Originally posted by @dj2beckerAm I? If am, so be it. You were completely wrong about me. So I could well be completely wrong about Suzianne. Do you perceive her as being actually angry?
Maybe you too are mistaken that Suzianne is actually angry.
1 edit
Originally posted by @divegeester to Fetchmyjunk/dj2beckerActually, I have to concede, I think the "hostility" part is out of my hands. The annoyance and displeasure and angry diagnoses are presumptuous and mistaken. But "hostility" is in the eye of the Beholding Recipient™. As it happens, it is not rooted in "anger" at all. But the recipient gets to call it what they see it as in the case of hostility.
No, your statement is completely false.
Note: Beholding Recipient™ ... 2 Google hits.
Oh well. Neither of those 2 had the ™ attached to it. It's mine.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by @fmfSo now you admit that the hostility part of anger is in the eye of the beholder? So if I view you as hostile I am justified in viewing you as 'angry'?
Actually, I think the "hostility" part is out of my hands. The annoyance and displeasure and angry diagnoses are presumptuous and mistaken. But "hostility" is in the eye of the Beholding Recipient™.
Note: Beholding Recipient™ ... 2 Google hits.
Oh well. Neither of those 2 had the ™ attached to it. It's mine.
1 edit
Originally posted by @dj2beckerWell, that isn't much of a point to be making in defence of you assuming I was angry, now is it? So. Do you perceive Suzianne as being actually angry in the same way as you perceived me as being angry?
Point is you could be wrong about her just like I could be wrong about you.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerNo. It is mistaken.
So now you admit that the hostility part of anger is in the eye of the beholder? So if I view you as hostile I am justified in viewing you as 'angry'?
I haven't admitted that "the hostility part of anger is in the eye of the beholder", I have admitted that hostility is in the eye of the beholder. There is no anger.
For you or anyone to assume that I am angry simply because you happen to feel that I am hostile - as opposed to tenacious and awkward and with a tendency to hone in uncomfortably on the heart of the matter - then it is an error, a misperception.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @fmfSays the same guy who admitted he could be wrong about Suzianne being angry after accusing her of being angry. 😛
Well, that isn't much of a point to be making in defence of you assuming I was angry, now is it? So. Do you perceive Suzianne as being actually angry in the same way as you perceived me as being angry?
Originally posted by @dj2beckerNo. It would be an error of judgement on your part. Do you believe I am justified in viewing Suzianne as often actually angry when she addresses me in the forum, or do you think it's an error of judgement on my part?
So if I view you as hostile I am justified in viewing you as 'angry'?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @fmfAnger is defined as a feeling or showing of hostility. Do you now also reject the dictionary definition?
No. It is mistaken.
I haven't admitted that "the hostility part of anger is in the eye of the beholder", I have admitted that hostility is in the eye of the beholder. There is no anger.
For you or anyone to assume that I am angry simply because you happen to feel that I am hostile - as opposed to tenacious and awkward and with a tendency to hone in uncomfortably on the heart of the matter - then it is an error, a misperception.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerBlimey. I'm not sure what kind of gotcha! point you think you're making here. You should take a little longer to reply maybe.
Says the same guy who admitted he could be wrong about Suzianne being angry after accusing her of being angry. 😛
Do you think I am wrong about Suzianne? Do you think both Suzianne and I are angry?
Originally posted by @dj2beckerI am not angry. Your "dictionary definition" cannot create an anger in me that just is not there, regardless of your perceptions.
Anger is defined as a feeling or showing of hostility. Do you now also reject the dictionary definition?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @fmfIf I perceive you as being hostile according to the dictionary definition of 'angry' you are 'angry' by my perception. Because 'angry' is defined as a 'feeling of hostility'. The one perceiving the hostility has the right to view you as 'angry' even if you don't think you are being hostile or angry.
I am not angry. Your "dictionary definition" cannot create an anger in me that just is not there, regardless of your perceptions.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerThe same goes for psychological abuse, hey?
If I perceive you as being hostile according to the dictionary definition of 'angry' you are 'angry' by my perception. Because 'angry' is defined as a 'feeling of hostility'. The one perceiving the hostility has the right to view you as 'angry' even if you don't think you are being hostile or angry.