Thieves had a habit of saying 'prove it copper' Slip. Quite why the scum thought I would deign to talk to them if I couldn't, I never found out. Much harder with the political class as we can't get the right warrants. Anyone who thinks any of this is modern should note 'statistics' is an ancient Greek word and note Orwell died a long time ago. It's now out that Blair was clinically depressed by Iraq and being done over by the Americans, though he failed to mention this giving evidence recently. We know about the lying, which is done secure in the knowledge the evidence is well-hidden. The question is whether we really want to try something else. Proof that official systems are bent is always an independent enquiry away, as opposed to the ritual cover-ups we call Public Enquiries etc.
On 1 Mar, 00:19, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > Sure Vam, but sometimes there is fear in honesty as well, as the truth > may be hard and painful and when dishonesty can ease the pain. > Personal honesty is to no avail and sometimes a detriment when the > fish bowl is full of sharks, it is deceit that offers protection and > security. Much of our survival impinges upon our ability to hide, > mask, camouflage and conceal truisms concerning our personal world. > Therefore through this paradigm of life circumstance we can see that > dishonesty is an element consistent in all forms. If you all knew I > was worth 3.4 billion you would be asking to borrow and so I have to > be dishonest and play this poverty game in order to keep you all off > my back. Honesty in a den of thieves is basically being honest about > each others dishonesty as being dishonest is their business. When one > of the thieves comes in with a prize the rest know it wasn't purchased > and so the thief would be dishonest to say it was and so in all > honesty he tells the tale of the theft, thereby being honest about his > dishonesty. Do you think men date women because they are pretty and > have a brain? You see the ramifications of (dis)honesty are endless. > We can never really be whole in that sense but the problems arise when > each crosses over too far onto the other side, when it really matters > and consequences occur, when trust is at stake. The politicians know > how to push dishonesty to the brink without spilling over but > sometimes there is a breach and the wall comes tumbling down and many > are hurt in the aftermath. It is almost expected that dishonesty is > part of the procedure, the plan. They can't let us know everything, > just enough to make it all believable, like the weapons of mass > destruction. Who has to this day paid for the lies except the dead > soldiers and the innocents? Why aren't all those in the chain of > command and the chain of misinformation puppets behind bars? Is it > because of the concept of honesty among thieves? For sure! > > On Feb 28, 9:49 am, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Honour among thieves is still possible, Slip, though thru fear. It is > > difficult for free men, because we need to be conscientious, to be as > > a matter of value ... without reason or cause. Which difficulty might > > be what Molly just pointed to. > > > Indeed, the others and the world come much later, if at all. Speaking > > for myself, I must say that it is possible, achievable, if we are > > willing to live with being denied and not flinch when it comes to > > denying ourself, in mental and material terms. > > > On Feb 28, 8:27 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > All roads seem to lead to the honesty issue, the magnetic carousel > > > that spins endlessly. The what good is anything without honesty > > > mantra. It will never be a reality because what is honest to one is > > > dishonest to another and the other is honestly dishonest. Science > > > pursuits can be honest but then it comes down to how to use the data > > > and how can it be successfully manipulated to utilize it for the > > > maximum benefit or profit. Can honesty survive in a dishonest world? > > > Its like honor among thieves. > > > > On Feb 28, 1:47 am, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > This line of thinking, err, counting, serves to distract. > > > > > The operative spirit is stated by Neil : " ... how we might live and > > > > what we could be ... " If our start is honest, we'll have the answers > > > > for ourself. > > > > > That's the rub, though. Honesty ! Animals are rarely dishonest, but > > > > experience tells me, it's a very evolved attribute for us to have. How > > > > many crooks will admit that they seek, value and expect their people > > > > to be honest to them, that honesty is therefore the more fundamental > > > > and superceding a value even among the dishonest, and that they must > > > > therefore embrace it fully in their own life and not give in to these > > > > dishonest ways in thought and deed ? ! > > > > > Honesty is difficult because it demands a consistent core within > > > > ourself. That needs investment from us ... an Honesty Foundation, to > > > > seed and nurture and promote honesty as the preferred value in our > > > > pragmatic and expedience filled lives, on a massive scale. It would > > > > have to be planned, organised for and executed. But, seeming so > > > > uneconomic and non viable, who's to fund it ? I believe, it is for the > > > > world of business and the government to step in, simply because they > > > > have the money and the power, and the mandate. > > > > > Our connectivity program would initiate from there. > > > > > On Feb 28, 10:56 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Archy, the operative word there is ‘gratuitous’. Where is the line > > > > > drawn? There are limited resources and mankind is apt to deal in terms > > > > > of power. Is one chicken in every pot enouth?....two?...three? > > > > > > On Feb 27, 7:07 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > The question in science for me concerns how we might live and what > > > > > > we > > > > > > could be if we could escape gratuitous competition. I can see some > > > > > > personal ways to escape, but these seem to lack connectivity with > > > > > > others that seems the route we are cast on. > > > > > > > On 28 Feb, 02:14, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I don't know that a divisibility issue thread would go all that > > > > > > > far. > > > > > > > Thurman's reference to the collider basically is demonstrative of > > > > > > > man's desire to reach an end that can be held on to, owned and > > > > > > > possessed. Problem being that even with the Hadron establishing > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > first successful particle collision and supposed gathering of sub > > > > > > > atomic information pertaining to universe origin and/or the > > > > > > > fundamental nature of matter seems hardly the end of the line or > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > point of conclusion with regard to infinite divisibility. This > > > > > > > basically renders the LHC experiment a 5 billion dollar > > > > > > > playstation > > > > > > > game. How can the science of infinite divisibility be carried out > > > > > > > without infinite experimentation. Will we, even can we, get past > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > point of atomic particles? There remains the unresolved enigmas of > > > > > > > dark matter/energy and the Higgs Boson. I find the phrase God > > > > > > > Particle a bit entertaining but who knows what we'll discover > > > > > > > over the > > > > > > > next 500 years if we don't accidentally cause a planetary > > > > > > > implosion. > > > > > > > > On Feb 27, 9:58 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Oh, and the issue of infinite divisibility… perhaps ripe for a > > > > > > > > new > > > > > > > > topic? Or would it be appropriate here? I know I’ve approached > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > analysis a few times here at ME and so far find it sound. Of > > > > > > > > course on > > > > > > > > one level, not having completed the science (most likely an > > > > > > > > impossibility), “we” do not know as you point out Slip. Yet on > > > > > > > > other > > > > > > > > levels including thought experiments and analysis, it most > > > > > > > > assuredly > > > > > > > > points to the nature of reality. > > > > > > > > > On Feb 27, 6:08 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > It was interesting but not sure it adds to or lends any > > > > > > > > > credibility to > > > > > > > > > Buddism. Its just another view I guess. Not sure about > > > > > > > > > everything > > > > > > > > > being infinitely divisible. I'd visit Tibet but my lungs > > > > > > > > > won't go. > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 27, 12:59 am, ornamentalmind > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Robert Thurman > > > > > > > > > > > Topics include: > > > > > > > > > > The Growing popularity of Atheism > > > > > > > > > > Buddhism’s Stance on Deism > > > > > > > > > > Buddhism and the Meaning of Life > > > > > > > > > > Hyperrealism in Buddhism > > > > > > > > > > Backstage interview > > > > > > > > > > Obama and the History of Christianity in America > > > > > > > > > > The Chinese Occupation of Tibet > > > > > > > > > > Why the Dalai Lama Matters > > > > > > > > > > The Source of the Dalai Lama’s Popularity > > > > > > > > > > > Many points here…most are quite interesting. What do you > > > > > > > > > > think? > > > > > > > > > > >http://fora.tv/2009/02/09/Robert_Thurman_at_City_Arts__Lectures > > > > > > > > > > > I studied w/Bob back in the mid 80s.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
