Dude, consistency is your hangup, not mine. :-)

It's *you* who seems unable to conceive of holding
multiple points of view on a subject. If you remember,
it was you who seemed to believe that what we wrote in
the posts quoted below somehow implied that Bhairitu 
and I didn't feel compassion for the soldiers who fight
and die, or that we were ragging on veterans. Of course 
I feel compassion for them. AND at the same time I 
believe that each and every one of them who agreed
to fight and die in some political leader's war 
did their part to perpetuate war. 

AND, not OR. There's a difference in Search Engines,
and there's a difference in real life. :-)

But even though my points of view in this case aren't
really contradictory, I have a few that are. Is that
a problem for you? Do you really not have any 
contradictory beliefs and points of view in 
your life?

I'm really not trying to give you a hard time here,
even though you certainly seemed to be trying to 
give me one. I'm trying to explain something to you, 
a certain fluidity that can exist in terms of self.

Many, if not most people believe that they have a
personality, a self. I really don't believe that.
We have millions of them. Remember the olde saying,
"Know thyself?"  Rama's version of that was "Know
thyselves." It made sense around him. For whatever
reason (and I really still don't *have* a reason
to offer to you), being in his energy field flipped
you in and out of different selves faster than 
shit through a goose. You'd flip back and forth
between 20 or 30 completely different states of
attention in a day. Each of these states of atten-
tion had its own self, and each of those selves had 
its own mode of perception and its own point of view. 
Contradictions were encountered frequently.

So in such a situation, do you hold on to the
traditional notions of one self, one personality?
Or do you get a bit more fluid with things and
not worry so damned much about contradictions?

I think it is safe to say I went the latter 
route. I have no *problem* with contradictions.
You keep homing in on them as if you want me 
*to* have a problem with contradictions. It's
just not gonna happen, dude. Lighten up.

Life is *full* of contradictions. So, as far as
I can tell, is enlightenment. Before enlightenment,
Chop Suey and contradictions; after enlightenment,
Chop Suey and contradictions. And occasionally a 
side order of General Tsao's Chicken, just to 
spice things up.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Quotes from FFL Observers
> 
> [Commments and implied statements in brackets]
> 
> 
> Believe me nobody ever died fighting for
> "our [their country's] freedom." Instead they fought to keep the rich
> rich and the poor poor. They fought the wars as pawns for the rich.
> The rich could give a damn about "our freedom", instead just theirs to
> keep counting their money. When will we learn?
> 
> 
> "The vast majority of them [including French in WW II it would appear]
> fought and died because they were told to and had so little
> imagination that it never occurred to them that they could
> say no, to conscription and to the whole stupid
> business of war."
> 
> 
> 
> "In other words, the 'honor the fallen dead'
> thang is just an extension of the German
> "Ve ver just followink orders" excuse for
> not owning up to their part in WWII[The French and British virtually
> created WWII with their intensely harsh termsdemanded in the Treaty of
>  Versaille] . If you
> praise the soldiers who said YES to an
> insane war, and absolve them of any respon-
> sibility for that war because they were just
> being noble and doing what they were told by
> their "bad leaders," then the people who sat
> by quietly and paid their taxes and *enabled*
> the war started by those "bad leaders" also
> share no responisibility for it.
> 
> War is a kind of codependency. Every time you
> say YES to some leader who wants a war and
> agree to go fight it or agree to pay for it,
> you are *assisting* that leader in perpetuating
> war. As I said, there will always be leaders
> who want war; in the long run, the only thing
> that will stop them is people saying NO -- both
> to fighting the wars and to paying for them."
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote:
> 
> > It's real easy for Americans to sit on their fat asses
> > and criticize those countries who have actually had
> > wars fought on their own territory. ...
> > As far as war goes, they're [Americans] pussies. They
> > have never had the experience of seeing what war is
> > like first-hand, happening in your own streets and to
> > your own loved ones, right in front of you. They think
> > that war is what they read in newspapers and see on
> > newsreels. If they had actually experienced the reality
> > of past wars first-hand, they might not be so willing 
> > to start new ones.
> > 
> > I live with people who lost every male member of their
> > family in those first few days of World War II. They
> > have a slightly different perspective on things than
> > the fat-assed Americans who like to boast over a few
> > beers how they "won" the war.
>







------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Everything you need is one click away.  Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/AHchtC/4FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



Reply via email to