The Partner vs The Individual

Over the last few months, a change has taken place in my observations and approach to discussions online. It seems to me that I would have always been this way, but apparently I wasn't.

If you read the Information Distortion Techniques thread that I have created over the years, you will see very accurate and concise explanations of how to spot, reveal, and protect oneself from the many distortion techniques initiated by those we may discuss with.

However, if you see the last entry labeled something along the lines of "My Perspective, Your Responsibility", you observe as you read it that it doesn't appear to address or specify any exact linguistic tricks, but tries to describe some other "distortion technique".

Just as with everything else that one learns, as one evolves through that education they begin to move past the difficult initial mathematics of the science as those premises become more natural and definite in their repeated use.

As a result, one moves to greater ground, trying to understand and create new premises and ideas, allowing the more basic ones to disappear into the background, forming the legs upon which the further deductions are made.

It appears that over the last few months, I have become less and less interested in debating these techniques, for they form a definite science to me. It appears that I am naturally gravitating to the next, greater conundrum, which is no longer what people do, but why they do it.

In other words, as I interact with someone, I no longer remain interested or gain satisfaction in proving that they are distorting information in some manner or another. It is specifically this lack of satisfaction that appears to be the source of the ultimate change that is taking place in my priorities, for, if I do not enjoy it anymore, it is not a form of exploration.

What I am now interested in is the source, the reason behind why distortion techniques are used. I have always concluded that it is due to purposeful bias, but aside from such facetious reasons, what I seem to be trying to understand is the maintenance of those biases despite information to the contrary.

What I am interested in is knowing the organism that is human delusion, and how it manifests itself like an insect within a person's mind, and how it reflects in their behavior with others. I am interested in how they interact with other delusional people and how they react to non-delusional people.

I am interested to see how delusions grow and how they lessen. I am interested in the birth of them and the death of them, and I am interested in dissecting the anger and passions that surround them.

As I evolve from my previous purpose, which was to outline the science of linguistic tricks, I come to an understanding about the nature of discussion that I feel would be worthy of expressing.

It is that through trying to determine and master these tricks, I have forgotten the base expectation that one should always have of anyone they discuss with, and that without this expectation in place, one will almost always find themselves in conversations that are both taxing and a waste of time.

The expectation is this - that when two people enter a discussion, they become partners. Their hands must intertwine metaphorically in that they both decide that they now have a shared fate - that the composite truth between them must be discovered, for no one person can leave or benefit without sharing in both the truths of the other person and their own.

This expectation is not vague, for although it appears abstract, it is very simple. Use the word "partner", and examine if the person you are speaking to is behaving as a partner. Do not listen to their words claiming they are, do not listen to their statements about their intentions or their goals, or their history or future, or how they see you or how they see themselves.

Step back, and ask yourself, "is this person behaving like my partner? Does he or she know that tomorrow, and the day after, if there are any disagreements between us it will remain unsettled, and so, is he or she trying to understand point as much as I am trying to understand theirs?".

This ties into relationships - are we looking to step on one another or join with one another?

If we perceive that our goals are to join with one another, to not be alone as we walk this life, then it is in our best interests to amicably solve any and all dilemmas and misunderstands that occur between us and anyone else, assuming they also wish to walk with us in this life.

Therein, I believe, lies one of the most educational parts of this point: that we can only discuss with people who are long term individuals... that when they speak to us, they speak from a realm that suggests that they both have the expectation and desire that whomever they speak to is someone who will be in their lives, even if it is just by touching one another in one discussion, for the rest of time.

That the information the partner provides becomes a part of you, and as such, you are responsible for that information to be accurate and true, and likewise they have an interest in absorbing your information and altering theirs, and sharing their own with you.

Fear is the number one culprit that prevents one from becoming a partner, for they do not perceive that the information you have to provide, you do so as a partner with those pious intentions. As such their reactions are bitter and short, quick and defensive. Two people who wish to join together to form composite truths become a part of each other forever, and such discussions remain in our memories till we die, and it is only these kinds of discussions that I am now interested in participating in.

It is the only kind of discussion you should be interested in partaking in, and so to carve yourself into someone who fearlessly opens his or her heart to those you share information with, you must first address your fears in doing so, and just as one must ask themselves if the other is holding their hands out to us with vulnerability and a thirst for our knowledge, so too must we ask ourselves if we are capable and willing to do the same.

And if we find that the answer lies in the truth that we do so, but they are not prepared, we cannot engage no matter what the desire, for holding your hand out to those that fear to grasp it results in the same as loving someone who is incapable of being loved - it will tarnish your ability to love and delay their progress towards being able to hold their hand out as well.

A logical discussion is no longer a battle, but an intimate event that must be built on mutual trust, first and foremostly lead by the willingness to question ones perspectives and views in the presentation of the perspectives of others.

If, and when, at the start of any disagreement, there is any dissension from this partnership it must be presented. If it is not rectified with both humility and open mindedness, the other person is not seeking to be a partner, and in most cases, simply is too fearful to do so.

The evolution of one's own perspective of reality will benefit by 50 steps with each partner you share information with, and benefit by 1 step for each individual you interact with even though both of these interactions may seem similar, take the same amount of time, and be just as tiring. Only those with partners leave us with a feeling of spiritual completion afterwards.