the whole quote thing is messed up, but I need to go now
fortuitous:occurring by happy chance.
Can you point to an example of a 'happy chance?'
in New York ,there was a guy who shot a woman,but it was a mystery why...
he said," I'm so sorry, I wanted to shoot my wife, but forgot my glasses."
the all-wise mind permits us any absurdity [/quote]
So you are dividing the all-wise mind from 'us'.
Are you saying that God permits humans of any absurdity?
Or are you saying that you permit 'yourself' of any absurdity?
(as you can see, you write in a way that leaves different interpretations open, none of which seem to relate very directly to the thread's topic)[/quote]
I'm saying: should it worry Cosmos if we act the Goat ,or fall, in our poisonous circle?
yet power is given to all self-believers.
And is it good to believe in your self?
(I can't tell if your notion of self-belief and 'power' is pejorative or not)[/quote]
it looks like you are trying to push me in directions.I'm not saying what is good,here,do I?
I say, believe in yourself altruistically and your eventualities will be equal to your ability...no more.
everyone would like to be a God. Some have not conceived the possibility; others haven't the desire.
I am a lover of humanity.
So does that mean you have the desire to be God, and that others should desire what you desire?[/quote]
the Ecstatic Stoic is largely indifferent to praise or blame but makes no virtue of it; he doeth whatever he does and asks none to accept unless he so desires. he will say: "this I believe, but I would that you believe differently, as your actions are different".
if God exists at all ,then all is his will and there seems no outlet, even in death.also, and equally,I am at least a descendant and related to God: may be even as a child who grows up,leaves his parents, becomes independant and may superseed them.
His sole effort is to do no injury to others.
Didn't you say that we should snub the fortunate? Isn't snubbing people injurious to them?[/quote]
I'm merely saying that to myself, to get the right attitude going, saying directly that there is work to be done. [/quote]
Well, I wouldn't call your choice in communication 'direct'
But let me get this straight:
Are you saying that we must snub the somewhat random opportunities for pleasure, the happy chances for carefree indulgence, in order to do work? That we must snub the things that distract us from our work?[/quote]
most things I write contains a whole,when you do not immediately get it, than try considering the whole of what I've expressed, and you more likely will find a balanced idea.
the first sentence(snub the fort...) is the balanced composition of what follows. I open with strong suggestions.always strong suggestions.
I try to eliminate an openly expressed belief.because I believe it will be short-circuited.
he is acceptive of Nature and mainly negative to Man.
Why don't you see man as part of nature?[/quote]
I do see that.
No knowledge would apart us from the virtues of non-existence but that for man [/quote]
Bert, this little sentence in particular is an example of what I think is very inappropriate language for a discussion forum. The ambiguity with which you write makes conversation very difficult, it atrophies the flow, and dilutes the focus of the thread. This is because your posts, if they are to be understood (at least by me) require many more posts of inquiry from me, and these posts from me are attempts at uncovering the meaning of your initial expressions, which, after the thread-stifling analysis, seem to be merely some very basic points, one's which did not require the cryptic language, and one's which do not really relate much to the thread.
Are you interested in having a clear discussion that is directly related to the main topic? If so, I suggest you make a greater effort to write in a way that minimizes multiple possible meanings.
Don't get me wrong, I believe there is a time and a place for ambiguity and cryptic expressions - but I find with you the ambiguity is perpetual, and in the case of "fortuitous, happy chances, and snubs" the meaning of what you are saying, after the analysis, is pretty mundane and doesn't require the veil of uncommon word usage. Let's keep things simple, at least at first. [/quote]
I respect your intrests.and you (as almost with anyone) have (secure) arguments for yourself as to why this or that. but believe me,I know quite well what I'm into. I do all this as an Ecstatic Stoic.
Man leads two lives, imagery and a more or less real. he has marked preferences for his suppositions ; he fears or begrudges everything that makes him feel inferior and therefore grasps everything that gives him a sense of superiority.Man, as standing unpretensiously for what he is, is inferior to none - beast,man,God; which makes the whole thing an absurdity. Man lies to defeat his defects; he deceives a few, but himself mostly; paradoxically , because he is actually far more than his pretences. he who 'pretensiously' says he is God, says far less than the truth. his syntax is at fault... he is only what he formulates as be-livable as God.
as you (as far as I remember)also more or less suggested in the 'language thread' about poetry, language now is pefect for poetry.I can say lots of other things about language but that would again be off-topic and so on..
yes, discussions with me may be considered difficult.
- having become involved with disease, all his food poisonous; his complete process of permeating is inevitable that he may become again healthy.
It seems to me that you aren't really accepting of man's nature, nor do you see him as equal to you, but rather, you, being discontented with the ways of man, want to change his nature into that which you regard as superior.[/quote]
yeahyeahyeah,I know that story.yet some have to indulge for years into the writings of important writers before they can really grasp what they are talking about,and then still...
first of all, your sentence is at fault and there already begins the humbug.it's acceptive not accepting. being acceptive of nature means that he accepts
nature for what it is.(man's nature).so he also accepts the nature that is within man.no greater evidence to that than my 500 posts, in which I mainly explain exactly this: of finding out what I am doing.
the net of Space enwraps us, its meshes are close when our contraceptives are evil. here is hilarity: we forecast ourselves! what do you expect to be, in inverse ratio to your pretensions?
some people are uneasy with my absorptions with the spirit world,with its labyrinthian darkness.I am a humanist who understand the darker side of human nature quite well,maybe too well, with its atavistic forces, that once they surface , spread like a prairie fire.the portrayals of elementals,devils,etc. were never a reflection of a diseased mind,but a graphic warning that it is man's mind which is diseased, making him an enemy to himself and others.
Do you believe in a soul that reincarnates? Or do you believe that the body of causality which created you, is the same which will create future persons, and thus future persons, are, in a sense, you?
can I say yes to both?[/quote]
Who can stop you?
Look Bert, I realize that what you're saying does
in some very indirect way relate to the theme of this thread, but I would prefer if you would pay greater heed to focusing and contributing to the topic directly.
Now don't get too put off, for I would
like you to answer my latest questions so we can continue what we've started.
I'm just saying, next time; be more careful how you respond to a thread. Make an effort to express simple things with simple language, ones which attempt to focus the thread, rather than dilute it.[/quote][/quote]
I wouldn't know what to say about testosteron,etc. I rely on delphic means for my answers,which come directly from the Soul. in that way the dualities do not obstruct with associations that involve infinite complexities and much education.existence is a continuation of self-realization.to create value where there is none.