In a book of the English writer Muriel Sparks she says that some people seem to think that you live to be beautiful, like character wise, as well as physically so lots of people are merely posing for the cameras, looking sweet without actually bothering to waste their time on others for example, the importance of seeming earnest, looking serious when they are not, which is going for beautiful dignity, for another. If one stage away from looking beautiful full of grace is to actually give up time or money to people, then actually imposing on others whether others like it or not is maybe another. The down side of taking that option is that you may be being merely bossy and domineering without any good reason to take the reins, are you the cart pulling the horse aor the horse pulling the cart.
The “Son Goku”
answer , for those who have watched Japanese children’s cartoons, is that if we are all dueling, then things will equal out, it all comes out in the wash type idea.
It is one thing to oblige people to hear you out, if you don’t they form their own opinion of your ideas and those opinions are often not very complimentary so it is mere self defense to oblige people to hear you out. It is another though to oblige them to accept your ideas, you have to be domineering to make people hear you oot or even to write at lenght and of seriouse topics it takes a bit of belief in yourself or at least a bit of i will stick out my neck because it is braver, it is another to oblige others to agree with you and some pretend that if you make them hear you out you are obliging others to change. It is not true i have meet people who try to oblige people to change, they use menace, coercion, and trying to weaken your position either by getting you to give your money away or by reducing your credit morally or intellectual as it is called . if you are not using coercion and have not tried systematically to weaken the other person, don't let people say you are imposing on them.
Ruling classes for example weaken the working
class by seeing to it they are working too hard to study or have no opportunities to study. Men do that to women they read the
newspaper while women attend the children.
You oblige children for example to obey you so there is a place for even that it is always a question of degrees that make something ok and definitely not ok.
Maybe if you tell people things in real life you lose the friends you have, with any luck your new self brings in other types of friends and a loss of friends is an interim phase. Maybe it is just weak to want friends.
I suppose each person has, mentally, an idea of in which situation it seems proper for them to take the reins or try to, such as with children and each person has others in which such conduct does not seem appropriate to them like with their own age group.
When you take the option of holding your own instead of say, putting people at their ease you become uglier in a way. It is tough, you lose friends, maybe it is straight.
I think that men are more often bought up to impose and women to wait for the right moment to explain a topic, and it is easier to fill a role you have been brought up to fill you have adjust your self image and ideas about what is satisfying in life to fit in with the role you prepare yourself to fill. If you wait for the right moment you are suffering from the delusion it will come if you have not been able to talkl already it is probable that that is because the other person has cut you short and if they have done that before they are likely to go on doing it. The delusion that right moment will come, is a form of procrastination, procrastination is like
water, it seems soft and is the devil of a strong way of changing peoples conduct, either by suggesting that they will get an opportunity to talk later or by suggesting you will pay them back the favour later when you have no intention of doing so, you can get them to accept things they did not mean to accept. My sister says, “softly, softly, catch your monkey”. Often it is, the monkeys who softly catches you.
Freud waited till the first Friday after his marriage, let his wife set out the Sabbath meal, if I remember right, to tell her he had no intention of letting anyone celebrate the Sabbath in his house. He felt a complete right to dictate to her, incredible, and i think normal, though it is an idea about the different role of the sexes which goes largely unmentioned to women, you don't tell the sheep you are going to cut their throats.
My experience is that there is no fair argument that does not get used by those that are abusive, as the rich man in the story was, so it is right to put people on their guard.
My experiences of sharing meals, once i was on the charitable line rather than the socially sensible, watch out for yourself line, have been horrible, charity make me lose my good sense when choosing who to take the meals with and the charitable, who you come into contact with when you take the charitable road, are only more bossy than the uncharitable, they are so sure they have right on their side.
Why in these times of so many toughies of sharks of the different world, these times a long way from hippydom, have we forgotten how oppressive the religious have always had a tendency to be if you don't keep a weatherd eye on them.
The religious traditionally ask the poor to share,so making a class of subpeople, and
permaculture nears religion. It was when the poor asked for a decent wage that things got less awful for them, when before socialism charitable ideas existed and they consist in asking people to spread it thin things did not work out well for the poor. The spread seems to get less and less when you extol the virtues o f sharing, it is when you get the poor to demand more spread that were there is a will there is a way started to work and more spread is found. Let’s not forget the, after the French revolution, and thanks to it and the ideas that were then in the air lessons. agri rose macaskie.