suryaz Posted December 6, 2001 Report Share Posted December 6, 2001 Originally posted by suryaz: I have no idea how the underlining bit happened Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talasiga Posted December 6, 2001 Report Share Posted December 6, 2001 <u>DUTTIYAM PI</u> Originally posted by talasiga: If you cannot recognise that, <u>without</u> O[bject/s], the S[elf] with D[esire] does NOT HAVE ANY OPTION TO CHOOSE, then, sadly, I cannot proceed further with you at this point in time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suryaz Posted December 6, 2001 Report Share Posted December 6, 2001 Originally posted by talasiga: <u>DUTTIYAM PI</u> The object only has appealing value when I superimpose my notions about that onto it. You cannot designate it temptation just because it exists. That defies by anybody's estimation any kind of morality. From such immorality notion such as fascism deception, dishonesty delusion and the rest of it arise. If you cannot get that then what can else can be said. bye for now [This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 12-07-2001).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talasiga Posted December 6, 2001 Report Share Posted December 6, 2001 Originally posted by suryaz: I have no idea how the underlining bit happened (Perhaps not unlike Temptation) ! Please take responsibility (which you rightly promote) and fix it up. The Law of Copyright requires accuracy of representation. If you wish to insert something not in the original utterance editorial convention requires your insertion to be in square brackets or some separate notation admitting the change. Shvu is very knowledgeable and might be able to help you with the underlining. Otherwise, you should go back to where you quoted me and in square brackets put a note like: [underlining by Suryaz]. [This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 12-06-2001).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talasiga Posted December 6, 2001 Report Share Posted December 6, 2001 Originally posted by suryaz: The object only has appealing value when I superimpose my notions about that onto it. ........bye for now Oh ! So now you have introduced <u>notional</u> temptation ? It appears that you are suggesting that Self generated Desire for Object is due to the Choosing a Notion for superimposition. Thus T[emptation] is a <u>context</u> where S[elf] with Desire has option of C[hoice] of N[otion]. This is a precise summation of what you just said - generically no different to the earlier summation encapsulating O. [This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 12-06-2001).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suryaz Posted December 6, 2001 Report Share Posted December 6, 2001 Originally posted by talasiga: (Perhaps not unlike Temptation) ! [This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 12-06-2001).] YES! YES! YES! Right On Talasiga YES - A mistake, surrounded by confusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talasiga Posted December 6, 2001 Report Share Posted December 6, 2001 Originally posted by suryaz: YES! YES! YES! Right On Talasiga YES - A mistake, surrounded by confusion. ( Oh dear - she is trying to beat me with my own stick.............) Nevertheless all the elements in the mistake are real and its result too...... and you "have no idea how [it] happened" and when you do work it out you may no longer be confused but the mistake won't disappear and even if you fix it while it existed the mistake will have existed as a real thing......... [This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 12-07-2001).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suryaz Posted December 27, 2001 Report Share Posted December 27, 2001 Originally posted by talasiga: ( Oh dear - she is trying to beat me with my own stick.............) Nevertheless all the elements in the mistake are real and its result too...... and you "have no idea how [it] happened" and when you do work it out you may no longer be confused but the mistake won't disappear and even if you fix it while it existed the mistake will have existed as a real thing......... [This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 12-07-2001).] Talasiga, I will see you at Rathyatra in a day or two (Byron Bay - Dec 30-31 2001, Jan 1 2002). We can talk there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalindi-d Posted December 28, 2001 Report Share Posted December 28, 2001 Originally posted by suryaz: Talasiga, I will see you at Rathyatra in a day or two (Byron Bay - Dec 30-31 2001, Jan 1 2002). We can talk there. Suryaz, I'll see you at Rathyatra at Byron Bay tomorrow and new year's eve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talasiga Posted December 30, 2001 Report Share Posted December 30, 2001 Originally posted by suryaz: Talasiga, I will see you at Rathyatra in a day or two (Byron Bay - Dec 30-31 2001, Jan 1 2002). We can talk there. Dear Suryaz, Nice of you to think of me but I won't be there, however, if you do see me there please let me know. I won't be here much either as for some inexplicable reason I have not been able to access these forums for some weeks now. I've had to go to an internet cafe to post this. As you don't know who I am I'm sure you won't miss me. Nevertheless, I'm tempted to re-iterate my address . . . . . ------------------ talasiga@hotmail.com [This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 12-30-2001).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avinash Posted December 30, 2001 Report Share Posted December 30, 2001 Hey Gauracandra ji, Why did you start a thread on "Temptation Island"? 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.