 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
Joe wrote:
To me that is Static Time Thinking at work, and I don't think that way as much as I once did, and I think that my future will be less Static Time Thinking and more Dynamic Time Thinking.
Does the little girl playing dress-up now have children?
Did the mom once play dress up?
That is very perceptive Joe. I had not looked at from that angle. That is a fun way to look at things!
Here is the quote again:
For Marx, capital and labor were not merely two economic categories. Capital for him was the manifestation of the past, of labor transformed and amassed into things; labor was the manifestation of life, of human energy applied to nature in the process of transforming it. The choice between capitalism and socialism (as he understood it) amounted to this: Who (what) was to rule over what (whom)? What is dead over what is alive, or what is alive over what is dead? (Cf. E. [highlight= #FFFF88]Fromm, 1961, 1968)
Joe, I haven’t understood what means from the first time you quoted it to me. I still don’t understand what it means. Is Fromm saying Marx was right or wrong? I can bearly understand it. Could one say that labor is the pretending? And the capital is the product of pretending? Will not your pretending to be an author which is the labor end up with a tangible substance called a book which will be the capital product of your labor and if you were to sell that book and that book became a best-seller the manifestation of your labor will continue to bear fruit?
Or if you just gave the book away and the ideas in the book caused other people to pretend such that reality changes, would not that reality continue to be the capital product of your labor?
To me those words convey a message that uncovers a willful effort to stupefy the victims, and of course that understanding accurately identifies the existence of criminals among us.
Who is trying to willfully stupefy who? Is capitalism that which stupefies the victims? Is capitalism the manifestation of criminal labor?
To me the concept is simple and traceable back to the source. I don't know why other people have a problem seeing this, but the connection I make is visible to me right now. Your use of the word "pretend" appears to me to be duplicitous, as if a word can mean two things at once, which to me is a patented absurdity.
Well to me, words can mean more than one thing and that is why CONTEXT is important. I think that is the limitation involved with the English language. The same word can have more than one meaning and it is within the perception of the author and the hearer to get into the same perception of the word so that communication takes place. I now understand your meaning of the word pretend. When you said you were pretending to be a friend, I heard you saying: I am really not a friend, but I am pretending to be a friend. You were saying I am doing the hard work of pretending or practicing to be a friend.
Practice makes perfect?
You think in terms of Static Time, to me, this is evident in your sentence as such:
"You can try to be mommy or daddy but you are still the kid in the end."
Well it took me 40 years to be a mommy and I did not do very much pretending during that time. And when it finally happened I have been pretending full time! I AM a mommy.
The word AM is not static to me at all. It is a word of continual being.
When God appeared to Moses in the burning bush. Moses wanted to know who to say “said so”
God’s answer:
• Exodus 3:14 KJV
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said , Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
My point here is to place in context the discovery of those words written by Marx.
Here again:
You can try to be mommy or daddy but you are still the kid in the end.
Who (what) was to rule over what (whom)?
The victims are those who are beset with Static Time thinking, and those who cause that Static Time thinking to beset those victims think Dynamically.
The living is to rule over the dead.
So John Boyd’s [‘Observes, Orients, Decides, Acts, Observes, Orients, Decides, Acts...’] Continuum is dynamic. So what is static? Trying once and then giving up?
I don't pretend that you are honest about those words Joe. I actually believe them. And if you should change your mind, and be dishonest, then I will be crushed.
Here, with me, you have nothing to worry about, but I am only one person. You may want to think dynamically as to your vulnerabilities, which constitute a weakness that other people can easily observe.
Well, it seems to me that if someone wants to crush me they have identified themselves as a dynamic enemy if they observe vulnerability and then pursue Boyd’s continuum. Hmm, I wonder what perception and observation have in common? That was a side question. So I guess what you are saying to me is that I need to use Boyd’s continuum to protect myself and that may be by removing that vulnerability from me? That vulnerability to be crushed by being lied to? To me, I would not be human if a person’s lie did not crush me. I would become a hardened person who did not care how I treated people or how they treated me. I think vulnerability sets the stage for the Golden Rule. I am willing to stick my neck out and treat you good in hopes that you will do the same in return. I am vulnerable. My neck is on the line.
Your children, your family, not just you, cannot afford to be crushed.
When they come for the Christians, I imagine we will be crushed unless The Lord has a different plan for us.
You being happy for me, could easily be misunderstood by me, as it sounds similar to me be jealous of you. That is another subject to work on, perhaps, going way off the Political Economy stuff that drives me into discussion with honest people.
I can offer, in response to you being happy for me, with a thought process that recurs, time and again, where I picture you in the garden, or feeding the kids, and you are smiling. If that is entirely in my imagination, then I am happy for me, because such a perception makes me smile. If it is real, and you are, at times, in the garden, smiling, and you are feeding the kids, and smiling, then I may be, as you say, happy for you.
Does that sound agreeable?
Yes, when we see good things happening to our friends, or we see our friends enjoying good things, or we perceive that of our friends, it makes us happy.
I AM HERE. I HAVE TO STOP NOW BECAUSE I HAVE COMPANY COMING:
I realize I am the one doing interpreting. So should I pretend something in this case?
The Bus is here, and we can sit next to each other in these seats.
If there is a problem, then there is a solution, if there is no solution, then to me it is a problem if you think there is a solution when there is no solution.
He may not like weakness he sees in me.
My suggestion at this point is for you to be the best you can be and I can't offer any other details because I am not you. I can sit on this bus, next to you, because I want to, because you are honest, and because your honest viewpoints are proving to be very valuable to me, more than I can say with words.
If you never meet anyone who challenges your faith, will that be a surprise?
You look in the mirror, figuratively, and never see someone who challenges your faith?
Ever, and life is not over yet, right?
You are here now at this period.
.
.
.
Those are strange words to me. How can you pretend to be an honest friend?
If we can agree to meanings, then the words can be random arrangements of symbols.
Example
Meaning A: Strive to reach for a goal.
Meaning B: Create and maintain a false image or False Front.
Word for meaning A is now:
Eaurp
Word for meaning B is now:
Uemm
We can stop using the word pretend completely if that word confuses the intended messages.
Those are strange words to me. How can you pretend to be an honest friend?
I can eaurp to be a friend so long as I avoid resorting to uemm.
I can pretend to be a friend, not knowing if I am one, so long as I avoid pretense of being a friend, when in my own mind I am nothing of the sort.
Dynamic thinking opens up a different perspective on how people interact with each other, in my opinion.
We are not the same person from minute to minute, so we each have a relationship with our past examples of our own beings, and we have a relationship with our future examples of our own beings, in time, relating to ourselves in time, so it stands to reason, in my opinion, that the way we interact with our own memories, and our own expectations of our own selves, affects (adversely or productively) the way we interact with other people.
Discussion on individuality in Equitable Commerce by Josiah Warren and in The Science of Society by Stephen Pearl Andrews was my introduction into Dynamic Thinking along with my reading of many words written by Fighter Pilots who explain how Dynamic Thinking works in Combat.
How about this angle:
Are you in combat with your past?
Are you in combat with your future?
If you can focus on those questions now, after this period.
Then what happens?
I'm here on the bus. I read your welcome words. I respond honestly. I hold back language that I use freely when not in your company. I hold back things that you find to be unwelcome, things that may appear to be vulgar to you. That is not deception on my part, as far as I know.
I am a sinner, that is as plain as the nose on my face.
You are more than welcome here, because you are honest, and because your viewpoint is more precious than I can ever measure, because I am merely a human being, complete with many human faults.
I like the bus. I like your company on the bus. When I can no longer afford to do the things I like, I will stop.
I think in terms of POWER. Power is dynamic.
But then I guess I have to get into your head about pretending?
Take out the word "pretend" and put in place the definition of the word you intend to convey without error and if I can understand the definition, in fact, then that understanding can be demonstrated to our mutual satisfaction and agreement.
Such as:
Meaning A: Strive to reach for a goal.
Meaning B: Create and maintain a false image or False Front.
Meaning C: Fill in the blank
Joe, what is it that you are trying to believe?
Here we are back at the fence and we are in the Forum Topic Invented, Produced, and now being Maintained for that expressed purpose.
I can start with one thing so as not to confuse any other things. I can start with this one thing because this one thing was on my mind more than once in that past few days.
God is a person like existence, having arms and legs, I suppose, so while I am doing this supposing, I think in terms of this fence right here, and I can meet you at this fence, and I can try to believe that God is a person like existence, having arms and legs.
Is that what I am supposed to be believing?
That is a starting point, or not?
Joe, is there anything that you are holding back from God? Any part of you that you are unwilling for Him to have?
If we can start on this effort to reach this goal, I think a good start is this he business. To you God is a he?
Does God have arms and legs?
To me God is a the power of creation, and more simply, or more difficult to understand, I don't know, God is truth.
God = Truth
I think I've met you at this fence with this before, and we ran into disagreement at this point already.
So I return to the fence with the question about God having arms and legs.
You ask:
"Joe, is there anything that you are holding back from God? Any part of you that you are unwilling for Him to have?"
Him, where is this Him, and how can I answer your question if there is no Him to hold back from, anything or nothing?
Does God, that you believe, have arms and legs?
I have a hard time believing in the God you see, to hold back something, or give everything, when I see no such thing.
Does that make sense to you? It makes sense to me. I am trying to believe what you believe, and here is a possible point of departure. You have a God in mind, that is a he, and I don't.
How do I put arms and legs on the God I believe, or is that something I am supposed to be doing according to your understanding of God - at all?
Joe, the key word in that sentence for me is “welcome.” You welcome my viewpoint, even if it is not yours.
There isn't anything in my experience to cause me to think that your viewpoint is unwelcome in the least, with, or without, religion. I've told you about my welcoming people knocking on the door with bibles in their hands.
I do not shut the door until I start hearing about how God is promising Real Estate.
I have to make scrambled eggs at the moment.
You know Joe, you and Sergey may get along very well because you are able to speak the same language. What I mean is that you are able to not misinterpret what he says. You know that I misinterpret a lot of things. It is a deficiency I have. I suppose I could or should be jealous?
Finding agreement is a solution to a problem, it seems to me, and the problem being solved can be, itself, disagreeable?
What is the problem?
I see people investing in their own torture and murder by people who are extremely evil and the word evil means, very specifically means, individual people who love to torture and murder innocent victims.