Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt01609)

> Cass-
>
> You wrote:
>
> "This is an excellent example of two minds enslaving each other in 
> ego.  Why not just substitute "drunk" with "intoxicated".  Two 
> unspoken truths are the cultivation of a sense of humour and common 
> sense, let's get back to both eh guys."
>
> Very true, and utmost common sense that you offer here, Cass.  
> Especially about the ego part.
>
> I tried the humor thing, but Carlos didn't like it apparently, 
> thinking I was too happy for his tastes.  As for enslavement, he and 
> I are both good at that, although Carlos might be hesitant to admit 
> it, I don't know.  I love to get preachy when I'm preached at, hehe.
>
> Carlos-
>
> You wrote:
>
> "Vincent,
>
> Others are mirrors for us."
>
> Obviously.  You are welcome to start mirroring.  Think of a twoway 
> mirror, as opposed to simply oneway.  It's easy to preach, my 
> friend, and assert as you have that the other should remain silent, 
> but that works both ways.
>
> "Theos-talk is not about personal discussions."
>
> Where did you get that wild idea?  There are no such restrictions in 
> this forum.  At least not that you're exercising.  Although, I 
> certainly wouldn't call our exchanges a 'personal' discussion.  You 
> simply had a personality conflict with me, and my wordiness rubbed 
> you the wrong way.  I'm a writer.  It's in my nature, whether you 
> like that or not.  If you don't like what I have to say, then you're 
> not obligated to respond.  But you did several times, and I 
> responded back.  Don't try to pin that on me, my friend.  You played 
> your part.  Naughty, naughty.
>
> "Compare the number of sentences and level of "personality energy"in 
> the two cases."
>
> The problem is that you're comparing each person with the other here 
> in the first place.  An evidence of the aforementioned ego 
> conflict.  Something that I said had vexed you, and so you engaged 
> in personal discussion with me, while wildly asserting that this 
> forum is not for personal discussion.  And somehow you believe 
> that 'personality energy' is a bad thing, when factually it is not.  
> It's better to have personality energy than none at all.
>
> The fact that you had internally flipped the concept of 'personality 
> energy' from a good thing into a bad thing in your mind is simply 
> evidence of the personality conflict residing within you.  And so 
> you attempt to correct what you mistakenly believe to be wrong.  
> You're attempting to correct a mispercieved imbalance, because you 
> believe that things should be balanced.  When life is not always 
> that way.
>
> And no, my friend, lots of sentences are not a bad thing either when 
> one is a writer.  Lots of sentences simply means one has a fluency 
> with words (as do I), and does not imply either excess personality 
> energy or word intoxication.  It simply means that I put quality 
> effort into any endeavor that I undertake, in this case writing.  On 
> my end, I simply interpret your attention span as perhaps being a 
> bit short.  Although you did read every word.  It just sort of 
> reminds me when I was breaking corporate productivity records at 
> United Parcel Service as a supervisor.  My bosses loved it, but 
> occasionally a coworker would become offended in their sense of ego 
> competition.
>
> Now what does all of this have to do with Theosophy?  I'll leave 
> that to you to connect the dots, seeing as how you got preachy with 
> me.  (Okay, your turn.  You're enslaved, lolol.  And I'm the 
> energizer bunny.)
>
> "Peace to you."
>
> At last, something constuctive.  Peace to you as well.
>
> Blessings
>
> Vince
>
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva <silva_cass@...> wrote:
> > This is an excellent example of two minds enslaving each other in 
> ego.  Why not just substitute "drunk" with "intoxicated".  
> > Two unspoken truths are the cultivation of a sense of humour and 
> common sense, let's get back to both eh guys.
> > Cass
> >
> > Vincent <vblaz2004@...> wrote: Carlos-
> >
> > You wrote:
> >
> > "Who called anyone literally drunk here?"
> >
> > You comparatively derived a metaphor of 'word' drunkenness from a 
> > source of literal drunkenness.  'Another way to get drunk' as per 
> > your thread title.  You were deriving a metaphor from the literal, 
> > even as all metaphors are derived from the literal as comparative 
> > communication devices.
> >
> > "I thought you could perceive "getting drunk" is a metaphor."
> >
> > Most certainly.  And in the context of your obvious offendedness, 
> a 
> > derogatory metaphor at best.  Metaphors are used as comparisons to 
> > the literal as a literary device.  You were comparing.  And your 
> > comparative metaphor was in relation to something that you detest.
> >
> > "Pay attention, "Vince"."
> >
> > Sounds pretty aggressive, lolol.  Forced perspectives don't make 
> too 
> > much headway with me.  I think you're still offended.  At what, I 
> > really don't know, because you said that you didn't feel that I 
> had 
> > tricked you.  But you're offended nonetheless.  Do you require 
> > continued assistance working through your offendedness?
> >
> > Vince
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously 
> low rates.
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links