--- Begin Message ---
On Jun 18, 7:21 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> So you feel that someone noting confusion in the conversation (and not a
> solitary perspective) warrants your "satirical retort" (read: accusation) of
> self righteousness.
No, the self-righteousness was established previously. I poked at her
for poking at me second hand, instead of confronting me.
> This came on the heels of a string of replies which included the intimation
> that others were afraid of you because you had the power to change the world.
Wrong again Mr. Jenkins. I incite 'the fear of the unknown' in people
by presenting the idea that we can change the world. It works just
like now where you are attacking me the person, and won't go near the
idea I present.
> The combination of purported self assurance combined with a counterintuitive
> sensitivity to perceived attack, prompting subtle counter attacks cloaked in
> "satire", causes your message to come across in ways that are perhaps
> unintended. Orn said arrogant, but diagnostically, it smacks of textbook low
> level megalomania.
And you both would kill the messenger, because you are affected by
'the fear of the unknown, because of the idea. Megalomania? I have no
power (If I did I could do something about two moderators practicing
ad hominem :-)), I have nothing but knowledge.
> This is the one major difficulty of text based exchanges; when all of our
> inflection and body language cues are removed from our messages, the
> underlying intent of our words is left to the interpretation of the listener.
This is the major difficulty of introducing 'new knowledge' that blows
away that which has been previously accepted.
> In order for me to understand you better, let's go back to that originating
> phrase. Who, exactly, do you think is afraid of your "power to change the
> world"?
See above.
Try to understand what I'm talking about when I say "the 'direction'
of Society. Quit attacking me because you cannot put down my idea to
create unity amongst mankind by establishing common recognition for
the connection, "an ah ha moment the fantastic connection in my head",
that is the common link of mankind.
peace & Love
>
>
> [ Attached Message ]From:Tinker <[email protected]>To:"\"Minds Eye\""
> <[email protected]>Date:Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:59:55 -0700
> (PDT)Local:Wed, Jun 17 2009 10:59 pmSubject:[Mind's Eye] Re: Nomo Gitmo
>
> No sir. It was a satirical retort earned by Ms Brogan.
> "the unstable muddle of illogical fancy" - Molly
>
> peace & Love
>
> On Jun 17, 10:01 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Tink, you accuse Orn of subtle ad hominem, and then in the next breath, do
> > exactly what you complain of. Perhaps this is the kind od behaviour that
> > led to Orn's perception?
>
> > [ Attached Message ]From:Tinker <[email protected]>To:"\"Minds Eye\""
> > <[email protected]>Date:Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:19:27 -0700
> > (PDT)Local:Wed, Jun 17 2009 9:19 pmSubject:[Mind's Eye] Re: Nomo Gitmo
>
> > I sure wish I could bless somebody. I guess I need to work on my self-
> > righteousness :-)
> > I still Love you Molly.
>
> > peace & Love
>
> > On Jun 17, 5:40 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Bless you, Vam. There is an enormous kindness in the patient
> > > extension into the unstable muddle of illogical fancy, like skating on
> > > broken ice or swimming in mud for the sake of a gracious connection.
> > > I wonder at the confusion in the discussion here lately. It seems so
> > > much more emotion based, we rely less on valid information and more on
> > > highly personal opinion. Maybe a reflection of the emotional state of
> > > the world at large, a reflection of the aftershocks of a global
> > > financial crisis. Does uncertainty prevent clear communication?
>
> > > "I know how to make it the way of the world and you are afraid of
> > > me." (slowly shaking head) Are we trapped in a desolate Bukowski
> > > poem:
> > > "If you think it's boring
> > > out there," he tells me, "you oughta be
> > > back here."
> > > so here I am
> > > propped up against my pillows
> > > again
> > > just an old guy
> > > just an old writer
> > > with a yellow
> > > notebook.
>
> > > On Jun 17, 2:41 am, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Tinker, let me begin with Peace & Love for you !
>
> > > > I take exception to you post in that you have not addressed what I did
> > > > point out.
>
> > > > One, that : " The direction of society includes the potential of '
> > > > change ' within it. Feudalism is largely not evident anymore ; ask
> > > > yourself why."
>
> > > > Two, that : " Rules also include the learning society has accumulated
> > > > over the millenia. And, Right does not equal Truth ! "
>
> > > > > I'm really sorry that you don't understand what I'm talking about.
> > > > > That you put it off as some religious BS is totally wrong. I'm talking
> > > > > about the mechanical action of a force.
>
> > > > Indeed, I do not understand this " mechanical action of a force " you
> > > > are speaking of. What is this " force ?" What is the " mechanical "
> > > > " action " of this force ?
>
> > > > > If you would like to ask me questions about what I know that you do
> > > > > not know, I'll be happy to answer them :-)
>
> > > > How would I know what you know, without you revealing all you know ?
> > > > How would I know what I do not know ? Please appreciate, these
> > > > difficulties are very real and massive, to say the least.
>
> > > > > The 'direction' of Society is something that you would classify as
> > > > > unknown.
>
> > > > No, Gruff and Molly has given me enough idea of that. Plus, I am not
> > > > exactly illiterate, if not erudite. I do read widely.
>
> > > > > This is what stirs the fear in you ...
>
> > > > Did you see, feel that fear within you ? If yes, may it be that the
> > > > fear is yours ?
>
> > > > Or, did you sense that fear as it arose in me ? If so, by what means
> > > > did you sense it ?
>
> > > > > ... to attempt to quiet me.
>
> > > > On the contrary, I invite you to talk on this forum as much as you
> > > > wish or need to. Believe me, when people talk I get to know what they
> > > > know and, more importantly, what they do not know.
>
> > > > > peace & Love - I know how to make it the way of the world, and you
> > > > > are afraid of me.
>
> > > > See above.
>
> > > > For now, I'd let my love for you be. But I do wish that Peace be upon
> > > > you !
>
> > > > :-P & I Love you.
>
> > > > > On Jun 16, 10:08 pm, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > " The 'direction' of Society, 'rule overrules right', ... "
>
> > > > > > Tinker, I have heard you bring up this ' mantra ' umpteen times,
> > > > > > especially to end an argument, if not to win it. I believe it is
> > > > > > misplaced, if not entirely.
>
> > > > > > The direction of society includes the potential of ' change ' within
> > > > > > it. Feudalism is largely not evident anymore ; ask yourself why.
>
> > > > > > Rules also include the learning society has accumulated over the
> > > > > > millenia. And, Right does not equal Truth !
>
> > > > > > I have nothing against the mantra per se, so long as it remains
> > > > > > yours !
>
> > > > > > Peace & Love ... don't mind this borrowing.
>
> > > > > > On Jun 17, 7:29 am, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Rules from previous circumstances applied to similar present
> > > > > > > circumstances and enforced without consideration of the
> > > > > > > differences IS
> > > > > > > 'rule overrules right'.
> > > > > > > The 'direction' of Society, 'rule overrules right', is the root of
> > > > > > > every problem in the world and can be changed :-)
>
> > > > > > > peace & Love
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 16, 10:02 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > "The view behind is for retrospect in the hope that it will
> > > > > > > > help us
> > > > > > > > turn the right way next
> > > > > > > > time to see it right." - sd
>
> > > > > > > > Yes, looking at the past is often used as a method for making
> > > > > > > > decisions in the present. The main problem with this is that
> > > > > > > > the past
> > > > > > > > is not the present.
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 16, 6:02 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Very well, it's all assumptive, either way there is no
> > > > > > > > > telling what
> > > > > > > > > the actual outcome would be. The probability seems equal
> > > > > > > > > given any
> > > > > > > > > choice. The trajectory of views are many, at least 360 and
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > between but we can only see one way at a time. The view
> > > > > > > > > behind is for
> > > > > > > > > retrospect in the hope that it will help us turn the right
> > > > > > > > > way next
> > > > > > > > > time to see it right. I just don't see it going anywhere
> > > > > > > > > except
> > > > > > > > > onward like a broken record, both sides bloodied grooves.
> > > > > > > > > Credibility
> > > > > > > > > and legitimization is hindsight, a crumpled ideal that once
> > > > > > > > > stood
> > > > > > > > > tall. Strategy has now become fear of upsetting the enemy.
> > > > > > > > > When
> > > > > > > > > sending a message of intolerance becomes damaging and
> > > > > > > > > destructive to a
> > > > > > > > > cause there is dilemma and stagnation. The agreement all
> > > > > > > > > around is on
> > > > > > > > > the uncertainty of outcome and the unsureness of the forward
> > > > > > > > > path. It
> > > > > > > > > is all out of my hands and out of my reach but in view, as
> > > > > > > > > spectator I
> > > > > > > > > can only watch and wait.
>
> > > > > > > > > Thanks everyone for your participation, thoughts and opinions.
>
> > > > > > > > > Dona Nobis Pachem!
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 16, 2:17 am, Justintruth <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > You asked.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Your idea about "just killing" the prisoners on Gitmo would
> > > > > > > > > > undermine
> > > > > > > > > > our attempts to de-legitimize the Jihadist movement without
> > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > significant compensatory benefit. The scale of the damage
> > > > > > > > > > it would
> > > > > > > > > > cause at a critical time on the battlefield is enormous.
> > > > > > > > > > You can try
> > > > > > > > > > to distract from this all you want but what you suggest is
> > > > > > > > > > just crazy.
> > > > > > > > > > Earlier in my life I would have just let such "let's go
> > > > > > > > > > kill um" cheer
> > > > > > > > > > leading lunacy pass without comment because I thought it
> > > > > > > > > > too crazy for
> > > > > > > > > > serious people to consider. Unfortunately, given our recent
> > > > > > > > > > history, I
> > > > > > > > > > think we all need to point out such errors before they take
> > > > > > > > > > hold. I am
> > > > > > > > > > no longer convinced that we are beyond considering them
> > > > > > > > > > seriously.
> > > > > > > > > > Ideas like yours have damaged the credibility of the United
> > > > > > > > > > States of
> > > > > > > > > > America and we must now work to rehabilitate it. Hopefully
> > > > > > > > > > that is
> > > > > > > > > > underway now but it is not certain.
>
> > > > > > > > > > I am not "preaching" nor even suggesting civility. I have
> > > > > > > > > > indeed
> > > > > > > > > > deliberately tried to avoid it. I am simply noting the
> > > > > > > > > > strategic
> > > > > > > > > > consequences of your proposal. Its effect in Pakistan and
> > > > > > > > > > Afganistan,
> > > > > > > > > > where we are asking soldiers to risk their own lives to
> > > > > > > > > > protect
> > > > > > > > > > innocent life in order to discredit the fundamentalism and
> > > > > > > > > > in order to
> > > > > > > > > > turn the situation around strategically, would be very
> > > > > > > > > > destructive.
> > > > > > > > > > You take into account the effect that the consequent impact
> > > > > > > > > > to our own
> > > > > > > > > > legitimacy would have on the order of battle that they will
> > > > > > > > > > face in
> > > > > > > > > > those countries. Hundreds of thousands or even millions of
> > > > > > > > > > committed
> > > > > > > > > > Jihadists is not a good outcome. Your ideas would
> > > > > > > > > > contribute to that
> > > > > > > > > > scenario and we might then be indeed forced to kill many
> > > > > > > > > > more of
> > > > > > > > > > "them" than "we" would like. Perhaps you trust Putin not to
> > > > > > > > > > supply
> > > > > > > > > > shoulder armed missiles?
>
> > > > > > > > > > Cheers.
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Jun 15, 7:06 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > I don't think you should be telling me what I should
> > > > > > > > > > > study. I'm sorry
> > > > > > > > > > > that you think I've been living in the dark.
> > > > > > > > > > > Chimpanzees? Jane
> > > > > > > > > > > Goodall? Maybe we should send the chimpanzees over to
> > > > > > > > > > > North Korea or
> > > > > > > > > > > Afghanistan and see if they can quell the festering
> > > > > > > > > > > quagmire of
> > > > > > > > > > > hostility. I'm sure Hillary or Gore can soothe their
> > > > > > > > > > > zeal for power.
> > > > > > > > > > > Most likely they would wind up in the same labor camp as
> > > > > > > > > > > Ling and
> > > > > > > > > > > Lee. So much for the passive approach. I have an idea,
> > > > > > > > > > > why don't we
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
--- End Message ---
