Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Experimenter's Corner | moderated by John Raica

Are we actually machines?


Displaying posts 571 - 600 of 790 in total
Wed, 10 May 2017 #571
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

People try to preach their own version of K without understanding what K said.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 May 2017 #572
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 168 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
K...." We are not pursuing ideas or ideologies, but facing actuality. Because in actuality and going beyond that actuality is the truth. And when you discover, when there is truth, it's the most dangerous thing. Truth is very dangerous because it brings a revolution in oneself."

I don't think that it is always appreciated, this "danger" that is inherent in going into oneself. Into the "actuality"...and possibly upsetting ones mental 'apple cart'.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 10 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 May 2017 #573
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

All creatures have some sort of a brain and all creatures use it; ie. they 'think'. All creatures have consciousness. All creatures are conditioned by their immediate physical environment. But only one creature abides by and is owned by a complex consensus. In other words lives his whole life in accord with manufactured rules.

It is these 'rules' that constitute the 'content' of this separated being's consciousness. The scenario applies to no other 'being'. But, I repeat, all creatures have consciousness.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Wed, 10 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 May 2017 #574
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I don't think that it is always appreciated, this "danger" that is inherent in going into oneself. Into the "actuality"...and possibly upsetting ones mental 'apple cart'.

Quite, it is only likely to be appreciated by 'none casual' and 'above average' readers. Especially perhaps by readers who's (albeit unwitting) cruel mentality nevertheless leads them to exact a price from others on account their contributions are not understood.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Wed, 10 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 May 2017 #575
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Quote of the day:

"Either we think and become disillusioned and cynical - or we think and go beyond."

Two types of thought, two types of consciousness.

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 May 2017 #576
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 168 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
Quite, it is only likely to be appreciated by 'none casual' and 'above average' readers. Especially perhaps by readers who's (albeit unwitting) cruel mentality nevertheless leads them to exact a price from others on account their contributions are not understood.

John

I have no way to know if you are delusional so it doesn't concern me. But your posts like this one (among many) are pretty 'creepy'. Why don't you just let all this go and move on? Its not necessary to insult others even if you think its for their own good.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 May 2017 #577
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Why don't you just let all this go and move on?

That's a fair comment. But that style of thinking where there are 'below average' and 'above average' people is not only creepy, it is actually delusional. Something in me revolts against all such attributions and from that feeling I look to see what it is that revolts in me. I think it's recognising the cruelty of it.

Why would anyone want to label themselves "above average?" It's rather sad, I'm afraid.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 May 2017 #578
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
All creatures have some sort of a brain and all creatures use it

Leaving aside those who do not and those that do not even have a central nervous system, yes, the rest have some sort of brain.

John Perkins. wrote:
ie. they 'think'

Do they? You may think they do but do they? K said they do not. He said thought is a human attribute. It seems to me that some higher mammals share that capacity, to some extent, but not many.

K categorically said that thought is time. There has to be a capacity for the particular brain to project concepts of time and integrate that concept into the manipulation of images. I understand that humans do that and I see the evidence all around of it in human activities but I do not see it in the earthworm or even the cat (we keep both in our household).

John Perkins. wrote:
But only one creature abides by and is owned by a complex consensus. In other words lives his whole life in accord with manufactured rules.

Leaving aside the question of "ownership" and "accordance" it is true that the human creates societies that function with complex consensus and manufactured rules. But it is this which is precisely a development of thought. The absence of complex consensus or consensus at all, or manufactured rules in other animals also points to the absence of thought.

John Perkins. wrote:
It is these 'rules' that constitute the 'content' of this separated being's consciousness. The scenario applies to no other 'being'. But, I repeat, all creatures have consciousness.

Well, that may be your opinion but it was not shared by K. K said that all creatures have awareness. They did not, according to him, have a consciousness with its content.

It's fine to have one's own view. It's not fine to project that view onto K's teaching where it does not accord with that teaching. That only creates confusion. It seems to me, John, that you are failing to discern between awareness, which all creatures have, and thought/consciousness, which is an attribute of humans and some higher mammals.

Thought/consciousness is the movement of image and time. To think, I have to abstract something from the concreteness of actuality, create an image of it as a discrete fact (discrete being the antithesis of concrete) and manipulate that image through time. Without that, all I have is awareness, sensation and intelligence.

Consciousness, according to K, accumulates. It is an accumulation. Awareness is not. K is fine with the fact that consciousness accumulates. He is not fine with the fact that a center arises that steers that accumulation and organises it. He said that only when the process of accumulation (consciousness) ends can the other (truth) make itself known. That that truth has the power to correct the brain and eliminate the center from consciousness. The difference between the new consciousness and the old is that the new has no center, but is still accumulates knowledge, if the human is to find his/her way home etc.

But for that truth to cleanse the brain, consciousness has to stop. It is what happened to K, according to him. He speaks from that understanding.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 May 2017 #579
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 173 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
K used the term "pure being" only once, in 1945, and he used "pure action" four times, from 1934 to 1936. Neither term are representative of the teaching, so far as I can tell.

Paul, he used the term mostly in his early talk, for example here
"The individual held in the bondage of limitation, knowing the separation of "you" and "I", has to liberate himself and has to fulfil himself in that liberation. Liberation is freedom of consciousness, which is not the multiplication of "I am", but results from the wearing down of the sense of separateness. The ultimate purpose of individual existence is to realise pure being in which there is no separation, which is the realisation of the whole. The fulfilment of man's destiny is to be the totality. It is not a question of losing yourself in the Absolute, but that you, by growth, by continual conflict, by adjustment, shall become the whole. Individuality is merely a segment of the totality, and it is because it feels itself to be only a part that it is all the time seeking to fulfil itself, to realise itself in the totality. Therefore self-consciousness involves effort. If you do not make an effort against limitation, there is no longer self-consciousness and individuality. When individuality has fulfilled itself through ceaseless effort, destroying, tearing down the wall of separateness, when it has achieved a sense of effortless being, then individual existence has fulfilled itself."

When you do not identify with anything, not with your memories, not with your body, not with any atman, with any God, what is there? All divisions such as "me" and "not me", "my body" and "others", "spirit" and "matter" come from the mind, from the separate consciousness. When this consciousness of separation is not, what is there? And I am telling you what is there: pure being, in which there is no separation such as "me" and "not me", there is no subject and no object. There is just the totality, of which your body and mind are just little tiny segments. You are no more separate from it, because there is no separate identity, it has been erased, because that identity is created by thought. Without thought, there is no separate "I am". Then your mind is like a mirror, that has been purified of stain (the "me")

John Raica deleted the links to the early talks 1929-1930, but in those I counted the term "pure being" at least 10 times. For some excerpts from those early texts, look here and use the search function

This post was last updated by Jan Kasol Thu, 11 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 May 2017 #580
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 173 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
People try to preach their own version of K without understanding what K said.

Truth does not belong to K, nor can K lead you to Truth. If you catch a glimpse of the Truth, you try to describe it. Just like paintings from different painters painting the same scene would differ, so the descriptions of Truth by different individuals differ. Not in essence, but in detail and emphasis. Who but yourself can say if you are deluding yourself or not? If you delude yourself, you will suffer.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 May 2017 #581
Thumb_untitled5 Ken D United States 4 posts in this forum Offline

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 May 2017 #582
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:

Paul David son wrote:

People try to preach their own version of K without understanding what K said.

Truth does not belong to K, nor can K lead you to Truth.

Truth belongs to no one. That is true. But it is not what was being discussed.

Jan Kasol wrote:
If you catch a glimpse of the Truth, you try to describe it.

You may do so but this is exactly what K warned against. What surprises me is how little of what K taught has been understood, even at what he called the intellectual level. Let me explain:

When you adorn 'truth' with a capital letter and call it 'Truth,' you are referring to something that stands outside of actuality and outside of the known, something that cannot be described. When you try to describe it, name it, pin it down with words, you kill it. This is K's teaching.

Jan Kasol wrote:
Just like paintings from different painters painting the same scene would differ, so the descriptions of Truth by different individuals differ.

That is a false analogy. Descriptions of a scene differ, certainly. But it is a fair enterprise to paint a scene, to describe a scene, and so on. The question as to how much a particular reference is 'true' to what it refers is always an open one. Regular truth is like that, how true is the description to the described or to put it in K's parlance, how true is the word to the thing? With all descriptions we have to understand that the described is not the description, the word is not the thing. Yet, bearing that in mind, it is perfectly in order to offer descriptions of things and of events that are actual.

This is not the case with what K calls 'Truth' however. To describe 'Truth' is a sacrilege, according to K. Do you recall the story of the devil and his friend seeing a man pick something up? It was a fragment (glimpse) of Truth. The devil felt safe knowing the man would proceed to organise it. When you describe something you organise it. That is the meaning of K's story.

Look at this:

K: "We said consciousness is its content. Its content is put together by thought. An incident takes place where the energy shock drives out consciousness for a second or for days or months or whatever it is. Then, as the shock wears off, you begin to name the state. Then, you bring that into consciousness. But it is not in consciousness when it takes place."

When you offer a description of 'Truth,' according to K, you have brought it into consciousness, named and organised it according to patterns of previous experience. But Truth itself, he says, did not take place in consciousness and is not part of any pattern of the known. In bringing 'Truth' into the field of the known you have transgressed an important boundary and a radical corruption is inherent in that. This is not the case when you take something that exists in the field of the known, in actuality, such as a cow in a field, and paint it.

That is why your analogy does not hold. It paints over an essential difference between two totally different factors, the known and the unknown, according to K.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 May 2017 #583
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
the descriptions of Truth by different individuals differ. Not in essence, but in detail and emphasis. Who but yourself can say if you are deluding yourself or not?

According to K, all descriptions of 'Truth' are delusions.

"Most people who think that they are seeking truth have already prepared their minds for its reception by studying descriptions of what they are seeking. When you examine religions and philosophies, you find that they have all tried to describe reality; they have tried to describe truth for your guidance. Now, I am not going to try to describe what to me is truth, for that would be an impossible attempt. One cannot describe or give to another the fullness of an experience. Each one must live it for himself.

"Like most people, you have read, listened and imitated; you have tried to find out what others have said concerning truth and God, concerning life and immortality. So you have a picture in your mind, and now you want to compare that picture with what I am going to say. That is, your mind is seeking merely description; you do not try to find out anew, but only try to compare. But since I shall not try to describe truth, for it cannot be described, naturally there will be confusion in your mind.

"When you hold before yourself a picture that you are trying to copy, an ideal that you are trying to follow, you can never face an experience fully; you are never frank, never truthful as regards yourself and your own actions; you are always protecting yourself with an ideal. If you really probe into your own mind and heart, you will discover that you come here to get something new: a new idea, a new sensation, a new explanation of life, in order that you may mold your own life according to that. Therefore, you are really searching for a satisfactory explanation. You have not come with an attitude of freshness, so that by your own perception, your own intensity, you may discover the joy of natural and spontaneous action. Most of you are merely seeking a descriptive explanation of truth, thinking that if you can find out what truth is, you can then mold your lives according to that eternal light."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 May 2017 #584
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
Paul, he used the term mostly in his early talk, for example here . . .

Yes, he said many things in those early days which he later rejected categorically. Which is why they are not included in the teaching but are still available elsewhere. I will not offer an explanation for this as I don't have one but let's at least start from the facts. The teaching itself is absolutely consistent in its repetition of what K saw as a fact, that "consciousness is its content."

It amazes me how difficult people find it to face facts.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 May 2017 #585
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
Jan Kasol wrote:

Paul, he used the term mostly in his early talk, for example here . . .
Yes, he said many things in those early days which he later rejected categorically. Which is why they are not included in the teaching but are still available elsewhere

Interesting. Thanks for pointing that out, Paul. Personally speaking, I've found lots of the very early stuff to be problematic...and in contradiction to what he said in the later talks. When exactly do the 'official' teachings begin? With which talk? Do you know?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 May 2017 #586
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins wrote:

ie. they 'think'

.

Paul David son responded:

Do they? You may think they do but do they? K said they do not. He said thought is a human attribute. It seems to me that some higher mammals share that capacity, to some extent, but not many.

I guess it's going to depend on how we chose to interpret brain movement. Do only human brains move?

.

Paul David son wrote:

K categorically said that thought is time.

Yes. And a certain type of brain movement certainly is.

.

Paul David son wrote:

There has to be a capacity for the particular brain to project concepts of time and integrate that concept into the manipulation of images.

I'm afraid this represents a fundamentally mistaken understanding, Paul. Psychological thought doesn't 'project' time. It IS time. You are dividing the indivisible; which practice is what the conditioned (ie. mechanical) thought process consists in.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Thu, 11 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 May 2017 #587
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
...When exactly do the 'official' teachings begin? With which talk? Do you know?

Now there is a very interesting question. Who (or what) but a mutated brain could spot the mutation of a brain? (I take, for our purposes, the described phenomenon to be a fact). At least one member here seems to purport that they know when the teachings begin.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Thu, 11 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 May 2017 #588
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins wrote:

Quite, it is only likely to be appreciated by 'none casual' and 'above average' readers. Especially perhaps by readers who's (albeit unwitting) cruel mentality nevertheless leads them to exact a price from others on account their contributions are not understood.

.

Dan McDermott wrote:

John

...Why don't you just let all this go and move on?

Dan, you have to understand that for this to happen you need to stop applying the electrodes. This is a small community. We are effectively sat around a table. One member cannot rationally continue, in perpetuity, to pointedly blank another member as you do me, without detrimental effect to (i) the inquiry, (ii) the 'blanked' member, and (iii) the community.

You should see and understand that you would not perpetuate this activity unless you derive some personal satisfaction from it. The reason I point to it from time to time is on account of its obvious - to me anyway - universal detriment.

I'm not going to play the game of pretending that it doesn't hurt me personally. And you shouldn't play the game of pretending that you don't know it does, or that in fact that's why you do it, ie. because you derive some personal satisfaction from it.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Thu, 11 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 May 2017 #589
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 173 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
When you adorn 'truth' with a capital letter and call it 'Truth,' you are referring to something that stands outside of actuality and outside of the known, something that cannot be described. When you try to describe it, name it, pin it down with words, you kill it. This is K's teaching.

For a K sceptic, you know his teaching well. Truth does not stand outside of actuality, but it stands outside of the known. Truth is the actual. It is what is. It is the ego, the self, that is the center of non-actuality, of illusions, of limitations, of prejudices, of distortions. Whenever there is craving or fear, it blinds you, you are incapable of discerning that which is, the actual. When the ego stays silent, there is pure being, or choiceless observation, or total attention. And only in this observation in complete silence you see what actually is, what Truth is. You can try to describe Truth, but you must keep in mind, that the description is not the described, and that most listeners have no direct experience of the "silence of the ego" themselves. Hence they are bound to create some misleading concepts in their minds. K was anxious to prevent this. In his early talks, K actually attempted to describe Truth, he told it as it is, he painted the whole picture. But when he saw, how misunderstood he is, how the minds of his listeners constantly twist what he says to suit their prejudices, he stoped talking about it. But maybe he has thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

I disagree with your statement that the early talks are somehow false or immature. K was fully self-realized in 1926. I studied all the decades of K teachings, and he is describing one and the same reality, one and the same insight. The only thing that evolves is his language and emphasis in reaction to the reactions of his listeners. He saw how much confusion his early talks create, so he changes his language. He no more talked about the "unity behind all Life", and that God is "one light in many lamps" or that the "eternal self is the self of everyone". He became almost exclusively psychological, concentrated on the change in society.

PS: I posted an excerpt of a K early speech in my thread. In these early speeches, K actually tells what it is all about, what the goal is: to erase the ego, thus conquer separateness, and enter the effortless Being, which is Life, which is the totality of all Life. In his later talks, he talks about the same, but in a veiled manner.

This post was last updated by Jan Kasol Thu, 11 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 May 2017 #590
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
I disagree with your statement that the early talks are somehow false or immature. K was fully self-realized in 1926.

But K himself was quoted as saying that he didn't reach 'total liberation' until almost 20 years after that date, Jan. I think the date he gave was 1945...not totally sure of the exact date. Paul claims that the official teachings start much later as well. What I want to ask is, who exactly was it who determined the date that the 'teachings' were to become 'official'/authentic? Was it K himself? If so, that is surely significant. Another point is that some of the talks from the 1930's were supposedly taken down by hand...not tape recorded.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 11 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 May 2017 #591
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 173 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
But K himself was quoted as saying that he didn't reach 'total liberation' until almost 20 years after that date, Jan. I think the date he gave was 1945...not totally sure of the exact date

oh, that is wonderful. So K was deluding himself between 1926-1945, because I can give you countless quotes from these talks where he says, that he became the Truth, that he realized a living reality, that he became liberated. And later he found out, that he was, in fact, not fully self-realized? Then what if he was deluding himself also later, from 1945-1985? How do we know?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 May 2017 #592
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
oh, that is wonderful. So K was deluding himself between 1926-1945,

K was quoted as saying exactly what I posted above. Though I'm not totally clear about the exact date he gave, it was definitely after 1940. Make of it what you will.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 May 2017 #593
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 173 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
K was quoted as saying exactly what I posted above. Though I'm not totally clear about the exact date he gave, it was definitely after 1940. Make of it what you will.

do you have some source for that quote? Because if that is true, I see no reason to trust anything K has ever said.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 May 2017 #594
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
Because if that is true, I see no reason to trust anything K has ever said.

I wouldn't advise taking anything anyone says on trust, Jan.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 May 2017 #595
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
do you have some source for that quote?

I wish I did, but no. I've only read the biographies....the major ones, and the transcriptions of the talks, so it was in a book that had K's approval, I'm almost totally certain.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 May 2017 #596
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
I disagree with your statement that the early talks are somehow false or immature. K was fully self-realized in 1926. I studied all the decades of K teachings, and he is describing one and the same reality, one and the same insight. The only thing that evolves is his language and emphasis in reaction to the reactions of his listeners. He saw how much confusion his early talks create, so he changes his language. He no more talked about the "unity behind all Life", and that God is "one light in many lamps" or that the "eternal self is the self of everyone". He became almost exclusively psychological, concentrated on the change in society.

Yes, Jan, your above describes precisely the case. The teachings date from the event that occurred circa the date you relate, described by K in 'The Ending of Time' and probably elsewhere. The only 'change' to them being for, once again precisely, the reasons you state.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Thu, 11 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 May 2017 #597
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

I'll ask again, ref the conversation around when the teachings actually began: Who (or what) but a mutated brain might be placed to spot the mutation of a brain? Or hence - if it should still fail to be clear - quite 'when' the teachings began?

And since the forum membership seems to roundly and summarily disallow mutated brains, we somewhat run into the buffers don't we? Just as with, perhaps tellingly, seemingly every other issue we chose to speculate on.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Thu, 11 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 May 2017 #598
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 168 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
you have to understand that for this to happen you need to stop applying the electrodes. This is a small community. We are effectively sat around a table. One member cannot rationally continue, in perpetuity, to pointedly blank another member as you do me, without detrimental effect to (i) the inquiry, (ii) the 'blanked' member, and (iii) the community.

You should see and understand that you would not perpetuate this activity unless you derive some personal satisfaction from it. The reason I point to it from time to time is on account of its obvious - to me anyway - universal detriment.

I'm not going to play the game of pretending that it doesn't hurt me personally. And you shouldn't play the game of pretending that you don't know it does, or that in fact that's why you do it, ie. because you derive some personal satisfaction from it.

John

I am sorry that you feel "hurt" by my choice to not engage with you and that you have come to the conclusions you have regarding that choice. They are not correct and I derive no personal satisfaction from doing so. I can not help the way you or anyone else 'feels' about anything. If you feel that you are being in some way 'persecuted' because of my choice, I also cannot help that. You have in the past insulted me and others when we posted sincerely and in 'good faith'. You insulted and ridiculed others who chose not to enter into 'dialogue' with you. It should not be a mystery to you why someone might choose to have nothing to do with you.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 11 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 May 2017 #599
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
You insulted and ridiculed others who chose not to enter into 'dialogue' with you. It should not be a mystery to you why someone might choose to have nothing to do with you.

The reason it remains a mystery to me is the same that a number of things do here, not least the taboo of inquiry into such things as the 'brain mutation'. You see, Dan, you claim that I have insulted and ridiculed but in fact that is just an assumption arrived at by a particular perception. The 'I' is very easy to offend. It only has to be presented with some home truths. And just as with Clive when he bans me (for life!), you refuse point-blank to examine the situation to see whether what you're seeing is actually the case. And I would say that what you're doing in blanking me is similar. At the very least you fail to see or acknowledge the general detriment. I am not a stupid person Dan and my contributions are very seriously intended and hard worked for accuracy, ease of legibility etc.. It is deeply offensive to me for you to abuse them the way you insist on doing.

So I repeat, when you ask, "Why don't you just let all this go and move on?", I ask in return, 'How can that possibly happen whilst you persist in applying the electrodes?' it is YOU who maintains the situation not me.

At the very least acknowledge for yourself the general detriment of this seemingly preferred activity of yours. We are, as said, a small group.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Thu, 11 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 May 2017 #600
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I am sorry that you feel "hurt" by my choice to not engage with you and that you have come to the conclusions you have regarding that choice. They are not correct and I derive no personal satisfaction from doing so.

It is your personal choice of preference so it MUST necessarily be the choice you prefer. Therefore it is a given that you derive some satisfaction from it. Ie. if it were not the case then obviously you would run with a different option.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Thu, 11 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 571 - 600 of 790 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)