 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
It is only a contradiction if you wish to label destruction as bad and creation as good. I do not see these distinctions. Destruction is not bad, it is only
destruction...does not the blossom die to bring forth the fruit? Does not the fruit die to bring forth the seed? Does not the seed die to bring forth the tree?
you cannot even grasp what I mean. Is everything either good or bad in your perception? Is everything one side or another of a duality? Because to me everything is part of a spectrum of one thing..love.
You are using the word intent in your example differently from me in mine. Your use of intent means something that is intended. Intent on killing. I plan to kill. I use it to mean the state of one's mind at the time one carries out an action. Both definitions are correct in that the word is used both ways. One of those funny quirks of language.
Lon is intent on killing means Lon is planning to perform the action of killing.
I would ask, what is Lon's intent? And I would mean what is his state of mind at the time, not, what is he planning to do. If his state of mind is honest love then he creates love; he is a creator when her life is taken. If his state of mind is something different, hatred for example, then he destroys love: he is a destroyer when her life is taken. Of course, one could say, in the first instance he creates hate and is a creator and in the second he destroys hate and is a destroyer if one so chooses. This is a contradiction because contradictions abound in our PERCEPTION. The reason they are abundant is because in order to perceive at all there must opposites. You perceive temperature because there is hot and cold. Is hot better than cold? Or am I being silly to compare hot and cold to life and death? I contradict myself intentionally to create emphasis.
The difference between you and I is that you believe you perceive reality whereas I believe I perceive an illusion. For you life exists, and therefore death exists because of perception and one is better than the other. For me there is neither life nor death, only my perceived illusion of it.
We can toss around ideas all we want about political economics, and I will continue to do so as long as I believe it can help me alleviate suffering in those who cannot let go of their desires, but unless you let go of the idea that your perception is reality and is in some way unable to be disproved we will never be a team.
We better stick to this chess game for now.
as for the first chess move:
You repeat this over and over and I find it confusing. so my next move is only a question. Well, two questions.
Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.
By power, in this instance, you mean what? Energy? Electricity? Manpower? this power word is awfully vague.
Joe's law is certainly true if power means slaves.
By the phrase: while purchasing power increases. Do you mean while more people are buying power or while the amount of goods or services that can be purchased with a unit of currency increases? The phrase can be interpreted either way. I assume you mean the latter but I want to be certain.
Last edited on Fri Mar 29th, 2013 10:17 pm by