 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Here is where your generous honesty shows up as being proof of the value of life. When the mind is used willfully for crime, in my case I merely think the thoughts so as to understand them, then things makes sense in that mind-set.
When the mind is used on the opposite way, not the criminal way, things make sense.
Example:
1. Criminal mind-set:
Honesty is a fatal weakness
2. Non-criminal mind-set:
Lack of honesty is a fatal weakness
You wrote:
You know Joe, I think my problem is that all I can see is thru eyes that see everything turning out as crime in progress, and I have a problem fore-seeing how people following the Golden Rule can do things.
I think that I do know this and I know that it is very difficult to realize such things for many reasons. The power of dishonesty has no power without victims who are in some way operating under false belief that may exist in the form of confusion, if not genuine belief in false ideas.
It is too much work, or it is impossible, or it is dangerous, or it is potentially destructive to my well being, to understand how the criminals do business, which leaves, power-less-ness, in the form of confusion, or semi-belief in criminality as being worth something for life as a whole or as an individual human being.
How much is true concerning the work required to understand and then know the full measure of criminality?
To me it is reasonably true that innocence is lost when too much criminal knowledge is transferred from the source of it, through mere study, or through actual practice, so it is true, in that sense that knowing the criminals is dangerous, destructive, and therefore it may be a good idea to specialize.
It may be a good idea that you don't know so much, but then how can you defend yourself, and the answer is that you have to depend upon other sources other than yourself for you defense if you are to avoid the damage done by too much intimate knowledge of how crime works.
Does that make sense?
You know Joe, I think my problem is that all I can see is thru eyes that see everything turning out as crime in progress, and I have a problem fore-seeing how people following the Golden Rule can do things.
How much of the criminal mind-set is already busy destroying your innocence?
That is how I see it. You don't have to borrow my viewpoints. If you read my viewpoints you are then probably allowing some of the information offered into your sphere of influence. Then the information may work inside you for whatever result may be the result of such information. The information may be power-less; but compared to which power this is more powerful?
1. Might makes Right (a reasonable lie)
2. Do no harm (my wording meaning what can be expressed as The Golden Rule)
So the obvious power here, in my opinion, is to ask yourself a series of competitive questions whereby the intent is to find out why you have problems seeing specific things that may be worth seeing, and it may be a good idea to find out why your focus tends to be driven with ideas concerning how the crime in progress progresses.
All that can be done in private, in secret, or shared with other people, in any event.
It is not easy to figure out who is friend and who is foe, for many reasons.
Example:
From my contact with Frank, combined with my contact with you, combined with my contact with other people, an idea struck me recently.
If I can't trust myself to make myself a promise, how can I trust anyone else?
If you have the answer, then you are more powerful than I am, so why would it be an accurate measure to say that I am the teacher and you are the student?
Honest people share.
Dishonest people dictate.
Which way does one way go, and which way does the other way go every day as people switch, voluntarily, or involuntarily, from one way to the other?
There is so much, way too much, information I process on this path of discovery, whereby the concept of saying that I know, yes I know, is controversial in my own mind.
Why?
Another question, added to the heap?
Which answers work best time and again?
I don't know, but I can reasonably know, and I can demonstrate, and I can offer examples to other people, and they can accept my offer and in that process the viewpoints we are stuck with can be compared by each other.
That is not even possible if the idea is to demand from someone else obedience according to a perspective that I currently have going on in my mind.
So I don't trust my own mind?
A perpetual conflict going on in my own mind?
I am doomed to confusion?
Compared to what? I can compare my past self when there is no bear to help me.
Is that reasonable?
You are right. I should be asking How instead of Who and What. I read this today in the book. I think you afterword explains what I am asking, but I am not asking correctly. I am too busy seeing crime in progress and cannot see that things can be done differently.
See how this works, and I have not yet read past those words above, see how YOU ARE RIGHT, is as contagious as smiles?
Beware dear friend, of overconfidence, but how can you willfully pilot your being without a sense of doing the right thing by some process such as reason?
So we meet, we compare notes, and how many times do I have to confess to you that you are my teacher at least as much as you may think that I am your teacher?
Where is that information describing life after Legal Crime?
That is, potentially, where I am right, in this case. Looking is what happens, then finding happens, and then looking better happens, and then finding more happens, reasonably, compared to the opposite.
You found the Bible, there is where life after Legal Crime is described, and why not, and who is to say not there, and it is not me who says the information is not found there, it is me who is asking which specific information, and I am on guard for contradictions that appear in my mind because contradiction in my mind is cause for concern about what is still wrong in my mind.
What will life look like after the victims shed the deceptive need to perpetuate investments in unspeakable crimes made legal?
One less murder is not merely one less murder. The murderer is infected with a potential desire to perpetrate more crimes and the victim may have close loved ones who are potentially desiring to perpetrate more crimes in the form of revenge.
If you get to the point where your mind is working similar to mine, then automatically there is a thought that returns concerning the idea that Love is very powerful indeed when considering how much Hate is working so powerfully to destroy life on Earth.
Example:
How many murders have you personally witnessed in you life?
If the answer is none, as is my case, and we start adding up all the answers that are none, then that measures something that may be worth knowing.
On the scale, human beings manage to preserve the power of LIFE, despite those very powerful forces that work against LIFE.
How are such things measured?
Which side is winning?
How many bodies are floating down the river today?
If the hatred wins, is there anyone left to work in the other direction?
How bad are things, in a reasonably accurate measure, right now?
Turn on the 6 O'clock NEWS?
Turn on The Alex Jones Show?
At least one of those competitive offers of NEWS admits of a competitor to the MONOPOLY POWER.
Look in the Bible?
How bad are things right now?
What happens when power is no longer willfully consumed in the work required to make a few people more powerful than everyone else, and what happens when instead of crime being made legal that power is employed into making power abundant for all?
I realize that I am quoting my own words here, but I think the questions are valid, and therefore the answers have to be accurate or the answers are potentially counterproductive if inaccurate.
The thing here, striking me again, is the concept of numbers of people who are currently powerless to a point of dying helplessly in abject misery compared to existence as LIFE on Earth somewhat distant from that specific scale.
What do smiles measure?
What is going on in the mind of the person smiling?
Can you tell a counterfeit smile from a real one?
