Nice try, you answered that post yesterday! It sounds like some kind of acquiescence to my will (;)) that you drop out of sight for a day while you formulate your answer. But I'm sure you'll have a "valid reason" for that.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You cannot load a gun without ammunition, Angelica. However, you can always load a mind with an assumption.
It's starting to look like you are lying by implying that you don't carry a loaded gun. Why else are you avoiding direct answers to direct questions? Not to mention that fact that you would not directly originally assert that you don't carry a loaded gun in the first place. Rather it looks like you tried to hand me that "assumption".
Do you use ammunition in your gun when you carry it? Do you carry a loaded weapon?
Lying by omission is still lying.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Nice try, you answered that post yesterday! It sounds like some kind of acquiescence to my will (;)) that you drop out of sight for a day while you formulate your answer. But I'm sure you'll have a "valid reason" for that.
Yeah...I misunderstood. Thought you were referring to something else.
EB, abook, haven't missed your posts. Have no time today. I'll be back soon. Be good to one another.
ok, hope all is well, don't work too hard
(pssst your roommate made you watch the english patient last, didn't she? )
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
It's starting to look like you are lying by implying that you don't carry a loaded gun.
Angelica, I'm not "implying". I'm telling you. I carry a gun loaded with assumptions, not bullets.
Why else are you avoiding direct answers to direct questions?
What question?
Not to mention that fact that you would not directly originally assert that you don't carry a loaded gun in the first place. Rather it looks like you tried to hand me that "assumption".
I did hand you that assumption. You still had to grab it.
Do you use ammunition in your gun when you carry it?
No. I don't even own any ammunition for my gun. It's been fired about 5 times at a shooting range 5 years ago.
Do you carry a loaded weapon?
An empty gun is not a weapon.
Lying by omission is still lying.
There is no such thing as a "lie by omission" my dear.
There is no such thing as a "lie by omission" my dear.
i guess it depends on your definition of 'lie'. like if a kid gets his allowance from his mom then dad comes home and pays him...if the kid doesn't say his mom already paid him technicaly it would be a lie by omission...but again, it depends on definitions
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Angelica, I'm not "implying". I'm telling you. I carry a gun loaded with assumptions, not bullets.
What question?
I did hand you that assumption. You still had to grab it.
No. I don't even own any ammunition for my gun. It's been fired about 5 times at a shooting range 5 years ago.
An empty gun is not a weapon.
There is no such thing as a "lie by omission" my dear.
If you are trying to give someone a false impression, without outrightly stating something false, that IS a lie by omission. You're entitled to not agree. (and I'm not referring to the non-loaded gun....I'm referring to the fact that you did not at any point tell me you carried a non-loaded gun, then you did not even agree when I asked questions about the gun/it's-loadeness-or-lack-thereof...instead you said cute things like "that's my girl". When someone is so very indirect, it sets off an alarm bell for me as to 'what's with the "bait" ')
Alright, you've answered direct questions.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
If you are trying to give someone a false impression, without outrightly stating something false, that IS a lie by omission.
There's a difference in giving someone a false impression and someone giving themselves a false impression, don't you think?
You're entitled to not agree. (and I'm not referring to the non-loaded gun....I'm referring to the fact that you did not at any point tell me you carried a non-loaded gun
I never, at any point, told you I carried a loaded gun. You told yourself that.
then you did not even agree when I asked questions about the gun/it's-loadeness-or-lack-thereof...instead you said cute things like "that's my girl". When someone is so very indirect, it sets off an alarm bell for me as to 'what's with the "bait" ')
I'm saying that it is not a conflict, angelica. There is no contradiction.
You said: "to suggest that an inner conflict will manifest itself in an external situation is perfectly valid and correct. To suggest that an inner conflict will manifest itself in an external situation unrelated to the conflict iteself is silly."
I'm saying if I have a battle inside between self and Self, where I am discarding aspects of myself, such as with addiction, I will block part of who I am inside. Old conflicts and issues. By blocking awareness one prevents the light of reason from resolving such issues. The issues then reflect around us and show up outside as our life. Remember you said evil is the opposite of reason. You also agreed that you smoking is evil and it is contrary to your very self.
According to psychology, by splitting our psyche in such a way, we force the conflict to show up outside of us, where wel face the patterns over and over until we own and resolve them. At this point, you deny your accountability is the contracts you play out around you, it seems--in terms of guns to your head and your attraction to such situations. And therefore you feel the force of "other" as beyond you. With Self mastery, one comes to own their part in what they create, and therefore one creates their life consciously in awareness. Our power struggles teach us such lessons.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You said: "to suggest that an inner conflict will manifest itself in an external situation is perfectly valid and correct. To suggest that an inner conflict will manifest itself in an external situation unrelated to the conflict iteself is silly."
I'm saying if I have a battle inside between self and Self, where I am discarding aspects of myself, such as with addiction, I will block part of who I am inside.
Yes! Now, what's my battle vis a vis my gun?
Old conflicts and issues. By blocking awareness one prevents the light of reason from resolving such issues. The issues then reflect around us and show up outside as our life. Remember you said evil is the opposite of reason. You also agreed that you smoking is evil and it is contrary to your very self.
It is.
According to psychology, by splitting our psyche in such a way, we force the conflict to show up outside of us, where wel face the patterns over and over until we own and resolve them. At this point, you deny your accountability is the contracts you play out around you, it seems--in terms of guns to your head and your attraction to such situations. And therefore you feel the force of "other" as beyond you. With Self mastery, one comes to own their part in what they create, and therefore one creates their life consciously in awareness. Our power struggles teach us such lessons.
Angelica, in the context of force it is only the empty weapon that eliminates the conflict.
I do not feel the force of "other" as beyond me. I refuse to sink to its standards, by which I attempt to end it. Do you understand this??? I refuse to become the product of their conflict. Now, I'll ask you again. Do you understand these now:
I own a gun. Why? To defend myself in the situation where my choice is simple: my life or my mind. My gun is not a tool of fear. It has no purpose in the face of another. It has only the purpose to defend my life, in and only in the event that it is necessary.
Aggressive force is man's physical means of denial. Just as a man may shut off his mind in an effort to deny reality, a man may attack reality in an effort to destroy it.
There's a difference in giving someone a false impression....
If you are not deliberately giving someone a false impression of something, and they get a false impression, the misunderstanding is entirely on them. If you are deliberately giving someone a false imression and they are getting a false impression, the "misunderstanding" is entirely on you.
and someone giving themselves a false impression, don't you think?
I acknowledge my assumption posts ago. Directly.
However, I am interested in why when I've obviously had this "false impression" for so long, that you've chosen not to clear up what to you, apparently, was an obvious misunderstanding.
I never, at any point, told you I carried a loaded gun. You told yourself that.
I remember many moons ago, in talking about your gun I talked about how we all consider it acceptable to shoot someone in self defense and yet in order to do so and not consider the far-reaching ramifications of the effects on family of the 'victim', etc, we might be asking for trouble. You told me you would take that into consideration. You did not, at that time, mention your gun was unloaded. Again, if you carry an unloaded gun, that seems like an interesting way to address my point at that time. You opted not to clarify for me the communication issue between the two of us, for whatever reason.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Angelica, in the context of force it is only the empty weapon that eliminates the conflict.
I do not feel the force of "other" as beyond me. I refuse to sink to its standards, by which I attempt to end it. Do you understand this??? I refuse to become the product of their conflict. Now, I'll ask you again. Do you understand these now:
Of course if you carry an unloaded weapon, I see a very different situation than one of you bowing to fear and oppression and carrying a loaded weapon and being part of the fear and oppressive cycles.
At the same time, if you are contracted to run up against a speeding ticket next Wednesday or if your girlfriend is getting "overbearing" tomorrow night, it is an inner conflict of yours that will hook into those situations and create you fulfilling your part of the contract.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
If you are not deliberately giving someone a false impression of something, and they get a false impression, the misunderstanding is entirely on them. If you are deliberately giving someone a false imression and they are getting a false impression, the "misunderstanding" is entirely on you.
A misundertanding is never entirely on either side. It is entirely on both sides.
I acknowledge my assumption posts ago. Directly.
Yes you did. I'm not trying to imply that you did not.
However, I am interested in why when I've obviously had this "false impression" for so long, that you've chosen not to clear up what to you, apparently, was an obvious misunderstanding.
Because I was waiting for one of my favorite paradox-posters to call out the contradiction, of course
I remember many moons ago, in talking about your gun I talked about how we all consider it acceptable to shoot someone in self defense and yet in order to do so and not consider the far-reaching ramifications of the effects on family of the 'victim', etc, we might be asking for trouble. You told me you would take that into consideration.
My response was:
"I will defend my life against force. I will not use force to achieve my life. Do you understand the difference?"
and later:
"Who said anything about killing them?"
You did not, at that time, mention your gun was unloaded. Again, if you carry an unloaded gun, that seems like an interesting way to address my point at that time.
It would have been interesting. But not nearly as interesting as before you started looking at it logically as you have now.
"I will defend my life against force. I will not use force to achieve my life. Do you understand the difference?"
and later:
"Who said anything about killing them?"
Incorrect. I am referring to one of those threads back in the day, like the Wal-Mart thread...I looked for it and could not trace it.
It would have been interesting. But not nearly as interesting as before you started looking at it logically as you have now.
this is what I see: You withheld information regarding the potency of the weapon you carry. Information that could have cleared up what you knew to be a misunderstanding. Now you apparently are wielding this circumstance as a way to point to faulty logic on my part and so on. I reject that outrightly.
If you have ideas how I "should" think, that's about you. I think and do what is right for me.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
this is what I see: You withheld information regarding the potency of the weapon you carry. Information that could have cleared up what you knew to be a misunderstanding. Now you apparently are wielding this circumstance as a way to point to faulty logic on my part and so on. I reject that outrightly.
Angelica, none of your logic has been faulty in regards to this issue. That is not what I'm saying here.
If you have ideas how I "should" think, that's about you. I think and do what is right for me.
Angelica, none of your logic has been faulty in regards to this issue. That is not what I'm saying here.
Pardon me. Assumptions.
edit: rather: You withheld information regarding the potency of the weapon you carry. Information that could have cleared up what you knew to be a misunderstanding. Now you apparently are wielding this circumstance as a way to point to faulty assumptions on my part. I reject that outrightly.
and you said: "But not nearly as interesting as before you started looking at it logically as you have now".
By this it certainly sounds as though you are implying that earlier I was not being logical, hence it sounds like you are critiquing my logic. Which, also I reject. Particularly when it was equally due to your complicity that this situation was perpetuated. I don't accept it being passed off on me.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Nice try, you answered that post yesterday! It sounds like some kind of acquiescence to my will (;)) that you drop out of sight for a day while you formulate your answer. But I'm sure you'll have a "valid reason" for that.
Yep, he needed a breather. *Awaits 'valid reason'.*
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
If you shoot that mugger with your gun, and you are asked to own your accountability for taking a life, are you going to use this argument as your defence?
...
If I shoot a mugger I'm fully responsible for his death, and that's fine by me if I felt threatened by that mugger.
It is comments such as this that set the framework that have/had me believing you feel it is quite justifiable to shoot someone in defense of the self, when feeling threatened. Such comments set the stage for my "assumptions".
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
"If you shoot that mugger with your gun, and you are asked to own your accountability for taking a life, are you going to use this argument as your defence?"
You're not asking me would you shoot a mugger?
You're asking me if you shoot a mugger, will you own up to your accountability?
To which I say yes, I am accountable and I'm perfectly fine with admitting it and will not feel my actions are unjust.
I've said numerous times that self-defense is an acceptable reason for violence. But self-defense and the absolution of fear are two different things.
"If you shoot that mugger with your gun, and you are asked to own your accountability for taking a life, are you going to use this argument as your defence?"
You're not asking me would you shoot a mugger?
You're asking me if you shoot a mugger, will you own up to your accountability?
To which I say yes, I am accountable and I'm perfectly fine with admitting it and will not feel my actions are unjust.
I've said numerous times that self-defense is an acceptable reason for violence. But self-defense and the absolution of fear are two different things.
I was showing my understanding of what you said, and how your words provided a framework for my understanding of the purposes of your gun. Coming from a person who I was told owned and carried a gun. As I check back on your words in hindsight given new information, I see a different picture.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
no, it did't. it is not MY system. i believe in taxing for the public good (but not a huge amount like the UK used to do)
But that's what we're doing today. You should have realized by now that "public good" is subjective. Your "public good" is no more valid than Dick Cheney's "public good" or Jerry Falwell's "public good". You've destroyed any objective standards by which to measure "public good" since you've rendered the concepts of life, freedom, will and choice meaningless.
no, they didn't...they fed our soldiers spoiled food, gave them dirty water, overcharged and committed fraud where they thought they could get away w/ it...to me, that's not 'a good job' and are you saying you couldn't do a better job than that??
Actually, no. I'd have no idea how to go about doing what Halliburton does.
you do?? i must have missed you posting the positives to the tax system
You also missed my posts lamenting wasted tax dollars. I rarely discuss the positive or negative ends of the tax system. It is the negative means of the tax system that I lament. I acknowledge the positive means all the time. I've told you here dozens of times that if you (and/or anyone else) wish to pay taxes that you should be entirely free to do so.
yes, as in i refuse to call their work a 'great job' given their abuses (feeding our troops spoiled food and if it's rejected take it to the next base and hope they don't notice, giving them dirty water, the overcharges and fraud...) get it? if get an A on exams but i cheated on most of them, did i do a 'great job'? no, at least not to me
But Halliburton didn't cheat on most of them. They got F's on some of them. But for the most part, they did the job they were contracted to do and did it well.
ok, i must have missed that thread, too, where you said these things.
I link to one of those within this thread, I believe.
I was showing my understanding of what you said, and how your words provided a framework for my understanding of the purposes of your gun. Coming from a person who I was told owned and carried a gun. As I check back on your words in hindsight given new information, I see a different picture.
That is fair.
Got your e-mail, btw. Lots of interesting stuff in there. I have to take care of an overdue response here and some more work but I'll get back to you soon.
Got your e-mail, btw. Lots of interesting stuff in there. I have to take care of an overdue response here and some more work but I'll get back to you soon.
I look forward to any response you come up with. Take your time.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
You should be a stickler for details more often.
You cannot load a gun without ammunition, Angelica. However, you can always load a mind with an assumption.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Why thank you. Stick around.
Do you use ammunition in your gun when you carry it? Do you carry a loaded weapon?
Lying by omission is still lying.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yeah...I misunderstood. Thought you were referring to something else.
ok, hope all is well, don't work too hard
(pssst your roommate made you watch the english patient last, didn't she?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Angelica, I'm not "implying". I'm telling you. I carry a gun loaded with assumptions, not bullets.
What question?
I did hand you that assumption. You still had to grab it.
No. I don't even own any ammunition for my gun. It's been fired about 5 times at a shooting range 5 years ago.
An empty gun is not a weapon.
There is no such thing as a "lie by omission" my dear.
you could hit someone w/ it or throw it at them
i guess it depends on your definition of 'lie'. like if a kid gets his allowance from his mom then dad comes home and pays him...if the kid doesn't say his mom already paid him technicaly it would be a lie by omission...but again, it depends on definitions
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
You're next on that list
So much time on this board is starting to catch up with me...
No, LOTR 3 actually.....
If you are trying to give someone a false impression, without outrightly stating something false, that IS a lie by omission. You're entitled to not agree. (and I'm not referring to the non-loaded gun....I'm referring to the fact that you did not at any point tell me you carried a non-loaded gun, then you did not even agree when I asked questions about the gun/it's-loadeness-or-lack-thereof...instead you said cute things like "that's my girl". When someone is so very indirect, it sets off an alarm bell for me as to 'what's with the "bait" ')
Alright, you've answered direct questions.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
There's a difference in giving someone a false impression and someone giving themselves a false impression, don't you think?
I never, at any point, told you I carried a loaded gun. You told yourself that.
You answered that question yourself.
You said: "to suggest that an inner conflict will manifest itself in an external situation is perfectly valid and correct. To suggest that an inner conflict will manifest itself in an external situation unrelated to the conflict iteself is silly."
I'm saying if I have a battle inside between self and Self, where I am discarding aspects of myself, such as with addiction, I will block part of who I am inside. Old conflicts and issues. By blocking awareness one prevents the light of reason from resolving such issues. The issues then reflect around us and show up outside as our life. Remember you said evil is the opposite of reason. You also agreed that you smoking is evil and it is contrary to your very self.
According to psychology, by splitting our psyche in such a way, we force the conflict to show up outside of us, where wel face the patterns over and over until we own and resolve them. At this point, you deny your accountability is the contracts you play out around you, it seems--in terms of guns to your head and your attraction to such situations. And therefore you feel the force of "other" as beyond you. With Self mastery, one comes to own their part in what they create, and therefore one creates their life consciously in awareness. Our power struggles teach us such lessons.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yes! Now, what's my battle vis a vis my gun?
It is.
Angelica, in the context of force it is only the empty weapon that eliminates the conflict.
I do not feel the force of "other" as beyond me. I refuse to sink to its standards, by which I attempt to end it. Do you understand this??? I refuse to become the product of their conflict. Now, I'll ask you again. Do you understand these now:
I acknowledge my assumption posts ago. Directly.
However, I am interested in why when I've obviously had this "false impression" for so long, that you've chosen not to clear up what to you, apparently, was an obvious misunderstanding.
I remember many moons ago, in talking about your gun I talked about how we all consider it acceptable to shoot someone in self defense and yet in order to do so and not consider the far-reaching ramifications of the effects on family of the 'victim', etc, we might be asking for trouble. You told me you would take that into consideration. You did not, at that time, mention your gun was unloaded. Again, if you carry an unloaded gun, that seems like an interesting way to address my point at that time. You opted not to clarify for me the communication issue between the two of us, for whatever reason.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
At the same time, if you are contracted to run up against a speeding ticket next Wednesday or if your girlfriend is getting "overbearing" tomorrow night, it is an inner conflict of yours that will hook into those situations and create you fulfilling your part of the contract.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
A misundertanding is never entirely on either side. It is entirely on both sides.
Yes you did. I'm not trying to imply that you did not.
Because I was waiting for one of my favorite paradox-posters to call out the contradiction, of course
My response was:
"I will defend my life against force. I will not use force to achieve my life. Do you understand the difference?"
and later:
"Who said anything about killing them?"
It would have been interesting. But not nearly as interesting as before you started looking at it logically as you have now.
I'll call your attention to another conversation we once had:
I'd invite you to consider this again in the context of everything I've ever said about force.
I have to run. I'll see you all soon.
this is what I see: You withheld information regarding the potency of the weapon you carry. Information that could have cleared up what you knew to be a misunderstanding. Now you apparently are wielding this circumstance as a way to point to faulty logic on my part and so on. I reject that outrightly.
If you have ideas how I "should" think, that's about you. I think and do what is right for me.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Angelica, none of your logic has been faulty in regards to this issue. That is not what I'm saying here.
As you should.
edit: rather: You withheld information regarding the potency of the weapon you carry. Information that could have cleared up what you knew to be a misunderstanding. Now you apparently are wielding this circumstance as a way to point to faulty assumptions on my part. I reject that outrightly.
and you said: "But not nearly as interesting as before you started looking at it logically as you have now".
By this it certainly sounds as though you are implying that earlier I was not being logical, hence it sounds like you are critiquing my logic. Which, also I reject. Particularly when it was equally due to your complicity that this situation was perpetuated. I don't accept it being passed off on me.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yep, he needed a breather. *Awaits 'valid reason'.*
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
From: "Petitions To Reverse Smoking Ban In The States On Moving Train":
It is comments such as this that set the framework that have/had me believing you feel it is quite justifiable to shoot someone in defense of the self, when feeling threatened. Such comments set the stage for my "assumptions".
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Please examine your own question:
"If you shoot that mugger with your gun, and you are asked to own your accountability for taking a life, are you going to use this argument as your defence?"
You're not asking me would you shoot a mugger?
You're asking me if you shoot a mugger, will you own up to your accountability?
To which I say yes, I am accountable and I'm perfectly fine with admitting it and will not feel my actions are unjust.
I've said numerous times that self-defense is an acceptable reason for violence. But self-defense and the absolution of fear are two different things.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
But that's what we're doing today. You should have realized by now that "public good" is subjective. Your "public good" is no more valid than Dick Cheney's "public good" or Jerry Falwell's "public good". You've destroyed any objective standards by which to measure "public good" since you've rendered the concepts of life, freedom, will and choice meaningless.
Actually, no. I'd have no idea how to go about doing what Halliburton does.
You also missed my posts lamenting wasted tax dollars. I rarely discuss the positive or negative ends of the tax system. It is the negative means of the tax system that I lament. I acknowledge the positive means all the time. I've told you here dozens of times that if you (and/or anyone else) wish to pay taxes that you should be entirely free to do so.
But Halliburton didn't cheat on most of them. They got F's on some of them. But for the most part, they did the job they were contracted to do and did it well.
I link to one of those within this thread, I believe.
That is fair.
Got your e-mail, btw. Lots of interesting stuff in there. I have to take care of an overdue response here and some more work but I'll get back to you soon.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!