Guest guest Posted April 21, 2004 Report Share Posted April 21, 2004 Nisargadatta , pete seesaw <seesaw1us> wrote: > >Apperception is timeless, thus, not a property of the brain -- > > which is a construction in and of time, involving > >certain temporal conditions, coming together and > > falling apart depending on conditions. > > -- >Dan > > Ah! Here is where we part company as usual. I think you are equating apperception and that X which it apperceives. You could not write about apperception if it were not somehow reflected in the brain. 'Property' is not the right word to use if you are using it in the sense of product of. Your face is not the product of the mirror, the image is not the product of the mirror, and yet it requires a mirror to reflect the light, which creates the image in your eyes. And although that which is apperceived is outside time, the apperception is not because it has to be reflected in a brain. > > No ticky, no washy. > Charlie Chang > e# by what trick of language could the brain enter any consideration about perception, apperception, consciousness or awareness or direct experience of oneself or being in the now (or whatever)... according to biologists? neurologists? psychologist? did any of these say something of import to enlighten us on the simple state of being at hand? Please grant me a minute and some credit on these few questions Pete. > > > > > > > Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2004 Report Share Posted April 21, 2004 Nisargadatta , " ericparoissien " <msrhood@a...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , pete seesaw <seesaw1us> > wrote: > > >Apperception is timeless, thus, not a property of the brain -- > > > which is a construction in and of time, involving > > >certain temporal conditions, coming together and > > > falling apart depending on conditions. > > > > -- >Dan > > > > Ah! Here is where we part company as usual. I think you are > equating apperception and that X which it apperceives. You could not > write about apperception if it were not somehow reflected in the > brain. 'Property' is not the right word to use if you are using it in > the sense of product of. Your face is not the product of the mirror, > the image is not the product of the mirror, and yet it requires a > mirror to reflect the light, which creates the image in your eyes. > And although that which is apperceived is outside time, the > apperception is not because it has to be reflected in a brain. > > > > No ticky, no washy. > > Charlie Chang > > > > e# by what trick of language could the brain enter any consideration > about perception, apperception, consciousness or awareness or direct > experience of oneself or being in the now (or whatever)... > according to biologists? > neurologists? > psychologist? > did any of these say something of import to enlighten us on the > simple state of being at hand? > Please grant me a minute and some credit on these few questions Pete. You sure are a blast from the past. By introducing the subject of language in this conversation you have proved that you didn't pay this subject any attention. As usual you just want to mark a post with your piss, you french ally cat. ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2004 Report Share Posted April 21, 2004 Nisargadatta , " seesaw1us " <seesaw1us> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " ericparoissien " <msrhood@a...> > wrote: > > Nisargadatta , pete seesaw <seesaw1us> > > wrote: > > > >Apperception is timeless, thus, not a property of the brain -- > > > > which is a construction in and of time, involving > > > >certain temporal conditions, coming together and > > > > falling apart depending on conditions. > > > > > > -- >Dan > > > > > > Ah! Here is where we part company as usual. I think you are > > equating apperception and that X which it apperceives. You could > not > > write about apperception if it were not somehow reflected in the > > brain. 'Property' is not the right word to use if you are using it > in > > the sense of product of. Your face is not the product of the > mirror, > > the image is not the product of the mirror, and yet it requires a > > mirror to reflect the light, which creates the image in your eyes. > > And although that which is apperceived is outside time, the > > apperception is not because it has to be reflected in a brain. > > > > > > No ticky, no washy. > > > Charlie Chang > > > > > > > e# by what trick of language could the brain enter any > consideration > > about perception, apperception, consciousness or awareness or > direct > > experience of oneself or being in the now (or whatever)... > > according to biologists? > > neurologists? > > psychologist? > > did any of these say something of import to enlighten us on the > > simple state of being at hand? > > Please grant me a minute and some credit on these few questions > Pete. > > You sure are a blast from the past. By introducing the subject of > language in this conversation you have proved that you didn't pay > this subject any attention. As usual you just want to mark a post > with your piss, you french ally cat. ) e# frankly i am starting to wonder if you and your friend sk have any humanness at all; you both have been steadily nasty, stupidly aggressive, not a word of basic courtesy, simple decency of language, something that would prove once in a while that you have some interest in any human being; i am wondering if i am not going to go on your case you and sk just for the fun of the hunting (do you run fast). you're not even worthy of kissing a dabo's foot. i give you some smiley too on that sh*thead. ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2004 Report Share Posted April 21, 2004 Nisargadatta , " seesaw1us " <seesaw1us> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " ericparoissien " <msrhood@a...> > wrote: > > Nisargadatta , pete seesaw <seesaw1us> > > wrote: > > > >Apperception is timeless, thus, not a property of the brain -- > > > > which is a construction in and of time, involving > > > >certain temporal conditions, coming together and > > > > falling apart depending on conditions. > > > > > > -- >Dan > > > > > > Ah! Here is where we part company as usual. I think you are > > equating apperception and that X which it apperceives. You could > not > > write about apperception if it were not somehow reflected in the > > brain. You are artificially dividing apperception and a " what " which is apperceived. Thus, you are bringing with you the baggage of assumptions derived from perception, assumptions of division, whereas the term " apperception " (as futile as it is) is used by such as Ramesh to point to divisionless knowing. If you're going to use apperception to continue the baggage of presumptive divisions derived from perception, it becomes utterly useless as a pointer of any sort. Regardless of what terms you use, Pete, you're going to have to get beyond artificial divisions of a something that is seen, a process of seeing which exists apart from that something, and a someone who is doing the seeing and knowing. It is this dissolution of unreal separations that is ________ (fill in the blank with whatever term you prefer: knowing, truth, one's original face, apperception -- none of them do *this* justice at any rate). Time does not contain " me " anywhere -- thus, no perception occurring in time (which your so-called apperception is, the way you described it) reflects who I am anymore than any other perception. I am not contained in any of them. -- Dan 'Property' is not the right word to use if you are using it > in > > the sense of product of. Your face is not the product of the > mirror, > > the image is not the product of the mirror, and yet it requires a > > mirror to reflect the light, which creates the image in your eyes. > > And although that which is apperceived is outside time, the > > apperception is not because it has to be reflected in a brain. > > > > > > No ticky, no washy. > > > Charlie Chang > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2004 Report Share Posted April 21, 2004 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " seesaw1us " <seesaw1us> > wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " ericparoissien " > <msrhood@a...> > > wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , pete seesaw <seesaw1us> > > > wrote: > > > > >Apperception is timeless, thus, not a property of the brain - - > > > > > which is a construction in and of time, involving > > > > >certain temporal conditions, coming together and > > > > > falling apart depending on conditions. > > > > > > > > -- >Dan > > > > > > > > Ah! Here is where we part company as usual. I think you are > > > equating apperception and that X which it apperceives. You could > > not > > > write about apperception if it were not somehow reflected in the > > > brain. > > You are artificially dividing apperception and a " what " which > is apperceived. > > Thus, you are bringing with you the baggage of assumptions > derived from perception, > assumptions of division, whereas the term > " apperception " (as futile as it is) is used > by such as Ramesh to point to divisionless knowing. > > If you're going to use apperception to continue the baggage > of presumptive divisions derived from > perception, it becomes utterly useless as a pointer > of any sort. P:Yes, affectively or cognitatively apperception is perception w/o the division of subject/object. But that is happening in a brain and in time. Ram Das probably never thought much of his brain until he had the stroke. Oh by the way, it's been great talking to you. How is the family? Have a great day. Just demonstrating a little humanity for Eric's sake. Poor thing is so needy and sensitive. But Sk and I are working on toughing him up. Give me a 100 pushups Eric, ON THE DOUBLE! )) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 > Oh by the way, it's been great talking to you. How is the family? > Have a great day. Just demonstrating a little humanity for Eric's > sake. > Poor thing is so needy and sensitive. But Sk and I are working on > toughing him up. Give me a 100 pushups Eric, ON THE DOUBLE! )) This french lilliputain needs something like a big mama. He is beginning to get a bald patch, a double chin and a pendolous abdomen. It hurts him deeply, to have to pay for real sex from now on. He is one of this sort, who goes to the Pigalle and tries to bilk at the whorehouse. He thinks he is smart by doing it and, obviously, he is so in love with himself, that he assumes that even prostitutes have to be in love with him and find him so cute, as he finds himself. His hallmark is a little pipi at every corner, sometimes a little caca, fie! fie! mon ami. My suggestion, a foundation for him. We donate a little money, so that he doesn't need to pay anymore for himself at the whorehouse; the whores will be happy and he will be able to invite his friends, too...the world again in perfect balance. And, perhaps, we would be able to hear some true stories here on these lists, instead of phantasms. Pete, that's a " fantasma " ! Better to do so as you were somehow occupied, when you see the little bilk coming. ) sk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 Nisargadatta , " seesaw1us " <seesaw1us> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " ericparoissien " <msrhood@a...> > wrote: > > Nisargadatta , pete seesaw <seesaw1us> > > wrote: > > > >Apperception is timeless, thus, not a property of the brain -- > > > > which is a construction in and of time, involving > > > >certain temporal conditions, coming together and > > > > falling apart depending on conditions. > > > > > > -- >Dan > > > > > > Ah! Here is where we part company as usual. I think you are > > equating apperception and that X which it apperceives. You could > not > > write about apperception if it were not somehow reflected in the > > brain. 'Property' is not the right word to use if you are using it > in > > the sense of product of. Your face is not the product of the > mirror, > > the image is not the product of the mirror, and yet it requires a > > mirror to reflect the light, which creates the image in your eyes. > > And although that which is apperceived is outside time, the > > apperception is not because it has to be reflected in a brain. > > > > > > No ticky, no washy. > > > Charlie Chang > > > > > > > e# by what trick of language could the brain enter any > consideration > > about perception, apperception, consciousness or awareness or > direct > > experience of oneself or being in the now (or whatever)... > > according to biologists? > > neurologists? > > psychologist? > > did any of these say something of import to enlighten us on the > > simple state of being at hand? > > Please grant me a minute and some credit on these few questions > Pete. > > You sure are a blast from the past. By introducing the subject of > language in this conversation you have proved that you didn't pay > this subject any attention. As usual you just want to mark a post > with your piss, you french ally cat. ) ))) ok, the comedy begins... now on to eric's reply Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 Nisargadatta , " ericparoissien " <msrhood@a...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " seesaw1us " <seesaw1us> > wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " ericparoissien " > <msrhood@a...> > > wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , pete seesaw <seesaw1us> > > > wrote: > > > > >Apperception is timeless, thus, not a property of the brain - - > > > > > which is a construction in and of time, involving > > > > >certain temporal conditions, coming together and > > > > > falling apart depending on conditions. > > > > > > > > -- >Dan > > > > > > > > Ah! Here is where we part company as usual. I think you are > > > equating apperception and that X which it apperceives. You could > > not > > > write about apperception if it were not somehow reflected in the > > > brain. 'Property' is not the right word to use if you are using > it > > in > > > the sense of product of. Your face is not the product of the > > mirror, > > > the image is not the product of the mirror, and yet it requires a > > > mirror to reflect the light, which creates the image in your > eyes. > > > And although that which is apperceived is outside time, the > > > apperception is not because it has to be reflected in a brain. > > > > > > > > No ticky, no washy. > > > > Charlie Chang > > > > > > > > > > e# by what trick of language could the brain enter any > > consideration > > > about perception, apperception, consciousness or awareness or > > direct > > > experience of oneself or being in the now (or whatever)... > > > according to biologists? > > > neurologists? > > > psychologist? > > > did any of these say something of import to enlighten us on the > > > simple state of being at hand? > > > Please grant me a minute and some credit on these few questions > > Pete. > > > > You sure are a blast from the past. By introducing the subject of > > language in this conversation you have proved that you didn't pay > > this subject any attention. As usual you just want to mark a post > > with your piss, you french ally cat. ) > > e# frankly i am starting to wonder if you and your friend sk have any > humanness at all; you both have been steadily nasty, stupidly > aggressive, not a word of basic courtesy, simple decency of language, > something that would prove once in a while that you have some > interest in any human being; > i am wondering if i am not going to go on your case you and sk just > for the fun of the hunting (do you run fast). > you're not even worthy of kissing a dabo's foot. > i give you some smiley too on that sh*thead. > ) oh yeah! )))) big fun! two best friends talking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 Nisargadatta , " seesaw1us " <seesaw1us> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " seesaw1us " <seesaw1us> > > wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " ericparoissien " > > <msrhood@a...> > > > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , pete seesaw > <seesaw1us> > > > > wrote: > > > > > >Apperception is timeless, thus, not a property of the brain - > - > > > > > > which is a construction in and of time, involving > > > > > >certain temporal conditions, coming together and > > > > > > falling apart depending on conditions. > > > > > > > > > > -- >Dan > > > > > > > > > > Ah! Here is where we part company as usual. I think you are > > > > equating apperception and that X which it apperceives. You > could > > > not > > > > write about apperception if it were not somehow reflected in > the > > > > brain. > > > > You are artificially dividing apperception and a " what " which > > is apperceived. > > > > Thus, you are bringing with you the baggage of assumptions > > derived from perception, > > assumptions of division, whereas the term > > " apperception " (as futile as it is) is used > > by such as Ramesh to point to divisionless knowing. > > > > If you're going to use apperception to continue the baggage > > of presumptive divisions derived from > > perception, it becomes utterly useless as a pointer > > of any sort. > > P:Yes, affectively or cognitatively apperception is perception w/o > the division of subject/object. But that is happening in a brain and > in time. Ram Das probably never thought much of his brain until he > had the stroke. > > Oh by the way, it's been great talking to you. How is the family? > Have a great day. Just demonstrating a little humanity for Eric's > sake. > Poor thing is so needy and sensitive. But Sk and I are working on > toughing him up. Give me a 100 pushups Eric, ON THE DOUBLE! )) hm i just wrote noone here is mean enough to be a troll. but this is quite trollish Pete. and to think that the man says you're his best friend... well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 Nisargadatta , " sk000005 " <raav1@m...> wrote: > > Oh by the way, it's been great talking to you. How is the family? > > Have a great day. Just demonstrating a little humanity for Eric's > > sake. > > Poor thing is so needy and sensitive. But Sk and I are working on > > toughing him up. Give me a 100 pushups Eric, ON THE DOUBLE! )) > > > This french lilliputain needs something like a big mama. He is > beginning to get a bald patch, a double chin and a pendolous > abdomen. It hurts him deeply, to have to pay for real sex from now > on. He is one of this sort, who goes to the Pigalle and tries to > bilk at the whorehouse. He thinks he is smart by doing it and, > obviously, he is so in love with himself, that he assumes that even > prostitutes have to be in love with him and find him so cute, as he > finds himself. His hallmark is a little pipi at every corner, > sometimes a little caca, fie! fie! mon ami. > My suggestion, a foundation for him. We donate a little money, so > that he doesn't need to pay anymore for himself at the whorehouse; > the whores will be happy and he will be able to invite his friends, > too...the world again in perfect balance. > And, perhaps, we would be able to hear some true stories here on > these lists, instead of phantasms. > > Pete, that's a " fantasma " ! Better to do so as you were somehow > occupied, when you see the little bilk coming. > > > ) > > > sk and THIS is 100% trolldome. BLEH! (is sk in the gang?) sk, it would be nice if at this 'spiritual' list you said something that has at least a mininal value for the others and is not just ego masturbation. whaya think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 > sk, it would be nice if at this 'spiritual' list you said something > that has at least a mininal value for the others and is not just ego masturbation. whaya think? dabo, What's spiritual for you? What has value? Where are the others? What's an ego masturbation? What is nice and what not for you? Whaya think? Inside dabo (now) there is only fear, complexes, much neurosis and a profound sorrow. honestly, sk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 Nisargadatta , " dabo_now " <dscasta> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " seesaw1us " <seesaw1us> > wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > > wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " seesaw1us " <seesaw1us> > > > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " ericparoissien " > > > <msrhood@a...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , pete seesaw > > <seesaw1us> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >Apperception is timeless, thus, not a property of the > brain - > > - > > > > > > > which is a construction in and of time, involving > > > > > > >certain temporal conditions, coming together and > > > > > > > falling apart depending on conditions. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- >Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah! Here is where we part company as usual. I think you are > > > > > equating apperception and that X which it apperceives. You > > could > > > > not > > > > > write about apperception if it were not somehow reflected in > > the > > > > > brain. > > > > > > You are artificially dividing apperception and a " what " which > > > is apperceived. > > > > > > Thus, you are bringing with you the baggage of assumptions > > > derived from perception, > > > assumptions of division, whereas the term > > > " apperception " (as futile as it is) is used > > > by such as Ramesh to point to divisionless knowing. > > > > > > If you're going to use apperception to continue the baggage > > > of presumptive divisions derived from > > > perception, it becomes utterly useless as a pointer > > > of any sort. > > > > P:Yes, affectively or cognitatively apperception is perception w/o > > the division of subject/object. But that is happening in a brain > and > > in time. Ram Das probably never thought much of his brain until he > > had the stroke. > > > > Oh by the way, it's been great talking to you. How is the family? > > Have a great day. Just demonstrating a little humanity for Eric's > > sake. > > Poor thing is so needy and sensitive. But Sk and I are working on > > toughing him up. Give me a 100 pushups Eric, ON THE DOUBLE! )) > > > > hm i just wrote noone here is mean enough to be a troll. but this is > quite trollish Pete. and to think that the man says you're his best > friend... well? Damn right I'm! But your best friend, has to double as your enemy for your own sake. Tha's why Christ said, " Love thy enemies. " What passes for friends in this world only tell you what they think you want to hear, not what you need o hear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 Nisargadatta , " seesaw1us " <seesaw1us> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " dabo_now " <dscasta> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " seesaw1us " <seesaw1us> > > wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > > > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " seesaw1us " > <seesaw1us> > > > > wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ericparoissien " > > > > <msrhood@a...> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , pete seesaw > > > <seesaw1us> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >Apperception is timeless, thus, not a property of the > > brain - > > > - > > > > > > > > which is a construction in and of time, involving > > > > > > > >certain temporal conditions, coming together and > > > > > > > > falling apart depending on conditions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- >Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah! Here is where we part company as usual. I think you > are > > > > > > equating apperception and that X which it apperceives. You > > > could > > > > > not > > > > > > write about apperception if it were not somehow reflected > in > > > the > > > > > > brain. > > > > > > > > You are artificially dividing apperception and a " what " which > > > > is apperceived. > > > > > > > > Thus, you are bringing with you the baggage of assumptions > > > > derived from perception, > > > > assumptions of division, whereas the term > > > > " apperception " (as futile as it is) is used > > > > by such as Ramesh to point to divisionless knowing. > > > > > > > > If you're going to use apperception to continue the baggage > > > > of presumptive divisions derived from > > > > perception, it becomes utterly useless as a pointer > > > > of any sort. > > > > > > P:Yes, affectively or cognitatively apperception is perception > w/o > > > the division of subject/object. But that is happening in a brain > > and > > > in time. Ram Das probably never thought much of his brain until > he > > > had the stroke. > > > > > > Oh by the way, it's been great talking to you. How is the family? > > > Have a great day. Just demonstrating a little humanity for Eric's > > > sake. > > > Poor thing is so needy and sensitive. But Sk and I are working on > > > toughing him up. Give me a 100 pushups Eric, ON THE DOUBLE! )) > > > > > > > > hm i just wrote noone here is mean enough to be a troll. but this > is > > quite trollish Pete. and to think that the man says you're his best > > friend... well? > > Damn right I'm! But your best friend, has to double as your enemy for > your own sake. Tha's why Christ said, " Love thy enemies. " > What passes for friends in this world only tell you what they think > you want to hear, not what you need o hear. i hear you loud and clear, Pete. you know my take on honesty. there isn't a thing in this world that's worth you sacrificing your honesty for it. and true friends will always be truthful to you. that's why i do not hesitate to kick eric's ass from time to time. and yet, when you deliberately go after people that are your friends, and on no particularly serious grounds, it's just not aesthetic man. now i'm sure you know what i mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 sk, it's so easy for me to get you in the troll way. but ya know what... it's even easier to get you in the sincere way. cause 100% trolls like you don't have anything real going on. and i will get you with just one word, sk. see if you figure it out.. watch out for my word, cause you might lose it in all this crap you wrote. and it's an important word, sk, everything revolves around it. you watching? Nisargadatta , " sk000005 " <raav1@m...> wrote: > > sk, it would be nice if at this 'spiritual' list you said something > > that has at least a mininal value for the others and is not just > ego masturbation. whaya think? > > > dabo, > What's spiritual for you? > What has value? love. > Where are the others? > What's an ego masturbation? > What is nice and what not for you? > > Whaya think? > > Inside dabo (now) there is only fear, complexes, much neurosis and a > profound sorrow. > > honestly, > sk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 > > > > > i hear you loud and clear, Pete. you know my take on honesty. there > isn't a thing in this world that's worth you sacrificing your honesty > for it. and true friends will always be truthful to you. that's why i > do not hesitate to kick eric's ass from time to time. and yet, when > you deliberately go after people that are your friends, and on no > particularly serious grounds, it's just not aesthetic man. now i'm > sure you know what i mean. Yeah, you're right, it isn't pretty. But the day I start worrying about looking good, rather than to write what ought to be written, it'll be the day I'd from all these groups. What would the admiration of the whole world be worth to me, if I knew it's based on a lie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2004 Report Share Posted April 23, 2004 Nisargadatta , " seesaw1us " <seesaw1us> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > i hear you loud and clear, Pete. you know my take on honesty. there > > isn't a thing in this world that's worth you sacrificing your > honesty > > for it. and true friends will always be truthful to you. that's why > i > > do not hesitate to kick eric's ass from time to time. and yet, when > > you deliberately go after people that are your friends, and on no > > particularly serious grounds, it's just not aesthetic man. now i'm > > sure you know what i mean. > > Yeah, you're right, it isn't pretty. But the day I start worrying > about looking good, rather than to write what ought to be written, > it'll be the day I'd from all these groups. What would > the admiration of the whole world be worth to me, if I knew it's > based on a lie? um no, i was wrong. you don't know what i mean. truth, Pete, has as much to do with beauty as with 'truth'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2004 Report Share Posted April 23, 2004 Nisargadatta , " dabo_now " <dscasta> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " seesaw1us " <seesaw1us> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i hear you loud and clear, Pete. you know my take on honesty. > there > > > isn't a thing in this world that's worth you sacrificing your > > honesty > > > for it. and true friends will always be truthful to you. that's > why > > i > > > do not hesitate to kick eric's ass from time to time. and yet, > when > > > you deliberately go after people that are your friends, and on no > > > particularly serious grounds, it's just not aesthetic man. now > i'm > > > sure you know what i mean. > > > > Yeah, you're right, it isn't pretty. But the day I start worrying > > about looking good, rather than to write what ought to be written, > > it'll be the day I'd from all these groups. What would > > the admiration of the whole world be worth to me, if I knew it's > > based on a lie? > > > > > um no, i was wrong. you don't know what i mean. truth, Pete, has as > much to do with beauty as with 'truth'. Well,I'll let this conversation die a 'beautiful death.' PS I had to cancel my account as seesawus1 someone was sending spam on it. So although, my Id now is cerosoul, I'm still Seesaw, or am I? ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.