Angela, Thanks for the wisdom. I felt it.
I suppose we should all talk about what is allowed when it comes to poetic flourishes. When I "wrote up" the concept of Bush being tortured, please understand that I fully knew that I was, well, being Bushy myself if I really meant the words, and further, that I knew I didn't have the omniscience to know how Bush should be punished -- or rewarded -- for his actions, and also that I well understand how words can fly at ground level under folks' radars and suddenly there they are with "yucky stuff" in their minds that are then subject to an unwanted cascade of untoward emotions, imagery, and concepts. I'm a writer -- writers know that Robert Frost said that one was only allowed the use of the word "love" three times when one takes up the job of writer, and so, I say, "Well, I got to be creative in how I express a concept that's been bandied in 30 posts already." It costs me a lot of time to come up with something that's "all mine," and, sorry, but it's fun for me to see if I can actually come up with yet another way to express disgust for war, predation and racism. If I'm kidding myself when I think I'm being "merely ordinarily enraged just as any decent person would be," then tell me so -- if anyone here can, you can. But right now, I only have to have in my mind one image of carnage to know that I have never written any words that cause even as much discomfort as a paper cut. Yet when the carnage is DAILY there in the headlines, and we're just, you know, counting angels on pinheads, it grinds me hard that no voice here decries the war mongering even if it's by a person who in all likelihood is kookoonuts. I sometimes think I'm the only sighted person here. Don't images -- whether seen in words or photos, doesn't matter -- get entered into by you folks out there? I know the hearts here enough to say that even the War Monger would screech his car to a halt if he saw a toddler walking along a highway without an adult nearby, but when that same person can espouse genocide with a bigass smirk, I cannot see how this happens. I understand racism and cruelty, but to have a mind so able to compartmentalize and disconnect carnage-on-babies seems sociopathic at the least. When I see so little resonance here with my excoriation of abusive immoralists, I feel like, hey, someone's gotta say sumptin' and if it ain't me, who's it gunna be? If the War Monger or the Young Woman Predator or the Atheists who toss out spirituality with religion's bathwater, would just stop regularly glorifying in their malignancies, I wouldn't be posting my vitriol. I am not harping here about TONS of issues that should be harped about -- merely because there's no one posting here who's stupid or immoral or evil enough to support those issues. If there was a pedophile posting here, why, I wouldn't have to write a single word cuz there'd be such a flurry of attacks upon the creep. As Christ said, "The poor you will always have." So, yeah, let's make merry and ignore that tomorrow another 50 Arabs will not be able to ever make merry again. As Clint Eastwood said, "When you kill a man, you not only take everything he owns, but all the things he could ever own." Sorry, but mood making myself into a "positive emotion," seems sick in the face of the daily news. To me, every toddler in the Middle East is my own child standing on a major highway in the dark, in the rain, in abject terror. Even if I know the next car behind me is going to stop, I cannot help myself from stopping first. I'm trying to help stop the tolling of the world's bells, for thee, ya know? Well, okay, it's for me, but thee gets the benefit too, eh? Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dearest Edg, > I know your letter was addressed to Stu, and you know > I don't dislike you, but I thought I'd respond anyway. > > I totally sympathize with your rants about the cruelty > of man to man. But when I see you advocating the > public torture of Mr. Bush, I recoil in the same > horror you profess to feel when you hear of the > torture of Iraqi children--of which we, as a people, > are guilty. > > And yet, are we guilty? In another sense, we are not. > Even Bush may not be guilty in a sense. I have > studied in great depth and detail the story of how > Hitler was created in the ashram of Thule Society. > Yes, they did look for a certain kind of "talent" or > predisposition among the membership of professed > seekers. But my reading of psychology tells me that > just about any human being can be made to push a > button in a laboratory that will cause another human > being great pain. > > And the German people, how did they allow the things > that did happen to go on? That was harder to learn > than how a man like Hitler could be "created." And I > did not learn the final lessons about that until I saw > America walk down that same road. I watched this > happen since the late fifties because our current > political scene was predicted by European commentators > as far back as that. I did not believe them, but the > JFK assassination was a wake-up call. By the late > sixties, I noticed that while Russia took Communism > everywhere she went, America did not take democracy > everywhere she went, and, instead, installed evil > fascist dictators all over the place. > > The American people did not object and continued to > vote their pocketbooks in blissful ignorance. I saw > over my life-time exactly how easy a task social > engineering really is and how even the so-called > "intellectuals" are easily guided to think what > "higher-ups" want them to think. So I cannot blame > the American people anymore than I can really blame > the German people. By the time enough people know > what's really going on, it is too late to mount large > scale protests. By that time the laws are in place > that will allow mass crack-downs and torture. > > Think about how a mindless phrase like "conspiracy > theory" keeps people from actually looking carefully > at evidence. And that's just one of the many things > that happen to create a sheeple. It begins in > kindergarten with learning the pledge of allegiance. > a > > > > --- Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Stu, > > > > I keep thinking you don't like me, and because I'm a > > "quality mind of > > another" addict, because I love your posts, this > > totally sucks. Help! > > > > First to the issue in this thread: > > > > When you define "iron age" as an era when folks were > > ignorant and when > > they often used a word like "soul" as some sort of > > uggabugga > > abracadabra magic word, I'm over here getting "the > > same" message from > > you that I got from Steven Pinker and Douglas > > Hofstadter: anyone who > > believes in "soul" is illogical and/or ignorant of > > "facts" that, > > what?, science? has uncovered about the human mind > > and physiology. > > I'm assuming you've read "Godel, Escher, Bach," but > > maybe you've not > > read Pinker's stuff, but you seem to be firmly "in > > their camps." > > > > I'm betting you agree with my "take" on "you" above. > > > > Yet, clearly seen in your writing skills in your > > posts here, you are > > most excellently capable of understanding the poetic > > use of words and > > symbols, but you have taken umbrage -- more than > > once -- with my, > > what? haphazard? loose? unexamined? "right" to use > > such poetic > > expansions of words to better impact a reader -- > > that, or I'm paranoid > > to a degree that I should seek professional help -- > > a very real > > possibility. > > > > If I ask you if a dog has consciousness, you'll say, > > "Yes," but if I > > ask if a dog has soul, it seems you would say, "No." > > Yet, meeting > > even a single dog will give anyone a distinct > > feeling that inside the > > dog is a mind, an individual, a personality, a > > history, a concluding > > entity, a set of intents, DNA driven emotions, a > > learner, a seeker of > > sex, food, sleep, water, territory, progeny, and > > companionship, a mind > > that is capable of loyalty, love, concern, > > happiness, fulfillment, > > playfulness, excitement, temporal planning, logic, > > anger, fear, > > suspicion, and on and on. > > > > Wouldn't it be easier for communication's sake to > > simply say the dog > > has a soul? > > > > Going from a virus to a bacterium to a multicellular > > organism and > > onwards to the heights of complexity, I cannot say > > where the use of > > the word "soul" starts to be handy, but it's well > > below dogville for > > me. I've seen films of amoebas moving with > > arrogance and panache I > > tells ya! > > > > My Advaita "training" has me instinctively seeing > > the effervescence of > > form. Ultimately, the soul is logically considered > > an illusion, but > > if this illusion is not entirely pierced by the > > nanosecond, it becomes > > practical to work with it as if it is real. > > > > Any physicist can tell you that any "thing" is > > merely waves in space > > -- talk about your uggabugga -- and yet they are > > obsessed with > > examining where the boundaries of definitions are -- > > where particle > > becomes wave, where time meets space, where > > Schrodinger's Cat lives, > > where priests and scientists have a cup of coffee > > and jaw with each other. > > > > But, it seems that you are not so concerned about > > the delicacies > > above, but are, instead, well, angry at me? It's an > > intuitive red flag > > that keeps coming up over here in my nervous system. > > > > > > My best bet is that when I get on my high horse and > > roast the War > > Monger or Atheists or Sexual Predators over the > > coals of my disdain, > > that I simply went too far "into rage," or that I > > "exceeded Stu's > > personal limit on how much a writer is allowed to > > scourge fellow > > posters," or that I "was too graphic, too visceral, > > too ucky, too > > crass, too low-vibed for polite company?" > > > > You tell me, but I keep getting that I've offended > > your standards of > > decency. Which is strange, because, with the > > world's condition being > > what it is, you'd think that the truly dark > > indecencies that so abound > > in the headlines would capture your attention before > > you'd focus on my > > "wrongful" abuse of my poetic license. > > > > I have not a jot of intent to coddle a person who > > espouses state > > sponsored murder, or a guy who bar hops hoping to > > get lucky with far > > less mature personalities, or someone who > > knee-jerkingly hates > > religion like some folks hate non-white races. I > > get rough on them, > > cuz the world seems to be so inured to these > > dynamics of modern life > > that they are not challenged, and well, there they > > are in my face, so > > smack 'em sez moi. > > > > It's my job? > > > > I saw this cartoon where a wife is nagging her > > husband to come to bed > > cuz it's late, but he says, "I can't right now, > > someone is wrong on > > the Internet!" I resonated with the guy way too > > much -- Judy and > > Turq, Vaj and TM research, Off vs All, etc. seem to > > have the same > > obsession/compulsion, and you too seem to be locking > > into "just gotta > > fight about it" about certain concepts. This I > > understand, but, I'm > > asking you straight out to set me straight: Have I > > become a symbol for > > you like the War Monger has become for me? Stu, am > > I getting my karma > > back for reducing complex human beings into mere > > cartoon-icons? > > > > Just wondering! > > > > Edg > > PS I do agree that giving a story amps up the > > illusion of > > sentience....thanks for that insight about > > continuity being the meat > > and potatoes of an ego's defense of its reality. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" > > <buttsplicer@> wrote: > > > > > > I do this for a living. I make inanimate objects > > have emotions and > > > appear as if they are sentient beings. Thats 90% > > of a film editor's > > > work. > > > > > > Like many attempts to create the illusion of a > > human the CGI girl will > > > never have a soul. That is not the way to create > > the artifice of a > > > human. What works best for most artists is to > > give the figure a story. > > > CGI girl does not have a story. Creepy. Bad art. > > Yech! > > > > > > I don't have a soul either. I don't know what a > > soul is. Its another > > > one of those iron age terms ignorant people used. > > In those days people > > > thought the brain was an organ designed to cool > > the blood. The idea of > > > a soul compensated for lack of knowledge. > > > > > > I don't have a soul but I do have a story, and > > thats one of the things > > > that makes me human. > > > > > > s. > > > > > > Mythos and Logos > > > > > > > > > === message truncated === > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com >
