FiddlertheLeper Posted August 18, 2013 Posted August 18, 2013 My question is about the last caller on the Wednesday show, the one who brought up this whole issue of human dominance, I was hoping to hear some thoughts from the community on it, as well as give my own thoughts. So basically for me the difference between dominance and being the best in your field, is that dominance is a direct contest/conflict in which one party submits and the other dominates, while superiority (being the best in a given field) is a universal concept. my reason for looking at it this way is I don't believe dominance can be universalized because someone has to be submissive for dominance to occur, while with superiority, you don't need to be submissive just at a lower point in the continuum of skill (or what ever we are talking about with regards to the field.) Does this make sense to anyone else, or am i just seeing this through my own skewed perspective? interested to hear what everyone else has to say on this topic.
Wesley Posted August 18, 2013 Posted August 18, 2013 I think Stef alluded to it in the call, but the caller missed it. The caller was normalizing what happened to him by making dominance a human phenomenon, rather than a "my parents" phenomenon. When someone makes assertions that do not have proof to back them up when subjected to logic, it isn't about the topic they are debating. It seems self-evident to them, but that is because it is normalization of early experiences. My thoughts on the actual issue are irrelevant, because that was not what the debate was about.
FiddlertheLeper Posted August 18, 2013 Author Posted August 18, 2013 I understood that part, and agree with Stefan (not that i have the expertise in psychology or any other field in that area to make the diagnoses) what i wanted was an objective definition of the difference between being dominant versus being the best in a given skill/field/area. Stefan's whole idea of being "Your" best is much closer to my idea of our drive to succeed or be better, but i don't feel that even in a given field, let's say in fishing or whatever you want to pick, i don't feel that the fisherman who brings in the most fish is dominating all other fishermen who don't bring in as much. I would say he is a superior fisherman, but i wouldn't call that relationship between him and other fishermen dominant/submissive. Is this an objective view of the subject matter? or am i skewing this in a way?
FiddlertheLeper Posted August 18, 2013 Author Posted August 18, 2013 It was an interesting abstract discussion until of course, out of the blue, what the caller meant by "dominance" was POTENTIAL RAPE/physical violence. That cleared up everything. I agree, that was more than a little bit enlightening for this conversation, let me clarify that i do not agree with the callers definition of "Human dominance" in general I agree with Stefan's ideas on the matter. I just am struggling with an objective way to describe the difference between the two. I understand the idea of reaching for your best, rather than reaching for being better than others, and that's either the key or a key to what i am trying to get clarified in my own mind. What i end up questioning is whether in any area where competition is required for success (or is at least an integral part of success) that has to be viewed as asserting dominance, or whether you can simply say the one who is the best in the field/area is superior in their skills in that area/field without the necessary win/lose of dominance. I have a sneaking feeling that like the caller this might be an something i have some internal issue with that is manifesting through this discussion, hoping that's not the case, but from replies so far it seems like i am not getting something everyone else is.
LovePrevails Posted August 18, 2013 Posted August 18, 2013 From all I can gather he is coming from the spiritual standpoint "the external world is just an outer reflection of our inner environments" thus, if you "want to change the world you have to stop looking out and start looking in" in my opinion this is exactly what stef has done before starting FDR, I essentially agree that the more self-knowledge you have the more effective you are at healing the world too because self knowledge gets you gifts, but I think this dude was sort of barking the wrong way - he didn't want to come out and say it was a spiritual belief because then he'd get instant skepticism so he tried to go in through the back door but quite poorly. At the end isn't caller just trying to say: "Admit that you're not just trying to do your personal best, but be the best philosopher out there period." I don't know why Stef found this suggestion so hard to understand, or why the caller couldn't put it that plainly.
FiddlertheLeper Posted August 18, 2013 Author Posted August 18, 2013 From all I can gather he is coming from the spiritual standpoint "the external world is just an outer reflection of our inner environments" thus, if you "want to change the world you have to stop looking out and start looking in" in my opinion this is exactly what stef has done before starting FDR, I essentially agree that the more self-knowledge you have the more effective you are at healing the world too because self knowledge gets you gifts, but I think this dude was sort of barking the wrong way - he didn't want to come out and say it was a spiritual belief because then he'd get instant skepticism so he tried to go in through the back door but quite poorly. At the end isn't caller just trying to say: "Admit that you're not just trying to do your personal best, but be the best philosopher out there period." I don't know why Stef found this suggestion so hard to understand, or why the caller couldn't put it that plainly. I don't know if Stefan found the suggestion hard to understand, I think he disagreed with it. I think that it came down to capacity, (natural potential) there is no point in trying to be the absolute best at something, unless you actually posses the potential to be the best. So trying to be the best in comparison to others is kinda self defeating (at least in judging your self on this alone) there will always be someone who just simply has a greater natural capacity for what you are both doing. But, trying to be the best that You can be is never really a bad thing, and is what we should all strive for in the areas we desire, and while it is important to have an understanding of where you sit in comparison to others in your field/area, but it should not be what you base your worth in that area on, that should be based on your honest sense of self progression and whether or not you're truly applying yourself at your fullest. At least that was the sense I got. However I do agree with your assessment about the caller not just stating plainly what he was trying to say, and I think you also got the reason pretty much right on as well.
Recommended Posts