The Civilized Man versus the Violent Monkey

"Civilized" as in openminded, compassionate and honest.

'Openminded' as in seeking truth, wanting to hear the truth from others, can take an opinion different from their own and honestly consider if perhaps it is more correct than their own.

'Compassionate' as in a person who practices the golden rule, who is respectful of others, who cares for the welfare of others, wants them to be happy, is not indifferent to them.

'Honest' not just in the sense of not lying. People have incredibly strange notions about what it means to be honest. Actual honesty means not withholding any relevant information. Actual honesty means being direct with people.

The Violent Monkey is closeminded, owned primarily by hate although able to pretend instead to the societally acceptable position of indifference and of course utterly dishonest because considering the first two, he/she has no choice.

When you are indirect with someone, when you withhold truths from them, (and not because you think you, yourself, have done anything wrong) you are treating them like they are a violent monkey. You are treating them like they might be dangerous and they must be tiptoed around. Every bit of truth unconcealed is potentially dangerous.

I think once you started down this road with someone, it's maybe not possible to ever gradually reach a point where you understand that you can instead be direct and honest and open with them. You're instead stuck in falsity. You're also being insulting as hell and keeping things meaningless.

But if instead you are direct and honest with someone from the start in this antisociety, they'll most likely think you're nuts. And/or of course, they may be a violent little monkey most likely. And so in response to your directness, they'll respond with some combination of hate/indifference. They can honestly respond with hate. But as that's not acceptable in this antisociety, they'll more likely respond with indifference (simply not respond) and/or some combination of dishonesty (withholding mostly.)

And even worse, even if you think them "civilized", you still may be afraid to be direct with them because you're afraid your directness will be misinterpreted as some kind of aggressiveness. In response to you trying to treat them as if they're civlized you're just scaring them.

Thus you can't win.

What can be done?

You can be direct and honest. And then try to not mind as you get treated with indifference and hate by 99% of people for your trouble. But still, what about all those who you're just scaring? I suppose attempt to take extreme pains to make yourself clear...

Or just give it up and learn to enjoy solitude.

As to 99% just giving back hate or indifference, an additional problem is my memory isn't all that great. How could it be with regards to remembering that sort of thing? Having a bad memory about that sort of thing is a Good thing.... I think.........????
But the bad memory makes it harder to be sure exactly when I am getting exactly that (hate/indifference), makes it hard to differentiate...

Reminds me though of the definition of insanity being doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Yet, one must forget such negatives. But then because they are forgotten, one then endlessly repeats them. But of course with the understanding that that is exactly what is going on, still the desire is to go forth as a glutton for punishment knowing they will be endlessly repeated.

But solitude awaits eventually, most likely.

...and there is on top of it all me feeling that my idealistic goals are way too vague and ultimately meaningless and crackpot anyway. And thinking I ought to not subject others to such things. I'm wrong. Tradition is right and I should get back in line and shut up.

But clearly tradition is wrong.

Or is it? Perhaps this is the best we can possibly manage considering what we really are.