quote:

Yes, but you see, you need to bolster your ego, you openly admit that, and you do it by creating self serving assumptions of what some of us are up to, and you do the standard comparison routine that goes with it. That's what's so amusing. All the endless rationalizations to prop up your ego. "Us versus them."

Again I think you have another misconception. Nothing I do here, nothing you say here, enlarges or diminishes my ego. I am what I am. I can turn off the computer today and it does not change any of the facts of my life. I am still young, Still charismatic, Still Well off, Still well liked. Proving you or anybody wrong in a discussion gains me nothing but knowledge, something I augment to my real life. This is nothing more or less then mental gym work. An unused muscle it a flabby, unattractive waste of blood and oxygen. Sure there might be a bit of self satisfaction in knowing my chiseled, robust Gray muscle can compete on the athletic field. But technically I knew that coming here in the first place. I was just was a bit out of shape for the nuances of certain events. Everything can eventually be overcome by hard work and dedication. Now I am training for the 2008 Olympics.

quote:

Meanwhile, what are those you talk about in your charming way really doing, those horrible, evil "other's" you've created in your mind?

What are you Really doing right Now?

quote:

Originally posted by /rén:
Yes, but you see, you need to bolster your ego, you openly admit that, and you do it by creating self serving assumptions of what some of us are up to, and you do the standard comparison routine that goes with it. That's what's so amusing. All the endless rationalizations to prop up your ego. "Us versus them."

Meanwhile, what are those you talk about in your charming way really doing, those horrible, evil "other's" you've created in your mind?

I see a pattern from the time I got here (UvT). With the constant, "Are you a neocon?" And then when not provided an answer he would agree with then going with that assumption as a truth. Pedro??? But seriously no one else I know has shown an ego as large as yours. Like "you just can not understand", etc...

Loganthor does not think in regards to evil at least on this forum. He has said it enough times and his actions also say that. He does think that Libs are ill-informed, delusional, 'colon view', etc...

quote:

Loganthor does not think in regards to evil at least on this forum

quote:

He does think that Libs are ill-informed, delusional, 'colon view', etc...

Two cloned cats with the same DNA that look different on the surface.

But that brings up a wonder in my mind, are you Loganthor, too?

He thinks they are something and something he compares to something else, in a valuing way. We've already been through the hierarchy creation process from basic binary opposition, you shouldn't need that repeated for you.

The behavior demonstrates a devaluing perception of others, coming out of an expectational environment of the mind in which others don't measure up to certain held ideals, beliefs and concepts, often expressed as opinions. Those are structural things that can be defined and measured and much of what human beings do goes on that way in life. Good/evil are basic structural forms of that nature.

When you know the difference between what you can know and what you can't, you will have the semblance of respect to start with. I keep that thought in my mind, and it limits me from assuming too much. So I just tend to talk in general terms and let people form their own thoughts. I try to repeat that as much as I can. Especially if it seems that's not what's taking place.

People will not need to be put into valued categories. They can be allowed to think what they like.

Neoconservative is a structural identification of a group that has certain characteristics, which tend towards and idealism on foreign policy and a willingness to use military force to achieve those objectives. I've described it extensively.

Do you fit the description?

You could have assumed I was suggesting a pattern, a paradigm, asked what it was that I meant, and then pointed out how you do or don't see those things about yourself. If you assume it means something subjectively comparative in some way to me, that assumption on your part does not necessarily mean what you assume when I use the term. Is that what happened, though? Then did you go off in some direction with your assumptions, which you hold to this day, and thus it comes up over and over with regards to some old memory you can't release? And from that comes all sorts of other projections about someone you know nothing about in real terms? It appears that's what you did. But I can only guess, of course. There's a vast chasm between guessing and what I can know.

Now it appears that you try to use what you did in that assumption/decision process as some sort of evidence of what was in my head at the time. That's simply an deep error in thinking. It leads to the fabrication of illusions and the creation of false images. It's ultimately disrespectful in nature to assume about people in that way. It leads to false conceptions like: "intellectual dishonesty" which come from a falsely created image that is then compared to something else not even necessarily related. What I think of when I use a term may not be the same for others, either, it may even be a term that's changing for me over time as I explore it and try shape it around different things at different times. I always thought most people do that, but I've come to suspect that may always be the case.

Maybe you are accurate in your assumptions about how others use the term, although I inclined to suspect the term is so poorly understood, and so misused now, it's hardly worth the trouble to use it without a lot of explanation to go with it. However, generalizing from others to me is a giveaway of what you have constructed of your own thoughts and perceptions. That I noticed that your behavior, your attitudes, your perspectives happen to fall within a certain, identifiable pattern of thought I've used the term "neoconservative" to describe, was what I projected in writing. That's all. That doesn't make you anything, just my saying it, does it? You know what you are, don't you?

Trying to stick people in your boxes is what reveals your own vision of how things should be, whatever that might be. If you assume I'm doing that, you project what you do onto me, and I can see that because I watch closely what I do. I know I'm the only one who can.

It's helpful to keep in mind what you can know and what you can't.

Pedro, now that was funny, wasn't it? And you were banned at the time. Odd you can't seem to forget that one.

quote:

But seriously no one else I know has shown an ego as large as yours. Like "you just can not understand", etc...

And who does that sort of statement bother when it's said... you? Certainly not me.

It's either true or it's not. So what...

And so what identifies an ego? Someone who confidently says what he or she sees? Someone who feels insufficient when someone says what they see and tries to protect that sense of insufficiency? What?

quote:

Two cloned cats with the same DNA that look different on the surface.

And what do you think this creativity is derived from? How is that not implied certain aspects of people that you have shown disdain for? And yes I know you had fun with Pedro, and that is why it is so poignant about your techniques. How you could go around and assume so many things about a board member is beyond me. Knowing the impossible to know. And as a matter of fact how long is UET going to be dragged around by you?

I am glad that you truly are absorbed by this process. You are the master that I can only observe and praise your abilities.

This is fun, we will have to carry on when I get some food...

quote:

Two cloned cats with the same DNA that look different on the surface.

How borish...

Let me know how this all plays out with an executive summery at the end.

quote:

How is that not implied certain aspects of people that you have shown disdain for?

Have I?

UET is a root metaphor for me, now, as many ideas I work out in an elaborate way become. As long as it plays I'll keep playing it. That will be determined by the circumstances I'm working with.

This little bit doesn't take much effort for me Ronald. It's just describing what I see, which happens really fast. I don't usually bother with this sort of thing, but I wanted to share what would come up if I responded to the many things you reflect after my posts that I don't find say much about what I see going on with what I'm saying to someone. It would be endless, and I feel an unnecessary effort to attempt for the most part. It's much simpler to let people be what they are. Even if that "being" is misconstrued about what I know about myself and how I think about things.

quote:

Originally posted by meljomur:
Well stated Howard, however I disagree with you. I think if we Americans lived in more balanced society, people wouldn't become as defensive about his/her beliefs and opinions. I for one, enjoy alternative views and discourse, but what I cannot stand (whether or not the person is attacking me), is when someone makes a hateful, ill-informed comment, basically to agitate others on the board.

**Thanks. Given the scenario you describe, my next question would be: What manner of response to this behavior is most effective for moving away from such behavior? Is adding more fuel to the fire helping minimize such behavior?

That, of course, is a rhetorical question. But the point is that many of the common responses do exactly that...it seems to me.

quote:

Perhaps it is easier for some to ignore it, some people just dismiss it, and some become qute angry largely because of how much this idealogy is being perpetrated in our life in general.

**My suggestion is that what actually causes the anger is the 'belief' that the other person shouldn't be doing what they've already done. A behavior the other person likely thinks is okay. We think it's the truth that they shouldn't behave this way, which makes us angry. But the real truth is that they already did the behavior.

I agree that the behavior likely stems from a deeper drive to "make oneself feel good," as Ren suggested, but it's the belief that this particular behavior 'makes sense' to fulfill this deeper drive that is behind the specific behavior. The problem is that the thinking involved is incoherent in that it simply brings a momentary 'feeling good' while helping exacerbate the fragmentation and division that's making the person not feel good.

The drive to feel good is part of our nature, that's essentially a 'given'...it seems to me. And this drive actually leads us to care about what we're doing. I don't see that as a problem. The problems arise when the thinking being used to fulfill this natural drive to feel good is incoherent, or doesn't produce the desired results. If the drive is to feel good, then beliefs and opinions which create an unpleasant relationship that one constantly feels a need to escape from aren't producing the desired result.

The question that comes up for me is: Is doing more of the same going to produce different results?

quote:

I for one, am guilty of attacking individuals who not only do I not agree with, but who's information is completely false. Maybe because I am tired of the lies, perhaps I should be attacking the information, but exactly how do you separate that when you say that people are going to be defensive of their beliefs as well (does that make sense?).

**You are probably in good company being tired of the lies, but the reality remains the same: People have the beliefs and opinions they have, and they'll act in accordance to these views in an attempt to feel good until the understanding changes, regardless of how angry we get about them not acting like we desire them to act.

How we respond to each situation is something we each have to determine. My suggestion is that calling another person stupid isn't likely to facilitate a wiser behavior in another person. It may provide a temporary ego-gratification, if that's what one is looking for, but it's not conducive to societal health or wisdom...to my understanding.

quote:

Maybe for some of us, we need to start thinking of Thom's site as the place to debate the neo-cons (if we feel like it), and go somewhere else for more intelligent , free-thinking exchange.

**I guess that depends on what people wish to create here with their behavior. To a large extent, that seems to be largely the situation here now among the most active members. But this is the challenge we face in our lives in general, not just here. So, will our relationship continue to be a relationship of essentially adversarial debate, fragmentation, and division? Or can we move in a different direction that doesn't sustain the status quo?

Regards - Howard

Out of curiosity... Anybody want to discuss about Kate for her senseless ad hom of James and her unchecked trolling behavior. to which apparently nobody seems to notice. Purposely..

We can get back to my ego, but technically my ego is already purrrring like a kitty.

Please turn your attention to something more positive than calling each other names or trying to psychoanalyze each other.

quote:

Please turn your attention to something more positive than calling each other names or trying to psychoanalyze each other.

I can multitask. I seem to be the only one intersted in discussion outside this one... But I am waiting for Captian to respond.


Speaking of Psychoanalyzing, I think I have theory that began with the thread on Atheism. Psychoanalyzing is the New modern day religion. Unfortunately It is about a barbaric as early religions needing to assign a “god/name” to every natural occurrence so that they may give praise and reverence and appeasement to. Wars are started over who’s gods are better. My God of Realism can crush your God of Conceptualism. Now we have the God of “make oneself feel good”, we’ll call that one Venus. I do not know how desperate the followers are of this religion are to try and assign name and personality to every natural occurrence. But now that the natural Occurrence has been named, they get to build temples, scriptures and wage war for their new god.

Anyway.. just a theory

quote:

Originally posted by /rén:

quote:

How is that not implied certain aspects of people that you have shown disdain for?

Have I?

UET is a root metaphor for me, now, as many ideas I work out in an elaborate way become. As long as it plays I'll keep playing it. That will be determined by the circumstances I'm working with.

This little bit doesn't take much effort for me Ronald. It's just describing what I see, which happens really fast. I don't usually bother with this sort of thing, but I wanted to share what would come up if I responded to the many things you reflect after my posts that I don't find say much about what I see going on with what I'm saying to someone. It would be endless, and I feel an unnecessary effort to attempt for the most part. It's much simpler to let people be what they are. Even if that "being" is misconstrued about what I know about myself and how I think about things.

Exactly, and thus we wonder why you continue to do the things you do. May I just close with:
Pedro is a root metaphor for me, now, ...

quote:

Originally posted by Sue N:
Please turn your attention to something more positive than calling each other names or trying to psychoanalyze each other.

Well, Sue. I am not to which direction or even if it needs spelled out. I just see that we have come to grips with our differences and are back to our 'natural selves'.

I simply gave people the easy way or the hard way. And with the recent turn of events, it seems they want it one way...

This site is getting to be like a gossip rag. Isn't the paparazzi around here somewhere?

quote:

Originally posted by Gnarlodious:
This site is getting to be like a gossip rag. Isn't the paparazzi around here somewhere?

I am not sure whether we have paparazzi around here but we do have fan[atics].

quote:

But that brings up a wonder in my mind, are you Loganthor, too?

That does bring up a wonder in my mind, are you using paranoid logic again? I do remember how you got so confused with 'Ron Rutherford'. But no one ever questioned all the various rens and Kates that have run around.

quote:

He thinks they are something and something he compares to something else, in a valuing way. We've already been through the hierarchy creation process from basic binary opposition, you shouldn't need that repeated for you.

Then we would have to wonder why you later use Neocons later in your post. Seems awfully hierarchy created BO to me. But at least you have confirmed to me that he is not a nihilist.

quote:

I keep that thought in my mind, and it limits me from assuming too much.

I know it is your usual pattern of I am just asking questions so here goes:
Are you a arxist?
Are you a Nihilist?
Do you beat your wife anymore?
And does the beat truly go on? -even if no one is there to listen?
From this:

quote:

People will not need to be put into valued categories. They can be allowed to think what they like.

To this:

quote:

Neoconservative is a structural identification of a group that has certain characteristics, which tend towards and idealism on foreign policy and a willingness to use military force to achieve those objectives. I've described it extensively.

Do you fit the description?

Mighty structuralist of you! I have described nihilism , Keynesian, neoliberalism, Washington consensus , Marxism etc etc quite extensively. Do you fit the description? Do you still beat your wife?

And the beat goes on...

quote:

Originally posted by Loganthor:
Out of curiosity... Anybody want to discuss about Kate for her senseless ad hom of James and her unchecked trolling behavior. to which apparently nobody seems to notice. Purposely..

I would say no. I did question what she was doing here.

Ronald, this is not going anywhere, and I've already lost interest. I did not respond to you from about last September to about mid April, when Loganthor wanted to know why liberals (specifically Kate, and I believe artlo, and of course me) are so whiny.

It was very comfortable for me to not respond up to then. The way I sort things out is not the way you do, obviously, and I'd rather not share much of it.

Then I made some effort to allow interactions to occur until about mid July. Honestly, I didn't have a really good reason for it, I just thought it might be worth the experiment.

It really wasn't worth it for me. I don't get much out of any of them to be honest about it. I'm about out of interest on this one. I don't intend to be rude by that, I don't mean to disparage you in any way, it's just not something I want to continue. That's the "own volition" issue there again. If you can respect that, that would be great, if not, I realize that's out of my realm.

quote:

Out of curiosity... Anybody want to discuss about Kate for her senseless ad hom of James and her unchecked trolling behavior. to which apparently nobody seems to notice. Purposely..

We can get back to my ego, but technically my ego is already purrrring like a kitty.

That's a yawner.

Kate and James already resolved that.

/rén, NP.
Thanks for your honesty even if I don't know it is true or not. I do