The Respect Crisis

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by Lava, Jan 11, 2005.

  1. duendy Registered Senior Member

    yes, reespect how we are taught to believe it via school, mass media etc is all about cow towing to authority, NOT the deep integrity one MUSt have to really respect

    realy respect is for the Deep life, which includes death, and sees RIGHT through falsness. sees through these silly American films, for example, where a gun demands respect in the made up slick version of reality they offer with all the slick cuts. no borin bits, no awkward silences, farts,....general absurdities of life that makes it so human and real
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    But a few confused messages from you said otherwise, Mr Invert.

    Its the first reactive seconds I look for, all else is rationalization and intellect.

    So true.
    So you can't orchestrate anything for long, can you?- the ‘morons’ and ‘idiots’ and ‘fucking whore!’ all bleed into each other and get boring.

    "Sticks and stones", my ass- words DO hurt and last longer, but require that the person stating them mean something to you, which is why 10 in 10 here can say what the Cole Grey just did:
    He'll respect what an "otherwordly intellect" says about him, because he means something - but a forumite? Never!

    What's more, an acknowledgement of truth requires shame- you see yourself as the person sees you and recognize that he's right.
    So you listen and reciprocate, he sees something and you wonder at it- you're no longer fighting just to fight, but to find out.
    You respect.

    Anything else is vituperative nonsense, and downgrades to the fight for fight's sake you felt in the other thread that’s so common around here.

    But I'll get you next time! Muha-ha.
    You didn't think so at first, that's the window period.

    Damn you saw it!
    You don't miss anything, do you?
    You wouldn't.

    You could palaver about being oppressed or forced into the role of gallantry and courtesy, but you really DO cringe at hurting others or being seen in a bad light.

    You've been insulated too long to be "mean", its your nature to not be.
    And if you were, you'd devour yourself with guilt for it.

    How simple to blame your nature on the media.
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2005
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member


    Confusion is hardly a corner.
    So, because I didn't immediately strike back with furious force this means that I 'have no balls'?
    Doesn't it take balls to try to understand what is happening and why rather than just immediately follow those defensive instincts that cry out for vengeance?
    Doesn't it take courage to attempt to clear up potential misunderstanding before pissing in the wind? Animals piss all over themselves to mark themselves with their hormones. This is instinct. Territorial pissings. Is it courageous to mindlessly follow instinct?

    And, as to the attacks being convincing, it wasn't the attacks that I was confused about, it was the motivation behind them. And, it was the respect that I have for you as a person that prompted me to seek beyond the obvious reasons and look for something deeper. And I was right. I didn't predict exactly why you were attacking me, but I did predict that it wasn't what it appeared to be.

    And what if I had been wrong? What if you had turned on me? And were attacking just to attack? In this case would my respect be a weakness? It would prevent me from lashing back effectively. It would cause me to interpret your motives in a more altruistic manner than I would with someone whom I respect less and thus open myself up to damage that others are unable to inflict.

    So, this respect is a dangerous thing. But such is life. I'd have it no other way.

    Boring. Yes. *Yawn*
    What an excellent defense mechanism. Become bored and bulletproof.

    I'd guess that the ratio is a bit lower. Perhaps even as low as 9 in 10. At the least 2 in 50. There are those who have no respect for anyone or anything in here, but those who are more human cannot but help but find someone who they respect and care about. If they stick around long enough that is.

    That is an interesting phrase, isn't it? He could only be made to feel bad by an 'otherworldly intellect'? He must be nice and safe behind that particular fortification.

    Shame. Yes. Respect for another's words means that one opens oneself to pain when those words are not complimentary. And shame is a painful thing for most to bear. Therefore they simply blow it off as boredom. "Yawn," they say, "You bore me." What safe little lives they have behind their wall. Whichever wall it may be in their particular case.

    I am the All-Seeing Eye!
    Heh. Anyway, I wasn't the only one that was initially confused by your motivations. Was I?

    Being seen in a bad light? Only by those whom I respect.
    And as to matters of oppression and gallantry, palaver is perhaps the right word. I was just talking about them. Not believing in them. Not in the way of being forced into anything. Not by seeing myself as a victim. I am what I am, is the expression. And I believe it. I own myself.
    Respect thyself before you can respect others.

    And about hurting others. You know me well enough to know that I'm not inherently cruel. I don't like causing pain for no reason. However, there are times when causing pain is the choice to make help someone. But causing pain is painful to the self if done honestly and therefore is only undertaken for those who don't 'bore' me.

    Insulated is right. Wrapped in layers and layers of indifference. I've let no one near enough to care to cause them pain in quite some time. And old habits die hard.
    As to guilt. I don't know if I'd call it 'devouring myself'. Maybe just a bit of gnawing in the recesses of my heart.


    Because they don't want to know someone's truth. They want to be comfortable. And comfort requires comfortable input from others.

    "How do you?"
    "Quite well, sir. And you?"
    "Oh, indubitably. And your wife?"
    "Marvelously well, sir. And yours?"
    "Splendid. And your oldest son? I've heard from grapevine that he's a homosexual."
    "WHAT!! How DARE you, SIR!! Your wife is a fat cow! And your mother smells of elderberries."

    What is interesting is how people's opinions aparently change so drastically when the gloves are off. From nice polite little rabbits to slobbering wolves these peoples change. From pleasantries to dire insults. Which is the truth? Neither. Both are defense mechanisms. Both are lies. Both are deceitful emissaries sent out from behind fortifications into a hostile and fearful world.

    They want a comfortable assurance that they are in a comfortable place with comfortable people and comfortable ideas. Comfortable comfort comforting beneath a comfortable comforter.

    That was my point. But, then the point of the question would be lost. It's not the words that are sought but rather the assurance of pleasantries.


    I think that they can. In another thread--I forget which at the moment--someone uses a definition of ignorant that I rather like and have never quite seen before. Ignorant is one who ignores. Purposefully, for whatever reason.
    In other words, the person knows that the insulting other is speaking truth, at least a touch of truth, but ignores that knowledge because they prefer safety to truth.

    And to safeguard their safety and opinion they ignored the opinion of the other and their own reciprocal echo of that criticism within. If they honestly don't feel the inner echo then I don't think that ignorant would apply.


    Because people aren't looking for honest criticism nor are they really looking to make themselves better people. They are merely wanting to flow through life like a babbling brook. A pleasant spring day on the lawn with a picnic basket and not an ant in sight.

    Ignoring it is too easy and is just as hostile as aggression towards it.
    There is no insult worse than indifference.

    And, also consider that no matter how much you respect a person, one does not always immediately accept harsh criticisms of oneself. Sometimes it takes a bit of fire to burn it past your immediate impulse to ignore it. This is where respect comes in.

    Some would speak of respect in broad sweeping strokes. That respect is a weakness because the modern world feels that all deserve it. That every man is deserving of respect. Perhaps that is what you feel? If so, I cannot respect that as it breaks respect down to an obligation that is meaningless. Respect can only be given to those who earn it. I think that you might be confusing respect with politeness. They are quite different. In fact, politeness can be the ultimate form of disrespect.

    Cole Grey

    What about someone who is not a child or has the capability to not think as a child and yet does? Someone who you know can be more than what he is but is safe and secure behind his childish thinking? They consistenly ignore your every polite criticism. Maybe a 'moron' or two might cut through the boredom and bring their attention to bear?

    Would it be a weapon if used in such a manner?

    Ah. There it is. I knew I read this somewhere.
    Nice thought, Cole. Kudos.
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. an>roid.v2 Registered Senior Member

    Yes -- it's respectable... as in "caution", if it has the potential to threaten one's own. Or, as in "consideration" for its capacity to threaten one's own. Or even as in "discrimination" for its attested threat to one's integrity. But isn't that type of respect a distant one? - a gauging from a safe distance, from behind a shadow, behind a tree?

    I still maintain, in my dealings with people - and I've experienced it with a few, that at a certain point "power" is no longer an issue; integrity is. And what's so neat about this is that integrity is one's unique individuality, one's own character, one's only presence -- hardly something to maintain a quasi-mutual balance of power over... unless your objective is a hidden one, such as the eventual overthrowing of that "integrity".
  8. an>roid.v2 Registered Senior Member

    Precisely. As a kid, and even now, I learnt quickly to respect certain individuals, dangerous people, harmful people -- harmful to my own being, my integrity -- for it is with that integrity that I would eventually follow my own path. So their threats were not only located in the present, but also in the future. And who likes taking bloody detours, right?

    But did I really respect them? Not at all. I tolerated them. However, I never underestimated their ill will.
  9. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Safe, but not untouchable. It is fairly effective until I know enough about a person to understand their motives and feel compassion, at which point it becomes unnecessary to use this defense. Also, it isn't necessary to use all the time, as a deep scratch or bite here and there can wake us up from the semi-conscious state we are often in, and that is desirable. If we stay behind the walls we stagnate.

    My #1 question right now - How do we find motivation in indifference? I understand the freedom it can bring, and conservation of energy. But if you are, or I am, so indifferent, how do you replace the creation of energy that a strong sense of desperation or excitement would bring?
    This is totally off topic, but I wouldn't even know where to post this, and your description of yourself is too close to the question for me to pass up raising it.

    A scalpel.
    But you make an assumption as to their readiness to comprehend your truth, as "true" as it may be.
    I would say there is a difference between respecting a person, and respecting a particular point of view the person has. "Moron" is quite a different word than "moronic" is.
    Example: I say that pure selfishness as an ideal is destructive, or even "satanic", but can see that a person who holds that ideology can be quite respectable. The view may allow someone, whose sense of self would be horribly damaged by trying to fit into another person's ideas, to grow along their path until the time comes to find their own way of moving past that. In just the same way, over time, I will hopefully move past the things that block me from being fully "actualized" as a human being, the things for which I call myself moronic.

    Of course all that is dependent on having respect in the first place, in which case an epithet here and there is only rough-housing.

    And there are levels of respect...
  10. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    As you said, through excitement, through pain, through means that remove you from your dogmatic slumber (maybe dogmatic doesn't fit. But, in a way, extremities of indiffference could be seen as dogmatic. Extremities of anything could be seen as dogmatic.)

    My personal story is the introduction of excitement and wonder.
    You may note that my insulated nature is in the past. I'm no longer as insulated as once I was.
    But, as I said, old habits die hard and indifference is often the first instinct.

    Your example is a thread of its own.

    See what you did here? When speaking about other you talk about how you think that their 'selfishness' is wrong and must mean a damaged sense of self and satanism and multiple other twisted viewpoints, but when it comes to dealing with you actualizing your own potential it's about the things that you call moronic and not other.
    Who's the selfish one, exactly?

    Of course. As we all must else we'll never do anything.

    True. Moron would be one incapable of progressing.
  11. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Cole grey said - "The view may allow someone, whose sense of self would be horribly damaged by trying to fit into another person's ideas, to grow along their path until the time comes to find their own way of moving past that."
    Would be is a very important part of my sentence. Meaning that the path may be necessary for the preservation of their undamaged sense of self, in order to avoid the type of actions that occur when a person loses touch with their integrity of being. Psychosis is one possibility. Meaning - the view may be a good thing for any given individual, at any given time, and therefore I can judge only the idea, not the person.

    The point of my post was to differentiate between a person and one particular viewpoint they may have.

    Also, the ways in which I act in a "satanic" manner, do not make me a satanist, so I do not assume someone is a satanist unless they have expressed their desire to worship satan. Also, please notice my use of quotations in this, and my other post, as this "satanic", doesn't even necessarily imply the influence of a spiritual power. The current american political administration gets a big, fat, "satanic", from me sometimes, and the religious conservatives' attacks on homosexuals gets a giant, "satanic", as well.
    I used the word "moronic" at the end of my post to kind of wrap the whole post up together, but feel free to call me satanic, if I am acting that way. Especially: causing another pain for fun, pronouncing a final judgment of myself being above God, or acting in complete disconcern for anyone other than myself. (This last one I admit to doing often, so please don't think I am strictly pointing fingers at others.)
    If you are offended that I refer to these things as "satanic" you need to become a better atheist, although to me personally, you seem to be as atheistic as anyone should be and I see no need for further "growth" along that trellis.
  12. WANDERER Banned Banned

    Isn’t every human interaction a process of engagement made from a distance of speculation?

    We deduce who the other is and what he thinks of us and what he is capable of and from this we decide on how to deal with them.
    We speculate by analyzing sensual data, extrapolating hypothetical scenarios and we come to plausible truths and effective strategies.

    This is why image becomes so effective.

    And is not integrity based on or created through power balances?

    If your individuality is self-contained then why is the presence or the respect of the other even necessary?

    But you are thinking of power here as only something that is conscious or motivated.

    Power struggle is a natural state of affairs in this universe.
    This intrinsic drive is what causes decay and change and unity and deterioration.
    It is also the source of life and of consciousness.
    It occurs continuously and without the need for guidance, although the harnessing of this force makes it more potent and efficient and explains why it dominates over the unconscious or the less conscious.
    Power struggles are occurring as we speak within you and me. One drive is trying to gain control over your reason by denying it to another, while a third is trying to get itself noticed.

    Integrity is a power balance based on particular virtues constructed from external sources.
    What I consider virtuous is a result of historical, cultural and social influences but also of personal experiences and inclinations.
    Human beings have ascribed to certain character traits a superior hue as compared to others.
    They proclaim these traits as being noble and worthy of praise.
    They deify them and aspire towards them.
    These character traits are mostly ones that facilitate interpersonal relationships and advantage cooperation and social groupings.
    So they are character traits that advantage the individual within a certain environment.

    Integrity can also be a self-imposed standard governed by the minds understanding of what is essential to its well-being.
    Or a set of rules that are necessary to it maintaining a sense of meaning and self-respect.

    And what is self-respect but the intimidation derived from the fear of being disloyal to reasons dictums?
    Self-respect is instinct fearing the judgment of reason.
    Here is where shame enters.

    The defense mechanism of “indifference” is a particularly interesting one.
    It is interesting in that it contradicts itself as soon as it is presented as a fact.

    If I say I am indifferent to another’s threats I am inadvertently expressing the falsity of that statement by uttering it.
    If I am truly indifferent then no answer would be given and no attention spared.

    But when I say I ignore you or I am indifferent to your insults I am merely stating my wish to be so or my disdain about your opinions.

    Selfishness, in fact, is all there is.
    But even selfishness is a misunderstood notion, since it is based on the idea of self indulgence.
    But self is a conglomeration of drives, involved themselves in a power struggle over reason.

    When we speak of mutual respect or love or compassion we are talking about a mutually beneficial balance of power where both sides give and take in equal or near-equal doses.
    It is an acknowledgment that we are weak beings with needs and that the other possesses something we covet and are willing to pay for in kind to acquire.

    So the spiritual nature of love or compassion or communion is based on the unified acknowledgment of our humanity and our alliance against the forces that threaten to dismantle our being.
  13. an>roid.v2 Registered Senior Member

    Isn’t every human interaction a process of engagement made from a distance of speculation?

    Not always. Oftentimes, the best speculation is had while being up close and personal. But I know what you mean. Yes, we deduce, speculate, extrapolate, but at all levels, I think. How else can we climb mountains or draw pictures? Most of it is really quite innocent, though.

    Every human interaction begins with a distant speculation, yes, but it's natural since we must determine a relationship: we all harbour dissimilar head spaces. I was referring to a distant, Machiavellian regard motivated by personal greed, regardless of another's circumstance.

    As for power, power is typically an underlying cause for pretty much anything: we seek to better ourselves. Hence my question, for what?

    Is one blind to the nuances of shade and texture that colours a specific area of the personality, wishing to empower specifically that one area?

    Do we seek empowerment so as to climb that one specific mountaintop because nobody else has? Or do we simply need to look upon the world from that one particular vantage point? Or do we need to get pass it to go beyond it? Or do we need to revel at how people would react upon seeing us "on top"? Do we do it for sport? For record-setting? For prize money? For others? Or do we merely and quietly do it for ourselves? Must one annul another's entirety simply to promote a single area of the mind, to establish ourselves there, to confirm ourselves there? Doesn't that ring as overkill? But if I respect you well enough, your analytical, practical mind -- which I lack -- will be enjoyed, appreciated and even encouraged. I wouldn't seek to hinder you.

    However, much of this is already something else: human nature.

    And as you pointed out, one respects one's adversary. But is it truly the adverse person that one respects, or is it the game, or even one's own involvement in the game? One could just as well exchange that same person with any other and still the game would linger, unresolved, and the same.

    And although this power-struggle, as you call it, is a product of human relations, it is also a byproduct of a human infrastructure. Perhaps one of the crudest examples of this power-struggle is found during an auditorium fire alarm. The more powerful and audacious among the crowd will shove others aside to the ground, helter-skelter, and the rest will trample all over them to the death. These same powerful people will inspire an exacerbation of fear, and worsen an already dreadful situation because they have no sense of order, no sense of justice -- no respect. Their superior minds have no natural sense of directorship that could orchestrate order, administer justice, distribute respect, because for all their authority, they are in the end really quite average -- and average people don't direct, they charge.

    However, there is order in the universe. And there is power. I don't perceive a power-struggle in the cosmos but something a lot more sophisticated, leisurely, suave -- something a lot more powerful. A dance of integrity, propriety, logic, not unlike ballet; graceful, controlled, dynamic. And that's how I can understand to respect the boundaries of coexistence -- size, magnitude, brilliance mean different things in a boundless universe, as oppose to a nutshell. The rules change when coexistence is appreciated -- because none of it will ever go away.
  14. WANDERER Banned Banned

    Are you also android?
    Aren’t you speculating even when you are face-to-face with someone?

    Isn’t that a speculation?

    Is there such a thing as innocence?
    All human actions and thoughts are self-serving.
    When this selfishness coincides with the selfishness of another we have communion or love.

    Greed or need is all there is.
    We covet the other’s nature or the others physical or mental beauty and we want it for our own.
    When the other covets ours we have a mutually beneficial relationship.

    But if I tell you that I’m imposing my power over yours.

    Power is a tool, what you use it for is your own decision.
    There is no one answer.

    We are always attracted to what we don’t understand or what is unknown to us.
    We feel weak in comparison and we seek to remedy the situation by illuminating the darkness by approaching it or owning it.

    When we find ourselves mysterious we are attracted to someone like us, when we find the other mysterious we are attracted to what is completely unlike us.

    Nor could you.

    If you are asking me what my purpose is then my answer is that I’m a control junky.
    My motives are to gain as much control over myself-Know Thyself- and my environment as I possibly can.
    My other motive is to reach the highest pinnacle of my potential in the areas I deem to be worthy of my attentions.

    No, the game is a means the object, the other, is essential.

    I would not find any satisfaction from any interaction with someone mentally retarded and I would not find any satisfaction from physically dominating a weaker being.

    More precisely, my understanding of the other is essential.
    I speculate on who the other is and what he’s worth and then decide if engaging him or showing deference or respect is to my advantage.

    All there is, is need.
    Power is a means of satisfying need.

    ‘Order’, ‘justice’, ‘nobility’ are human constructs with no real meaning.
    Their definition is determined by cultural and social circumstances.

    That’s quit a declaration given the absence of evidence and the doubtful nature of human sensual understanding.
    What order you perceive is created in your mind.

    All there is, is flux and power is the label we use to describe the process of association between forces that interact.

    A god?

    The mind grasps for support on the outside when what it seeks is within just as much as it is without.
    If there is order and the potential for justice and nobility and honour then it is in the human mind.
    The struggle between ideas and ideologies is the struggle between interpretations of these meaningless notions.
    We struggle to bring order to the disorderly. What form this order will take is why we struggle against each other.

    Coexistence is maintained only when both sides prove they deserve to exist, in the first place.
    Integrity and propriety are the boundaries I place to your actions, in relation to my being.
    You might respect me because you know I will not tolerate you not respecting me.
    Then I become worthy of respect.
    This is my integrity.

    If I allow you to piss on me then you will lose this respect.
    You will see me as despicable and not worth the effort.

    This is why I made the comment in another thread that women that like being hit, as a means of sexual excitement, are really displaying their unworthiness for respect.
  15. Dr Lou Natic Unnecessary Surgeon Registered Senior Member

    android is a socialist nazi and an>roid.V2 is a transvestite with herpes.
    Huge difference.
  16. Dr Lou Natic Unnecessary Surgeon Registered Senior Member

    BTW, I agree with everything wanderer said on his first post in this thread. That was impressive.
    Wanderer's a pretty solid brainiac I must say.

    See the rest of you? If you were actually any good I would compliment you.
    It's not like I have some aversion to compliments. Just pick up your respective games.
  17. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Lou Natic,

    I have seen some of your posts, and if you agreed with one of my posts I would have myself checked into a psych ward.
  18. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    So it is.

    Its a disturbance that forces the question the other imposes on you otherwise left ignored for one’s comfort.
    Its easy to ignore those you don’t esteem or respect as people- it would be no different than looking on a bad or good photograph of yourself.
    The question of whether you hold the Polaroid’s opinion of you in regard is obtuse.

    But with value placed upon the object comes a revolution- you don’t just see another, you now see them seeing you which for the ego is a powerful mechanism for shame and , with it, change.

    Well, if boredom is a defense mechanism than its host is not bored.

    What a perfect little glass house to find someone in who gesticulates all their ‘boredom’- the purposeful yawn, the exaggerated eye-roll, the organized cynicism, the decorative ~nonchalance~.
    "Man, this is so fucking boooooooooooooring"
    Makes something like a goth easy prey.

    But you’re talking about the emotionally comatose, which is collateral damage from a lifetime spent in emotional, intellectual, and spiritual poverty.
    That is not so much a defense as it is a small death.

    You speak as if you no longer do this.
    The most adept at reading behaviour are those just as able to read their own.

    As for shame, its something like a tribute to another’s presence.
    So is fear.
    And both are compressed into a potent gift of Respect.

    They call this the Anus in Zimbabwe.

    Chick forgot her Ritalin.

    There’s a festival in London that captures what happens when idiots get together for a brawl:

    That said, Lou’s a stoolgrooming pigeon.


    If the v2 in the boy’s name stand for second version of the first Android, then I’ve just found the third version.
    Guess who??!!
  19. an>roid.v2 Registered Senior Member

    Why bother write so much to a transvestite with herpes? No -- I stick with my aliases for the duration of their course. Contrary to speculation, I am not a schizoid droid. Anyways, an>roid.v2 (that's me) will be leaving the scene soon -- much to everyone's delight, I'm sure. I know when I'm no longer wanted. But I knew that a long time ago, before anyone else did -- something called superior speculation, perhaps?

    Premeditation? Or simply following the proposition that is their being?

    And isn't, "Innocent? Isn't that a speculation?", a speculation? And isn't, "And isn't, 'Innocent? Isn't that a speculation?', a speculation?", a speculation? That means nothing; it's innocent.

    That's like saying we're selfish because we inhale oxygen -- otherwise known as breathing. Or that we're selfish because we're using up space on the planet -- something normally understood as existing. Or that we're selfish because we think for ourselves -- a little trick called individuality. If you must promote the idea for selfishness, why not go all the way? Along with such self-serving tactics as the obvious, why not include lying, cheating, prowling, hypocrisy, fraudulence, dishonesty, arrogance, pretense, blackmail, swagger, stuffiness, tyranny, exploitation, censure, slander, reproach, disrespect? Fear? But if you so need to hang around cover girls and lunatics and gedrunken pinchfists, albeit clever writers they may be, and absolve them with your brilliance for the sake of their innocent self-serving ways because you feel you are all one genre under God's inglorious roof, then, you're a lot more Christian than I supposed -- de-mystifyingly, and less Olympian. Or perhaps it's because you all feel yourselves lacking that you must all self-consciously defend your turf by presupposing the obvious as a basis for your "human nature" instead of "our nature". Look, I really don't care about your destinies -- but I too can speck-yew-late.

    But if you wanna hang me for being "self-serving" when all I'm doing is remaining poised, then you never understood a single word I said.

    Well, let me tell you, there's another way of appreciating others without having to covet their existence. I abhor cages -- that which stifles the song of freedom. To seek to own another's person is to seek their annihilation, unless they choose to "be" with you -- but you can't force them to sing for you.

    That sounds like stalking. Why is it that another's brilliant uniqueness inspires me, and stimulates me? It's a joy to be around them. I wouldn't dream of "owning" them -- not wishing to curtail them.

    But we are all unlike each other! We are all mysteries (some more than others, of course) -- if we would only allow it! But most people here, as I've come to -notice-, won't allow for another's "mystery" to shine thru. Look at SkinWalker. Look at Gendanken. Look at the lunatic. All victims of solophobia, eh? At least Lucysnow and Duendy appreciate mystery... because it doesn't threaten them.

    I already have: I'm practically everyone's hindrance here, haven't you been paying attention? But I have hindered you otherwise you would have understood my initial post here as a gesture of acknowledgment for your presence. God knows why you decided to take me on. But I know it has nothing to do with me. Nor with android. "Just get through with it" is what I read.

    Right -- you seek to better yourself. But what mountain are you mapping? What sea are you floating in?

    You see, I never start with the premise that another is "retarded", nor that they are "physically" weaker. I respect their beings first, then allow them to prove my respect for them. But I give people a chance. I suppose it has something to do with being an artist: we respect candidness.

    By presupposing them first without allowing them to be who they claim? But the game never begins until the game is forgotten.

    Of course -- power is a momentum, a force, a motion, an action -- but I'm not interested in that; I would rather know what a person needs -- the nuances of shade and texture that colours a specific area of the personality. What personality?

    Contemporaneously so, if I may add. But what if one finds oneself... extravagating outside the infrastructure, outside the "norm" of "reality"? What order, justice, and nobility would thence be pioneered? Don't worry -- my constructs are sound thus far -- and promising.

    And my mind is a construct of the universe. Have you already forgotten that fabulous thread we had last year? Of course.

    A boring "definition" for such a glorious performance that is the living universe, I would think. But according to you, my "sensual" understanding is not of cosmic-dust, cosmic origin, even though I am. Or are you denying that too? But so do Christians.

    So then why do you persistently begin with the premise that everything is chaos? Are you now demeaning mathematics for my sake?

    Perhaps for you. But no -- you forgot all about independence of mind. The song of freedom. The responsibility of being. The breath of free will. These things can not be approved, nor be reasons for your disapproval. They are simply a disclosure of a person's planetary interaction in time and space. Thus is how I spot another's magnitude of integrity -- it shines bright.

  20. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    Do you flourish in anything other than vouyerism?

    I understand better than you why you are posting here.
    Social “mysteries” are for the commoner who so easily romances that which he feels is not of his caste.
    His wanting to look for the peculiar in the bland or in the average in his hands becomes superstition and reverence.

    Intellect, for example, is mysterious only to one who is not intellectual as is beauty.

    How then is he any different than a Mexican peasant kissing her beads before bedtime?
    Or experiencing a spiritual high at the image of Mary in her tortilla?

    We’re not all “different, special, unique”- what is unique is this motto unique to the commoner.
  21. an>roid.v2 Registered Senior Member

    And how clearly you understand this, my dearest gebumken!
  22. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    I understand what and why you find things mysterious, Andeluded.
  23. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    This is like saying music is mysterious only to someone who doesn't understand, better than 99% of the population, how it is created. I can say that when someone reaches the levels of almost total facility in an art, they still find themselves in awe of the final step, the undefinable, the truly great, the highest. Not finding the participators in greatness mysterious, but the greatness itself. I would propose that it is the same for everything that has depth.

Share This Page