Ordinary commitments are the easiest way to test a possible business partner. Before you sign anything, do one small paid project together with a clear deadline. Then you can see how they handle a missed date, a no, or their own mistake. That shows you more than months of friendly talk, and it costs little if it goes badly.
I catch myself doing a small version of what Othello did more often than I'd like to admit: the expectation shows up first, and whatever the person says gets read through it. I've come to believe that much of what we call judging someone is closer to recognizing them, matching what they do against a story we already carry. The cheapest correction I know is the question you suggest, "What did you mean by that?", because it hands the story back to the person it's about. I noticed the same speed in a quieter place, when I sit in silence, and wrote it down in a recent essay: In the stillness I notice how fast a name arrives: a sound outside is “a car” before it is a sound. If a car gets named that fast, a person gets named faster, and with much more riding on it. Seneca goes one step further, and I think he's right. Over time, the name I give someone shapes how they behave around me, and then their behaviour seems to prove me right.
'....it’s easier to read about Stoicism than to practice it, though practice is where we gain the most.'
Practice makes perfect?
I have 'practiced' Stoicism, to the extent of asceticism (for various continuous years). I can attest....'ego death' is a horrific consequence for the rigid adoption of discipline when combined with the (purported) benefits of absolute detachmemt.
Deducing that one can—and should—afford oneself 'allowances', was the solution that rendered existence (in a world I perceive [mostly] as intolerable), tolerable.
I allow myself some attachments, particularly to a few specific interests, including admiration for (and creations of) mechanical design.
Nonetheless, in every thought, in every action, logic goes always before me.
'I have to remind myself that betrayal, mischief, or sabotage can’t hurt my soul; it can’t decide what kind of person I become.'
Individuals are moulded by experience -- experiences have the ability to leave indelible marks on the psyche by which values and principles emerge....no one is immune to said effect.
'The best approach I’ve found in fine-tuning my expectations of others is to lead with love- to want the best for others, see the good in them, and wear my heart on my sleeve.'
I default to logic--experience has shown this path to be the most proper in engaging individuals....'wearing my heart on my sleeve' not an option.
“Share all your worries and thoughts with your friend. Believe them trustworthy, and you’ll help them become trustworthy. Some people, through their fear of being deceived, have taught others to deceive them. Their suspicion has given their friend an excuse to do wrong.” - Seneca, Moral Letters to Lucilius, 3.2–3
A 'warm' sentiment....but, from my perspective, often a foolish and reckless approach to life.
'Hard Logic', 'Back and White Thinking', and other such designations are used by many (including 'Psychotherapists'), to condemn exhibitions of integrity and prudence as 'unreasonableness', 'phobic', 'paranoid', 'affective disorder', even, 'inhumanity' (when 'unempathetic', 'unsympathetic', or 'callous' will not suffice), if only to protect the (intolerable) tolerance of most things.
Logic has served me quite well—ideologues, the idealist sentimentality of the religious, condemnations of 'B&W Thinking', and the DSM, be damned.
Experience has shown me (most) individuals often have an 'honesty/corruption' threshold--they can remain honest until a particular goal (or quantity) is within their grasp, at which point, that individual will betray some or....or anyone....to attain the 'object' of their desire.
I find it contemptible, but, the masses default to primitivism as their modus operandi.
Thus, the potential for betrayal should be considered....always.
Othello is the perfect case. Iago barely invents anything, he just arranges what’s already there so Othello’s fear can do the reading. Epictetus has the antidote: when an impression arrives, “wait a moment, let me see what you are and test you” (Discourses 2.18). That pause is the whole practice.
I agree with the symptoms about what we tend to do. But for the remedy, in my experience I have not seen the person infront of you reply anything of substance even when asked clearly. I have felt that even if I follow everything you have mentioned exactly, it largely depends on whether there is synchrony between the person in front of you and yourself atleast in the fact that they understand where you are coming from and they care about it. If the latter lacks in them, then however much you paraphrase and reframe your words to try to explain them, it will fall on deaf ears. We can be compassionate enough to give others a chance before forming opinions about them, but the real question is will they?
Ordinary commitments are the easiest way to test a possible business partner. Before you sign anything, do one small paid project together with a clear deadline. Then you can see how they handle a missed date, a no, or their own mistake. That shows you more than months of friendly talk, and it costs little if it goes badly.
I catch myself doing a small version of what Othello did more often than I'd like to admit: the expectation shows up first, and whatever the person says gets read through it. I've come to believe that much of what we call judging someone is closer to recognizing them, matching what they do against a story we already carry. The cheapest correction I know is the question you suggest, "What did you mean by that?", because it hands the story back to the person it's about. I noticed the same speed in a quieter place, when I sit in silence, and wrote it down in a recent essay: In the stillness I notice how fast a name arrives: a sound outside is “a car” before it is a sound. If a car gets named that fast, a person gets named faster, and with much more riding on it. Seneca goes one step further, and I think he's right. Over time, the name I give someone shapes how they behave around me, and then their behaviour seems to prove me right.
This is perhaps the least stoic article I have ever read....in a (publication?; channel?) that explores and promotes Stoicism.
A bit....disorienting....if not, comedic....but nonetheless, engaging.
'....it’s easier to read about Stoicism than to practice it, though practice is where we gain the most.'
Practice makes perfect?
I have 'practiced' Stoicism, to the extent of asceticism (for various continuous years). I can attest....'ego death' is a horrific consequence for the rigid adoption of discipline when combined with the (purported) benefits of absolute detachmemt.
Deducing that one can—and should—afford oneself 'allowances', was the solution that rendered existence (in a world I perceive [mostly] as intolerable), tolerable.
I allow myself some attachments, particularly to a few specific interests, including admiration for (and creations of) mechanical design.
Nonetheless, in every thought, in every action, logic goes always before me.
Memento Mori.
'I have to remind myself that betrayal, mischief, or sabotage can’t hurt my soul; it can’t decide what kind of person I become.'
Individuals are moulded by experience -- experiences have the ability to leave indelible marks on the psyche by which values and principles emerge....no one is immune to said effect.
'The best approach I’ve found in fine-tuning my expectations of others is to lead with love- to want the best for others, see the good in them, and wear my heart on my sleeve.'
I default to logic--experience has shown this path to be the most proper in engaging individuals....'wearing my heart on my sleeve' not an option.
“Share all your worries and thoughts with your friend. Believe them trustworthy, and you’ll help them become trustworthy. Some people, through their fear of being deceived, have taught others to deceive them. Their suspicion has given their friend an excuse to do wrong.” - Seneca, Moral Letters to Lucilius, 3.2–3
A 'warm' sentiment....but, from my perspective, often a foolish and reckless approach to life.
'Hard Logic', 'Back and White Thinking', and other such designations are used by many (including 'Psychotherapists'), to condemn exhibitions of integrity and prudence as 'unreasonableness', 'phobic', 'paranoid', 'affective disorder', even, 'inhumanity' (when 'unempathetic', 'unsympathetic', or 'callous' will not suffice), if only to protect the (intolerable) tolerance of most things.
Logic has served me quite well—ideologues, the idealist sentimentality of the religious, condemnations of 'B&W Thinking', and the DSM, be damned.
Yes.
And, No..
Experience has shown me (most) individuals often have an 'honesty/corruption' threshold--they can remain honest until a particular goal (or quantity) is within their grasp, at which point, that individual will betray some or....or anyone....to attain the 'object' of their desire.
I find it contemptible, but, the masses default to primitivism as their modus operandi.
Thus, the potential for betrayal should be considered....always.
Othello is the perfect case. Iago barely invents anything, he just arranges what’s already there so Othello’s fear can do the reading. Epictetus has the antidote: when an impression arrives, “wait a moment, let me see what you are and test you” (Discourses 2.18). That pause is the whole practice.
I agree with the symptoms about what we tend to do. But for the remedy, in my experience I have not seen the person infront of you reply anything of substance even when asked clearly. I have felt that even if I follow everything you have mentioned exactly, it largely depends on whether there is synchrony between the person in front of you and yourself atleast in the fact that they understand where you are coming from and they care about it. If the latter lacks in them, then however much you paraphrase and reframe your words to try to explain them, it will fall on deaf ears. We can be compassionate enough to give others a chance before forming opinions about them, but the real question is will they?