Open discussion of the Christian Why We're Here thread

[Edwardo Piet]

Well I don't think Neo is at all typical of folks on the spectrum.  So I hope you didn't take it that way.  But I guess you know the spectrum is called that for a reason.

Long response to my digression that is a response to what you said. I put the digression from the topic of this thread under a hide tag so those who aren't interested in my irrelevant response to what you just said and are only interested directly in the topic of the thread at hand can easily skip this post without having to scroll past aforementioned long digression that I am posting under this hide-tag for you:

---

I know you meant no harm by it. I know that you don't think I am an example of it. I criticize your understanding of it though. there is no 'typical' case of being on the spectrum.  That's why being on the spectrum is about atypicality  And that's why here in the UK Aspergers Syndrome was removed from the DSM in 2013: It masqueraded  as a supposedly typical case of one particular so called 'type' of the atypical. When really it was an arbitrary collection of symptoms and more of a correlation than a sub-type, that was very unhelpful because people could be just as high functioning as Asperger's and just as autistic as Asperger's but still not fit the stereotypical symptoms of Asperger's despite being close to it. It's why my official diagnosis is Autistic Spectrum Disorder despite the fact I am very close to the symptoms of Asperger's Syndrome, so much so that my assessor said "It would not be incorrect to tell people that you have Asperger's if you would prefer to tell people that". I'm close enough to AS for it to be more correct than incorrect to say I had AS but far enough a way from it for myself to be my own unique case of autism Because that's the crucial point: There is no typical case. That's what is meant by the saying of "If you have met one person with autism you have met one person with autism."

N.B. The reason why I was told I could say I have Asperger's if I prefer is not just because my symptoms are far closer to Asperger's than any of the other so-called subsets of autism: But also because she (my assessor) wanted me to know that I am a) Definitely close enough in symptons to have gotten a diagnosis of it prior to 2013 therefore more than welcome to participate in, say, social or support groups for Asperger's Syndrome involving people who were diagnosed with Asperger's prior to the change in 2013 and If I tell people I have autism rather than Asperger's, despite that ultimately being slightly more accurate as all cases are unique and Asperger's is stereotyped and ultimately unhelpful...  Many people think that 'autism' refers to the lower functioning kind so that may have the effect of misleading people to believing I'm lower rather than higher functioning and they may wonder why I say I have autism when I'm clearly higher functioning.

Fundamentally.... even if Neo is on the spectrum he is Clearly less on the spectrum than me Autism only affects empathy to the extent of treating people like objects when someone is severely low functioning to the point of having no 'theory of mind' (in the sense of being unable to even believe that other minds exist. I myself am completely 100% unable to empathize but I completely believe that other minds exist so I certainly don't want others to suffer and certainly don't treat others like objects).... and Neo definitely has a theory of mind, in that sense. He definitely is capable of believing and does believe that other minds exist besides his own. He is no solipsist.

So, because Neo is clearly less autistic than me even if he is somewhat autistc, and because autism can only affect someone in the relevant way you describe if it's highly severe (and it is certainly unintentional in that case... it's not that severe autism makes someone choose not to care it simply makes them incapable of it.... unlike Neo who is perfectly capable but just doesn't care that he doesn't care... although perhaps he's incapable of caring about the fact that he just doesn't care that he doesn't care but that's slightly different: It's like the difference between having no control over wanting to be a sadist and having no control over the fact that one isn't a sadist... even when the sadist ultimately has no control due to an overwhelming uncontrollable and pathological urge the sadist is still a sadist who wants such a thing. It's like... the fact that intentions matter even when they're uncontrollable)...... if he is on the spectrum and his autism is definitely not severe enough to lead to what you suggest  then it is actually slightly less definite for myself, however definite. Or in other words: Even if it says nothing about me it says even less about Neo because if he is autistic (which I doubt, I mean, I doubt he is enough to warrant a diagnosis. We're all 'on the spectrum' to an extent but there's a difference between that and being diagnostically on the spectrum like I am.... If he is autistic he's less autistic than I am and hence less likely to be lacking in compassion because of autism than I am. Despite the fact that I am clearly not severe enough for that... and there is clear evidence that I am compassionate in spite of it.

Or in other words: Neo is clearly lacking in compassion but it is clearly NOT because of autism, not even a little bit, even if he is a little bit autistic. And I clearly am NOT lacking in compassion.... despite the fact that if I was there would be slightly more chance of it being because of my autism simply because I'm diagnostically autistic and Neo isn't (If he's autistic he's not severe enough for it to impact his whole life enough to get a diagnosis).

If he is on any sort spectrum that causes him to be an unfeeling cunt it's more likely to be some kind of psychopathic spectrum, if there is such a thing. He's not a psychopath but he's less non-psychopathic than the average person.

So, basically, in conclusion... Neo is probably quite far from neurologically typical but autism isn't the only way to be neurologically atypical and in all but the most severe cases autism has nothing to do with treating people like objects... and even in those cases it can't be due to malice or at least intentional and self-righteous sanctimonious interpersonal hostility... unlike with Neo which it very much is that.

...and... I was hut because of a combination of a bad day and part of me worrying that you may be right about treating people like objects sometimes being due to severe autism and the fact that I was worried that maybe my own is severe enough that I do do that (internally I mean, I am aware that no decent person who knows me thinks I treat people that way... but that doesn't mean that in my head I actually treat people as people)... so part of me was worried that you were right. But not about Neo... but instead about me. At least a little bit. I am sure you are wrong about Neo. Meaning: I agree with your conclusion that Neo is an unfeeling person who treats people like objects... but I do not agree that it is anything to do with autism on his part even in the slightest... and although that I am NOT (at least, not externally) an unfeeling person who treats people like objects... : If I am that way internally at all.... it would most likely be due to my autism (internally, if I am that way. How would I know? That's the problem... most people would know what it means to connect with others but I can't see anyone's point of view besides my own).....

So... I was worried that you were right about the autism part of what you said. But not with regards to Neo. But with regards to me. I know that is not what you meant. But it made me think of that. And I know you didn't mean it. And to be clear the only part that hurt was the fact you made (and make me) wonder that perhaps you are right in some way. I wasn't actually hurt by the part in which you were wrong: The fact you were ignorant about the fact - or seemed to be - that there isn't such thing as a typical case of autism. Any ignorance (or fail to express yourself and appearing to be ignorance) on your part... doesn't bother me. I am bothered by the fact you may be right about something about myself even though you weren't even talking about me.

Now, this does not mean I would rather you had not have said it. I am not discouraging you. I appreciate and am very much glad that you said what you said. I can and do always compatmentalize this: When someone says something that hurts me I can express my offence and sadness about how it made me feel whilst at the same time saying I am glad they said it because I don't believe any information should be taboo (or even misinformation, as it's preferable to absence of any sort of information. You can learn what is correct from finding out what is incorrect but you can't learn anything if you don't learn anything)...

It's the same reason why in the past when me and Joods have fallen out over AF and she said stuff that made my feelings get clearly hurt and made me express such things... it did not mean that I didn't want her to say what she said. I did.

I want people to say what they think whether it's right or wrong and whether I agree with it or not. And I can be hurt by painful knowledge that I very much want to know. Why would I be such a masochist? I'm not. The point is that I believe in the long run that knowledge leads to less suffering... even if that is not the case in the short run. And even when it won't we can't know that it won't and knowledge is generally a good thing which is why I do think it should be an end in itself. (Unlike Neo and his confirmation bias.....)

I am very much of the position that ANY motive FOR knowledge that is HELD ABOVE seeking knowledge for its own sake... leads to confirmation bias at least a little bit on some level. At the very least.

Now, there's definitely nothing wrong with having other motives for knowledge besides seeking it for its own sake. That can definitely be, and definitely is, a good thing in some cases. But it is definitely wrong to ever put any purpose for seeking knowledge above the seeking of knowledge for its own sake.

Now, perhaps you could say the exception would be seeking knowledge for pleasure. But I would say that was 'not even wrong'. Because that is what I mean by seeking knowledge for its own sake. For something to be good in and of itself means that it is good because the experience of it is a pleasure. The knowing of knowledge is enjoyed... the love of knowledge... including the love of wisdom (what philosophy originally meant)..... this is what it means to make knowledge an end in itself: To make it the highest form of pleasure.

So, thank you Whateves and hopefully my post helped you as much as it did my former self yesterday (I'm a Presentist).... I am not hurt and I have gained both undestanding and pleasure from what you said to my former self. My former self suffered emotional pain but that is outweighed by my current self's pleasure and growth from what you said. That other person, that me, (that inhabited the same body and had the same brain, although that brain has since changed)... is not me... and they suffered very mildly but now I am very happy and that's a net gain morally speaking.

Anyway, apologies to all for this digression.

N.B. if Neo's being an unfeeling cunt is due to any neurologically atypical spectrum it is more likely due to a psychopathic spectrum than the autistic spectrum even factoring in the possibility that a psychopathic spectrum does not particularly exist.

Anyways, keep being awesome my kind and thoughtful friend, Whateverist. I may have seemed offended and that's because I was  offended (my former self was offended) but it wasn't at your intended meaning it was at your semantic meaning and therefore at your words rather than at you.

---

P.S. Gigantic post (within hide-tag) is okay when we're not playing Mafia!

---

Hammy, are you saying being anywhere on the spectrum and being cuntish are mutually exclusive?
Don't shoot the postman! Just asking?

Of course I'm not saying that. I'm saying that you shouldn't confuse correlation with causation: Both autistic and non-autistic people can be unfeeling cunts but it has nothing to do with autism or absence thereof. It has to do with being human (or being on the psychopathic spectrum, perhaps).

Humans in general can be unfeeling cunts. But this can never have any more to do with being on the spectrum than it can have to do with not being on the spectrum. Humans can't (intentionally) be unfeeling cunts (I don't consider unintentional cuntishness to be cuntishness and I don't consider unfeelingness to be the same thing as cuntish unfeelingness) because of autism or because of not autism. It has nothing to do with autism or the absence of autism.