An insult is a statement of stupidity
by the insulter. When the insulted believes the statement to be true, offense
is experienced.
All insults are insane because they are merely different
versions of
"THIS should not be happening," or
"THIS should not
be here."
The THIS proves the rest of the statement to be false instantly.
THIS is threatening to the insulter's ego and it can be
blind to reality because it is not what it wants or thinks it needs to survive.
Might it be more ignorance than stupidity?
Having said that, you never know, maybe an insult is a good
thing sometimes ha-ha.
Sometimes it´s completely useless, let´s just the people
assume their responsibility. If you are bad with an insult that means the
person is maybe right! How awful. If you don´t have problem with insult, you
just let it flow.
One of the statements I always say is;
"I invite you to
boldly be yourself and know that there is no way that you can offend me ...
because you do not have the power to do so ... only I have the power to offend
myself."
I find it fascinating that most don't seem to get that
statement. Others understand it, but yet do not or cannot put it into practice.
Then there are the few who understand it and practice it. It is those clients
that I choose to closely work with and, I find, have the capacity to also
understand the junk they choosing as they traverse through the lens of the
human experience.
Those who understand the nature of how experience arises are
sane.
Those who don't are insane.
This is why it is more pleasant to work with
someone who knows how confusion happens. Sanity can make progress.
It is also why it is fascinating to meet
someone who doesn't know how confusion happens. The person is insane, and thus
not yet a person.
I notice the
fascination for me is really the question,
"Well, if you aren't a
person/sane, what are you?"
My good friend gave me the book Handbook to Higher
Conscientiousness in 1997 and I remember a quote from it:
"to take offense
is just as bad as to give offense"
That is more of a paraphrase, but that
idea has served me well over the years. I still feel offended on occasion, but
remembering this principle helps me to drop it.
Examine your premises.
What are you assuming is the case, and have you checked to
see if it is indeed the case?
Take any premise you have, write it down, and
then determine a way to prove it is or is not so. Frustration can only result
from assuming a false premise is true.
Now proof is tricky because it can only
be contextual. Absolute proof is an oxy-moron because the absolute cannot be
defined.
However, within the context of being a computational machine
in motion, which is what we are, proof can occur, relatively.
THIS is absence of
"should". That is the first clue to what THIS is.
ps/smoh
