However being objective may not necessarily be negative even though it may appear to be to some.
new.morning wrote: > Well, despite Dr.Pete's decision to "joke" it away, Judy does point > out an interesting thing. Not a new, but still an interesting observation. > > Contradiction are "apparent" in Jim's comments, but may, or may not be > sustantial. > > My test, FWIW, is that if I, or others, can't see at least one > positive thing in something, anything, everything, then there is an > obsession, a binding thing, a vasana, a perception warp. Everyone has > some good and some bad. Even Hitler, Stalin, Mao. And the Monkeys. > All had atleast one good attributes. > > Marek says what one puts one attention on is the highest teaching -- > or some variant of that. I see it in a bit different light -- though > perhaps the same thing. That there is bliss in everything. "See the > bliss, Luke" has been my credo. > > If Jim sees good things in Bush and Cheney, and sees the bliss, then > OK. If he sees all bad, then I suggest he, and anyone else in that > boat, has further to see. > > And as far as the suggestion that Judy focusses on anger and > negativity, or is absorbed in it, I just don't see that. When people > say that, I see them having a limited view of Judy. > > As she reports, she does not feel anger or negativity. A good first > clue. Some will say "she is totally blind to her feeling anger and > negativity". An interesting hypothesis. Some observer 2000-6000 miles > a way has a better insight into her inner state than she does. > Hows that (type of observation) working for you? :) > > I suggest she has a quite refined sense of intellect and > discrimination (the good kind). And when she points out distinctions > and contradictions not apparent to some, those some, sometimes, see > "negativity and anger". Which may not be there. I suggest it often is not. > > But Judy says she could not stomach having a simple lunch or beer > with some on the list. Can't see any good or bliss. Still some steps > to go, IMHO. > > Anyway, contrary to the Kinston Trio's great line "germans hate > yogoslavs, south africans hate the dutch, and I don't like anyone very > much", I tend to like everyone. So sue me. Including Bush and Cheney. > I don't like their policies. Or actions for the most part. But I "get" > some good things about them. I would have a beer with them. Even > Hitler. Hell, even the Monkeys. > > I wish and hope Jim, Judy, and everyone here could too. > > Hope springs eternal. :) > > > > > --- In [email protected], Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Jim obviously has a very serious personality disorder. >> Jim, please continue as before. ;-) >> >> --- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>> --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" >>> <jflanegi@> >>> wrote: >>> <snip> >>> >>>> Are you familiar with Maharishi's expression, >>>> >>> "Whatever you >>> >>>> put your attention on, grows"? What do you suppose >>>> >>> he means >>> >>>> by that? >>>> >>> "The thing that was really wearing me down about >>> this autocratic rule >>> was the unrelenting toxic spew coming from the likes >>> of Limbaugh, >>> Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulture and Graham."--Jim >>> Flanegin >>> >>> >>> "I tried to track it many years ago, but have just >>> been overwhelmed >>> by the extent of Bush's staggering ineptitude! It >>> really IS stranger >>> than fiction..."--Jim Flanegin >>> >>> >>> "Yes, my outlook towards Cheney/Bush continues to be >>> cynical, because >>> they constantly and unabashedly lie to those they >>> govern. That in >>> conjunction with their utter ineptitude and >>> disregard for >>> consequences makes them the last people I would >>> entrust to establish >>> a democracy in Iraq."--Jim Flanegin >>> >>> >>> (examples from just this past month) >>> >>> > > > > >
