean. (Maybe I am really John Locke?)

Now we're getting somewhere! It seems to have worked.

On the positive side, I think maybe that I'm beginning to remember that I am a bit querulous and impatient. And maybe a bit of an attention whore?