# Emotion/narcissism in 2s



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

Moderately Nefarious said:


> What does it mean to you? What makes something worth certain amount of money is people being ready to spend that amount of money on it. Doesn't matter for what reason the person wants it, if they really want it.


Well, it could be the object is low quality/overpriced garbage, and they're fooled into wanting it because they're idiots, or they see others wanting it and mimetic desire ensues, etc. 

So it depends on their reason for wanting it. 

But explaining exactly what it means to me is tricky...

(And now I'm thinking about mimetic desire and what a mess _that _can be, lol. :bored

Edit: @Moderately Nefarious
Although for what actually gives me a sense of worth, I would say it often (if not always) involves feeling superior to someone else. Which is kind of sad (and still dependent on someone else), but yeah. =P


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

About 'self-love' (don't take these as final, polished thoughts, just kinda what's on my mind now)

It's always struck me as...borderline asinine, this concept of 'you can't love anyone else until you love yourself', just sort-of self-explanatorily asinine and I never thought that much about it) I wrote this little dialogue in a story a few months ago:
_
“Nowadays,” I commented, “They say that you should love yourself before anyone else.”
“Do they? I’m not surprised. It sounds just like them. I’m so glad you’re not one of them, Henry.”_

Which essentially sums up how I feel about it)

When I try to think about it, though...well, it still doesn't make a lot of sense, because...what _is_ loving yourself, anyways? I _am_ myself, that's rather stale...what exactly does that constitute? Am I going to write myself love poems? "hope whispers, I can catch a glimpse of your nose when I squint...how jealous am I of those who can admire your visage without recourse to mirrors...your hand fits into mine as if they were made for each other..."

SORRY, being stupid, can't really gather up my thoughts on this one)

Point is, what's the point of 'loving yourself'? What does that even constitute? If you love another person, it implies...a sort of dynamic feeling, energy flowing toward them from you, an element of sacrifice...you can't sacrifice for yourself. Or I suppose you can, but I don't see it as admirable. If someone says, "I worked eight-hour shifts at the factory for years on end so that _I_ could be happy and comfortable!", that's ... well, boring)) and not very meaningful) 

If it's meant to mean (as I think it might be meant to mean), respecting yourself, not selling your heart (I guess) then that has some value, but doesn't seem to have much to do with loving someone else.

I mean, the whole point of love is that there's more than one person involved. That's where the actual love comes in. If there was just one person in the world, love wouldn't be a factor. It wouldn't matter in the slightest if that one person loved themselves or not.


----------



## Darkbloom (Aug 11, 2013)

hope whispers said:


> About 'self-love' (don't take these as final, polished thoughts, just kinda what's on my mind now)
> 
> It's always struck me as...borderline asinine, this concept of 'you can't love anyone else until you love yourself', just sort-of self-explanatorily asinine and I never thought that much about it) I wrote this little dialogue in a story a few months ago:
> _
> ...


Well worded, all of it)


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

Moderately Nefarious said:


> Well worded, all of it)


:gentleman: thank you)


----------



## Darkbloom (Aug 11, 2013)

Distortions said:


> Well, it could be the object is low quality/overpriced garbage, and they're fooled into wanting it *because they're idiots*, or they see others wanting it and mimetic desire ensues, etc.
> 
> So it depends on their reason for wanting it.
> 
> ...


Their problem :tongue:

I get it, you see worth as having qalities that you find good.
I see it as being worth _something_, be it money, sacrifice, anything.
And from that second perspective, _self_ worth or love doesn't exist, because as @hope whispers said, you can't sacrifice for yourself.
There is confidence ofc, you can look at something you have and like it, be proud of it or whatever but that's a bit different, and it still implies worth as I see it (or else it's simply liking yourself like you'd like a painting and has nothing to do with sense of self)


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

Moderately Nefarious said:


> Their problem :tongue:


Well, obviously it's their problem. My point was that having value in their eyes doesn't mean anything if they value garbage. Then if they value you it doesn't change the fact that you might be garbage, or the things they value about you are garbage.

(I mean, if their judgement is lacking, why would you value it to the point that it affects your own sense of value?)

Although I think I understand a little better now this thing I read a while ago about how women are drawn to stars because then they can feel like a star themselves. I mean, I could get being attracted to someone who is "above" you, but not finding self-worth in being with someone that's "above" you (that would just make me feel worse, most likely). However, if they find value from the outside in the way you're talking about, it does make _some _sense. Because if that person is a star, or someone you deem as being very valuable for whatever reason, then the fact that they value you likely means more.



> I get it, you see worth as having qalities that you find good.


Well... maybe.



> I see it as being worth _something, _be it money, sacrifice, anything.


As in something external?

Edit: For example, I'm thinking of how it's easy enough to find a guy who desires me, if that's all I want (of course, when I mention how it's "easy" that also brings up the issue of how something often "loses its value" if it's too easy, but I digress). But their reason for desiring me is likely to be shallow, or even outright dubious, like this guy who was attracted to my "innocence." For one thing I couldn't see why "innocence" was something attractive (not finding that attractive myself), but I did notice how it probably let him feel superior in a way, because he found me ignorant/naive. And well, it's obvious enough that someone is likely to value things they can benefit from (and in this case he could benefit from my "innocence" if I let him), but that doesn't mean those things are something to be proud of in myself.

(On the contrary it would make me feel ashamed to own that innocence, because it put me in an inferior position. Even if there's some mixed feelings, as there might be some benefits in being innocent for myself as well.)

Of course, now I'm getting into power-dynamics, and it can be so messy to try to distinguish shame from non-shame stuff when it comes to that. =P

(Although like I said, my own sense of value or worth doesn't seem entirely independent of external factors either, especially since I'm not sure I value the idea of self-love much.)


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

hope whispers said:


> Moderately Nefarious said:
> 
> 
> > Well worded, all of it)
> ...


Lol, I do think you are both likely image types indeed.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

(too tired to contribute, find this conversation interesting though)


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

Warning: general "you's". All "you's" also include cir when cir reads this back to her.



hope whispers said:


> When I try to think about it, though...well, it still doesn't make a lot of sense, because...what _is_ loving yourself, anyways?


 For starters, among another things, accepting yourself, accepting that you have flaws, and accepting yourself with flaws. Only when you're able to do that will you be able to accept others as they are, instead of trying to change them to fit into whatever it is you imagine is "lovable".



> I _am_ myself, that's rather stale...what exactly does that constitute? Am I going to write myself love poems? "hope whispers, I can catch a glimpse of your nose when I squint...how jealous am I of those who can admire your visage without recourse to mirrors...your hand fits into mine as if they were made for each other..."


 If that's what it takes for you to get in touch with your own real personal feelings, then yeah. If you don't know how you can be supported, then you will not be able to communicate to others how you can be supported, and that's why you will never feel supported by others, and that's why you won't feel like anyone truly loves you. That's the critical flaw in the whole "salvation from others" thing.



> Point is, what's the point of 'loving yourself'? What does that even constitute?


 It's a personal journey of self-discovery.



> If you love another person, it implies...a sort of dynamic feeling, energy flowing toward them from you, an element of sacrifice...


 Yeah, see... here's the thing about being a body type, is that I identify with my life energy, and the people who don't love themselves and expect others to "love" them... they just have a "black hole" or "abyss" feeling to their energy. They will never give in more than what they take, and they will take too much. It feels toxic to be around them. It feels like they're trying to suck my life energy dry, and the worse part is, by not doing what they can to learn how to love themselves and be self-sufficient, they're perfectly content with a co-dependent relationship. They're perfectly content with putting the responsibility of their lives onto others and demand that others prop up their own survival. It's quite entitled in a "bad" way! Here's the path: co-dependent -> independent -> inter-dependent.

People who don't love themselves, but love others, are basically implying "Love for oneself is not valuable, but love from others is valuable. I am not you, and therefore, my love will be valuable to you. So if you want me to love you, then you will do what I say". By invalidating the value of love for oneself, the twos basically put themselves in a position where they expect others to die for them. That's pride and that's why that's deadly. People have *no right* to *expect* that others sacrifice their lives for them. 

This expectation of "I will sacrifice myself for you and you will sacrifice yourself for me" is inherently selfish, for starters, because it's demanded out of others rather than something they willingly consented to, and it masks how inequitable and unfair the exchange is. It masks how excessively demanding and taxing on others it is. Like splitting the bill, and you ordered one of the least-expensive items on the menu, and your date ordered the most expensive item on the menu. People who don't love themselves don't want others to love themselves, because that's one less avenue of influence and power over others that they'll have. And to discourage people from loving themselves, they'll call the people who do that "selfish" in order to call attention to themselves about how "selfless" they are. That's right, by not wanting to split the bill with the person who ordered the most expensive item on the menu, I'm selfish!

Because the irrational fear is if everyone else loves themselves, then no one will have reason to find the two's love valuable. Love for oneself is a prerequisite for real love for others, they're not mutually exclusive. But if the two pushes it too far, then they will make their irrational fear a self-fulfilling prophecy.



> you can't sacrifice for yourself. Or I suppose you can, but I don't see it as admirable.


 It's called "delayed gratification". And yes I can, I will definitely sacrifice all toxic relationships to ensure my own survival. The short-term, fleeting happiness is not worth my long-term mental and physical health.



> If someone says, "I worked eight-hour shifts at the factory for years on end so that _I_ could be happy and comfortable!", that's ... well, boring)) and not very meaningful)


 Who are *you* to decide what is meaningful for _others_? This is a boundary violation. Meaning is individually created and individually valued. Just because you don't find it meaningful does not mean no one else does. Some people see that as a source of healthy pride in their ability to support themselves. There's a kind of pride in not needing to resort to welfare to support themselves. There's a kind of pride in not needing to be a beggar to get what they need to survive.



> If it's meant to mean (as I think it might be meant to mean), respecting yourself, not selling your heart (I guess) then that has some value, but doesn't seem to have much to do with loving someone else.


 Yeah, exactly. Because there's also a sense of pride in not needing to prostitute myself for another's "love". Ya know, "dignity". There's a sense of freedom in not needing to be dependent on other people's "love". If they don't show me enough respect, then I can walk away. I can't be tricked into thinking an unhealthy, toxic, abusive relationship is really a "loving" relationship. I can't be forced to be with them if I don't want to be with them. I can't be forced into "loving" them. Even though I already do love them, but they won't accept how that love is shown to them, and so it isn't "real love" to them unless I do something else instead.

In other words, by loving myself, I automatically have "skin in the game". The stakes are higher for me. The rewards are higher for me. I value myself, and I feel like I have too much to lose when other people demand and take too much from me. People who don't love themselves are trying to cheat by spreading out their risks, forcing other people to take the loss for them.



> I mean, the whole point of love is that there's more than one person involved. That's where the actual love comes in. If there was just one person in the world, love wouldn't be a factor. It wouldn't matter in the slightest if that one person loved themselves or not.


 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity_(virtue)


> In Christian theology charity, Latin caritas, is by Thomas Aquinas understood as "the friendship of man for God", which "unites us to God". He holds it as "the most excellent of the virtues". Further, Aquinas holds that "the habit of charity extends not only to the love of God, but also to the love of our neighbor".
> 
> Some delineate charity to mean only benevolent giving, while others, such as Roman Catholics, have multiple interrelated meanings (i.e. *charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God*).
> ...
> In Christian theology charity is the greatest of the three theological virtues. *Thomas Aquinas does not simply equate charity to "love", which he holds as a passion, not a virtue;* rather, translators use the word "friendship", as stated above.


 So "love others as you love yourself". If you don't know who you really are, then you won't know who others are. If you don't love yourself, then you can't really love others. If you think you do, that's a passion, not a virtue.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

cir said:


> Yeah, exactly. Because there's also a sense of pride in not needing to prostitute myself for another's "love". Ya know, "dignity".


Lol, prostitute. I'm amused by the word choice, but it reminds me of my own sense that image concerns can seem so... whorish. Because isn't that what it is, basically? Playing the part of the whore? And you can argue that whore has a sort of power, but it doesn't seem to me like the ideal type of power to have.

(Mind you, I'm not saying I dislike other people for having image concerns, it's more that I dislike them in myself.)


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

hope whispers said:


> When I try to think about it, though...well, it still doesn't make a lot of sense, because...what _is_ loving yourself, anyways?


There's a lot of ways to look at it. Love is one of those concepts that has multiple aspects to it. You could approach it by simply substituting other words into the phrase: "You need to love yourself first before you can love others."

For example:

"You need to accept yourself as you are first before you can accept others as they are." If you don't accept certain things about yourself then you likely won't accept those things when you see them in others.

"You need to nurture and support yourself first before you can nurture and support others." If you aren't in a good place emotionally then those emotional states will likely be felt by and passed on to others. If you aren't physically taking care of yourself then your ability to take care of others will be severely diminished, sometimes to the point where now they have to take care of you.

You could go on and on like this but I think what it points to is that interpersonal love is a sharing of energies, thoughts, emotions, etc. You want to make sure that you as a vessel in this sharing are healthy first so that the other is not negatively affected.

You could also look at in terms of type 2 where there's often a fear or belief that "I am unlovable as I am." A sacrifice of the self then takes place to become what the other person will love. When this sacrifice doesn't result in love, connection, appreciation being returned it can turn into something negative because it was never really love in the first place but instead emotional manipulation.

In other words, it can be giving to others with expectations that are often unacknowledged in the interpersonal transaction and places a burden upon the other to provide that love back to the type 2 that she isn't providing herself. Those expectations often surface when anger arises that the other is not responding as expected.


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

Distortions said:


> Lol, prostitute. I'm amused by the word choice, but it reminds me of my own sense that image concerns can seem so... whorish. Because isn't that what it is, basically? Playing the part of the whore? And you can argue that whore has a sort of power, but it doesn't seem to me like the ideal type of power to have.
> 
> (Mind you, I'm not saying I dislike other people for having image concerns, it's more that I dislike them in myself.)


 Like, I don't see prostitution as inherently "wrong" as a means for survival. Definitely dangerous though. Like Fantine in Les Miserable. I wouldn't be proud of it, but I see nothing morally wrong with it, if it's the only thing I can do.

But prostituting for "love" is totally different. Sadly, I say this out of personal experience. The guy who threatened to kill himself and actually followed through was an ex, and back then, back when I was so inexperienced and naive and still filled with a whole host of unresolved psychological problems, I thought, "If I loved him enough and provided him his needs, then maybe he wouldn't kill himself. Because what kind of a girlfriend am I if the person I'm dating would want to kill himself rather than to be with me?"

That's what abusers what you to think and feel. His old friends and another ex-girlfriend warned me that he would threaten to kill himself to prevent me from leaving, because he did that to her too. But I didn't listen because what they said didn't seem to match the kind of person I was seeing (at the time). They weren't great people themselves, being responsible for my sexual assaults in college (by both a man and a woman at the same time!) so I thought they were just making shit up to try to split us apart and create destructive drama. There were so many red flags I didn't understand and therefore, ignored.

And the ironic thing is: needs? I can provide sex, no problem. Sure, there's that feeling of disgust I have with him and myself, but I got over it (the disgust/shame, not the anger). I thought to myself, "it's worth it if he's alive", but now when I looked back on it, he insisted on unprotected sex and risked getting me pregnant the entire way. He pretended to care, but when we talked about it, he basically expected me to get an abortion. And his _emotional_ needs? It wasn't possible for me to fulfill, because my emotional needs weren't being met. Not by him, and I didn't have enough energy left over to take care of myself. And can you believe it, we actually argued over this! He _demanded_ that I fulfill his emotional needs, because I "owe" him because he "did so much" for me. He would provide "help" when I didn't ask for it. If I locked my bedroom door, and he's feeling lonely, he'll find a way to unlock my door and barge into my room. How do I fulfill anyone's emotional needs, mine or anyone else, when I'm too worried about my life and safety? He was the one who introduced me to drugs, and how long will it be before he'll sneakily and forcefully drug me into submission?

What lead me into that situation was my own experience of the vice of pride. I thought, "If I loved him enough, then I can save his life", because I didn't want to be responsible for someone else's death. Since this was more of a "superego" mission, and not completely authentic to what my heart desires, the anger, resentment, and hatred built up until one day, I forgot why I did those things. In exchange for trying to give someone else life, I gave up mine, and my life became pure misery. All I can remember is just anger and the feeling of being trapped.

When he passed away, then I remembered everything. I felt like, "I forgot, that's what I was trying to do! I failed in my mission to save him". His family wasn't terribly surprised. There's a "I knew this was going to happen one day, but I still can't believe it" feeling when they started to acknowledge what had happened. And another lesson learned: just because some people are shitty in character, doesn't mean what what they said are wrong or are lies.

Then, the voice in my head, the superego, something that I recognized as a part of me, but back then I didn't have a lot of gentle contact with, told me that it isn't my fault that he died. Not even his family is surprised, and his family was careful to not blame me. I don't have the power over anyone else's life but my own. I don't even have the power to save the life of someone I love.


----------



## Greyhart (Oct 13, 2014)

@cir you post interesting stuff. A lot to think about. :applouse: This though _"Forgetting oneself" or "falling asleep to oneself" is a type nine theme, and *all of the other nine types are variations of type nine*."_ :glee:


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

cir said:


> Yeah, see... here's the thing about being a body type, is that I identify with my life energy, and the people who don't love themselves and expect others to "love" them... they just have a "black hole" or "abyss" feeling to their energy. They will never give in more than what they take, and they will take too much. It feels toxic to be around them. It feels like they're trying to suck my life energy dry, and the worse part is, by not doing what they can to learn how to love themselves and be self-sufficient, they're perfectly content with a co-dependent relationship. They're perfectly content with putting the responsibility of their lives onto others and demand that others prop up their own survival. It's quite entitled in a "bad" way! Here's the path: co-dependent -> independent -> inter-dependent.
> 
> People who don't love themselves, but love others, are basically implying "Love for oneself is not valuable, but love from others is valuable. I am not you, and therefore, my love will be valuable to you. So if you want me to love you, then you will do what I say". By invalidating the value of love for oneself, the twos basically put themselves in a position where they expect others to die for them. That's pride and that's why that's deadly. People have *no right* to *expect* that others sacrifice their lives for them.
> 
> This expectation of "I will sacrifice myself for you and you will sacrifice yourself for me" is inherently selfish, for starters, because it's demanded out of others rather than something they willingly consented to, and it masks how inequitable and unfair the exchange is. It masks how excessively demanding and taxing on others it is. Like splitting the bill, and you ordered one of the least-expensive items on the menu, and your date ordered the most expensive item on the menu. People who don't love themselves don't want others to love themselves, because that's one less avenue of influence and power over others that they'll have. And to discourage people from loving themselves, they'll call the people who do that "selfish" in order to call attention to themselves about how "selfless" they are. That's right, by not wanting to split the bill with the person who ordered the most expensive item on the menu, I'm selfish!


I don't know what to do with this whole post but comparing another person's life to the least expensive item on the menu, your own to the most expensive, and decrying 2-type pride, seem like moves a bit at odds with each other))

edit: not that 2-type pride shouldn't be decried
just funny


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

hope whispers said:


> I don't know what to do with this whole post but comparing another person's life to the least expensive item on the menu, your own to the most expensive, and decrying 2-type pride, seem like moves a bit at odds with each other))
> 
> edit: not that 2-type pride shouldn't be decried
> just funny


 The downside of twos is like Satan's fall from heaven. The upside of twos is like Jesus dying for everyone's sins. People might oppose my Christian analogy, but though I'm not Christian, I do recognize that the enneagram has religious roots. Sufi'ism is a part of Islam. And people drew comparisons to the Kabbalah, which is a part of Juddiasm. Anyway, on everyone's enneagram, because everyone has all nine points within them, point two is where people go to ask forgiveness for their sins. You know, "forgive me father, for I have sinned" is to admit what's been shaming you lately. And the sooner you admit to it, the sooner you can feel forgiveness and relief. The Spiritual Enneagram: Type Two - Sacred Grace 

There is a *huge* range of depth to twos that I think are under-recognized and under-appreciated. There are a lot of twos in my family. My youngest brother is a 2w3, and I love him dearly. I am willing to do quite a lot of unethical things for him in order to maximize his chances for success. My godsister is a 2w1, and it's interesting to me that when she presents a problem to me, and I get angry at the person that's an obstacle to her, she's like, "Yeah... that's too extreme..." 

I really dislike how some people stereotype them as some seductive whores. Like they think that all twos are sx-twos. Even though I don't think too highly of two's bad sides, partly because of how closely I relate to it, I still find this stereotype offensive. Like, another downside to only looking for other people for value is that the two under-appreciates the two's own legitimate value. When they rely on other's love, they underestimate their own legitimate strength, and they look weaker as a result. Since twos are an image type, they think they are their image: weak or "humble". Like, there "pride" the vice, which is pride in excess or falsely acquired, and then there's the other kinds of pride that is perfectly normal and expected to have in moderation. "Humble" does _not_ mean "I can't do anything"! If you don't put your weight in, that just makes you a mooch. Huh, nines and sloth. _That's_ why it's difficult to tell nines, twos, and fives apart at times. ಠ_ಠ /I also have a three fix. I had to look up the definition of "shame". It specifically said, "Jesus was humiliated, but he was not shamed", and I was like, "I'm not Jesus. What does this mean? How do I relate to this?" Because I don't know what everyone else is talking about, but to me, shame is my naked body.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

cir said:


> The downside of twos is like Satan's fall from heaven. The upside of twos is like Jesus dying for everyone's sins. People might oppose my Christian analogy, but though I'm not Christian, I do recognize that the enneagram has religious roots. Sufi'ism is a part of Islam. And people drew comparisons to the Kabbalah, which is a part of Juddiasm. Anyway, on everyone's enneagram, because everyone has all nine points within them, point two is where people go to ask forgiveness for their sins. You know, "forgive me father, for I have sinned" is to admit what's been shaming you lately. And the sooner you admit to it, the sooner you can feel forgiveness and relief. The Spiritual Enneagram: Type Two - Sacred Grace


I'm admittedly having a bit of trouble following your point (not your fault, I can tell you're saying smart things) but...hm. The idea that a specific Enneagram type would be connected with something like...the Crucifixion, which is a pure, selfless act, bothers me instinctively, I realize there are virtues associated with the Enneagram but it seems they are somewhat 'false', the real virtues would be the ones you cultivate outside the reach of your Enneagram or despite it. So if something like forgiveness comes easily to a 2 then it's probably not that meaningful there, real forgiveness would come from...idk, an 8 or 1 or something.


----------



## Darkbloom (Aug 11, 2013)

cir said:


> Like, there "pride" the vice, which is pride in excess or falsely acquired, and then there's*the other kinds of pride*that is perfectly normal and expected to have in moderation. "Humble" does*not*mean "I can't do anything"! If you don't put your weight in, that just makes you a mooch. Huh, nines and sloth.*That's*why it's difficult to tell nines, twos, and fives apart at times


I think this is sp 2 though.
But it is something I can relate to in a way, and a big part of why I insist on being a 2 even though many people see me as a 3, it could also be 9-ish or even sp 6 but those just don't cut it when I look at myself as a whole, or how others see me.

Also, thanks for the posts cir, I don't fully agree with some of it (and I generally dont pay much attention to more spiritual parts of enneagram) but still, interesting to read.
Although really hard to follow at times, tbh, it takes ages to read some of your posts lol, and even then its hard to reply.

__________________________________________________________
Just to be clear, I do not want to make anyone feel trapped.
And sacrifice might have been the wrong word to use because it feels too conscious, rather than simply being each other's life. Which is also a lot to ask, I'm aware, but the point is that I shouldn't have to ask, it should be the only way they want their life to be (same goes for me)


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

I'm frustrated that I can't seem to explain or properly contribute to this conversation; I feel like I should be responding with something substantial here, but everything I can think of saying doesn't seem to fit) idk, sorry)

If anything I think this thread has confirmed for me that I'm a 2, though...so thank you for this, can't explain it at all, but...))


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

cir said:


> *twitch*
> 
> For example, when someone tries to flatter me by saying, paraphrasing, "cir's cosmos thingy is the highest experience of consciousness". This pissed me off because someone else is elevating me to the highest status. There's something about the absolute lack of humility in understanding where our places are in the world, that when they attempt to flatter me with what is essentially blasphemy, it finally hits me: humiliation can be like the embarrassment I feel from being associated with someone, even worse if the association is public. When someone flatters you so much that, when you take a step back, you have to go, "I would never claim such a thing!" The highest is the cosmos, or "the whole", or "unity", or "god". And I am merely a servant of it.
> 
> That seething inner anger from both point one and point two, it goes "How dare you! By even suggesting this, you are attacking my identity as a servant of the whole, by suggesting that I want to overtake it, by suggesting that I want to commit the deadliest sin of pride. Satan's ultimate desire is to take god's place, but my ultimate desire is to serve god." Aaah, the problems that can only come from travelling from the "least deadliest" vice of lust to the "most deadliest" vice of pride. There's a part of me that feels like refusing to associate with this person is sort of like how a certain ex-angel got expelled from heaven. Thankfully, the other parts of me don't give a shit as long as my inner peace is not disrupted in this very specific manner.


I know right? Gosh, it's sooo annoying when people paint me like I'm some kind of God, when I'm really no more and no less than superhuman. 
And I'm sure some cynics would say I'm just saying this to flatter myself. Okay, I'll admit I was paraphrasing there as well. But my point being, I just don't like my public image and reputation to be controlled and my goodwill to be destroyed like that just to indulgence themselves, you know? 



Naranjo Pride said:


> As for the relation between passions mapped as adjacent along the circle, it is possible to view each as a hybrid between those on each side. Thus pride may be regarded as a hybrid of vanity (an excessive concern with the self-image) and anger—where anger is implicit as an assertive self-elevation vis-a-vis others; (...)





Moral Indignation said:


> Moral Indignation
> Take the moral high ground. Be indignant that you are being accused, saying that you would never do such a thing and that it is shocking that anyone would think you might act in the way being suggested.
> From that high moral position, you can then point at other people who are less moral and therefore more likely to have committed the sin than you.
> You can also place yourself morally above the critic, making yourself even more qualified to criticize and denounce their underhand tactics.(...)
> When you reference social values you position yourself as an expert who can pronounce good and bad, right and wrong. Having occupied this particular 'hill', it makes it more difficult for others to take the same moral position. Even if they do, the debate about morality will then act as a convenient distraction.


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

mimesis said:


> I know right? Gosh, it's sooo annoying when people paint me like I'm some kind of God, when I'm really no more and no less than superhuman.
> And I'm sure some cynics would say I'm just saying this to flatter myself. Okay, I'll admit I was paraphrasing there as well. But my point being, I just don't like my public image and reputation to be controlled and my goodwill to be destroyed like that just to indulgence themselves, you know?


 If I had to pick between being flattered too highly or people just talking shit about me, I'm going to choose the second one. It's like if I were at work, and after I google something to address a problem, people go and praise that "omg cir can do anything!" No, I don't want that. Please stop doing that. That's an invitation for people who can't fix their own problems to shove them onto my plate, and instead of doing my actual job, I end up doing everyone else's job as well, and they will insist their problems have higher priorities than mine. While waiting for me to be free to look into their problems, they could be doing something, like googling their problems, in the mean time. If people can't give an honest depiction of my actual skill set, of which there are real limits to, then I'd rather not be recognized at all.

It's not that I'm superhuman, it's that they need to learn to fix their own problems rather than trying to force me to. It can also be because there's a line of how much of other people's problems I want to deal with. It could be selfishness, it could be laziness, it could be "responsibility", and it could also be a "moral indignation thing".

In my opinion, it's rare that _you_ are trying to have an actual discussion with me rather than trying to disguise your negative opinions of me, which you are completely entitled to having, into a personal attack of some kind, which, I'm tired of dealing with. The only thing your post contains is mockery of what I said, plus some select quotes which represents and reinforces your mockery of what I said. You didn't even attempt to address anything else this thread was talking about. It was only about mocking me. I feel like this brief explanation should be satisfactory, and I'm going to consider this the end of discussion.


----------

