--- In [email protected], new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], new.morning <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Great post Curtis. Peg Leg Sam -- a classic. (No relation to > > Toothpick > > > Sad Sam Jones I suppose -- (now thats an obscure reference)). > > > > > > Sort of reminds me of what I envision MMY or others might say when > > > asked to fly. "I could, but I don't really like flying." > > > > > > Which brings me to Rory and Jim. Guys, I appreciate your responses. > > > And I have understood them I think, and appreciate the views you > > > expressed. But you didn't directly answer my question. Not that you > > > are obligated to. > > > > > > Jim, you sort of implied an answer -- that you weres peeved at Bush > > > and Iraq -- and this expressed disatisfaction might be an agent for > > > change. Which implies, to me, your ability to fulfill desires > > doesn't > > > extend to big things like Iraq. So its a limited qualified type of > > > desire fulfillment. > > > > I agree with what Rory said, > > Thats a surprise! MahaMe swallowing the particle MiniMe and each -- > the one mind/body/mouth -- saying "sumptuous!" :) > > > that the dissatisfaction found with the > > war, is really some sort of resolution that needs to be resolved > > within me. Which is not to say I will stop feeling what I am feeling > > or doing what I am doing. I do agree with something else that Rory > > has said, and that is that particles as he puts it (and it is a very > > effective use of the word (lol)) don't necessarily want the things > > that we want for them-- this goes for Curtis too when he makes his > > rationalist arguments against fulfillment of desires. So though I > > have opinions and express them and will call something out if it > > needs to be changed, I can think of nothing in my existence that > > needs to be changed so badly that my life is not whole without it. I > > hope that answers your question.:-) > > Yes that is clearer, and more straightforward -- personally honest IMO > -- than some other particles. :) > > Your statement -- amended -- appears to be, paraphrasing, "I get a lot > of my personal desires fulfilled. But not all the big ones, global > ones happen right away -- and its hard to tell what influence that I > have on them. Still, each and every particle desiring a change towards > greater happiness for other particles is certainly not > counterproductive. And it may even help. But in large part, even when > my desires are not fulfilled, it doesn't effect my happiness." > > I am not saying you should be saying that, but that is my sense of > what you are saying. Or at least my personal takeaway -- the value it > has induced in me. For me, thats a healthy appraoch, and yur post > helped me frame it, for me. > Yes, that is pretty close. I'd just say that having a transient thought for change, and then changing that thought doesn't necessarily equate to an unfulfilled desire.
Regarding my agreement with Rory-- Yes, I often see things in the same way he does. I find much of what he says as a great vehicle for learning. We should all be so fortunate to know someone that we derive learning from so easily, be it Rory, Judy, Vaj, you, or the woman in the moon.:-)
