cleaning out some stuff

covidism/evasion.md

@@ -1,11 +0,0 @@
-Over the past year I've found myself compelled to prevent myself from putting myself in a position to allow some familiar characters to consume my time or my attention. I am conflicted to conflicted over this as one part of me considers that I should do the utmost to ensure that we have every opportunity to resolve conflicts and come to a greater understanding about one anohter's concerns and the nature of reality. All the while, another part of me feels that this point was already reached long ago. In a sense, it was reached and I had yet spent more resources going through additional iterations of our previous behaviour, hoping for an improved outcome, but had only been surprised by the degree to which our dialogue had regressed.
-In the case of my brother, we had lready been speaking much less since his wife had begun working near him, but even before that, I had found the discourse to be lacking and fairly superficial. Sure, maybe it is me who is superficial, but there are some specific epectations that I need to see fulfilled in order for me to rationalize the session of interaction, especially recurring ones.
-1. We learn from one another. This is a crucial component to the interactions. Humans are liable to entertain all manner of habit that they may have cultivated at any one given time, and we are never fully aware of the entire apparatus of habits being employed in terms of our absolute set of motivations for any one given decision, but we know that it is better if the motivations we reinforce are ones we admire and want to see benefit us in a progressive fashion -> something whose mode of use improves with time. If the interaction is not an attempt to see something learned, but merely an administrative chore, an opportunity to seek to feel a sensation or emotion, a form of manipulation, or even just a habit that isn't yet understood, then it fails to meet the standard. There are cases where administrative and habitual interactions are acceptable, but it becomes inadmissible if other aspects of the interaction rae sufficiently undesirable.
-Non-communication by proxy: a disgraceful feature of modernity.
-Just as we have been able to increasingly defer services, accountability and more through industrialization and other forms of modernization, so too have the direct transactions and refinements that used to take place through man.
-Almost as if by design, if there are any females present, all communication seems to be directed to them. Not necessarily because they are the most pertinent to the conversation, but almost seemingly to seek approval about the discourse at play, making sure that they have no qualms that need to be addressed in the meantime, providing endless opportunity to derail the discussion and take it off to a journey where the points being sought become a redundant part of the dialogue. Even just by measure of sheer eye contact - it no longer occurs except for a few superficial and nervous glances, never enough to actually begin the stream of understanding which is necessary to have any forward movement at all. There is no connection being made and, obviously, if there are any subjects that could othrewise be contentended upon, they will be swept aside with their rot left to fester and expand. This follows suite with the scant previous discussions that had ever taken place. On matters of great concern for all parties, and particularly for myself and mty would be interlocutor, there is zero interest in allowing for the complete vocalization and enunciation of our opinions, as any effort is met with scorn and demonization.
-If we are all evil and corrupt, why would you even hope to break bread with us? Will you bring us to your view through osmosis? Why not let everything into the room so that truth can prevail? Either you fear truth, or are fearful that I will deceive you. These things should be much simpler to solve. Perhaps there is no desire for them to be solved, but why?
-We let the truth slide, because it serves one on more than one time scale, and in more than one way. If one happens to be wrong about one of the assumptions, then not only is the remaining mode of advantage still possible, but the removal of the other might indeed quel cognitive dissonance. The anticipation of this can permit the mind to accept taking on a belief which brings about confusion and cognitive dissonance.
-Short term: congruence with the cultural norms of the day, a path to higher moral standing
-Short term: might also help achieve more independence?
-exit

crt/CRT_Quotes.md

@@ -20,4 +20,27 @@
 "This work merges in the North American context of the 1960s with antiwar, feminist, gay rights, Black power, Indigenous peoples, The Chicano Movement, disability rights, and other movements for social justice.
 
 Many of these movements initially advocated for a type of liberal humanism (individualism, freedom, and peace) but quickly turned to a rejection of liberal humanism. The logic of individual autonomy that underlies liberal humanism (the idea that people are free to make independent rational decisions that determine their own fate) was viewed as a mechanism for keeping the marginalized in their place by obscuring larger structural systems of inequality. In other words, it fooled people into believing that they had more freedom and choice than societal structures actually allow."
-- Robin DiAngelo - Is Everyone Really Equal An Introduction to Key Concepts in Social Justice Education, p. 47
+- Robin DiAngelo - Is Everyone Really Equal An Introduction to Key Concepts in Social Justice Education, p. 47
+
+# Kimberle Crenshaw
+It's important to note, in this section, that what we're actually finding is the proof that Critical Race Theorists are themselves racists by their own definition of the term Racist. That is, the definition that selectively replaces other terms whenever it is most utilitarian to do so for the proliferation of the theory. That is, racism becomes a stand in for any resistance to proletarian struggle as defined by the party - power + privilege. If the party is "for the people", then any ascription of "privilege" or "power" is insofar that it limits the liberation of "the people".
+
+You are not allowed to make a criticism about one being implicated as guilty or lacking knowledge or capability in any regard by virtue of their race, unless it has been granted by the Critical Theorist through their acknowledgment that your identity, that which they've evaluated and assigned to you, indicates a race which is or is not privileged.
+
+In this quote we see that Kimberle Crenshaw decries the category of race as being something which has been wrongfully imposed, and that this is the means by which racism has been used to stratify society through oppression and domination. For this reason, in a paper where asserts her positions on the basis of postmodern deconstruction, she claims that no one has the right to deconstruct race except the Critical Race Theorist. They acknowledge that race was wrongfully imposed, creating racism in the first place, and now they demand that they can deconstruct all aspects of the social sphere to their express purpose of Critical Praxis and that they will do this through race essentialism.
+
+Again, that is to say that they assert that the advent of racism and the unfair stratification of society was done through the imposition of race, and they are also claiming that they will impose race as a "statement of resistance" and "positive discourse of self-identification". They will do the very thing which created oppression and domination, and they will set the conditions to make it properly basic that any criticism of this strategy is inadmissible, making it the complete opposite of the practice of critical thinking under a presumption of liberalism. They are, by their own definition, racist. They are privileging themselves and and asserting power on the basis of something they deem to be a social construction that could be deconstructed in a rational discourse, and they've forbidden that discourse in order to ensure that they maintain a position of power. The fact that they are able to do it without scrutiny proves that they have power and privilege, and the fact that they impose this manner of thinking proves that they are racists.
+
+Preceding thought by Lindsay:
+"That is, it is the fusion of neo-Marxism (as racial “liberation politics”) fused with elements from postmodern Theory. This is perfectly consistent with her argument in “Mapping the Margins,” which takes to task both liberal approaches to civil rights (and liberalism) and also postmodernism, as being insufficient to address “the exercise of racial power.” Ultimately, Crenshaw’s contribution to this fusion is in figuring out the necessary neo-Marxist alchemical formula to set aside racial category (identity) from postmodern Theory’s deconstructive digestive juices. Racial identity and the oppression neo-Marxist thought ascribes to it shall not be deconstructed. Indeed, she frames the attempt to do so as
+necessarily rooted in precisely the privilege that racial neo-Marxism (Identity Marxism) builds itself around critiquing."
+
+Crenshaw:
+
+"It is helpful in this regard to distinguish intersectionality from the closely related perspective of antiessentialism, from which women of color have critically engaged white feminism for the absence of women of color on the one hand, and for speaking for women of color on the other. One rendition of this antiessentialist critique—that feminism essentializes the category woman—owes a great deal to the postmodernist idea that categories we consider natural or merely representational are actually socially constructed in a linguistic economy of difference. While the descriptive project of postmodernism of questioning the ways in which meaning is socially constructed is generally sound, this critique sometimes misreads the meaning of social construction and distorts its political relevance. One version of antiessentialism, embodying what might be called the vulgarized social construction thesis, is that since all categories are socially constructed, there is no such thing as, say, Blacks or women, and thus it makes no sense to continue reproducing those categories by organizing around them...
+
+But to say that a category such as race or gender is socially constructed is not to say that that category has no significance in our world. On the contrary, a large and continuing project for subordinated people—and indeed, one of the projects for which postmodern theories have been very helpful—is thinking about the way power has clustered around certain categories and is exercised against others. This project attempts to unveil the processes of subordination and the various ways those processes are experienced by people who are subordinated and people who are privileged by them. It is, then, a project that presumes that categories have meaning and consequences. And this project’s most pressing problem, in many if not most cases, is not the existence of the categories, but rather the particular values attached to them and the way those values foster and create social hierarchies.
+
+This is not to deny that the process of categorization is itself an exercise of power, but the story is much more complicated and nuanced than that. First, the process of categorizing or, in identity terms, naming—is not unilateral. Subordinated people can and do participate, sometimes even subverting the naming process in empowering ways. One need only think about the historical subversion of the cat egory “Black” or the current transformation of “queer” to understand that categorization is not a one-way street. Clearly, there is unequal power, but there is nonetheless some degree of agency that people can and do exert in the politics of naming. And it is important to note that identity continues to be a site of resistance for members of different subordinated groups. We all can recognize the distinction between the claims “I am Black” and the claim “I am a person who happens to be Black.” “I am Black” takes the socially imposed identity and empowers it as an anchor of subjectivity. “I am Black” becomes not simply a statement of resistance but also a positive discourse of self-identification, intimately linked to celebratory statements like the Black nationalist “Black is beautiful.” “I am a person who happens to be Black,” on the other hand, achieves self-identification by straining for a certain universality (in effect, “I am first a person”) and for a concomitant dismissal of the imposed category (“Black”) as contingent, circumstantial, nondeterminant. There is truth in both characterizations, of course, but they function quite differently depending on the political context. At this point in history, a strong case can be made that the most critical resistance strategy for disempowered groups is to occupy and defend a politics of social location rather than to vacate and destroy it.
+
+Vulgar constructionism thus distorts the possibilities for meaningful identity politics by conflating at least two separate but closely linked manifestations of power. One is the power exercised simply through the process of categorization; the other, the power to cause that categorization to have social and material consequences. While the former power facilitates the latter, the political implications of challenging one over the other matter greatly."

mind/Radical.md

@@ -1,17 +0,0 @@
-### Radicalization
-
--------
-
-#### METRICS
-
-1. **Significant event:** events wherein the intensity of expression is significant and the subject to which the expression is making its proclamation is one of acute disagreement in situ, or one for which there is general sociopolitical disagreement.
-
-*I've continuously found evidence of what I believe to be the radicalization of my brother.*
-
-This has taken many forms and has occurred continuously over many years, but it is something for which the gravety was never previously determined. What could have previously been attributed to mild dissatisfaction or the adoption of opinions from his surroundings seem to have, at least as far as my personal determinations have lead me to believe, become motivated by an adherence to ideological principles.
-
-#### Ideological Principles
-
-It is not easy to make the assertion that one's behaviour is significantly motivated by an ideological principle. Perhaps a de facto standard needs to be specified in order to make the evaluation less absurd. Events that are identified for analysis must meet the standard of `metric 1`, as declared within this document.
-
-Participants of events meeting this specification are scrutinized on the basis of hostility/irritability, willingness to discuss, perceived motivation of expression, nomenclature and likelihood that the instantiation of the event is not to have occurred as a reaction to publicly disseminated views by the opposing participant.

new/Random.md

@@ -536,73 +536,3 @@ As the human face is an interface through which it's plausible that the densest
 As we alter the standard of social interaction by means which constrain the use of our most significant and stimulating junction, we facilitate focus on increasingly detached and arbitrary endpoints. This means a reality where humans are less able to recognize one another's unique form, state of being, and viability in this world, and one where we are more readily invited to indulge in directing our minds to matters of import to one's ego.
 
 Oh, the irony of bringing about an industrial revolution, in the name of altruism and humanity, whose effect is to isolate us in chambers of vanity so easily believed to be virtue.
-
-# Question
-Question
-
-I have lost all interest in spending time with my brother and his family
-
-It has been like this for many years, perhaps even a decade or more, and I have struggled with it, debated with myself, and tried to understand what part of my psyche or development has lead me to feel this way
-
-This began years ago when I noticed that we had very different values. Though there are probably many issues that I've forgotten, it was never about an issue in particular.
-
-It likely started through the relationship between myself and his wife. I have had to sit through, perhaps, one or several of too many dinners with their family, and felt that his wife had a neurotic need to be the center of the conversation, only lending a superficial ear to any other participants, and just waiting for the moment that she could speak. This is not unusual, and we all do this to some degree, but I found that she was never able to turn it off, and that it had gone on so long that even when she was trying to be genuine, it was futile, in that she was still falling into the pattern of keeping things extremely superficial. There was no progression of depth, as the depth of the conversation is mostly the duration, not the degree to which shared understanding and learning is possible.
-
-This was fine on its own, but the other aspects of the relationship were a strong inclination for her to express disgust and judgment. This manifests in various ways, but often includes eye rolling, reacting to one having disclosed something by calling it disgusting, and frequently telling others that she doesn't want to hear what they are talking about. This seemed to be an ever-present threat whereby any subject which is being suggested needs to be scrutinized to make sure it does not trigger her disgust sensitivity. Over time, this has made it so that I don't really try to offer any of my beliefs or understanding about any subjects, and mostly just ask her and her family questions so that they can be provided with the opportunity to talk.
-
-I enjoy listening to others and asking them questions, but I've never found that the process of listening to them is meaningful or even informative. It often seems to be an expression of their emotion, which is mild discontent and admiration for things which I've never found to be admirable.
-
-Issues with brother:
-Admiration for social justice
-Supporting international political action in the name of freedom which has a high potential for corruption, and seems to involve organizations that have a history of financing geopolitical endeavours which include proliferation of terrorism.
-Support for ideologies which are ultimately anti-human, such as Critical Theory, Critical Social Justice
-
-Events which caused me to feel this way:
-Any of the events where an opportunity presented itself for us to have open discourse about a topic wherein there existed a lot of contention, particularly among our disparate opinions.
-
-There was, of course, the conversation that we had about
-
-*****************
-This was the previous conversation
-*****************
-
-What should be done in this situation
-Should I be compelled to spend time with my family members, even if I am not convinced that there is a specific reason for us to be hanging out, other than habitual ones?
-
-The habit of us always expecting to see family at family events
-That somehow the event is made more important and meaningful by attendance alone
-We are expected to be present, and therefore that can be taken for granted
-And these minute little inflections of indulgeance become more readily presented
-I've long suspected that the interactions between myself and my brother, and especially between myself and his wife, do not bear the dignity and respect that should be expected of a healthy relationship worth pursuing and engaging. That is, it leaves a lot to be desired, and even if there were some assurance that doing work on the relationship can result in improved communication and a more meaningful experience for all parties involved, I am not really sure what would result from the interactions such that I would feel the effort is worthy of being pursued.
-What is it that I'm looking for in a relationship with my brother's wife?
-Am I hoping to learn from one another, or at least to have a better understanding of another?
-Am I to ensure that the exchange is authentic and meaningful?
-Am I to ask very specific questions at specific times to lead the conversation in a direction which is something more than her repeating whatever happens to be on her mind, with absolutely no interest in the other party or any exchange of ideas?
-I'm not even sure if we've had a conversation of any sort other than "how are you" or "how's work going?"
-And even when asked those qustions, i can manage to not even respond to her without her noticing, because it's only but half a moment after she has finished speaking that she stops really paying attention
-There is no listening from her end, it's just a brief moment whre she pauses her speech, as though it's the expected custom, and if something else happens to be present for her to divert her attention, it will easily be directed to it and I am free to disengage from a contrived, fake conversation, without having to spend more time, and without her noticing
-So how is that something worth salvaging? Should I be spending my tim playing into that scenario over and over?
-If I had only 5 minutes to live, but she happened to be present, should I be spending those 5 minutes pretending to have a conversation with someone who is completely disinterested in anything I might have to say?
-I know what it's like to have a meaningful conversation with people who listen and exchange ideas, because I've had before and when you find yourself in one, you both learn and benefit from the experience.
-There is nothing of that sort with my brother's wife, and I have lost all expectation that this will be the case.
-Perhaps this began to happen more or less a few yeras ago.
-But there were issues without communication throughout our history
-Earlier on, it was because fo the great divide in our ages and experience
-It would be difficult to engage someone who is that much younger, without also having to remove a great deal of your expression
-But it also taught me to interact with people of an older age, which was a great experience for me
-We grew apart, of course, just by sheer distance and period of tim between in-perso interactions
-But then things became very political
-At a certain point, it would seem that he was forced to support ideologies or political organizations which were inforemd by such ideologies, because they were in line with the type of work that he does
-as time wen ton, he became increasingly invested in that way of thinking as he also began to study these subjects in university
-For example, when the Syrian issues began, he was fully on board with the uprising in the country.
-As well as any uprising in any middle eastern country
-It is, perhaps, symbolic of the modest, meagre power of an individual against a tyrant
-The individual vs the state
-And this is a powerful image
-We are, of course, forced to presume that that is actually what is at play in this scenario
-It is, of course, deeper, and there is more than one way to approach the story
-In fact, there are various false dichotomies, approaching from divisions of opinion within a particular domain, and each of these domains approach the subject (or even just one, but truly it should be considered as a range) of abstracted interpretations of the issue at hand
-In this case, we could say that one is supporting intervention vs not
-Another is supporting western ideas vs eastern ones
-Another is supporting interventionalist government vs another interventionalist government
-In most cases, however, the stories surrounding the events of Syria are romanticized, and paint that need for diverting resources towards initiatives which promote a greater amount of change

new/brother.md

@@ -1,100 +0,0 @@
-what should be done in this situation
-should I be compelled to spend the time with family members, even if I am not convinced that there is even any specific reason for us to be hanging out, other than habitaul ones
-habitual ones
-the habit of us always expecting to see family at family events
-that somehow the event is made more important and meaningful by attendance alone
-we are expected to be present, and therefore that canbe taken for granted
-and these minute little inflections of indulgeance become more readily presented
-I've long suspected that the interactions between myself and my brother, and especially between myself and his wife, do not bear the dignity and respect that should be expected of a healthy relationship worth pursuing and engaging
-that is, it leaves a lot to be desired, and even if there were some assurance that doing work on the relationship can result in improved communication and a more meaningful experience for all parties involved, I am not really sure what would result from the interactions such that I would feel the effort is worthy of being pursued
-what is it that I'm looking for in a relationship with my brother's wife?
-Am I hoping to learn from one another, or at least to have a better understanding of one another?
-Do I put up a roadblock to understanding her? what is my duty in that regard?
-am I to ensure that the exchange is authentic and meaningful?
-am I to ask very specific questions at specifc times to lead the conversation in a direction which is something more than her repeating whatever happens to be on her mind, with absolutely no interest in the other party or any exchange of ideas?
-i'm not even sure if we've had a conversation of any sort other than "how are you" or "how's working going?"
-and even when asked those questions, I can manage to not even respond to her without her noticing, because it's only but half a moment after she has finished speaking that she stops really paying attetion
-there is no listening from her end, it's just a brief moment where she pauses her speech, as though it's the expected custom, and if something else happens to be present for her to divert her attention, it will easily be directed to it and I am free to disengage from a contrived, fake conversation without having to spend more time, and without her noticing
-so how is that something worth salvaging? Should I be spending my time playing into that scenario over and over?
-If i had only 5 minutes to live, but she happened to be present, shoudl I be spending those 5 minutes pretending to have a conversation with someone who is completely disinterested in anything I mgiht have to say?
-I know what it's liek to have a meaningful conversation with people who listen and exchange ideas, because I've had them before and when you find yourself in one, you both learn and benefit from the experience
-there is nothing of the sort with my brother's wife, and I have lost all expectation that this will be the case
-as time goes on, the same has become true of my interactions with my Brother
-perhaps this began to happen more or less a few years ago
-but there were issues withour communication throughout our history
-earlier on, it was because of hte great divide in our ages and experience
-it would be difficult to engage someone who is that much younger, without also having to remove a great deal of your expression
-but it also taught me to interact with people of an older age, which was a great experience for me
-we grew apart, fo course, just by sheer distance and period of time between in-person interactions
-but then things became very political
-at a certain point, it would seem that he was forced to support ideologies or political organizations which were informed by such ideologies, because they were in lithey were in line with the type of work that he does
-as time goes on, he became increasingly invested in that way ofthinking, as he also began to study these subjects in university
-for example, when the Syrian issues began, he was fully on board with the uprising in the country
-as well as any uprising in any middle eastern country
-it is, perhaps, symbolic of the modest, meagre power of an individual against a giant tyrant
-the individual vs the state
-and this is a powerful image
-we are, of course, forced to presume that that is actually what is at play in this scenario
-it is, of course, deeper, and there is more than one way to approach the story
-in fact, there are various false dichotomies, approaching from divisions of opinion within a particular domain, and each of these domains approach the subjectge (or even just one, but truly it shoudl be considered as a range) of abstracted interpretations of the issue at hand
-in this case, we could say that one is supporting intervention vs not
-another is supporting western ideas vs eastern ones
-another is supporting one interventionalist government vs another interventionalist government
-in most cases, however, the stories surrounding the events of Syria are romanticized, and paint that need for diverting resources towards initiatives which promote a greater amount of change
-requiring more political power to propose, develop and support those initiatives
-and that is very empowering to people who are already engaged in similar initiatives here, which describes my brother, at least to some extent
-I don't believe that such a characterization is necessarily in bad faith, or unaccurate
-but perhaps it might not be the most nuanced 
-nevertheless, the state of affairs is that we have a different divide over the issue
-mine has always been out of a need to uphold people's liberty - I don't like the idea of being a slave
-and I think that the best way to mitigate the threat of being a slave, especially in any sort of legal capacity, is it ensure that the rights and freedoms of every individual is maintained and upheld
-the problem with the language of supporting freedoms nad individuals is when it comes to expression
-because, whereas the original idea about expression was simply being able to speak
-to have opinions, and to be able to proclaim them in public
-this is an expression, and the simple manner of preserving that expression is to not allow the government to restrict speech
-the next step that process would be to use the government to increase safety from violence
-that the government is willing to apprehend and punish those who commit acts of violence
-but we have changed our ideas about what it means to enjoy freedom of expression
-rather than simply being able to say and do things (non-violent), it is not the expression of being
-that is, that you are able to embody a particular identity, and that there could be threats to your ability to do that
-there could be an imposition in the form of verbal criticism
-and what constitutes that criticism, being difficult to ascertain already, will need to be proven on the basis of the opinion of whomsoever believes themselves to be criticized
-we can see how this goes into a whole other conversation really fast, but keeping the overarching idea going forward, this leads to many new initiatives which require legislation, activism, new funding, new industries, and so forth
-and that these issues are closely connected with those which already supported the funding of interventionalist or developmental activities in foreign countries, means that there is a bias to accepting and adopting them readily
-in the case of my brother, this has lead him to participating in LGBT ideology, as well as BLM
-so these were already ideas that lead to us having a difference of opinion, and perhaps leading to conversations which can't really be had in hte presence of his children
-so, for the most part, since the act of responding to his opinion, especially as a refutation, is also the act of questioning his authority in front of his children, it becomes complicated to have a mature conversation about these subjects
-furthermore, it has been seen that having conversations about these subjects makes him angry and leads to his wife protesting, who is also present in all these instances
-because of this, it has become commonplace that he utters short representations of his ideas, without expecting any sort of retort, and we remain silent and just imagine that he is oblivious to whether or not we have any sort of opinion on the matter
-but this, of course, forces us to assume he is ignorant, or intolerant
-or that, he is wishing to be disrespectful by proclaiming something as a moral good which we do not believe in, which implies that we are not moral people, or that we are the ones who are ignorant of something
-this becomes increasingly complex as time goes on, and I no longer even feel the need to go through the effort of engaging in a conversation which will be necessarily shallow, doomed to fail, and likely to become a conversation with multiple people, when it really should be a one-to-one affair
-when actually engaging with my brother under 1-to-1 pretenses, the conversations have been cordia
-cordial
-but, mostly, it consists of my brother complaining about his job, or something similar
-and asking very little about what I do
-if I speak about myself, it's because I offer him information, and then try to gauge whether or not he's interested enough for me to actually put effort into elaborating on the subject
-I've often found that I am only bringing up something about myself so that I might participate in conversing with my brother through means which are not simply me asking him a succession of questions
-but, then, it also seems like I'm just trying to talk about myself
-and, since I already resent him for only wanting to talk about himself, I don't really feel the need to do the same
-so that makes the conversations even less fulfilling and more contrived or superficial
-though never as superficial or contrived as those with my brother's wife have been
-those conversations with his wife don't really exist
-it's mostly a procedure of making certain statements which, if taken at face value, would be for very specific purposes
-but the purposes they are utilized for are nothing of the sort
-they are mostly just a show of civility and a customary routine of demonstrating some degree of ethical community behaviour
-this, over time, is something I resent
-because I feel as though, throughout the yeras, I have tried to have a real conversation with her
-but I've never found that she actually pays any attention or even addresses me with respect
-as time has gone on, she has began to address, at least in person, with more respect, but the degree to which she is attentive
-or even interested in anything I have to say, has lessened
-or perhaps has remained nil, which it most certainly was at any time except perhaps the earliest years when she was a new person in my brother's life
-I've even found that being around people who speak constantly about themselves, fills my mind with their thoughts and words, which arem ostly a form of them thinking out loud for things to say, but often not about anything of any interest to anything but themselves
-and, whenever there is an opportunity to try and engage them in a conversation, anything that is said is instantly transformed into a search for them to find an opportunity to share a storyof their own
-there's never any interest in developing an idea, or in understanding something about the other person they are speaking with
-over time, this has become satirical in that I can even completely avoid communicating with them, and they don't seem to notice
-and when I do that, almost as an experiment, and find that I can predict the results, I lose my respect for them
-because I have to wonder, why they would want to allocate their own time to be spent with people whom they dont' have any interest in interacting with
-if they're just looking for an audience for themselves, then what can they possibly be learning in this world?
-what can they possibly be doing to mitigate the tragedy of life?
-exit

new/brother_convo.md

@@ -1,97 +0,0 @@
-so my brother sends me a text message out of the blue
-and in the message he makes the claim that he misses us
-but not exactly that he misses us per se
-but that he misses "seeing" us
-I doubt he's actually trying to admit anything in particular
-but it is quite revealing, because it makes perfect sense that "seeing us" as in our presence being there in a supportive or perhaps even aesthetic capacity, is what he is accustomed to and likely all he's ever really interested in
-the same could definitely be said of his wife, if not more so
-who knows
-In any case, he leaves a message like that.. that he misses seeing us
-and what am I to respond to that?
-Do I miss "seeing" him?
-Was it ever "seeing" him that I was hoping to do?
-I don't understand what it is exactly he could be missing abou tus
-is it that we sit and listen to him and his wife when they go on endlessly, mentioning everything that they can possibly remember, anything at all that they might be able to relate to the words that anyone else has uttered?
-I don't think I've ever seen any genuine interest from them in years
-whenever they present their interest, by offering a generic salutation, or asking us "how we are" or "how work is going", it is always immediately obvious that they are simply going through the motions of doing whatever they believe they must do in order to fulfill their social obligations
-a preamble, if you will, before they take their usual liberties in finding reasons to speak
-It would be something different if they were offering something as a respones to an honest query that was given to them
-but they don't evenr eally need the query
-they just need to believe that someone is listening to them
-and even if you aren't listening, they'll still be speaking, and often changing the target of tehir communication, so that they can keep having the continuous output which reassures them of some sort of success
-success at what, is a long discussion in and of itself
-but certainly it appears it appears to be a chief aspect of how they believe they are determining success for themselves
-and obviously if it's providing some sort of success, it's not in improving the bond they have with family members, or at least not these ones (myself and my wife)
-so, what then, am I to respond to him declaring that he misses "seeing" us?
-"I miss you too?" Well that would be a lie
-we've been really content to not be forced to drive across the city and back every Sunday, losing one of the msot productive chunks of time available to us, in order to sit and behold their banter
-to listen to them speak endlessly of what their friends and acquaintances have been doing
-the conditions of their workplace
-what sorts of crafts they have discovered
-what sorts of activities they have been doing with the kids
-what their kids have said
-what they have been telling their kids
-really nothing much more than that, but it goes on endlessly
-and if ever there was a discussion to be had about something serious or involved?
-well, that is always only an opportunity for them to tell us what they think
-as though it would be a surprise of sorts
-even the details are basically ones we could have constructed for them
-and if it's not, it definitely feels that way
-I don't think I've been surprised by anything they've said in years, perhaps even decades
-whereas, I've seen time and tim tha hte one time I manage to have a halfway decent conversation with my brother, which hasn't happened since about 2016, that it doesn't take long for me to note his naivety
-I'm not looking to make myself believe that he is naive
-but when it occurs, it is remarkable, and it's difficult for me to not pay attention to it and consider teh implications
-One of the only times that we actually did have a productive conversation, however
-was in response to their endless comiserating
-We were sitting down to breakfast in a  restauraunt, and they kept on endlessly insulting political figures that we have interest in
-and insulting those who would have interest in such a figure
-They do this , playing aloof, as though they're not already cognizant of our interest in those things
-even though they've been told this before
-and have had reactions presented to us
-even though they've followed us on social media, and seen the endless onslaught of political commentary that we send out
-even if they were avoiding looking at our content, they would have seen at least some piece of content at some time, considering how much of it is coming out
-But, in spite of all this, they decide to play aloof and speak in a way which is condescending and offensive
-So, in respone to that, we shared some views
-And whatever the reaction they might have had, which I'll get into, what everyone fails to grasp is that there's nothing disrespectful about sharing views
-We aren't trying to provoke them
-if anything, we're only speaking our honest views because we want to respect them
-in order to behold them with some degree of respect, we have to be willing to be honest with them
-we can't simply hear them communicating something which causes us to dislike them, and also lose respect for them
-saying things that we not only disagree with, but that we believe they have arrived to erroneously
-how do we consolidate that?
-well, by being honest
-by speaking the truth and telling us what we think
-and why we think it
-what do you think was the result of doing somethign like that?
-for several minutes, I became increasingly positive about the outcome
-not because we were "smashing" them, or winning a debate or any of that nonsense
-no, it was because the act of having a conversation abotu real things, speaking our perspectives honestly, and working through contentious issues
-is the most progressive thing you can hope for
-there's no other way to make progress without improving information and understanding
-without improving communication and building trust
-and this comes from allowing one another to have insight into how we each think
-and learning that although it seems we have different interests and values, that the points of contention about matters which we seem to be conflicted over might actually be borne of the fundamental values that we actually share
-and that it's the interpretation and stylitistic elements which have gotten in the way, which ahve coloured things and forced us to pay more attention tot he fact that we don't agree about something, rather than rtying to build our undersstanding of the issue and learn to improve our perspective
-It seemed like we were making progress
-but then I couldn't help but notice all the anger in my brother's voice
-his hand shaking as though he was beign confronted with a situation taht was unexpected and unfamiliar
-surely, he's never had to speak with people who hold very different views from him
-and his wife? 
-well, even though she was (as usual) the one who was saying the most provocative things preemptively, without having to speak of subjcts that we had introduced
-even though she was probsably the ony who had said the most insulting of things
-th most condescending
-and in a manner which causes one to lose hope in mankind
-in spite of all of that, we were still willing to have an open discussion about things
-to try and learn about their view
-and to give them an opportunity to see a perspective on the matter whihc, though it would appear to be coming from aa point of origin that they would perceive as being unethical
-that things are actually more complicated than that
-but it turned out that this was not to be
-not only were they unrespective to our arguments
-they became incredibly offended tha twe would even try to discuss these things
-that we would somehow bring the topic forward, even though they had been controlling the topic until that point in time already
-so here we are, not havign a conversation about something that we all need to better understand
-Not making the type of critical progress that's necessary for the relationship to be meaningful and reciprocative
-no, we are to be seen and not heard
-if we are to be heard, it's only as a demonstration that we, infact, have uniform thinking
-well, no think you, that's not likely to be the case
-exit