I said: on the subject matter re; "debate" (i.e. proper forms of discussion)
Unless a debate registers in the forum of public opinion it serves no purpose. . . that is what the Internet is for.
quote:
We're not getting marked on this.
It's as if the scriptures were a trail of abstract logic in order to purge us of our "divinity". Oh wait, after all that was the idea, you know. . . "we tell you this but you can't debate it back to us." Therefore, we're evil in the sense we're getting marked for abiding no objectionable amount of truth to something in a plausible manner but still "damned if we do, damned if we don't." You debate - then go to hell or suffer the consequences - blah, blah.
I think what debate really entails, is not proper language or misuse of ground-rules as sadie thinks. I believe debate is nothing other than human communication with intelligent understanding of what's in effect taking place no matter what seems "undesirable." There is a place for everything that happens resulting in clarity.
========================
Appeal to ignorance? Merk, you've got to stop this.
quote:
Thanks for effort Hap.Based on everything you provided you have issues with Christians. And everything else you blab about is a crap shoot. Congrats.
quote: colin said
Versus rational apologetics.
=========================
hahaha. . . that was nice work colin. Gold.
It kind of reminds me of facebook's branding.
"A social utility that connects you. . . " Most people on facebook would never exist otherwise, making you wonder what will they think of next. . .
=======================
quote:
cheap and stupid yes, but it boils the whole neo-con platform down to a tidy soundbite: smaller government, bigger army, every man for himself. but you know, republicans actually like big government, as long as it doesn't serve the interests of the people. they don't mind shoveling trillions into public projects as long as they benefit their pet corporate interests and not the collective interests of the people. better to shrink the parts of government that enable people to work together. As long as the people are atomized into millions of "big individuals" they pose no threat to the powers that be.
hap, i apologize for not reading this sooner then I have. But that response was equally pragmatic as it was truth. Took gusto to write, pleasure to read. Bravo.
The 'big individuals' part, reinforces my disbelief in why I've asked how can people actually allow themselves to be subjected, that a presidential candidate uses the WWE as it's vehicle to launch a campiagn add? Then, it struck a cord with me that it is accepted.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Friday, May 23, 2008
human communication ergo intelligent understanding
quote:
On the other hand, I heard it argued in the movie The Counterfeiter that individualism - a focus on personal survival - "is what makes Fascism work." Because individuals were concerned primarily with self preservation, he suggested, the Nazis had no need to fear popular revolt in their camps, ghettos, etc.
============================
my response:
If we're both trying to read from the same dialogue (verbatim) that you also presented: I'm reading it based on my own interpretation of what it appears to illustrate.
My idea of it (as it reads) is that "individualism" because it's a focus bases personal survival as the one true human desire that drives us - is what makes fascism work - therefore primal-instincts (i.e. self-preservation etc.) as the author suggested as were the Nazis incurred for it's domination. There's a glaring discrepancy that seems to weigh without any sort of collateral. There is an issue which needs be attached in order to effectively present the nature of identifying that definition of individualism. For the most part I do agree with that idea in its context. However, the void risks undermining the true element of fascist thought, being, in repeating the same kind of individualist ideology in reality speaks in favor of "individuals without rights". I fear that would be left undetected if not corrected properly.
======================
I gather that we can agree on one thing amidst merks fallacy, imperialist ideology may be a type of argument which has held American's idea of democracy together. What imperial dynamics involve whether it be a psuedo-totalitarian manner of thinking, I'd suggest that America in its history has combined the democracy they live with a make-shift version of colonial rule. I have no idea why merk keeps insinuating a slippery slope and bases it entirely on accusing someone else along the line of treason. It's too absurd to digest.
On the other hand, I heard it argued in the movie The Counterfeiter that individualism - a focus on personal survival - "is what makes Fascism work." Because individuals were concerned primarily with self preservation, he suggested, the Nazis had no need to fear popular revolt in their camps, ghettos, etc.
============================
my response:
If we're both trying to read from the same dialogue (verbatim) that you also presented: I'm reading it based on my own interpretation of what it appears to illustrate.
My idea of it (as it reads) is that "individualism" because it's a focus bases personal survival as the one true human desire that drives us - is what makes fascism work - therefore primal-instincts (i.e. self-preservation etc.) as the author suggested as were the Nazis incurred for it's domination. There's a glaring discrepancy that seems to weigh without any sort of collateral. There is an issue which needs be attached in order to effectively present the nature of identifying that definition of individualism. For the most part I do agree with that idea in its context. However, the void risks undermining the true element of fascist thought, being, in repeating the same kind of individualist ideology in reality speaks in favor of "individuals without rights". I fear that would be left undetected if not corrected properly.
======================
I gather that we can agree on one thing amidst merks fallacy, imperialist ideology may be a type of argument which has held American's idea of democracy together. What imperial dynamics involve whether it be a psuedo-totalitarian manner of thinking, I'd suggest that America in its history has combined the democracy they live with a make-shift version of colonial rule. I have no idea why merk keeps insinuating a slippery slope and bases it entirely on accusing someone else along the line of treason. It's too absurd to digest.
determining
The lion's barber has a challenging task to face.
So exquisite is the haircut.
==================
Re; corky
Rest assured those are actually interesting points given by corky. McCain will be very lucky to become president. The press McCain has, has been brought upon by those that venture within the conservatives rank. They know he doesn't have the superstar status coming off Bush's presidency. However, the gains in popularity are a non-factor depending on what wish-bone you crack. The media makes a de facto mock democracy: it only prints what sells newspapers. Strictly based on principle the eyes and ears of an election cannot be run along side the false pretense of propoganada.
So exquisite is the haircut.
==================
Re; corky
Rest assured those are actually interesting points given by corky. McCain will be very lucky to become president. The press McCain has, has been brought upon by those that venture within the conservatives rank. They know he doesn't have the superstar status coming off Bush's presidency. However, the gains in popularity are a non-factor depending on what wish-bone you crack. The media makes a de facto mock democracy: it only prints what sells newspapers. Strictly based on principle the eyes and ears of an election cannot be run along side the false pretense of propoganada.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Decomposing life
What is it about true friendship that speaks to you, will be different for everyone. To be sure of what one sees, compared to a vast majority of people is too broad in defining it. But the key to dynamics in a friendship, a mature one to be in fact, might be agreeable within a common perception of it.
If you have certain things that act as definitive intangibles (i.e. very important) which must be involved to determine what makes a friend -"friend". In fact, it might be inconceivable to the other person as to how high of an esteem you voluntarily give to a friend, provided they match your suited criteria? It becomes a question worth answering.
My reason for asking myself this question is simple. Do I have an answer for it? Yes, I do.
The naive part of me has all but vanished into thin air, literally. Speaking of valuing friendship is an undertaking task, the challenge in making friends is not the answer, what it is then that makes a true friend a "friend" must not exclude elements of their behavior toward me. That is to say, for instance, you are not typically being cynical toward other people, you are nice (e.g. friendly, not stuck up, etc.). That is the easy part, the hard part is this: what measures people apart from a simple minded "that's a nice guy/girl" from "that person connects with me on a very sincere/unsuperficial level." Think about that for a moment, those are 2 distinctive possibilities, however only one of those - not like the other - can enter the kind of ritual in friendship you credit.
Part of me used self deception in a manner that I created. In turn I would act against my better judgement, sometimes feeling abused, unsure of my wellbeing, and blame myself feeling as if a victim. If it were not for my lack of self-worth (in someways selfish ends) I had felt I were a target stamped on my forehead. It was borderline absurd insofar I had no boundaries that I'd protect myself with, and subconsciously albeit voluntarily give everything I had - unselfishly. I used to put everything I had into wanting the other person to like me, as if I would be validated in the experience. Somehow what would result automatically make me magically disappear!?
Therefore, I looked at myself with consideration that hardly enough I began to realize the good things. That I have exceptional qualities.
My reason for sharing this is quite something cumbersome, but I digress it's importance. You know the type, "I really like it that people know me, I am not aware of you completely, but I pretend to be my shallow best in my vain attempt to determine how you see me." To give a person the benefit of the doubt when they're only trying to impress themselves. It's a mask that deceives the other person you meet with when encountering another person for the first time. Perhaps, it lasts into a meaningful rewarding relationship, which is what brings me to this point.
There are independant variables contingent to how one could introduce meaning into a relationship, which would include confidence, trusting that person will be someone that remains unconditionally open to human desires, emotionally available, endearing, without deviating from the norm poses no threat to you.
What eliminated my false beliefs to this day re; true friendship has mostly to do with my sensitive nature, which most people like me might fear being rejected by other people. It is a common trick within the brain, a block against your real nature that prevents you from becoming what you really are, or worse self-deprecating. You might even deprive yourself of making friends. . . but instead you feel that you can release inhibitions, expressing yourself for who you truly are, and not have a care in the world what other carefree types similar to you or not.
Then you begin to think about which of the ones that "stick" to your mind for lack of a better term will they shelter?
That's what will inevitably happen. . . as I have resonated.
Then - the next part is what to make of such things we take for granted in life - or for that matter - that people may have taken for granted in yourself.
I examine how many people I believe I had influenced to a degree in my life, then, I found how astronomical (for lack of a better word) the greater the number of people dropped off the face of the earth. I actually forgot who my ambivalence was directed to or lack of reciprocal animosity toward others rose in uniformly desensitizing myself (to former colleagues). For example, I see people in my distant past, that recognize me, and who I recognize, we'd associated at some point in our lives, but under no direct set of boundaries (which is what we would really want in this world of unimposing freedom.) Ideally, the unilateral position which I take has virtually no meaning to that "significant other person" in other words that person no longer exists 'significantly' because it was only an illusion or construct of my figment imagination.
The archetype for true friendship should look like this as follows:
A person that is kind and considerate, will not use you and on no uncertain terms wants to make your life better with generosity, kindness and altruism which never ends as a result of conditions within that relationship.
True friends will not devalue, degrade, decensitize or be impartial no matter the tolerable cost.
The better knowledge that you acquire in becoming an individual, will ground oneself, enabling you to see such interesting dynamics as they occur.
If you have certain things that act as definitive intangibles (i.e. very important) which must be involved to determine what makes a friend -"friend". In fact, it might be inconceivable to the other person as to how high of an esteem you voluntarily give to a friend, provided they match your suited criteria? It becomes a question worth answering.
My reason for asking myself this question is simple. Do I have an answer for it? Yes, I do.
The naive part of me has all but vanished into thin air, literally. Speaking of valuing friendship is an undertaking task, the challenge in making friends is not the answer, what it is then that makes a true friend a "friend" must not exclude elements of their behavior toward me. That is to say, for instance, you are not typically being cynical toward other people, you are nice (e.g. friendly, not stuck up, etc.). That is the easy part, the hard part is this: what measures people apart from a simple minded "that's a nice guy/girl" from "that person connects with me on a very sincere/unsuperficial level." Think about that for a moment, those are 2 distinctive possibilities, however only one of those - not like the other - can enter the kind of ritual in friendship you credit.
Part of me used self deception in a manner that I created. In turn I would act against my better judgement, sometimes feeling abused, unsure of my wellbeing, and blame myself feeling as if a victim. If it were not for my lack of self-worth (in someways selfish ends) I had felt I were a target stamped on my forehead. It was borderline absurd insofar I had no boundaries that I'd protect myself with, and subconsciously albeit voluntarily give everything I had - unselfishly. I used to put everything I had into wanting the other person to like me, as if I would be validated in the experience. Somehow what would result automatically make me magically disappear!?
Therefore, I looked at myself with consideration that hardly enough I began to realize the good things. That I have exceptional qualities.
My reason for sharing this is quite something cumbersome, but I digress it's importance. You know the type, "I really like it that people know me, I am not aware of you completely, but I pretend to be my shallow best in my vain attempt to determine how you see me." To give a person the benefit of the doubt when they're only trying to impress themselves. It's a mask that deceives the other person you meet with when encountering another person for the first time. Perhaps, it lasts into a meaningful rewarding relationship, which is what brings me to this point.
There are independant variables contingent to how one could introduce meaning into a relationship, which would include confidence, trusting that person will be someone that remains unconditionally open to human desires, emotionally available, endearing, without deviating from the norm poses no threat to you.
What eliminated my false beliefs to this day re; true friendship has mostly to do with my sensitive nature, which most people like me might fear being rejected by other people. It is a common trick within the brain, a block against your real nature that prevents you from becoming what you really are, or worse self-deprecating. You might even deprive yourself of making friends. . . but instead you feel that you can release inhibitions, expressing yourself for who you truly are, and not have a care in the world what other carefree types similar to you or not.
Then you begin to think about which of the ones that "stick" to your mind for lack of a better term will they shelter?
That's what will inevitably happen. . . as I have resonated.
Then - the next part is what to make of such things we take for granted in life - or for that matter - that people may have taken for granted in yourself.
I examine how many people I believe I had influenced to a degree in my life, then, I found how astronomical (for lack of a better word) the greater the number of people dropped off the face of the earth. I actually forgot who my ambivalence was directed to or lack of reciprocal animosity toward others rose in uniformly desensitizing myself (to former colleagues). For example, I see people in my distant past, that recognize me, and who I recognize, we'd associated at some point in our lives, but under no direct set of boundaries (which is what we would really want in this world of unimposing freedom.) Ideally, the unilateral position which I take has virtually no meaning to that "significant other person" in other words that person no longer exists 'significantly' because it was only an illusion or construct of my figment imagination.
The archetype for true friendship should look like this as follows:
A person that is kind and considerate, will not use you and on no uncertain terms wants to make your life better with generosity, kindness and altruism which never ends as a result of conditions within that relationship.
True friends will not devalue, degrade, decensitize or be impartial no matter the tolerable cost.
The better knowledge that you acquire in becoming an individual, will ground oneself, enabling you to see such interesting dynamics as they occur.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
calculating the heart of a lion
kew. point taken. i'm just glad someone gets it.
I said calculating things, doesn't make you smart especially if you can't do it for anything positive, stupid people who think they're smart are one in the same. What I meant was to give sadie a compliment. Who doesn't like hearing that they're adored?
quote:
They're definitely tired of the war. Last poll I read had 60% thinking the Iraq invasion was "a mistake." The trouble is, they don't have a choice because both candidates will want to continue the war and maybe even blunder into an even bigger "mistake" by invading Iran. McCain, as the openly pro-war candidate, doesn't have to worry about any anti-war sentiment. Even if 70% of the population is dead-set against the war, he only needs the support of about 30% of eligible voters to win the presidency. That's about what Bush got. Clinton's main obstacle is the fact that people don't vote for women. Even women don't vote for women.
If you follow this line of reasoning, this is where I become doubtless, or in the least bit confused? My reason for saying that, is in a historical context, there is no denying that every empire in history do not attempt to rest on their laurels when it gets to world dominating the political stage. The alluring aspect of war is romanticized throughout world-civilization through the centuries. However, here we listen to these present day leaders - to a lesser degree we must face adversity due to inevitable issues, such as control of a stabalized econmy no matter what the cost. To furthering solutions, there is no room for pragmatic gestation of what voters will rely on. In other words, war is contingent to any vote joe-american casts to engage in his or her democracy. The point being it is not against there will that wars will be waged, the truth is when they realize there's nothing they can do to prevent war? To be an American comes with the territory I would feel fair to say so myself as Canadian living in a country born out of free will. I guess the question now becomes, what truly is independence if it means you have to essentially accept on terms that you nor I can be blamed for when it comes to something as certain as war. They will elect a leader, no matter what the outcome, war is a measure of that vote for the price of freedom, correct me if I'm wrong.
re; Vegas
you know, Obama sounds really good.
. . . yes, however when you think about what I wrote means^ above. . . that's precisely how we perceive American politics, and American voters at the polls are happy with just believing that is true without really knowing the difference besides what they hear given to them. "Obama - might - be good". Are we sure, based on what exactly? We don't know.
See. I got your back, and you refuse to acknowledge it unless it's the 'safe' thing to do. You try to stay neutral, and you fear people will hate you back for it or in the least assume. That's why I love you so much. I wouldn't let anyone hurt you. Bad intentions abound. Mike was only being honest.
True you see. I would also agree that what you finished emphasizing, however, is in need of being emphasized. . . if you see where we're heading with that context. It's abysmal if otherwise. People might not be in touch with that form of thinking or unhypothesized control.
It simply reinforces this part of the argument. . .
I guess the question now becomes, what truly is independence if it means you have to essentially accept on terms that you nor I can be blamed for when it comes to something as certain as war.
When you contain that piece of information in the context of human history, then on so many levels we'd be asking, what kind of individuals are we if we call political leaders liars in deceiving what the polis-ergo-democracy truly want? If we wanted to vote for something other than war, in other words, the wool is being covered over our eyes. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Unelected leaders.
I said calculating things, doesn't make you smart especially if you can't do it for anything positive, stupid people who think they're smart are one in the same. What I meant was to give sadie a compliment. Who doesn't like hearing that they're adored?
quote:
They're definitely tired of the war. Last poll I read had 60% thinking the Iraq invasion was "a mistake." The trouble is, they don't have a choice because both candidates will want to continue the war and maybe even blunder into an even bigger "mistake" by invading Iran. McCain, as the openly pro-war candidate, doesn't have to worry about any anti-war sentiment. Even if 70% of the population is dead-set against the war, he only needs the support of about 30% of eligible voters to win the presidency. That's about what Bush got. Clinton's main obstacle is the fact that people don't vote for women. Even women don't vote for women.
If you follow this line of reasoning, this is where I become doubtless, or in the least bit confused? My reason for saying that, is in a historical context, there is no denying that every empire in history do not attempt to rest on their laurels when it gets to world dominating the political stage. The alluring aspect of war is romanticized throughout world-civilization through the centuries. However, here we listen to these present day leaders - to a lesser degree we must face adversity due to inevitable issues, such as control of a stabalized econmy no matter what the cost. To furthering solutions, there is no room for pragmatic gestation of what voters will rely on. In other words, war is contingent to any vote joe-american casts to engage in his or her democracy. The point being it is not against there will that wars will be waged, the truth is when they realize there's nothing they can do to prevent war? To be an American comes with the territory I would feel fair to say so myself as Canadian living in a country born out of free will. I guess the question now becomes, what truly is independence if it means you have to essentially accept on terms that you nor I can be blamed for when it comes to something as certain as war. They will elect a leader, no matter what the outcome, war is a measure of that vote for the price of freedom, correct me if I'm wrong.
re; Vegas
you know, Obama sounds really good.
. . . yes, however when you think about what I wrote means^ above. . . that's precisely how we perceive American politics, and American voters at the polls are happy with just believing that is true without really knowing the difference besides what they hear given to them. "Obama - might - be good". Are we sure, based on what exactly? We don't know.
See. I got your back, and you refuse to acknowledge it unless it's the 'safe' thing to do. You try to stay neutral, and you fear people will hate you back for it or in the least assume. That's why I love you so much. I wouldn't let anyone hurt you. Bad intentions abound. Mike was only being honest.
True you see. I would also agree that what you finished emphasizing, however, is in need of being emphasized. . . if you see where we're heading with that context. It's abysmal if otherwise. People might not be in touch with that form of thinking or unhypothesized control.
It simply reinforces this part of the argument. . .
I guess the question now becomes, what truly is independence if it means you have to essentially accept on terms that you nor I can be blamed for when it comes to something as certain as war.
When you contain that piece of information in the context of human history, then on so many levels we'd be asking, what kind of individuals are we if we call political leaders liars in deceiving what the polis-ergo-democracy truly want? If we wanted to vote for something other than war, in other words, the wool is being covered over our eyes. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Unelected leaders.
I found this an intersting read
Think about it guys - even the bravest man in the world still gets nervous when he is talking to a hot chick? WHY? Why does this fellow get nervous? Is he afraid of being killed? Being decapitated? Being humiliated?
Fact of the matter is that none of those things will happen. Most girls are pretty nice, they don't go around humiliating men. So why this nervousness?
I'll tell you the big secret - it's in your biology. It's an evolutionary trait, because frankly, most girls are easy.
Yes, I said it, most girls are EASY. Most girls want to mate, and indeed, most girls will mate with almost everyone. However, this is not of advantage to evolution, as it will cause poor genes to propagate themselves.
So what did evolution do? It has implanted a block in your head that makes you measure the value of a girl, and if you percieve her as being far above your value, your biology is going to tell you to not go to her. It does this by implanting nervousness in you. If you feel she is about your value, or a bit less, you will have no problems. If you percieve her as being well below your value, you will talk without caring to her - and any girl you speak to that way is going to love you madly. That's why girls love the bad boys, it's because the bad boys don't care for them, so they trick the girls dna into believing that they are going up in the evolutionary ladder.
Population control in the human animal is achieved by putting this block in mens minds from actually approaching the woman. This is because evolutionarily speaking, the girl will go with whomever speaks to her.
The more stable a society is, the more men will get this block. The less stable a society, the more aggresive the men will be. Stability means population should flatten, instability means children are needed.
How to get laid
It's simple, you have to trick this block. What you do is this - continuously tell yourself about what sluts the girl you like is, and how you will mistreat her. Make yourself hold her in contempt, you need to see her as something far below you in intelligence, ability and potential. Then with that attitude, go to where there are chicks. Don't smile at them when you talk to then, treat them like you would treat a slave - a bit stand offish so that they do not feel they have the right to mingle with a superior being.
Women love that shit. I used to read a lot of Mills and Boons when I was younger (NO YOU ARE A FAGGOT), and the men are invariably described as Arrogant and self asssured. You never hear of the man with the soft voice and gentle smile. It's always that man that assumes he is god that frustrates, yet spreads the legs of the heroine.
Speaking of Mills & Boons, I remember this one episode where some guy washes ashore and is resqued by a serving wench. He wakes up in the night (in some cave if I recall correctly), and proceeds to fuck the living bejeesus out of her. At the moment, I found that okay, but right now, I'm thinking to myself - WHAT A SLUT! You don't just sleep with men who wash up on beaches!
Anyways, I digress. The secret to attracting women is just pure and unadultareted arrogance. Let them shrivle under your aristocratic gaze, and they will come crawling to you with their pantyhose already dropped.
Fact of the matter is that none of those things will happen. Most girls are pretty nice, they don't go around humiliating men. So why this nervousness?
I'll tell you the big secret - it's in your biology. It's an evolutionary trait, because frankly, most girls are easy.
Yes, I said it, most girls are EASY. Most girls want to mate, and indeed, most girls will mate with almost everyone. However, this is not of advantage to evolution, as it will cause poor genes to propagate themselves.
So what did evolution do? It has implanted a block in your head that makes you measure the value of a girl, and if you percieve her as being far above your value, your biology is going to tell you to not go to her. It does this by implanting nervousness in you. If you feel she is about your value, or a bit less, you will have no problems. If you percieve her as being well below your value, you will talk without caring to her - and any girl you speak to that way is going to love you madly. That's why girls love the bad boys, it's because the bad boys don't care for them, so they trick the girls dna into believing that they are going up in the evolutionary ladder.
Population control in the human animal is achieved by putting this block in mens minds from actually approaching the woman. This is because evolutionarily speaking, the girl will go with whomever speaks to her.
The more stable a society is, the more men will get this block. The less stable a society, the more aggresive the men will be. Stability means population should flatten, instability means children are needed.
How to get laid
It's simple, you have to trick this block. What you do is this - continuously tell yourself about what sluts the girl you like is, and how you will mistreat her. Make yourself hold her in contempt, you need to see her as something far below you in intelligence, ability and potential. Then with that attitude, go to where there are chicks. Don't smile at them when you talk to then, treat them like you would treat a slave - a bit stand offish so that they do not feel they have the right to mingle with a superior being.
Women love that shit. I used to read a lot of Mills and Boons when I was younger (NO YOU ARE A FAGGOT), and the men are invariably described as Arrogant and self asssured. You never hear of the man with the soft voice and gentle smile. It's always that man that assumes he is god that frustrates, yet spreads the legs of the heroine.
Speaking of Mills & Boons, I remember this one episode where some guy washes ashore and is resqued by a serving wench. He wakes up in the night (in some cave if I recall correctly), and proceeds to fuck the living bejeesus out of her. At the moment, I found that okay, but right now, I'm thinking to myself - WHAT A SLUT! You don't just sleep with men who wash up on beaches!
Anyways, I digress. The secret to attracting women is just pure and unadultareted arrogance. Let them shrivle under your aristocratic gaze, and they will come crawling to you with their pantyhose already dropped.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
deliverance in struggling without suffering?
There is a part of me that knows about misery all to well. I suppose it happens to do with vulnerability, or the reason for me to suggest it?
In a thesis of this kind, I take for granted the maturity process one learns how to cope,
with undertaking why suffering makes us struggle for a greater good that we may establish our own free will.
So much that impacts the course of ones history, we manage to survive the outcomes in several factors.
Much more important is that in recovering from beneath the struggle, of our hardships, we punish ourselves in a trial of self-inflicted demoralization.
What we rely on is not a phantom menace of the sort we feel the need to be saved or rescued from such agony. To recognize the pain that causes you - yourself - to cope with what the solution might be.
an off the record type of truth but nevertheless truth
Do you ever get so mad, that it confuses the hell out of you why you got mad, so in doing so (the real reason for whatever the cause was) you realize it's because you needed to get that off your chest on no uncertain terms. That's exactly the kind of idea, when getting mad is 'a healthy' constructive thing rather than just hate fueled anger? What do you do (other than come on to the Internet) to recover? Is there such a thing as recovery time, or once it happens, do you just say 'did that just happen' - 'oh yeah I guess it did. . . whatever.' then you move on with your life. I think that is the best kind. It says you've come full circle as an individual is my point.
quote:
Sure, mostly when I get mad it is because I am failing to cope with a situation (most of the time not even the situation at hand).Thankfully I have learned to recognize this fact and I rarely get mad anymore.
In a thesis of this kind, I take for granted the maturity process one learns how to cope,
with undertaking why suffering makes us struggle for a greater good that we may establish our own free will.
So much that impacts the course of ones history, we manage to survive the outcomes in several factors.
Much more important is that in recovering from beneath the struggle, of our hardships, we punish ourselves in a trial of self-inflicted demoralization.
What we rely on is not a phantom menace of the sort we feel the need to be saved or rescued from such agony. To recognize the pain that causes you - yourself - to cope with what the solution might be.
an off the record type of truth but nevertheless truth
Do you ever get so mad, that it confuses the hell out of you why you got mad, so in doing so (the real reason for whatever the cause was) you realize it's because you needed to get that off your chest on no uncertain terms. That's exactly the kind of idea, when getting mad is 'a healthy' constructive thing rather than just hate fueled anger? What do you do (other than come on to the Internet) to recover? Is there such a thing as recovery time, or once it happens, do you just say 'did that just happen' - 'oh yeah I guess it did. . . whatever.' then you move on with your life. I think that is the best kind. It says you've come full circle as an individual is my point.
quote:
Sure, mostly when I get mad it is because I am failing to cope with a situation (most of the time not even the situation at hand).Thankfully I have learned to recognize this fact and I rarely get mad anymore.
The better question to ask is: can there be a moral or immoral type of suffering? What strategy can one presumably deploy into action, taking with it an effective method to concentrate itself focused. If there is a moral or immoral kind of suffering in the universe as a model, then could we also hypothetically eliminate religion as a dogma, then also pursue our own judgment that devises a strategy to cope with suffering? As result: immoral or moral suffering is a struggle of the will in itself, all things being equal to this device that exists as goal oriented behavior. The answer could in fact be true; that device which acts as a 'switch' as if turning on a light bulb. The light bulb is plugged into the device, only the device must be activated for it to work! Therefore, once you deploy the device, it is to act, in a manner that you create both an internal and external conflict. Which is the type of suffering you think of if your device is plugged or unplugged? Is it internal or is it external? This kind of reasoning would suggest: you have the choice to pursue the options simultaneously. There is no infinite variable, or supreme form of justice be it right or wrong, because the choice is only one to make/ thus it can only be yours to take it in a paradox. You cannot devise a strategy without taking on the choice you make. . . it becomes automatic. The target of such goal oriented behavior is to cause the will of suffering, then to extnguish it as a struggle, which can only depend upon the type of ellicit response in changing your potential to create devoid decision into reliable solutions. Therefore, you divide the suffering mixed together with emotions, it is then blended, transfered, and transformed into a free thinking system of opportunity to unlock the device tapped within you.
So again, we are left with the same choice repeatedly, although it may seem redundant, as though there is no point to find an answer. The question can only be which type of suffering are you? An immoral kind or a kind of moral victim of the question making you apparently indifferent to the cause. Can beauty be recognized in kind of a sense that - misery can be had - without avoid feeling it as a consequence. If you are an accomplice to such an act of fearing the most basic human emotion you can think of, misery is probably the last choice you would figure to have in mind. Therefore, we can also bare in mind that keeping to a certain set of valid beliefs with the purpose of benefiting oneself is almost utilitarian in perspective. However, it is quickly learned that any human emotion cannot be fully appreciated without the opposite of it. Instead, we learn that suffering is a healing process, other then it being seen, is such an opponent to inertia of the will.
The end (result) g-o-a-l looks like this in principle:
struggle : model
1- victory
2- device= goal oriented behavior
3- devising strategy (Moral or immoral suffering)
4- defiance of your actions (misery)
5- paradox =suffering =moral =immoral
What does one speaks of in determining fate? Is misery never an option? If we follow that course of reasoning, then pure logic will tell you something different, the difference being what some people less-recognize "gods will" ask themselves what is it known as. Gods will is not something that makes one divine, or contrite, or more attentive to such immaterial things such as we experience feeling in our everyday lives. Instead, a rather contemporary view for lack of a better term, we can define what in gods will can one participate? The meaning is simple, that insofar as you recognize misery is a force that allows you to heal itself within. It is a duty, not so much in the spiritual sense, but in the dynamic from which you place yourself in a context in our everyday life. In other words, the existence you carry on with is not dependant on one thing but to grow.
do you ever get one of those days
Where you reach a certain unexpected sense of relief where 'finally' nothing feels to be going wrong? Yeah, it's one of those days alright.
fornicating self interest
Perhaps, a quieter response would subdue my
sense of feeling inadequate?
My sense rise up,
then fall immediately into despair!
But, such silence requires a question of thought. . .
dare I think about the truth being told
that often dares to challenge my virtue.
Intelligence of such great perfection,
so excellent,
I confess to everything.
Such a return to my nest of sorrow,
for the birds to gather upon
union of natural upbringing.
Then I imagine,
how sweet the smell of sea salt.
How aroused I become,
and the world is pure in every way.
I mind this with my utmost love,
it spreads like the heaven above.
sense of feeling inadequate?
My sense rise up,
then fall immediately into despair!
But, such silence requires a question of thought. . .
dare I think about the truth being told
that often dares to challenge my virtue.
Intelligence of such great perfection,
so excellent,
I confess to everything.
Such a return to my nest of sorrow,
for the birds to gather upon
union of natural upbringing.
Then I imagine,
how sweet the smell of sea salt.
How aroused I become,
and the world is pure in every way.
I mind this with my utmost love,
it spreads like the heaven above.
The friends zone
quote: Don't get me wrong. I hope to see a democrat back in the white house. And i would prefer Obama to Clinton. Hilary is musing about attacking Iran while Obama is talking about scrapping star wars and steering America toward a more sane nuclear policy. America would still rule the world with an iron fist, and the most we can expect from Obama is that he might put the fist back in the velvet glove. Nevertheless, the fisting will continue.
Simply because a democrat makes it to the whitehouse may as well equate whereas Obama-itis / re-branding of American democracy. Seriously speaking about Hillary is like thinking of an American Margret Thatcher carries substance to it, seeing that American's are coming off 2 successive Republican presidency's. (Ronald Regan loved Thatcher's conservative policies.) I honestly think Hillary has lost her edge, be it by media and lost confidence in her fellow democrats for office. That is in observing what you make of a soft-style campaign, because John Kerry wanted to put the screws down when running against Bush. Guess what? Kerry totally backfired, because American's didn't want a loud message coming across. I think about it as hyper-sensitive focus on Kerry's part, but he had guts, and I liked that about Kerry even though it cost him the presidency. As for Al Gore before Bush became president, the minds of American's were built on Clinton, and Hillary just can't work that kind of democratic campaign today as Gore did running against Bush. Bush heading into office was a blind-sided victory, and it changed the course of history. Mind you if it weren't for Hillary-iron-lady image I think American's would actually vote for Hillary if the Clinton-esque magic hadn't worn off. For Hillary this is about bad timing, because the brain-trust aligning democrats forces are focused on delivering: "American's from being targetted as vermin of the free world" campaign. Therefore, democrats won't repeat the same campaign trail as Kerry did marching to the beat of his own drum, American's didn't buy into it, they wanted to be lullabied. . . Kerry probably would have been president. We can be sure that Obama is winning only because Hillary had to mimic Obama's acting "softer" approach to politics, however, it doesn't mean that Obama is smarter than she is. Hillary is losing this battle against Obama's status-quo image. You can be sure it's not the way Hillary intended to run for president.
Simply because a democrat makes it to the whitehouse may as well equate whereas Obama-itis / re-branding of American democracy. Seriously speaking about Hillary is like thinking of an American Margret Thatcher carries substance to it, seeing that American's are coming off 2 successive Republican presidency's. (Ronald Regan loved Thatcher's conservative policies.) I honestly think Hillary has lost her edge, be it by media and lost confidence in her fellow democrats for office. That is in observing what you make of a soft-style campaign, because John Kerry wanted to put the screws down when running against Bush. Guess what? Kerry totally backfired, because American's didn't want a loud message coming across. I think about it as hyper-sensitive focus on Kerry's part, but he had guts, and I liked that about Kerry even though it cost him the presidency. As for Al Gore before Bush became president, the minds of American's were built on Clinton, and Hillary just can't work that kind of democratic campaign today as Gore did running against Bush. Bush heading into office was a blind-sided victory, and it changed the course of history. Mind you if it weren't for Hillary-iron-lady image I think American's would actually vote for Hillary if the Clinton-esque magic hadn't worn off. For Hillary this is about bad timing, because the brain-trust aligning democrats forces are focused on delivering: "American's from being targetted as vermin of the free world" campaign. Therefore, democrats won't repeat the same campaign trail as Kerry did marching to the beat of his own drum, American's didn't buy into it, they wanted to be lullabied. . . Kerry probably would have been president. We can be sure that Obama is winning only because Hillary had to mimic Obama's acting "softer" approach to politics, however, it doesn't mean that Obama is smarter than she is. Hillary is losing this battle against Obama's status-quo image. You can be sure it's not the way Hillary intended to run for president.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
branding through generosity
an off the record type of truth but nevertheless truth
Do you ever get so mad, that it confuses the hell out of you why you got mad, so in doing so (the real reason for whatever the cause was) you realize it's because you needed to get that off your chest on no uncertain terms. That's exactly the kind of idea, when getting mad is 'a healthy' constructive thing rather than just hate fueled anger? What do you do (other than come on to the Internet) to recover? Is there such a thing as recovery time, or once it happens, do you just say 'did that just happen' - 'oh yeah I guess it did. . . whatever.' then you move on with your life. I think that is the best kind. It says you've come full circle as an individual is my point.
quote: aw, that's the nicest thing you've ever said to me
I've always liked you and you know it. You've just always been super protective over your emotions, because that's what people in pain do, a built in mechanism that's not their own fault. I've always been a person that fights for a certain cause that people don't have the resource to do themselves. It drives my ego, it sparks my will, it fuels my desires. My heart says yes, and my head says no.
You're opposite sadie, you use your head in wise manner, you project things that if you choose to act on it means = 'yes'. You don't blow caution into the wind. On the other hand you're heart says 'no' when it comes to something you might really want but you're too afraid to feel the fear if it risks being hurt. As for me, I know this about you, and it drives me crazy because you would never let me in the way I'd want. I'm not stupid, only human.
Do you ever get so mad, that it confuses the hell out of you why you got mad, so in doing so (the real reason for whatever the cause was) you realize it's because you needed to get that off your chest on no uncertain terms. That's exactly the kind of idea, when getting mad is 'a healthy' constructive thing rather than just hate fueled anger? What do you do (other than come on to the Internet) to recover? Is there such a thing as recovery time, or once it happens, do you just say 'did that just happen' - 'oh yeah I guess it did. . . whatever.' then you move on with your life. I think that is the best kind. It says you've come full circle as an individual is my point.
quote: aw, that's the nicest thing you've ever said to me
I've always liked you and you know it. You've just always been super protective over your emotions, because that's what people in pain do, a built in mechanism that's not their own fault. I've always been a person that fights for a certain cause that people don't have the resource to do themselves. It drives my ego, it sparks my will, it fuels my desires. My heart says yes, and my head says no.
You're opposite sadie, you use your head in wise manner, you project things that if you choose to act on it means = 'yes'. You don't blow caution into the wind. On the other hand you're heart says 'no' when it comes to something you might really want but you're too afraid to feel the fear if it risks being hurt. As for me, I know this about you, and it drives me crazy because you would never let me in the way I'd want. I'm not stupid, only human.
Calculating risk in the absent age of reason
Failure: this is congruent to the belief I encounter if seeing one's true faith were blind in gods eyes.
Failure is something that is not testing the will or facing fear. It is a virtue. The meaning behind failure, is a difference that exists, most people that deny failure in their everyday lives hold impartial against it.
In order to see a clear and vibrant way of living, to lead one's life is to feel that failing in anything is a opportunity to grow. Yet, in a world dominated by fear of failing, so much of it depends not upon rate of success, but, rather it depends on the willing to fail. Mistakes are not independent of failure. When you slice into a fraction - part of the fraction is failure, with other half - the will to succeed - in what you believe will make you better, what fraction could possibly make you decide which is the denominator to cause you from failing? Can you prevent failure? Should you increase that imaginary power to prevent it? What if you took the part of the fraction you were sure was the 'success' piece of the fraction, that it'd ensure you unending success without failing? You probably would take the piece of the fraction that denominates failure from success.
The main point being that even if such a fraction did in fact exist, you could not possibly get to it without accepting failure in the due diligence of gratifying success.
Therein lay the difference between seeing people in life that are determined to succeed, but completely reject the idea that failing has none if any place in determining what measure of success is. Failure becomes their fear in a situation, whereas one's own worst enemy.
Failure is something that is not testing the will or facing fear. It is a virtue. The meaning behind failure, is a difference that exists, most people that deny failure in their everyday lives hold impartial against it.
In order to see a clear and vibrant way of living, to lead one's life is to feel that failing in anything is a opportunity to grow. Yet, in a world dominated by fear of failing, so much of it depends not upon rate of success, but, rather it depends on the willing to fail. Mistakes are not independent of failure. When you slice into a fraction - part of the fraction is failure, with other half - the will to succeed - in what you believe will make you better, what fraction could possibly make you decide which is the denominator to cause you from failing? Can you prevent failure? Should you increase that imaginary power to prevent it? What if you took the part of the fraction you were sure was the 'success' piece of the fraction, that it'd ensure you unending success without failing? You probably would take the piece of the fraction that denominates failure from success.
The main point being that even if such a fraction did in fact exist, you could not possibly get to it without accepting failure in the due diligence of gratifying success.
Therein lay the difference between seeing people in life that are determined to succeed, but completely reject the idea that failing has none if any place in determining what measure of success is. Failure becomes their fear in a situation, whereas one's own worst enemy.
taking my life back again
Earlier this week I saw my family doctor in a public place, which I was happy to greet him. The moment I shared was genuine and sincere. I always admired my doctor since I was a boy. It's been over 30 years since our family doctor has taken care of my family.
Dr. Fuzeta reminds me of what it means to be in the position I am today. If it weren't for him, I am very grateful for his kindness toward me. Dr. Fuzeta is more than a Phd. he is a friend I can trust.
Today I look at my life in a renewed manner. My doors are set wide open. I can feel my sense of wanting to be the person I always thought I could be. When I needed someone to help me find a way, Dr. Fuzeta was the man that was there to guide me.
Dr. Gordon has allowed me to re-train that part of me within the past. There was a time I had the wrong friends and grew intolerant of others. However, today Dr. Gordon has helped clear my mind in living a better life. I still have flaws, but nothing I can't control.
Dr. Fuzeta reminds me of what it means to be in the position I am today. If it weren't for him, I am very grateful for his kindness toward me. Dr. Fuzeta is more than a Phd. he is a friend I can trust.
Today I look at my life in a renewed manner. My doors are set wide open. I can feel my sense of wanting to be the person I always thought I could be. When I needed someone to help me find a way, Dr. Fuzeta was the man that was there to guide me.
Dr. Gordon has allowed me to re-train that part of me within the past. There was a time I had the wrong friends and grew intolerant of others. However, today Dr. Gordon has helped clear my mind in living a better life. I still have flaws, but nothing I can't control.
Monday, May 12, 2008
magical pistons
There is a dichotomy of sorts that I need to express:
The paradox is as follows:
Great things come to those who wait?
The meaning in the above rests in a decision of mind. . .
it can be divided into 2 independent variables.
x = the past
q = the present
if q, therefore y.
y ~ future.
The clearest example of this paradox can be explained in a dichotomy. The dichotomy presented herein is an example of mystery in being. To be or not to be, is the classic most read and perhaps least understood of Shakespeare's Hamlet. Hamlet is dealing with the death of his father, and subsequently trying to overcome the melancholy of an identity crisis. Hamlet's struggle is based on a dichotomy in being. The question, as Shakespeare intended its meaning was actually a paradox in reasoning whether the truth of being as opposed to rejecting the self entirely. Therefore, an identity crisis is Hamlet's ultimate resource in what answer might possess the future, essentially, Hamlet is asking himself what will happen to him nor does he knowingly predict it.
The most profound distinction of this mystery in being, relates to my own sense of self in the matter of my personal history that I illustrate. My example, as per my own heightened awareness in hindsight, that past events somehow have shaped my life? The true answer that I can reveal, is in the choices that I made in past events, in no way shape my future events. It is the nature of my virtue contingent with my own personal being. My question, ultimately follows, a path I parody my trip backwards into a time gone by. That as I created in experiences throughout my life, I relate with my being into a present state of mind.
In conclusion to the paradox of being, much the same way we've learned from Shakespeare's question in relation to being, everything you do as an observer of there is a dichotomy of what you do as an end resulting in being.
The paradox is as follows:
Great things come to those who wait?
The meaning in the above rests in a decision of mind. . .
it can be divided into 2 independent variables.
x = the past
q = the present
if q, therefore y.
y ~ future.
The clearest example of this paradox can be explained in a dichotomy. The dichotomy presented herein is an example of mystery in being. To be or not to be, is the classic most read and perhaps least understood of Shakespeare's Hamlet. Hamlet is dealing with the death of his father, and subsequently trying to overcome the melancholy of an identity crisis. Hamlet's struggle is based on a dichotomy in being. The question, as Shakespeare intended its meaning was actually a paradox in reasoning whether the truth of being as opposed to rejecting the self entirely. Therefore, an identity crisis is Hamlet's ultimate resource in what answer might possess the future, essentially, Hamlet is asking himself what will happen to him nor does he knowingly predict it.
The most profound distinction of this mystery in being, relates to my own sense of self in the matter of my personal history that I illustrate. My example, as per my own heightened awareness in hindsight, that past events somehow have shaped my life? The true answer that I can reveal, is in the choices that I made in past events, in no way shape my future events. It is the nature of my virtue contingent with my own personal being. My question, ultimately follows, a path I parody my trip backwards into a time gone by. That as I created in experiences throughout my life, I relate with my being into a present state of mind.
In conclusion to the paradox of being, much the same way we've learned from Shakespeare's question in relation to being, everything you do as an observer of there is a dichotomy of what you do as an end resulting in being.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
bad habits in the same context
There's a myth that tells us, something about the way we react in certain situations, whereas the metaphysical world which is our own.
Perhaps, the world appears as it does a fair modesty? In the actual reality I live, sometimes
the meaning of the faith nourishing me gets indisposed of, as if a metaphor were in place, that is to say the opening of doors leads me to understand my inner being as if opposite were an image of myself, telling me to say different things or take action based on my perspective as result of an event in actual time. Nothing can refer back to the memory, it is a purpose touching down toward gravity all the same. This is what I propose as my interior exposing itself onto a greater good, an end that nothing else in its place can decipher, that only time will tell what in effect can actually happen. The becoming of such a methodology, I am speaking of in terms of a very perceptive individualizing of the self into a complex information, the psyche depicts what is going on in its surrounding area. This I can describe is an awareness of intimate proportions. A level of significance in the idea of living with a sixth sense, thereabout the apparatus of mind if taking in voluntary responses knowingly succeeds the effort in its place. The presumption of an incoming message to the brain activating on an acute knowledge to that end in sight, views the projected inference of mind, without realizing the consequence of the body that has weight as a gravitating independent piece of the reality I face.
This is a special kind of awareness, a certainty of metaphysical knowledge that only few possess, and I have become aware of in the process and portrayal of me being aware of it - in itself.
Metaphysical orientation within the reality of this physical world, is a realm of possibility tying together the body's reflecting of a world within doubt, not a world reflecting on its own. The metaphysical aspect of this is not a method or control, it is an offspring of probable causes that remain in tact and spiral into a known yet unknown variable. The variable does not change, the depiction of the variable is only familiar to the objective desire, an end result is not the change in and of itself.
This in theory works to manifest a challenge of creating will, disposition, concentration, and the decision to work out every moment that exceeds the common interest of man, which is to say for every unknown variable the idea that demonstrates the variable in itself, then, will turn toward a greater good known only to the self.
It is of a conceding interest that metaphysical union of mind, is a inertia of the will.
Also, to illustrate the inner dynamic between outer intervention, the form of these variables take shape in a construction of duality. That is to say, the double of you, becoming the singularity of vision taking place is simultaneous. You are happening in the event in time in everywhere possible in a fraction of ultimate proximity only you can merit.
Once this is a reality of testing variables, the truth can only surmise into knowing what is in the universe as a model, awareness is in knowing what virtue.
As character x, I am q. Character x. Therefore q.
In the following story:
x = q.
q ~ is an independent variable.
You are the independent variable.
If q. Then x. Therefore q.
The goals of intent, achievement, awareness, perception, intuition, pure reason, autonomy, judgment, genius, instinct, judgment, all of these are things directly associate with material imposition.
Perhaps, the world appears as it does a fair modesty? In the actual reality I live, sometimes
the meaning of the faith nourishing me gets indisposed of, as if a metaphor were in place, that is to say the opening of doors leads me to understand my inner being as if opposite were an image of myself, telling me to say different things or take action based on my perspective as result of an event in actual time. Nothing can refer back to the memory, it is a purpose touching down toward gravity all the same. This is what I propose as my interior exposing itself onto a greater good, an end that nothing else in its place can decipher, that only time will tell what in effect can actually happen. The becoming of such a methodology, I am speaking of in terms of a very perceptive individualizing of the self into a complex information, the psyche depicts what is going on in its surrounding area. This I can describe is an awareness of intimate proportions. A level of significance in the idea of living with a sixth sense, thereabout the apparatus of mind if taking in voluntary responses knowingly succeeds the effort in its place. The presumption of an incoming message to the brain activating on an acute knowledge to that end in sight, views the projected inference of mind, without realizing the consequence of the body that has weight as a gravitating independent piece of the reality I face.
This is a special kind of awareness, a certainty of metaphysical knowledge that only few possess, and I have become aware of in the process and portrayal of me being aware of it - in itself.
Metaphysical orientation within the reality of this physical world, is a realm of possibility tying together the body's reflecting of a world within doubt, not a world reflecting on its own. The metaphysical aspect of this is not a method or control, it is an offspring of probable causes that remain in tact and spiral into a known yet unknown variable. The variable does not change, the depiction of the variable is only familiar to the objective desire, an end result is not the change in and of itself.
This in theory works to manifest a challenge of creating will, disposition, concentration, and the decision to work out every moment that exceeds the common interest of man, which is to say for every unknown variable the idea that demonstrates the variable in itself, then, will turn toward a greater good known only to the self.
It is of a conceding interest that metaphysical union of mind, is a inertia of the will.
Also, to illustrate the inner dynamic between outer intervention, the form of these variables take shape in a construction of duality. That is to say, the double of you, becoming the singularity of vision taking place is simultaneous. You are happening in the event in time in everywhere possible in a fraction of ultimate proximity only you can merit.
Once this is a reality of testing variables, the truth can only surmise into knowing what is in the universe as a model, awareness is in knowing what virtue.
As character x, I am q. Character x. Therefore q.
In the following story:
x = q.
q ~ is an independent variable.
You are the independent variable.
If q. Then x. Therefore q.
The goals of intent, achievement, awareness, perception, intuition, pure reason, autonomy, judgment, genius, instinct, judgment, all of these are things directly associate with material imposition.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
faith in testing
I imagine a thing. This is a world if we did not brand. What if instead of jesus, instead there was another. The point being, would we recognize this if it were true? Probably not. Therefore, in misguided effort, what if in reality everything we saw had no name, such as the make of a car that had nothing to identify it other that what we saw.
Are you king of the jews?
Jesus: You have said so.
(Both share in laughter. . .)
Jesus: no war.
(further laughter continues.)
Are you king of the jews?
Jesus: You have said so.
(Both share in laughter. . .)
Jesus: no war.
(further laughter continues.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)