mercedo wrote today at 11:57 PM
Many years ago one pretty young single girl talked to me when I was browsing an English book in Rainbow plaza -meeting place for foreign people. We had a meal a couple of times since then. But she was not my type. I mean she didn't attract me sexually. We had date four or five times, talked about various things. Basically we both studied abroad, so we had a common topic. Love makes our interest closer, but we had just the lack of love. We stopped meeting soon.
I guess I had a countless examples for this lack of love. Love is not particularly different from friendship, but love just makes our friendship perfect.
Friday, 31 August 2007
mercedo wrote today at 11:57 PM
Many years ago one pretty young single girl talked to me when I was browsing an English book in Rainbow plaza -meeting place for foreign people. We had a meal a couple of times since then. But she was not my type. I mean she didn't attract me sexually. We had date four or five times, talked about various things. Basically we both studied abroad, so we had a common topic. Love makes our interest closer, but we had just the lack of love. We stopped meeting soon.
I guess I had a countless examples for this lack of love. Love is not particularly different from friendship, but love just makes our friendship perfect.
Many years ago one pretty young single girl talked to me when I was browsing an English book in Rainbow plaza -meeting place for foreign people. We had a meal a couple of times since then. But she was not my type. I mean she didn't attract me sexually. We had date four or five times, talked about various things. Basically we both studied abroad, so we had a common topic. Love makes our interest closer, but we had just the lack of love. We stopped meeting soon.
I guess I had a countless examples for this lack of love. Love is not particularly different from friendship, but love just makes our friendship perfect.
Re:At my work, we recently had a going-away party(Score:?)
by mercedo (822671) on 2007.08.31 0:05 (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.29 3:35)
Here is the picture and its legend of English circle. I think that helps you understand it vividly. http://mercedo.multiply.com/journal/item/56/Farewe ll_party/
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) on 2007.08.31 0:05 (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.29 3:35)
Here is the picture and its legend of English circle. I think that helps you understand it vividly. http://mercedo.multiply.com/journal/item/56/Farewe ll_party/
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Thursday, 30 August 2007
Hi,
Thanks a lot!
Allow me to use your photo, if you approved, here's where your photo was editted.
http://mercedo.multiply.com/journal/item/56/Farewell_party
I am eager to hear from you after you resume your life in the Philippines.
See you soon!
Thanks a lot!
Allow me to use your photo, if you approved, here's where your photo was editted.
http://mercedo.multiply.com/journal/item/56/Farewell_party
I am eager to hear from you after you resume your life in the Philippines.
See you soon!
Wednesday, 29 August 2007
Take my word for it, the silliest woman can manage a clever man, but it needs a very clever woman to manage a fool. -- Kipling
This is indeed, true.
This statement merely tells us that it's not suitable to have couples of both clever-clever and silly-silly. If both were clever, they won't yield to one another. If both were silly, they won't go forward any longer.
Take my word for it, the silliest woman can manage a clever man, but it needs a very clever woman to manage a fool. -- Kipling
This is indeed, true.
This statement merely tells us that it's not suitable to have couples of both clever-clever and silly-silly. If both were clever, they won't yield to one another. If both were silly, they won't go forward any longer.
mercedo wrote today at 8:08 PM
You always open your window to the east. I'm afraid you need not make a real window in the east side.
You always open your window to the east. I'm afraid you need not make a real window in the east side.
mercedo wrote today at 8:08 PM
You always open your window to the east. I'm afraid you need not make a real window in the east side.
You always open your window to the east. I'm afraid you need not make a real window in the east side.
mercedo wrote today at 5:00 AM
I'd like to pay a visit this place with someone whom I care for a lot. Preferably you.
I'd like to pay a visit this place with someone whom I care for a lot. Preferably you.
mercedo wrote today at 5:00 AM
I'd like to pay a visit this place with someone whom I care for a lot. Preferably you.
I'd like to pay a visit this place with someone whom I care for a lot. Preferably you.
mercedo wrote today at 4:31 AM
Thanks for accepting my invitation!I feel as if we were destined to see one another.Thanks for choosing my head shot on the front!
Thanks for accepting my invitation!I feel as if we were destined to see one another.Thanks for choosing my head shot on the front!
mercedo wrote today at 4:31 AM
Thanks for accepting my invitation!I feel as if we were destined to see one another.Thanks for choosing my head shot on the front!
Thanks for accepting my invitation!I feel as if we were destined to see one another.Thanks for choosing my head shot on the front!
Pleasure Boat
2007.08.29 3:35
On the last Sunday I went to one university where test for social insurrance solicitor took place with a friend who took this teat.
We arrived at 8:30 in the morning. She's going to take this test until 16:40, so I needed to kill time until then. I went to the famous Wajiro lagoon near the university. I walked and walked along with the lagoon under the extremely strong sunshine. I was the only who dared to do under such a extreme sunshine. I got tanned very much.
I was the only one on the land side, but on the bay there're three pleasure boats that were playing ski on the water. Some of a young girl wearing bikini shouting very loud, which was of course seemed very fun.
It takes nothing to walk along with the beach. It takes a lot of money to play on the water. I felt envious, to tell the truth.
Back in my home, I learned one of the people who were playing ski on the water accidentally drowned to death. He was drunk and dropped from the pleasure boat accidentaly when someone cut the direction sharp.
The news report revealing that he was a member of self diffence force.
Total eclipse
2007.08.29 2:57
One of my friends let me know that we had a total eclipse for a couple of hours. It was till 20:30. I was unable to observe though. I thought it symbolises his leaving from our sight soon.
Famous last word
2007.08.29 2:45
Tonight we had a farewell party for one of our colleagues who came here a year ago for excange scholar from the Philippines. He's about to leave here soon.
'This is the beginning of our true friendship.' This word came to be my famous last word to him.
Men and women are physical relationship. The relationship is likely to cease when they leave. Between men and men are of course spiritual relationship. Spiritual relationship will start strengthening itself as they left.
Matter of comparison
2007.08.28 23:32
Take my word for it, the silliest woman can manage a clever man, but it needs a very clever woman to manage a fool. -- Kipling
Now I understand why I've been needing a clever woman.
2007.08.29 3:35
On the last Sunday I went to one university where test for social insurrance solicitor took place with a friend who took this teat.
We arrived at 8:30 in the morning. She's going to take this test until 16:40, so I needed to kill time until then. I went to the famous Wajiro lagoon near the university. I walked and walked along with the lagoon under the extremely strong sunshine. I was the only who dared to do under such a extreme sunshine. I got tanned very much.
I was the only one on the land side, but on the bay there're three pleasure boats that were playing ski on the water. Some of a young girl wearing bikini shouting very loud, which was of course seemed very fun.
It takes nothing to walk along with the beach. It takes a lot of money to play on the water. I felt envious, to tell the truth.
Back in my home, I learned one of the people who were playing ski on the water accidentally drowned to death. He was drunk and dropped from the pleasure boat accidentaly when someone cut the direction sharp.
The news report revealing that he was a member of self diffence force.
Total eclipse
2007.08.29 2:57
One of my friends let me know that we had a total eclipse for a couple of hours. It was till 20:30. I was unable to observe though. I thought it symbolises his leaving from our sight soon.
Famous last word
2007.08.29 2:45
Tonight we had a farewell party for one of our colleagues who came here a year ago for excange scholar from the Philippines. He's about to leave here soon.
'This is the beginning of our true friendship.' This word came to be my famous last word to him.
Men and women are physical relationship. The relationship is likely to cease when they leave. Between men and men are of course spiritual relationship. Spiritual relationship will start strengthening itself as they left.
Matter of comparison
2007.08.28 23:32
Take my word for it, the silliest woman can manage a clever man, but it needs a very clever woman to manage a fool. -- Kipling
Now I understand why I've been needing a clever woman.
Pleasure Boat
2007.08.29 3:35
On the last Sunday I went to one university where test for social insurrance solicitor took place with a friend who took this teat.
We arrived at 8:30 in the morning. She's going to take this test until 16:40, so I needed to kill time until then. I went to the famous Wajiro lagoon near the university. I walked and walked along with the lagoon under the extremely strong sunshine. I was the only who dared to do under such a extreme sunshine. I got tanned very much.
I was the only one on the land side, but on the bay there're three pleasure boats that were playing ski on the water. Some of a young girl wearing bikini shouting very loud, which was of course seemed very fun.
It takes nothing to walk along with the beach. It takes a lot of money to play on the water. I felt envious, to tell the truth.
Back in my home, I learned one of the people who were playing ski on the water accidentally drowned to death. He was drunk and dropped from the pleasure boat accidentaly when someone cut the direction sharp.
The news report revealing that he was a member of self diffence force.
Total eclipse
2007.08.29 2:57
One of my friends let me know that we had a total eclipse for a couple of hours. It was till 20:30. I was unable to observe though. I thought it symbolises his leaving from our sight soon.
Famous last word
2007.08.29 2:45
Tonight we had a farewell party for one of our colleagues who came here a year ago for excange scholar from the Philippines. He's about to leave here soon.
'This is the beginning of our true friendship.' This word came to be my famous last word to him.
Men and women are physical relationship. The relationship is likely to cease when they leave. Between men and men are of course spiritual relationship. Spiritual relationship will start strengthening itself as they left.
Matter of comparison
2007.08.28 23:32
Take my word for it, the silliest woman can manage a clever man, but it needs a very clever woman to manage a fool. -- Kipling
Now I understand why I've been needing a clever woman.
2007.08.29 3:35
On the last Sunday I went to one university where test for social insurrance solicitor took place with a friend who took this teat.
We arrived at 8:30 in the morning. She's going to take this test until 16:40, so I needed to kill time until then. I went to the famous Wajiro lagoon near the university. I walked and walked along with the lagoon under the extremely strong sunshine. I was the only who dared to do under such a extreme sunshine. I got tanned very much.
I was the only one on the land side, but on the bay there're three pleasure boats that were playing ski on the water. Some of a young girl wearing bikini shouting very loud, which was of course seemed very fun.
It takes nothing to walk along with the beach. It takes a lot of money to play on the water. I felt envious, to tell the truth.
Back in my home, I learned one of the people who were playing ski on the water accidentally drowned to death. He was drunk and dropped from the pleasure boat accidentaly when someone cut the direction sharp.
The news report revealing that he was a member of self diffence force.
Total eclipse
2007.08.29 2:57
One of my friends let me know that we had a total eclipse for a couple of hours. It was till 20:30. I was unable to observe though. I thought it symbolises his leaving from our sight soon.
Famous last word
2007.08.29 2:45
Tonight we had a farewell party for one of our colleagues who came here a year ago for excange scholar from the Philippines. He's about to leave here soon.
'This is the beginning of our true friendship.' This word came to be my famous last word to him.
Men and women are physical relationship. The relationship is likely to cease when they leave. Between men and men are of course spiritual relationship. Spiritual relationship will start strengthening itself as they left.
Matter of comparison
2007.08.28 23:32
Take my word for it, the silliest woman can manage a clever man, but it needs a very clever woman to manage a fool. -- Kipling
Now I understand why I've been needing a clever woman.
Tuesday, 28 August 2007
Re:Ahhh...(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.08.28 1:20 (#20372945) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.23 5:47)
War is in short a tremendous consumption of human, or materialistic resourses. The age of mass consumption primarily took place prior to our current ages in a form of drastic decrease of population at war.
Another aspect of war is that killing one another definitely contributed to the sufficient food supply.
Mass consumption in any form makes economy viable.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.08.28 1:20 (#20372945) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.23 5:47)
War is in short a tremendous consumption of human, or materialistic resourses. The age of mass consumption primarily took place prior to our current ages in a form of drastic decrease of population at war.
Another aspect of war is that killing one another definitely contributed to the sufficient food supply.
Mass consumption in any form makes economy viable.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Re:Ahhh...(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.08.28 1:20 (#20372945) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.23 5:47)
War is in short a tremendous consumption of human, or materialistic resourses. The age of mass consumption primarily took place prior to our current ages in a form of drastic decrease of population at war.
Another aspect of war is that killing one another definitely contributed to the sufficient food supply.
Mass consumption in any form makes economy viable.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.08.28 1:20 (#20372945) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.23 5:47)
War is in short a tremendous consumption of human, or materialistic resourses. The age of mass consumption primarily took place prior to our current ages in a form of drastic decrease of population at war.
Another aspect of war is that killing one another definitely contributed to the sufficient food supply.
Mass consumption in any form makes economy viable.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Re:slightly different(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.08.28 0:58 (#20372635) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.23 5:47)
life is shades of gray
I've been pondering about this theme for a long time - the hypocrates and those who pretend to be evil. Hypocrates pretend to hold higher moral values than ordinary people but tend to have a lower moral value. On the contrary those who pretend to be evil pretend to hold a lower moral value. But actually they tend to have higher moral values than ordinary people.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.08.28 0:58 (#20372635) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.23 5:47)
life is shades of gray
I've been pondering about this theme for a long time - the hypocrates and those who pretend to be evil. Hypocrates pretend to hold higher moral values than ordinary people but tend to have a lower moral value. On the contrary those who pretend to be evil pretend to hold a lower moral value. But actually they tend to have higher moral values than ordinary people.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Re:slightly different(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.08.28 0:58 (#20372635) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.23 5:47)
life is shades of gray
I've been pondering about this theme for a long time - the hypocrates and those who pretend to be evil. Hypocrates pretend to hold higher moral values than ordinary people but tend to have a lower moral value. On the contrary those who pretend to be evil pretend to hold a lower moral value. But actually they tend to have higher moral values than ordinary people.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.08.28 0:58 (#20372635) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.23 5:47)
life is shades of gray
I've been pondering about this theme for a long time - the hypocrates and those who pretend to be evil. Hypocrates pretend to hold higher moral values than ordinary people but tend to have a lower moral value. On the contrary those who pretend to be evil pretend to hold a lower moral value. But actually they tend to have higher moral values than ordinary people.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Monday, 27 August 2007
About those who pretend to be evil
Aug 21, '07 11:15 AMfor everyone
There are some people who pretend to be evil. What's their psychology?
Probably their moral standard is extremely high and they realised their behaviour cannot possibly meet their supposedly very high moral standard. Their claim is humans are so sinful and they themselves feel as if they are committing some crime. According to God's standard, humans make error. According to ordinary humans' ordinary moral standard, humans are perfect.
Tags: moral standard
Prev: Cross cultureNext: War Crimes
reply share
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 21
You mean sort of: "I have so much evil in me that I might as well be honest and show it"? Interesting theory - and not at all unlikely.
reply
briangriffith wrote on Aug 21
I don't have to pretend.
reply
mercedo wrote on Aug 22
briangriffith saidI don't have to pretend. When you say so people immediately understand you must be an evil. Those who pretend to be evil usually say 'I am evil'. Because they want us to believe they are evil.
So when you say 'I don't have to pretend ( because I am evil ), you are saying the word in parenthesis, and I understand your moral standard is very high to the point you consider yourself as evil.
reply
eglamkowski wrote on Aug 22
Then again, maybe he tortures puppies for fun and pulls the wings off of butterflies? :O
reply
mercedo wrote on Aug 22
Yeah, sort of..
If someone were a hypocrite, he would try to hide their evil and pretend to be a good person. He has to pretend to be a good person, therefore he must be evil.
If someone's moral standard is extremely high, he would always feel he are committing some sin. Therefore he might say he is an evil person, but actually he is not.
reply
morosoph wrote on Aug 22
eglamkowski saidThen again, maybe he tortures puppies for fun and pulls the wings off of butterflies? :ONo! It's "Pulling the wings off rabbits"!"But rabbits don't have wings""Not unless you nail them on first!"
reply
imelnychenko wrote on Aug 24
A very difficult question...And who are the people who pertend to be Good?
reply
imelnychenko wrote on Aug 24
Is it a psychospiritual problem? Can atheistic people feel like Evil?Certain people with psychotic disorders feel like Evil; another psychotic patients feel like Good.Can christian people feel like Evil when they are otherwise mentaly healthy? - They call it lost faith. We probably do not talk about is she/he indeed good/bad - that will be an "objective" estimation of other people who deal with her/him. We are concerned about "how does she/he FEELS like" and not about his actual symptoms (torturing, lying, burning, stealing).
reply
mercedo wrote on Aug 25
imelnychenko saidA very difficult question...And who are the people who pertend to be Good? A very difficult question...
Indeed, it's difficult. For we need to define those rabbits who wear the cloth of wolf and wolves who wear the suits of rabbits. Our observation is obviously not enough.
And who are the people who pretend to be Good?
Actually majority of them are really good though, here I meant for example, policeman, nurse, monk, guardian, rescuer, or firefighter, who usually help us when we are in trouble. Because we often find the cases those people involve.
My guess is those who really wicked feel safe when they hide themselves among really good people.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 25
This is so over-simplified that I don't know where to begin. There are e.g. doctors with great reputations of unselfishness etc. who beat their wives and children, and there are mafia bosses whose families have met nothing but love from them. We all have both sides. Most people try to hide their "evil" side, often even to themselves. Others have seen so little good and/or live under such circumstances that they deny their good sides in order to survive in a daily struggle or fight. Very few people have an evil self-image, with the exception of those who suffer from permanent guilt feelings, usually induced by some crazy religion. The rest think that what they do is necessary - whatever it may be. Sure they hide their actions since they're often illegal, but they don't "hide among really good people", generally.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 25
People who pretend to be worse than they are often do it as a provocation, and/or their "evilness" is nothing but talk. They may be rebels against impossibly high standards, yes.
reply
mercedo wrote on Aug 25
"how does she/he FEELS like" and not about his actual symptoms
Suppose in the case of a fictitious serial killer, he thought humans are so sinful that they ought to die. That was his motivation of serial killing.
Can atheistic people feel like Evil? Can christian people feel like Evil?
No, I don't think atheistic people feel like evil. Their way of grasping the reality of world is just fair. Atheistic people consider humans as perfect.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 25
No normal person consider humans perfect. If you beat a child in anger or hurt your friend's feelings, you'll feel guilty whether you believe in God or not. If such things happen often, i.e. you can't control your anger, you'll feel you're a bad person. The difference is that the atheist doesn't think in terms of sin - his/her thought is more like "I'm not adapted to society" or "I harm other people".
reply
mercedo wrote today at 12:31 PM
ullangoo saidNo normal person consider humans perfect There's a basis of belief in Western culture, that is 'original sin'. So it might be very natural for them to feel humans are imperfect in a country where almost all people are Christians.
Obviously this idea is totally unfamiliar in traditional East-Asian culture. If we were born under no particular defects both in body and mind, of course we were born perfect. Here imperfect means handicapped, disabled or subnormal.
Aside from that, I agree humans make mistakes. But I must say this is a sign of human evolution. It's not human that is to blame, but a system. Human makes an error because existing system won't have been able to follow the speed of human evolution.
reply
mercedo wrote today at 12:43 PM
ullangoo saidThis is so over-simplified that I don't know where to begin In a country where they think God is almighty, supreme being, or perfect, the position of humans are naturally located lower than God. In atheism that is human who can decide everything. Atheism is a humancentrism. It is silly of humans to feel guilty for their deeds in a country where no God exists. This was a Stalin's word.
reply
ullangoo wrote today at 1:06 PM
I'll subscribe to the idea that humans are in principle perfect. No one above 7 or 8 think any of them are in reality. We make mistakes, as you say, we make decisions that harm ourselves, we hurt others unintentionally or even intentionally, or we do things that are simply stupid. Guilt is universal. Will you tell me Orientals never say "I'm sorry, I shouldn't have done that". Or Communists? What did Stalin tell all those people he executed, that they were innocent?In most cases, Atheists make people responsible to something else than a god, usually "society". Another name, same result: there's one way of being "good" and a lot of ways of being "bad". The over-simplification consists of the idea that a person is either good or evil, not both. It hasn't got a f--- thing to do with God or coming from a Christian country (mine is basically secular).
reply
ullangoo wrote today at 1:08 PM
I should say "feelings of guilt are universal". I don't believe in the reality of all that guilt shit myself.
Aug 21, '07 11:15 AMfor everyone
There are some people who pretend to be evil. What's their psychology?
Probably their moral standard is extremely high and they realised their behaviour cannot possibly meet their supposedly very high moral standard. Their claim is humans are so sinful and they themselves feel as if they are committing some crime. According to God's standard, humans make error. According to ordinary humans' ordinary moral standard, humans are perfect.
Tags: moral standard
Prev: Cross cultureNext: War Crimes
reply share
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 21
You mean sort of: "I have so much evil in me that I might as well be honest and show it"? Interesting theory - and not at all unlikely.
reply
briangriffith wrote on Aug 21
I don't have to pretend.
reply
mercedo wrote on Aug 22
briangriffith saidI don't have to pretend. When you say so people immediately understand you must be an evil. Those who pretend to be evil usually say 'I am evil'. Because they want us to believe they are evil.
So when you say 'I don't have to pretend ( because I am evil ), you are saying the word in parenthesis, and I understand your moral standard is very high to the point you consider yourself as evil.
reply
eglamkowski wrote on Aug 22
Then again, maybe he tortures puppies for fun and pulls the wings off of butterflies? :O
reply
mercedo wrote on Aug 22
Yeah, sort of..
If someone were a hypocrite, he would try to hide their evil and pretend to be a good person. He has to pretend to be a good person, therefore he must be evil.
If someone's moral standard is extremely high, he would always feel he are committing some sin. Therefore he might say he is an evil person, but actually he is not.
reply
morosoph wrote on Aug 22
eglamkowski saidThen again, maybe he tortures puppies for fun and pulls the wings off of butterflies? :ONo! It's "Pulling the wings off rabbits"!"But rabbits don't have wings""Not unless you nail them on first!"
reply
imelnychenko wrote on Aug 24
A very difficult question...And who are the people who pertend to be Good?
reply
imelnychenko wrote on Aug 24
Is it a psychospiritual problem? Can atheistic people feel like Evil?Certain people with psychotic disorders feel like Evil; another psychotic patients feel like Good.Can christian people feel like Evil when they are otherwise mentaly healthy? - They call it lost faith. We probably do not talk about is she/he indeed good/bad - that will be an "objective" estimation of other people who deal with her/him. We are concerned about "how does she/he FEELS like" and not about his actual symptoms (torturing, lying, burning, stealing).
reply
mercedo wrote on Aug 25
imelnychenko saidA very difficult question...And who are the people who pertend to be Good? A very difficult question...
Indeed, it's difficult. For we need to define those rabbits who wear the cloth of wolf and wolves who wear the suits of rabbits. Our observation is obviously not enough.
And who are the people who pretend to be Good?
Actually majority of them are really good though, here I meant for example, policeman, nurse, monk, guardian, rescuer, or firefighter, who usually help us when we are in trouble. Because we often find the cases those people involve.
My guess is those who really wicked feel safe when they hide themselves among really good people.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 25
This is so over-simplified that I don't know where to begin. There are e.g. doctors with great reputations of unselfishness etc. who beat their wives and children, and there are mafia bosses whose families have met nothing but love from them. We all have both sides. Most people try to hide their "evil" side, often even to themselves. Others have seen so little good and/or live under such circumstances that they deny their good sides in order to survive in a daily struggle or fight. Very few people have an evil self-image, with the exception of those who suffer from permanent guilt feelings, usually induced by some crazy religion. The rest think that what they do is necessary - whatever it may be. Sure they hide their actions since they're often illegal, but they don't "hide among really good people", generally.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 25
People who pretend to be worse than they are often do it as a provocation, and/or their "evilness" is nothing but talk. They may be rebels against impossibly high standards, yes.
reply
mercedo wrote on Aug 25
"how does she/he FEELS like" and not about his actual symptoms
Suppose in the case of a fictitious serial killer, he thought humans are so sinful that they ought to die. That was his motivation of serial killing.
Can atheistic people feel like Evil? Can christian people feel like Evil?
No, I don't think atheistic people feel like evil. Their way of grasping the reality of world is just fair. Atheistic people consider humans as perfect.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 25
No normal person consider humans perfect. If you beat a child in anger or hurt your friend's feelings, you'll feel guilty whether you believe in God or not. If such things happen often, i.e. you can't control your anger, you'll feel you're a bad person. The difference is that the atheist doesn't think in terms of sin - his/her thought is more like "I'm not adapted to society" or "I harm other people".
reply
mercedo wrote today at 12:31 PM
ullangoo saidNo normal person consider humans perfect There's a basis of belief in Western culture, that is 'original sin'. So it might be very natural for them to feel humans are imperfect in a country where almost all people are Christians.
Obviously this idea is totally unfamiliar in traditional East-Asian culture. If we were born under no particular defects both in body and mind, of course we were born perfect. Here imperfect means handicapped, disabled or subnormal.
Aside from that, I agree humans make mistakes. But I must say this is a sign of human evolution. It's not human that is to blame, but a system. Human makes an error because existing system won't have been able to follow the speed of human evolution.
reply
mercedo wrote today at 12:43 PM
ullangoo saidThis is so over-simplified that I don't know where to begin In a country where they think God is almighty, supreme being, or perfect, the position of humans are naturally located lower than God. In atheism that is human who can decide everything. Atheism is a humancentrism. It is silly of humans to feel guilty for their deeds in a country where no God exists. This was a Stalin's word.
reply
ullangoo wrote today at 1:06 PM
I'll subscribe to the idea that humans are in principle perfect. No one above 7 or 8 think any of them are in reality. We make mistakes, as you say, we make decisions that harm ourselves, we hurt others unintentionally or even intentionally, or we do things that are simply stupid. Guilt is universal. Will you tell me Orientals never say "I'm sorry, I shouldn't have done that". Or Communists? What did Stalin tell all those people he executed, that they were innocent?In most cases, Atheists make people responsible to something else than a god, usually "society". Another name, same result: there's one way of being "good" and a lot of ways of being "bad". The over-simplification consists of the idea that a person is either good or evil, not both. It hasn't got a f--- thing to do with God or coming from a Christian country (mine is basically secular).
reply
ullangoo wrote today at 1:08 PM
I should say "feelings of guilt are universal". I don't believe in the reality of all that guilt shit myself.
About those who pretend to be evil
Aug 21, '07 11:15 AMfor everyone
There are some people who pretend to be evil. What's their psychology?
Probably their moral standard is extremely high and they realised their behaviour cannot possibly meet their supposedly very high moral standard. Their claim is humans are so sinful and they themselves feel as if they are committing some crime. According to God's standard, humans make error. According to ordinary humans' ordinary moral standard, humans are perfect.
Tags: moral standard
Prev: Cross cultureNext: War Crimes
reply share
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 21
You mean sort of: "I have so much evil in me that I might as well be honest and show it"? Interesting theory - and not at all unlikely.
reply
briangriffith wrote on Aug 21
I don't have to pretend.
reply
mercedo wrote on Aug 22
briangriffith saidI don't have to pretend. When you say so people immediately understand you must be an evil. Those who pretend to be evil usually say 'I am evil'. Because they want us to believe they are evil.
So when you say 'I don't have to pretend ( because I am evil ), you are saying the word in parenthesis, and I understand your moral standard is very high to the point you consider yourself as evil.
reply
eglamkowski wrote on Aug 22
Then again, maybe he tortures puppies for fun and pulls the wings off of butterflies? :O
reply
mercedo wrote on Aug 22
Yeah, sort of..
If someone were a hypocrite, he would try to hide their evil and pretend to be a good person. He has to pretend to be a good person, therefore he must be evil.
If someone's moral standard is extremely high, he would always feel he are committing some sin. Therefore he might say he is an evil person, but actually he is not.
reply
morosoph wrote on Aug 22
eglamkowski saidThen again, maybe he tortures puppies for fun and pulls the wings off of butterflies? :ONo! It's "Pulling the wings off rabbits"!"But rabbits don't have wings""Not unless you nail them on first!"
reply
imelnychenko wrote on Aug 24
A very difficult question...And who are the people who pertend to be Good?
reply
imelnychenko wrote on Aug 24
Is it a psychospiritual problem? Can atheistic people feel like Evil?Certain people with psychotic disorders feel like Evil; another psychotic patients feel like Good.Can christian people feel like Evil when they are otherwise mentaly healthy? - They call it lost faith. We probably do not talk about is she/he indeed good/bad - that will be an "objective" estimation of other people who deal with her/him. We are concerned about "how does she/he FEELS like" and not about his actual symptoms (torturing, lying, burning, stealing).
reply
mercedo wrote on Aug 25
imelnychenko saidA very difficult question...And who are the people who pertend to be Good? A very difficult question...
Indeed, it's difficult. For we need to define those rabbits who wear the cloth of wolf and wolves who wear the suits of rabbits. Our observation is obviously not enough.
And who are the people who pretend to be Good?
Actually majority of them are really good though, here I meant for example, policeman, nurse, monk, guardian, rescuer, or firefighter, who usually help us when we are in trouble. Because we often find the cases those people involve.
My guess is those who really wicked feel safe when they hide themselves among really good people.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 25
This is so over-simplified that I don't know where to begin. There are e.g. doctors with great reputations of unselfishness etc. who beat their wives and children, and there are mafia bosses whose families have met nothing but love from them. We all have both sides. Most people try to hide their "evil" side, often even to themselves. Others have seen so little good and/or live under such circumstances that they deny their good sides in order to survive in a daily struggle or fight. Very few people have an evil self-image, with the exception of those who suffer from permanent guilt feelings, usually induced by some crazy religion. The rest think that what they do is necessary - whatever it may be. Sure they hide their actions since they're often illegal, but they don't "hide among really good people", generally.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 25
People who pretend to be worse than they are often do it as a provocation, and/or their "evilness" is nothing but talk. They may be rebels against impossibly high standards, yes.
reply
mercedo wrote on Aug 25
"how does she/he FEELS like" and not about his actual symptoms
Suppose in the case of a fictitious serial killer, he thought humans are so sinful that they ought to die. That was his motivation of serial killing.
Can atheistic people feel like Evil? Can christian people feel like Evil?
No, I don't think atheistic people feel like evil. Their way of grasping the reality of world is just fair. Atheistic people consider humans as perfect.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 25
No normal person consider humans perfect. If you beat a child in anger or hurt your friend's feelings, you'll feel guilty whether you believe in God or not. If such things happen often, i.e. you can't control your anger, you'll feel you're a bad person. The difference is that the atheist doesn't think in terms of sin - his/her thought is more like "I'm not adapted to society" or "I harm other people".
reply
mercedo wrote today at 12:31 PM
ullangoo saidNo normal person consider humans perfect There's a basis of belief in Western culture, that is 'original sin'. So it might be very natural for them to feel humans are imperfect in a country where almost all people are Christians.
Obviously this idea is totally unfamiliar in traditional East-Asian culture. If we were born under no particular defects both in body and mind, of course we were born perfect. Here imperfect means handicapped, disabled or subnormal.
Aside from that, I agree humans make mistakes. But I must say this is a sign of human evolution. It's not human that is to blame, but a system. Human makes an error because existing system won't have been able to follow the speed of human evolution.
reply
mercedo wrote today at 12:43 PM
ullangoo saidThis is so over-simplified that I don't know where to begin In a country where they think God is almighty, supreme being, or perfect, the position of humans are naturally located lower than God. In atheism that is human who can decide everything. Atheism is a humancentrism. It is silly of humans to feel guilty for their deeds in a country where no God exists. This was a Stalin's word.
reply
ullangoo wrote today at 1:06 PM
I'll subscribe to the idea that humans are in principle perfect. No one above 7 or 8 think any of them are in reality. We make mistakes, as you say, we make decisions that harm ourselves, we hurt others unintentionally or even intentionally, or we do things that are simply stupid. Guilt is universal. Will you tell me Orientals never say "I'm sorry, I shouldn't have done that". Or Communists? What did Stalin tell all those people he executed, that they were innocent?In most cases, Atheists make people responsible to something else than a god, usually "society". Another name, same result: there's one way of being "good" and a lot of ways of being "bad". The over-simplification consists of the idea that a person is either good or evil, not both. It hasn't got a f--- thing to do with God or coming from a Christian country (mine is basically secular).
reply
ullangoo wrote today at 1:08 PM
I should say "feelings of guilt are universal". I don't believe in the reality of all that guilt shit myself.
Aug 21, '07 11:15 AMfor everyone
There are some people who pretend to be evil. What's their psychology?
Probably their moral standard is extremely high and they realised their behaviour cannot possibly meet their supposedly very high moral standard. Their claim is humans are so sinful and they themselves feel as if they are committing some crime. According to God's standard, humans make error. According to ordinary humans' ordinary moral standard, humans are perfect.
Tags: moral standard
Prev: Cross cultureNext: War Crimes
reply share
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 21
You mean sort of: "I have so much evil in me that I might as well be honest and show it"? Interesting theory - and not at all unlikely.
reply
briangriffith wrote on Aug 21
I don't have to pretend.
reply
mercedo wrote on Aug 22
briangriffith saidI don't have to pretend. When you say so people immediately understand you must be an evil. Those who pretend to be evil usually say 'I am evil'. Because they want us to believe they are evil.
So when you say 'I don't have to pretend ( because I am evil ), you are saying the word in parenthesis, and I understand your moral standard is very high to the point you consider yourself as evil.
reply
eglamkowski wrote on Aug 22
Then again, maybe he tortures puppies for fun and pulls the wings off of butterflies? :O
reply
mercedo wrote on Aug 22
Yeah, sort of..
If someone were a hypocrite, he would try to hide their evil and pretend to be a good person. He has to pretend to be a good person, therefore he must be evil.
If someone's moral standard is extremely high, he would always feel he are committing some sin. Therefore he might say he is an evil person, but actually he is not.
reply
morosoph wrote on Aug 22
eglamkowski saidThen again, maybe he tortures puppies for fun and pulls the wings off of butterflies? :ONo! It's "Pulling the wings off rabbits"!"But rabbits don't have wings""Not unless you nail them on first!"
reply
imelnychenko wrote on Aug 24
A very difficult question...And who are the people who pertend to be Good?
reply
imelnychenko wrote on Aug 24
Is it a psychospiritual problem? Can atheistic people feel like Evil?Certain people with psychotic disorders feel like Evil; another psychotic patients feel like Good.Can christian people feel like Evil when they are otherwise mentaly healthy? - They call it lost faith. We probably do not talk about is she/he indeed good/bad - that will be an "objective" estimation of other people who deal with her/him. We are concerned about "how does she/he FEELS like" and not about his actual symptoms (torturing, lying, burning, stealing).
reply
mercedo wrote on Aug 25
imelnychenko saidA very difficult question...And who are the people who pertend to be Good? A very difficult question...
Indeed, it's difficult. For we need to define those rabbits who wear the cloth of wolf and wolves who wear the suits of rabbits. Our observation is obviously not enough.
And who are the people who pretend to be Good?
Actually majority of them are really good though, here I meant for example, policeman, nurse, monk, guardian, rescuer, or firefighter, who usually help us when we are in trouble. Because we often find the cases those people involve.
My guess is those who really wicked feel safe when they hide themselves among really good people.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 25
This is so over-simplified that I don't know where to begin. There are e.g. doctors with great reputations of unselfishness etc. who beat their wives and children, and there are mafia bosses whose families have met nothing but love from them. We all have both sides. Most people try to hide their "evil" side, often even to themselves. Others have seen so little good and/or live under such circumstances that they deny their good sides in order to survive in a daily struggle or fight. Very few people have an evil self-image, with the exception of those who suffer from permanent guilt feelings, usually induced by some crazy religion. The rest think that what they do is necessary - whatever it may be. Sure they hide their actions since they're often illegal, but they don't "hide among really good people", generally.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 25
People who pretend to be worse than they are often do it as a provocation, and/or their "evilness" is nothing but talk. They may be rebels against impossibly high standards, yes.
reply
mercedo wrote on Aug 25
"how does she/he FEELS like" and not about his actual symptoms
Suppose in the case of a fictitious serial killer, he thought humans are so sinful that they ought to die. That was his motivation of serial killing.
Can atheistic people feel like Evil? Can christian people feel like Evil?
No, I don't think atheistic people feel like evil. Their way of grasping the reality of world is just fair. Atheistic people consider humans as perfect.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 25
No normal person consider humans perfect. If you beat a child in anger or hurt your friend's feelings, you'll feel guilty whether you believe in God or not. If such things happen often, i.e. you can't control your anger, you'll feel you're a bad person. The difference is that the atheist doesn't think in terms of sin - his/her thought is more like "I'm not adapted to society" or "I harm other people".
reply
mercedo wrote today at 12:31 PM
ullangoo saidNo normal person consider humans perfect There's a basis of belief in Western culture, that is 'original sin'. So it might be very natural for them to feel humans are imperfect in a country where almost all people are Christians.
Obviously this idea is totally unfamiliar in traditional East-Asian culture. If we were born under no particular defects both in body and mind, of course we were born perfect. Here imperfect means handicapped, disabled or subnormal.
Aside from that, I agree humans make mistakes. But I must say this is a sign of human evolution. It's not human that is to blame, but a system. Human makes an error because existing system won't have been able to follow the speed of human evolution.
reply
mercedo wrote today at 12:43 PM
ullangoo saidThis is so over-simplified that I don't know where to begin In a country where they think God is almighty, supreme being, or perfect, the position of humans are naturally located lower than God. In atheism that is human who can decide everything. Atheism is a humancentrism. It is silly of humans to feel guilty for their deeds in a country where no God exists. This was a Stalin's word.
reply
ullangoo wrote today at 1:06 PM
I'll subscribe to the idea that humans are in principle perfect. No one above 7 or 8 think any of them are in reality. We make mistakes, as you say, we make decisions that harm ourselves, we hurt others unintentionally or even intentionally, or we do things that are simply stupid. Guilt is universal. Will you tell me Orientals never say "I'm sorry, I shouldn't have done that". Or Communists? What did Stalin tell all those people he executed, that they were innocent?In most cases, Atheists make people responsible to something else than a god, usually "society". Another name, same result: there's one way of being "good" and a lot of ways of being "bad". The over-simplification consists of the idea that a person is either good or evil, not both. It hasn't got a f--- thing to do with God or coming from a Christian country (mine is basically secular).
reply
ullangoo wrote today at 1:08 PM
I should say "feelings of guilt are universal". I don't believe in the reality of all that guilt shit myself.
mercedo wrote today at 1:43 AM
ullangoo saidThis is so over-simplified that I don't know where to begin In a country where they think God is almighty, supreme being, or perfect, the position of humans are naturally located lower than God. In atheism that is human who can decide everything. Atheism is a humancentrism. It is silly of humans to feel guilty for their deeds in a country where no God exists. This was a Stalin's word.
ullangoo saidThis is so over-simplified that I don't know where to begin In a country where they think God is almighty, supreme being, or perfect, the position of humans are naturally located lower than God. In atheism that is human who can decide everything. Atheism is a humancentrism. It is silly of humans to feel guilty for their deeds in a country where no God exists. This was a Stalin's word.
mercedo wrote today at 1:43 AM
ullangoo saidThis is so over-simplified that I don't know where to begin In a country where they think God is almighty, supreme being, or perfect, the position of humans are naturally located lower than God. In atheism that is human who can decide everything. Atheism is a humancentrism. It is silly of humans to feel guilty for their deeds in a country where no God exists. This was a Stalin's word.
ullangoo saidThis is so over-simplified that I don't know where to begin In a country where they think God is almighty, supreme being, or perfect, the position of humans are naturally located lower than God. In atheism that is human who can decide everything. Atheism is a humancentrism. It is silly of humans to feel guilty for their deeds in a country where no God exists. This was a Stalin's word.
There's a basis of belief in Western culture, that is 'original sin'. So it might be very natural for them to feel humans are imperfect in a country where almost all people are Christians.
Obviously this idea is totally unfamiliar in traditional East-Asian culture. If we were born under no particular defects both in body and mind, of course we were born perfect. Here imperfect means handicapped, disabled or subnormal.
Aside from that, I agree humans make mistakes. But I must say this is a sign of human evolution. It's not human that is to blame, but a system. Human makes an error because existing system won't have been able to follow the speed of human evolution.
There's a basis of belief in Western culture, that is 'original sin'. So it might be very natural for them to feel humans are imperfect in a country where almost all people are Christians.
Obviously this idea is totally unfamiliar in traditional East-Asian culture. If we were born under no particular defects both in body and mind, of course we were born perfect. Here imperfect means handicapped, disabled or subnormal.
Aside from that, I agree humans make mistakes. But I must say this is a sign of human evolution. It's not human that is to blame, but a system. Human makes an error because existing system won't have been able to follow the speed of human evolution.
Sunday, 26 August 2007
A very difficult question...
ndeed, it's difficult. For we need to define those rabits who wear the cloth of wolf and wolves who wear the suits of rabits. Our observation is obviously not enough.
And who are the people who pertend to be Good?
Actually majority of them are really good though, here I meant for example, policeman, nurse, monk, guardian, rescuer, or firefighter, who usually help us when we are in trouble. Because we often find the cases those people involve.
My guess is those who really wicked feel safe when they hide themselves among really good people.
A very difficult question...
ndeed, it's difficult. For we need to define those rabits who wear the cloth of wolf and wolves who wear the suits of rabits. Our observation is obviously not enough.
And who are the people who pertend to be Good?
Actually majority of them are really good though, here I meant for example, policeman, nurse, monk, guardian, rescuer, or firefighter, who usually help us when we are in trouble. Because we often find the cases those people involve.
My guess is those who really wicked feel safe when they hide themselves among really good people.
Saturday, 25 August 2007
mercedo wrote today at 11:38 PM
imelnychenko saidSocial Darwinism... Isn't it an underlying reason of both WWs? Yes.
Let me tell you a little bit about its background.
In time of peace, the gap between the rich and poor get bigger and bigger limitlessly. The gap keeps on expanding to the point where no solution other than war is found. War as a result of this economic gap? Yes, at war there are many merits for the rich and the poor. The poor can get a job, which is military. Otherwise they are unemployed. The rich get richer by selling weapons. They send the poor people to the front. They are safe behind the gun. At war the poor people by killing one another eliminate themselves, and this is the best way for social evolution.
imelnychenko saidSocial Darwinism... Isn't it an underlying reason of both WWs? Yes.
Let me tell you a little bit about its background.
In time of peace, the gap between the rich and poor get bigger and bigger limitlessly. The gap keeps on expanding to the point where no solution other than war is found. War as a result of this economic gap? Yes, at war there are many merits for the rich and the poor. The poor can get a job, which is military. Otherwise they are unemployed. The rich get richer by selling weapons. They send the poor people to the front. They are safe behind the gun. At war the poor people by killing one another eliminate themselves, and this is the best way for social evolution.
mercedo wrote today at 11:38 PM
imelnychenko saidSocial Darwinism... Isn't it an underlying reason of both WWs? Yes.
Let me tell you a little bit about its background.
In time of peace, the gap between the rich and poor get bigger and bigger limitlessly. The gap keeps on expanding to the point where no solution other than war is found. War as a result of this economic gap? Yes, at war there are many merits for the rich and the poor. The poor can get a job, which is military. Otherwise they are unemployed. The rich get richer by selling weapons. They send the poor people to the front. They are safe behind the gun. At war the poor people by killing one another eliminate themselves, and this is the best way for social evolution.
imelnychenko saidSocial Darwinism... Isn't it an underlying reason of both WWs? Yes.
Let me tell you a little bit about its background.
In time of peace, the gap between the rich and poor get bigger and bigger limitlessly. The gap keeps on expanding to the point where no solution other than war is found. War as a result of this economic gap? Yes, at war there are many merits for the rich and the poor. The poor can get a job, which is military. Otherwise they are unemployed. The rich get richer by selling weapons. They send the poor people to the front. They are safe behind the gun. At war the poor people by killing one another eliminate themselves, and this is the best way for social evolution.
imelnychenko wrote today at 3:37 AM
A very difficult question...And who are the people who pertend to be Good?
imelnychenko wrote today at 3:55 AM
Is it a psychospiritual problem? Can atheistic people feel like Evil?Certain people with psychotic disorders feel like Evil; another psychotic patients feel like Good.Can christian people feel like Evil when they are otherwise mentaly healthy? - They call it lost faith. We probably do not talk about is she/he indeed good/bad - that will be an "objective" estimation of other people who deal with her/him. We are concerned about "how does she/he FEELS like" and not about his actual symptoms (torturing, lying, burning, stealing).
A very difficult question...And who are the people who pertend to be Good?
imelnychenko wrote today at 3:55 AM
Is it a psychospiritual problem? Can atheistic people feel like Evil?Certain people with psychotic disorders feel like Evil; another psychotic patients feel like Good.Can christian people feel like Evil when they are otherwise mentaly healthy? - They call it lost faith. We probably do not talk about is she/he indeed good/bad - that will be an "objective" estimation of other people who deal with her/him. We are concerned about "how does she/he FEELS like" and not about his actual symptoms (torturing, lying, burning, stealing).
imelnychenko wrote today at 3:37 AM
A very difficult question...And who are the people who pertend to be Good?
imelnychenko wrote today at 3:55 AM
Is it a psychospiritual problem? Can atheistic people feel like Evil?Certain people with psychotic disorders feel like Evil; another psychotic patients feel like Good.Can christian people feel like Evil when they are otherwise mentaly healthy? - They call it lost faith. We probably do not talk about is she/he indeed good/bad - that will be an "objective" estimation of other people who deal with her/him. We are concerned about "how does she/he FEELS like" and not about his actual symptoms (torturing, lying, burning, stealing).
A very difficult question...And who are the people who pertend to be Good?
imelnychenko wrote today at 3:55 AM
Is it a psychospiritual problem? Can atheistic people feel like Evil?Certain people with psychotic disorders feel like Evil; another psychotic patients feel like Good.Can christian people feel like Evil when they are otherwise mentaly healthy? - They call it lost faith. We probably do not talk about is she/he indeed good/bad - that will be an "objective" estimation of other people who deal with her/him. We are concerned about "how does she/he FEELS like" and not about his actual symptoms (torturing, lying, burning, stealing).
imelnychenko wrote today at 2:58 AM
"Humans evolve. If some people in humans remained to be obsolete in system, they are to be eliminated by other people who succeeded in embracing more advanced technology. History is a repetition of the very survival of the fittest. War was a necessary evil."Social Darwinism... Isn't it an underlying reason of both WWs?
"Humans evolve. If some people in humans remained to be obsolete in system, they are to be eliminated by other people who succeeded in embracing more advanced technology. History is a repetition of the very survival of the fittest. War was a necessary evil."Social Darwinism... Isn't it an underlying reason of both WWs?
imelnychenko wrote today at 2:58 AM
"Humans evolve. If some people in humans remained to be obsolete in system, they are to be eliminated by other people who succeeded in embracing more advanced technology. History is a repetition of the very survival of the fittest. War was a necessary evil."Social Darwinism... Isn't it an underlying reason of both WWs?
"Humans evolve. If some people in humans remained to be obsolete in system, they are to be eliminated by other people who succeeded in embracing more advanced technology. History is a repetition of the very survival of the fittest. War was a necessary evil."Social Darwinism... Isn't it an underlying reason of both WWs?
Friday, 24 August 2007
Death Toll
Aug 22, '07 4:48 PMfor everyone
Hitler sent Jews to death camp, eliminating 6 million. The same number of Germans were killed at the end of war.
Hitler eliminated 10 million Russians. The same number of Russians were killed by their leader Stalin.
Japanese troops are said to kill 10 million Chinese. 2 million Japanese people were killed at war.
In battle of Okinawa, 200 thousand people were dead in 80 days. In Nanking Massacre, 300 thousand people were killed in 42 days.
In atomic bomb, roughly 70 thousand people were dead in each two cities instantly. About 100 thousand people were dead in Tokyo incendiary air strike at one night.
Crime doesn't pay, let alone war.
Tags: war
Prev: Hirota & Hitler, one common point
reply share
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded
reply
iamrevmike wrote on Aug 22
mercedo saidHitler sent Jews to death camp, eliminating 6 million. The same number of Germans were killed at the end of war.Hitler eliminated 10 million Russians. The same number of Russians were killed by their leader Stalin. Minor nitpick...Hitler's death camps killed about 11 million. Most of the other 5 million killed were Slavs, but homosexuals, communists, the mentally ill, etc. are part of that number as well.I've seen estimates of Stalin's death toll in the to be at least 20 million, maybe even 40 million.
reply
mercedo wrote today at 1:30 PM
24 years ago I read one book called 'Starlin's Secret War' in which I remember it says Starlin killed the same number of people as the number of the dead at war in Russia. I checked at Wikipaedia about the number of the dead at WWII, which was 23.6 million. Probably the description of the book was something like at WWII Russia lost 20 million people and Starlin killed the same number of people in execution, purge, sending them to gulag, etc.
According to Wikipaedia the number of the dead at WWII in each country was China; 19.6 million, Germany; 7.5 million, Japan;2.6 million.
reply
schared wrote on Aug 22
Don't forget the millions killed by Stallin.
reply
mercedo wrote today at 1:36 PM
You are right. He killed the same number of his nationals as the number of the dead at war to maintain his regime.
reply
briangriffith wrote today at 5:20 AM
It's funny how we don't normally count the Communists and Slavs killed by the Nazis. Maybe we basically agree they were bad guys and it was like normal warfare the kill them. And of course there's the estimated hundreds of millions of Natives in the Americas, whose killing we generally treat as a "tragic necessity".
reply
iamrevmike wrote today at 9:52 AM
briangriffith saidIt's funny how we don't normally count the Communists and Slavs killed by the Nazis. Maybe we basically agree they were bad guys and it was like normal warfare the kill them. And of course there's the estimated hundreds of millions of Natives in the Americas, whose killing we generally treat as a "tragic necessity". It is more that Israel has a powerful lobby, and Communists and Slavs do not, so the Holocaust is portrayed as simply anti-Jewish.As for the Native Americans, there are two parts to this. Most of them were killed by pandemic diseases which spread throughout the continent after first contact with Europeans. This can't truly be blamed on anyone since people were a long way off from developing the understanding that this was even possible.The Spanish and Portuguese later enslaved Native Americans, and the English and Americans pushed them off their lands even after making treaties with them, in some cases attempting to eradicate their culture. Certainly this could qualify as intentional genocide.
reply
mercedo wrote today at 1:57 PM
briangriffith saidIt's funny how we don't normally count the Communists and Slavs killed by the Nazis. It's only for you Americans and British. The battle between German and Russian was merely a poison to poison for your country. Humans evolve. If some people in humans remained to be obsolete in system, they are to be eliminated by other people who succeeded in embracing more advanced technology. History is a repetition of the very survival of the fittest. War was a necessary evil.
Aug 22, '07 4:48 PMfor everyone
Hitler sent Jews to death camp, eliminating 6 million. The same number of Germans were killed at the end of war.
Hitler eliminated 10 million Russians. The same number of Russians were killed by their leader Stalin.
Japanese troops are said to kill 10 million Chinese. 2 million Japanese people were killed at war.
In battle of Okinawa, 200 thousand people were dead in 80 days. In Nanking Massacre, 300 thousand people were killed in 42 days.
In atomic bomb, roughly 70 thousand people were dead in each two cities instantly. About 100 thousand people were dead in Tokyo incendiary air strike at one night.
Crime doesn't pay, let alone war.
Tags: war
Prev: Hirota & Hitler, one common point
reply share
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded
reply
iamrevmike wrote on Aug 22
mercedo saidHitler sent Jews to death camp, eliminating 6 million. The same number of Germans were killed at the end of war.Hitler eliminated 10 million Russians. The same number of Russians were killed by their leader Stalin. Minor nitpick...Hitler's death camps killed about 11 million. Most of the other 5 million killed were Slavs, but homosexuals, communists, the mentally ill, etc. are part of that number as well.I've seen estimates of Stalin's death toll in the to be at least 20 million, maybe even 40 million.
reply
mercedo wrote today at 1:30 PM
24 years ago I read one book called 'Starlin's Secret War' in which I remember it says Starlin killed the same number of people as the number of the dead at war in Russia. I checked at Wikipaedia about the number of the dead at WWII, which was 23.6 million. Probably the description of the book was something like at WWII Russia lost 20 million people and Starlin killed the same number of people in execution, purge, sending them to gulag, etc.
According to Wikipaedia the number of the dead at WWII in each country was China; 19.6 million, Germany; 7.5 million, Japan;2.6 million.
reply
schared wrote on Aug 22
Don't forget the millions killed by Stallin.
reply
mercedo wrote today at 1:36 PM
You are right. He killed the same number of his nationals as the number of the dead at war to maintain his regime.
reply
briangriffith wrote today at 5:20 AM
It's funny how we don't normally count the Communists and Slavs killed by the Nazis. Maybe we basically agree they were bad guys and it was like normal warfare the kill them. And of course there's the estimated hundreds of millions of Natives in the Americas, whose killing we generally treat as a "tragic necessity".
reply
iamrevmike wrote today at 9:52 AM
briangriffith saidIt's funny how we don't normally count the Communists and Slavs killed by the Nazis. Maybe we basically agree they were bad guys and it was like normal warfare the kill them. And of course there's the estimated hundreds of millions of Natives in the Americas, whose killing we generally treat as a "tragic necessity". It is more that Israel has a powerful lobby, and Communists and Slavs do not, so the Holocaust is portrayed as simply anti-Jewish.As for the Native Americans, there are two parts to this. Most of them were killed by pandemic diseases which spread throughout the continent after first contact with Europeans. This can't truly be blamed on anyone since people were a long way off from developing the understanding that this was even possible.The Spanish and Portuguese later enslaved Native Americans, and the English and Americans pushed them off their lands even after making treaties with them, in some cases attempting to eradicate their culture. Certainly this could qualify as intentional genocide.
reply
mercedo wrote today at 1:57 PM
briangriffith saidIt's funny how we don't normally count the Communists and Slavs killed by the Nazis. It's only for you Americans and British. The battle between German and Russian was merely a poison to poison for your country. Humans evolve. If some people in humans remained to be obsolete in system, they are to be eliminated by other people who succeeded in embracing more advanced technology. History is a repetition of the very survival of the fittest. War was a necessary evil.
Death Toll
Aug 22, '07 4:48 PMfor everyone
Hitler sent Jews to death camp, eliminating 6 million. The same number of Germans were killed at the end of war.
Hitler eliminated 10 million Russians. The same number of Russians were killed by their leader Stalin.
Japanese troops are said to kill 10 million Chinese. 2 million Japanese people were killed at war.
In battle of Okinawa, 200 thousand people were dead in 80 days. In Nanking Massacre, 300 thousand people were killed in 42 days.
In atomic bomb, roughly 70 thousand people were dead in each two cities instantly. About 100 thousand people were dead in Tokyo incendiary air strike at one night.
Crime doesn't pay, let alone war.
Tags: war
Prev: Hirota & Hitler, one common point
reply share
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded
reply
iamrevmike wrote on Aug 22
mercedo saidHitler sent Jews to death camp, eliminating 6 million. The same number of Germans were killed at the end of war.Hitler eliminated 10 million Russians. The same number of Russians were killed by their leader Stalin. Minor nitpick...Hitler's death camps killed about 11 million. Most of the other 5 million killed were Slavs, but homosexuals, communists, the mentally ill, etc. are part of that number as well.I've seen estimates of Stalin's death toll in the to be at least 20 million, maybe even 40 million.
reply
mercedo wrote today at 1:30 PM
24 years ago I read one book called 'Starlin's Secret War' in which I remember it says Starlin killed the same number of people as the number of the dead at war in Russia. I checked at Wikipaedia about the number of the dead at WWII, which was 23.6 million. Probably the description of the book was something like at WWII Russia lost 20 million people and Starlin killed the same number of people in execution, purge, sending them to gulag, etc.
According to Wikipaedia the number of the dead at WWII in each country was China; 19.6 million, Germany; 7.5 million, Japan;2.6 million.
reply
schared wrote on Aug 22
Don't forget the millions killed by Stallin.
reply
mercedo wrote today at 1:36 PM
You are right. He killed the same number of his nationals as the number of the dead at war to maintain his regime.
reply
briangriffith wrote today at 5:20 AM
It's funny how we don't normally count the Communists and Slavs killed by the Nazis. Maybe we basically agree they were bad guys and it was like normal warfare the kill them. And of course there's the estimated hundreds of millions of Natives in the Americas, whose killing we generally treat as a "tragic necessity".
reply
iamrevmike wrote today at 9:52 AM
briangriffith saidIt's funny how we don't normally count the Communists and Slavs killed by the Nazis. Maybe we basically agree they were bad guys and it was like normal warfare the kill them. And of course there's the estimated hundreds of millions of Natives in the Americas, whose killing we generally treat as a "tragic necessity". It is more that Israel has a powerful lobby, and Communists and Slavs do not, so the Holocaust is portrayed as simply anti-Jewish.As for the Native Americans, there are two parts to this. Most of them were killed by pandemic diseases which spread throughout the continent after first contact with Europeans. This can't truly be blamed on anyone since people were a long way off from developing the understanding that this was even possible.The Spanish and Portuguese later enslaved Native Americans, and the English and Americans pushed them off their lands even after making treaties with them, in some cases attempting to eradicate their culture. Certainly this could qualify as intentional genocide.
reply
mercedo wrote today at 1:57 PM
briangriffith saidIt's funny how we don't normally count the Communists and Slavs killed by the Nazis. It's only for you Americans and British. The battle between German and Russian was merely a poison to poison for your country. Humans evolve. If some people in humans remained to be obsolete in system, they are to be eliminated by other people who succeeded in embracing more advanced technology. History is a repetition of the very survival of the fittest. War was a necessary evil.
Aug 22, '07 4:48 PMfor everyone
Hitler sent Jews to death camp, eliminating 6 million. The same number of Germans were killed at the end of war.
Hitler eliminated 10 million Russians. The same number of Russians were killed by their leader Stalin.
Japanese troops are said to kill 10 million Chinese. 2 million Japanese people were killed at war.
In battle of Okinawa, 200 thousand people were dead in 80 days. In Nanking Massacre, 300 thousand people were killed in 42 days.
In atomic bomb, roughly 70 thousand people were dead in each two cities instantly. About 100 thousand people were dead in Tokyo incendiary air strike at one night.
Crime doesn't pay, let alone war.
Tags: war
Prev: Hirota & Hitler, one common point
reply share
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded
reply
iamrevmike wrote on Aug 22
mercedo saidHitler sent Jews to death camp, eliminating 6 million. The same number of Germans were killed at the end of war.Hitler eliminated 10 million Russians. The same number of Russians were killed by their leader Stalin. Minor nitpick...Hitler's death camps killed about 11 million. Most of the other 5 million killed were Slavs, but homosexuals, communists, the mentally ill, etc. are part of that number as well.I've seen estimates of Stalin's death toll in the to be at least 20 million, maybe even 40 million.
reply
mercedo wrote today at 1:30 PM
24 years ago I read one book called 'Starlin's Secret War' in which I remember it says Starlin killed the same number of people as the number of the dead at war in Russia. I checked at Wikipaedia about the number of the dead at WWII, which was 23.6 million. Probably the description of the book was something like at WWII Russia lost 20 million people and Starlin killed the same number of people in execution, purge, sending them to gulag, etc.
According to Wikipaedia the number of the dead at WWII in each country was China; 19.6 million, Germany; 7.5 million, Japan;2.6 million.
reply
schared wrote on Aug 22
Don't forget the millions killed by Stallin.
reply
mercedo wrote today at 1:36 PM
You are right. He killed the same number of his nationals as the number of the dead at war to maintain his regime.
reply
briangriffith wrote today at 5:20 AM
It's funny how we don't normally count the Communists and Slavs killed by the Nazis. Maybe we basically agree they were bad guys and it was like normal warfare the kill them. And of course there's the estimated hundreds of millions of Natives in the Americas, whose killing we generally treat as a "tragic necessity".
reply
iamrevmike wrote today at 9:52 AM
briangriffith saidIt's funny how we don't normally count the Communists and Slavs killed by the Nazis. Maybe we basically agree they were bad guys and it was like normal warfare the kill them. And of course there's the estimated hundreds of millions of Natives in the Americas, whose killing we generally treat as a "tragic necessity". It is more that Israel has a powerful lobby, and Communists and Slavs do not, so the Holocaust is portrayed as simply anti-Jewish.As for the Native Americans, there are two parts to this. Most of them were killed by pandemic diseases which spread throughout the continent after first contact with Europeans. This can't truly be blamed on anyone since people were a long way off from developing the understanding that this was even possible.The Spanish and Portuguese later enslaved Native Americans, and the English and Americans pushed them off their lands even after making treaties with them, in some cases attempting to eradicate their culture. Certainly this could qualify as intentional genocide.
reply
mercedo wrote today at 1:57 PM
briangriffith saidIt's funny how we don't normally count the Communists and Slavs killed by the Nazis. It's only for you Americans and British. The battle between German and Russian was merely a poison to poison for your country. Humans evolve. If some people in humans remained to be obsolete in system, they are to be eliminated by other people who succeeded in embracing more advanced technology. History is a repetition of the very survival of the fittest. War was a necessary evil.
mercedo wrote today at 2:57 AM
briangriffith saidIt's funny how we don't normally count the Communists and Slavs killed by the Nazis. It's only for you Americans and British. The battle between German and Russian was merely a poison to poison for your country. Humans evolve. If some people in humans remained to be obsolete in system, they are to be eliminated by other people who succeeded in embracing more advanced technology. History is a repetition of the very survival of the fittest. War was a necessary evil.
briangriffith saidIt's funny how we don't normally count the Communists and Slavs killed by the Nazis. It's only for you Americans and British. The battle between German and Russian was merely a poison to poison for your country. Humans evolve. If some people in humans remained to be obsolete in system, they are to be eliminated by other people who succeeded in embracing more advanced technology. History is a repetition of the very survival of the fittest. War was a necessary evil.
mercedo wrote today at 2:57 AM
briangriffith saidIt's funny how we don't normally count the Communists and Slavs killed by the Nazis. It's only for you Americans and British. The battle between German and Russian was merely a poison to poison for your country. Humans evolve. If some people in humans remained to be obsolete in system, they are to be eliminated by other people who succeeded in embracing more advanced technology. History is a repetition of the very survival of the fittest. War was a necessary evil.
briangriffith saidIt's funny how we don't normally count the Communists and Slavs killed by the Nazis. It's only for you Americans and British. The battle between German and Russian was merely a poison to poison for your country. Humans evolve. If some people in humans remained to be obsolete in system, they are to be eliminated by other people who succeeded in embracing more advanced technology. History is a repetition of the very survival of the fittest. War was a necessary evil.
mercedo wrote today at 2:36 AM
You are right. He killed the same number of his nationals as the number of the dead at war to maintain his regime.
You are right. He killed the same number of his nationals as the number of the dead at war to maintain his regime.
mercedo wrote today at 2:36 AM
You are right. He killed the same number of his nationals as the number of the dead at war to maintain his regime.
You are right. He killed the same number of his nationals as the number of the dead at war to maintain his regime.
24 years ago I read one book called 'Starlin's Secret War' in which I remember it says Starlin killed the same number of people as the number of the dead at war in Russia. I checked at Wikipaedia about the number of the dead at WWII, which was 23.6 million. Probably the description of the book was something like at WWII Russia lost 20 million people and Starlin killed the same number of people in execution, purge, sending them to gulag, etc.
According to Wikipaedia the number of the dead at WWII in each country was China; 19.6 million, Germany; 7.5 million, Japan;2.6 million.
24 years ago I read one book called 'Starlin's Secret War' in which I remember it says Starlin killed the same number of people as the number of the dead at war in Russia. I checked at Wikipaedia about the number of the dead at WWII, which was 23.6 million. Probably the description of the book was something like at WWII Russia lost 20 million people and Starlin killed the same number of people in execution, purge, sending them to gulag, etc.
According to Wikipaedia the number of the dead at WWII in each country was China; 19.6 million, Germany; 7.5 million, Japan;2.6 million.
Thursday, 23 August 2007
mercedo saidHitler sent Jews to death camp, eliminating 6 million. The same number of Germans were killed at the end of war.Hitler eliminated 10 million Russians. The same number of Russians were killed by their leader Stalin. Minor nitpick...Hitler's death camps killed about 11 million. Most of the other 5 million killed were Slavs, but homosexuals, communists, the mentally ill, etc. are part of that number as well.I've seen estimates of Stalin's death toll in the to be at least 20 million, maybe even 40 million.
mercedo saidHitler sent Jews to death camp, eliminating 6 million. The same number of Germans were killed at the end of war.Hitler eliminated 10 million Russians. The same number of Russians were killed by their leader Stalin. Minor nitpick...Hitler's death camps killed about 11 million. Most of the other 5 million killed were Slavs, but homosexuals, communists, the mentally ill, etc. are part of that number as well.I've seen estimates of Stalin's death toll in the to be at least 20 million, maybe even 40 million.
Death Toll
[ Edit Delete #179957 ] 2007.08.23 5:47
Hitler sent Jews to death camp, eliminating 6 million. The same number of Germans were killed at the end of war.
Hitler eliminated 10 million Russians. The same number of Russians were killed by their leader Stalin.
Japanese troops are said to kill 10 million Chinese. 2 million Japanese people were killed at war.
In battle of Okinawa, 200 thousand people were dead in 80 days. In Nanking Massacre, 300 thousand people were killed in 42 days.
In atomic bomb, roughly 70 thousand people were dead in each two cities instantly. About 100 thousand people were dead in Tokyo incendiary air strike at one night.
Crime doesn't pay, let alone war.
[ Edit Delete #179957 ] 2007.08.23 5:47
Hitler sent Jews to death camp, eliminating 6 million. The same number of Germans were killed at the end of war.
Hitler eliminated 10 million Russians. The same number of Russians were killed by their leader Stalin.
Japanese troops are said to kill 10 million Chinese. 2 million Japanese people were killed at war.
In battle of Okinawa, 200 thousand people were dead in 80 days. In Nanking Massacre, 300 thousand people were killed in 42 days.
In atomic bomb, roughly 70 thousand people were dead in each two cities instantly. About 100 thousand people were dead in Tokyo incendiary air strike at one night.
Crime doesn't pay, let alone war.
Death Toll
[ Edit Delete #179957 ] 2007.08.23 5:47
Hitler sent Jews to death camp, eliminating 6 million. The same number of Germans were killed at the end of war.
Hitler eliminated 10 million Russians. The same number of Russians were killed by their leader Stalin.
Japanese troops are said to kill 10 million Chinese. 2 million Japanese people were killed at war.
In battle of Okinawa, 200 thousand people were dead in 80 days. In Nanking Massacre, 300 thousand people were killed in 42 days.
In atomic bomb, roughly 70 thousand people were dead in each two cities instantly. About 100 thousand people were dead in Tokyo incendiary air strike at one night.
Crime doesn't pay, let alone war.
[ Edit Delete #179957 ] 2007.08.23 5:47
Hitler sent Jews to death camp, eliminating 6 million. The same number of Germans were killed at the end of war.
Hitler eliminated 10 million Russians. The same number of Russians were killed by their leader Stalin.
Japanese troops are said to kill 10 million Chinese. 2 million Japanese people were killed at war.
In battle of Okinawa, 200 thousand people were dead in 80 days. In Nanking Massacre, 300 thousand people were killed in 42 days.
In atomic bomb, roughly 70 thousand people were dead in each two cities instantly. About 100 thousand people were dead in Tokyo incendiary air strike at one night.
Crime doesn't pay, let alone war.
iamrevmike wrote today at 4:59 AM
mercedo said True. In early stages of WWII Hitler didn't try to eliminate British soldiers in Calais. He let them go back to Britain.
In general the Nazis did not commit atrocities against western troops. The normally obeyed the "laws of war", accepting surrenders, treating POWs humanely, etc. Also they did not target the general population of western occupied countries to a great degree. There was no policy of slaughtering the French.The Nazis did carry on their race war in the occupied areas, however. They did round up Jews and Slavs and other undesirables in occupied France. They did ship these people off to die in concentration camps.On the Eastern front in Europe the Nazis were hell bent on extermination of the Jewish and Slavic populations. A captured British soldier could expect reasonably humane treatment, while a captured Russian could expect a death camp.
mercedo said True. In early stages of WWII Hitler didn't try to eliminate British soldiers in Calais. He let them go back to Britain.
In general the Nazis did not commit atrocities against western troops. The normally obeyed the "laws of war", accepting surrenders, treating POWs humanely, etc. Also they did not target the general population of western occupied countries to a great degree. There was no policy of slaughtering the French.The Nazis did carry on their race war in the occupied areas, however. They did round up Jews and Slavs and other undesirables in occupied France. They did ship these people off to die in concentration camps.On the Eastern front in Europe the Nazis were hell bent on extermination of the Jewish and Slavic populations. A captured British soldier could expect reasonably humane treatment, while a captured Russian could expect a death camp.
iamrevmike wrote today at 4:59 AM
mercedo said True. In early stages of WWII Hitler didn't try to eliminate British soldiers in Calais. He let them go back to Britain.
In general the Nazis did not commit atrocities against western troops. The normally obeyed the "laws of war", accepting surrenders, treating POWs humanely, etc. Also they did not target the general population of western occupied countries to a great degree. There was no policy of slaughtering the French.The Nazis did carry on their race war in the occupied areas, however. They did round up Jews and Slavs and other undesirables in occupied France. They did ship these people off to die in concentration camps.On the Eastern front in Europe the Nazis were hell bent on extermination of the Jewish and Slavic populations. A captured British soldier could expect reasonably humane treatment, while a captured Russian could expect a death camp.
mercedo said True. In early stages of WWII Hitler didn't try to eliminate British soldiers in Calais. He let them go back to Britain.
In general the Nazis did not commit atrocities against western troops. The normally obeyed the "laws of war", accepting surrenders, treating POWs humanely, etc. Also they did not target the general population of western occupied countries to a great degree. There was no policy of slaughtering the French.The Nazis did carry on their race war in the occupied areas, however. They did round up Jews and Slavs and other undesirables in occupied France. They did ship these people off to die in concentration camps.On the Eastern front in Europe the Nazis were hell bent on extermination of the Jewish and Slavic populations. A captured British soldier could expect reasonably humane treatment, while a captured Russian could expect a death camp.
mercedo wrote today at 4:48 AM
briangriffith said Meanwhile, the war in Western Europe was fought with some degree of restraint and respect between enemies.
True. In early stages of WWII Hitler didn't try to eliminate British soldiers in Calais. He let them go back to Britain.
briangriffith said Meanwhile, the war in Western Europe was fought with some degree of restraint and respect between enemies.
True. In early stages of WWII Hitler didn't try to eliminate British soldiers in Calais. He let them go back to Britain.
mercedo wrote today at 4:48 AM
briangriffith said Meanwhile, the war in Western Europe was fought with some degree of restraint and respect between enemies.
True. In early stages of WWII Hitler didn't try to eliminate British soldiers in Calais. He let them go back to Britain.
briangriffith said Meanwhile, the war in Western Europe was fought with some degree of restraint and respect between enemies.
True. In early stages of WWII Hitler didn't try to eliminate British soldiers in Calais. He let them go back to Britain.
eglamkowski wrote on Aug 22
Then again, maybe he tortures puppies for fun and pulls the wings off of butterflies? :O
morosoph wrote today at 3:35 AM
eglamkowski saidThen again, maybe he tortures puppies for fun and pulls the wings off of butterflies? :ONo! It's "Pulling the wings off rabbits"!"But rabbits don't have wings""Not unless you nail them on first!"
eglamkowski wrote on Aug 22
Then again, maybe he tortures puppies for fun and pulls the wings off of butterflies? :O
morosoph wrote today at 3:35 AM
eglamkowski saidThen again, maybe he tortures puppies for fun and pulls the wings off of butterflies? :ONo! It's "Pulling the wings off rabbits"!"But rabbits don't have wings""Not unless you nail them on first!"
mercedo wrote today at 4:30 AM
Whatever you say, :)
If some one showed my picture saying if it's me, I would reply yes it is. I dare not say no, it is not me, but it's a photo of me.
Language is not an absolute tool. Language merely define the relative meaning, in other words, any word in various sentences ought to be understood in line with each context they are used.
Whatever you say, :)
If some one showed my picture saying if it's me, I would reply yes it is. I dare not say no, it is not me, but it's a photo of me.
Language is not an absolute tool. Language merely define the relative meaning, in other words, any word in various sentences ought to be understood in line with each context they are used.
mercedo wrote today at 4:30 AM
Whatever you say, :)
If some one showed my picture saying if it's me, I would reply yes it is. I dare not say no, it is not me, but it's a photo of me.
Language is not an absolute tool. Language merely define the relative meaning, in other words, any word in various sentences ought to be understood in line with each context they are used.
Whatever you say, :)
If some one showed my picture saying if it's me, I would reply yes it is. I dare not say no, it is not me, but it's a photo of me.
Language is not an absolute tool. Language merely define the relative meaning, in other words, any word in various sentences ought to be understood in line with each context they are used.
ullangoo wrote today at 4:15 AM
No, Mer. If you see a photo of me, you say "that's Ulla", right? But the photo you see can't walk, talk, eat, contradict you, smile ---. It's actually not me, it's a photo. Your statement is simply a short form of "this is a photo of Ulla". Yes, the relation between copy (e.g. a photo) and original is one of similarity. That's how we recognize the copy, so to speak. That's also why the linguistic sign, the word, can understandably be applied to the copy, but we all know that we can't take a pipe from a painting, put tobacco in it and smoke it. For that we need a tangible three-dimensional thing, not a two-dimensional picture, and we all know it although we can't all express it as "thing and picture belong to different ontological categories". Usually, when you connect a particular and a universal by "be", you express predication. "Ulla's face is red" means "Ulla's face has the characteristic (attribute) red". It doesn't mean that my face is identical with the colour red per se. But when you say "God is love", you claim to identify the particular 'God' with the universal 'love', and that's impossible without slurring the categories, as Tim said.
No, Mer. If you see a photo of me, you say "that's Ulla", right? But the photo you see can't walk, talk, eat, contradict you, smile ---. It's actually not me, it's a photo. Your statement is simply a short form of "this is a photo of Ulla". Yes, the relation between copy (e.g. a photo) and original is one of similarity. That's how we recognize the copy, so to speak. That's also why the linguistic sign, the word, can understandably be applied to the copy, but we all know that we can't take a pipe from a painting, put tobacco in it and smoke it. For that we need a tangible three-dimensional thing, not a two-dimensional picture, and we all know it although we can't all express it as "thing and picture belong to different ontological categories". Usually, when you connect a particular and a universal by "be", you express predication. "Ulla's face is red" means "Ulla's face has the characteristic (attribute) red". It doesn't mean that my face is identical with the colour red per se. But when you say "God is love", you claim to identify the particular 'God' with the universal 'love', and that's impossible without slurring the categories, as Tim said.
ullangoo wrote today at 4:15 AM
No, Mer. If you see a photo of me, you say "that's Ulla", right? But the photo you see can't walk, talk, eat, contradict you, smile ---. It's actually not me, it's a photo. Your statement is simply a short form of "this is a photo of Ulla". Yes, the relation between copy (e.g. a photo) and original is one of similarity. That's how we recognize the copy, so to speak. That's also why the linguistic sign, the word, can understandably be applied to the copy, but we all know that we can't take a pipe from a painting, put tobacco in it and smoke it. For that we need a tangible three-dimensional thing, not a two-dimensional picture, and we all know it although we can't all express it as "thing and picture belong to different ontological categories". Usually, when you connect a particular and a universal by "be", you express predication. "Ulla's face is red" means "Ulla's face has the characteristic (attribute) red". It doesn't mean that my face is identical with the colour red per se. But when you say "God is love", you claim to identify the particular 'God' with the universal 'love', and that's impossible without slurring the categories, as Tim said.
No, Mer. If you see a photo of me, you say "that's Ulla", right? But the photo you see can't walk, talk, eat, contradict you, smile ---. It's actually not me, it's a photo. Your statement is simply a short form of "this is a photo of Ulla". Yes, the relation between copy (e.g. a photo) and original is one of similarity. That's how we recognize the copy, so to speak. That's also why the linguistic sign, the word, can understandably be applied to the copy, but we all know that we can't take a pipe from a painting, put tobacco in it and smoke it. For that we need a tangible three-dimensional thing, not a two-dimensional picture, and we all know it although we can't all express it as "thing and picture belong to different ontological categories". Usually, when you connect a particular and a universal by "be", you express predication. "Ulla's face is red" means "Ulla's face has the characteristic (attribute) red". It doesn't mean that my face is identical with the colour red per se. But when you say "God is love", you claim to identify the particular 'God' with the universal 'love', and that's impossible without slurring the categories, as Tim said.
mercedo wrote today at 3:57 AM
briangriffith saidWhen the Russians attacked the Japanese army in Manchuria and Korea in the summer of 1945, they encountered little serious resistance and were surprized to receive large-scale surrenders of Japanese troops. True. In 1939 Russian mechanised troops and Japanese infantry division crashed in borders between Russia and Manchuria, known as Nomonhan Incident. Russian army is said to eliminate totally about 60,000 Japanese soldiers.
European and American army was extremely advanced as opposed to a very primitive and poor war equipment in East Asia throughout those days. Japanese tank is as good as real tank with stick-like hose.
I must add one thing in defense of Japanese army there those days. In 1945 Russo-Japan Neutral Pact was still in effect.
briangriffith saidWhen the Russians attacked the Japanese army in Manchuria and Korea in the summer of 1945, they encountered little serious resistance and were surprized to receive large-scale surrenders of Japanese troops. True. In 1939 Russian mechanised troops and Japanese infantry division crashed in borders between Russia and Manchuria, known as Nomonhan Incident. Russian army is said to eliminate totally about 60,000 Japanese soldiers.
European and American army was extremely advanced as opposed to a very primitive and poor war equipment in East Asia throughout those days. Japanese tank is as good as real tank with stick-like hose.
I must add one thing in defense of Japanese army there those days. In 1945 Russo-Japan Neutral Pact was still in effect.
mercedo wrote today at 3:57 AM
briangriffith saidWhen the Russians attacked the Japanese army in Manchuria and Korea in the summer of 1945, they encountered little serious resistance and were surprized to receive large-scale surrenders of Japanese troops. True. In 1939 Russian mechanised troops and Japanese infantry division crashed in borders between Russia and Manchuria, known as Nomonhan Incident. Russian army is said to eliminate totally about 60,000 Japanese soldiers.
European and American army was extremely advanced as opposed to a very primitive and poor war equipment in East Asia throughout those days. Japanese tank is as good as real tank with stick-like hose.
I must add one thing in defense of Japanese army there those days. In 1945 Russo-Japan Neutral Pact was still in effect.
briangriffith saidWhen the Russians attacked the Japanese army in Manchuria and Korea in the summer of 1945, they encountered little serious resistance and were surprized to receive large-scale surrenders of Japanese troops. True. In 1939 Russian mechanised troops and Japanese infantry division crashed in borders between Russia and Manchuria, known as Nomonhan Incident. Russian army is said to eliminate totally about 60,000 Japanese soldiers.
European and American army was extremely advanced as opposed to a very primitive and poor war equipment in East Asia throughout those days. Japanese tank is as good as real tank with stick-like hose.
I must add one thing in defense of Japanese army there those days. In 1945 Russo-Japan Neutral Pact was still in effect.
~mercedo 1 hour 36 minutes ago Hide
mercedo wrote today at 1:28 AMA war is in the end killing because of the difference in language, culture. I think the value of life is much more important than just the difference in language, culture. In order to prevent such atrocities men tend to commit, we'd like to try to learn a bit more about our neighbours.Know your neighbours, that's men's eleventh commandments.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
mercedo wrote today at 1:28 AMA war is in the end killing because of the difference in language, culture. I think the value of life is much more important than just the difference in language, culture. In order to prevent such atrocities men tend to commit, we'd like to try to learn a bit more about our neighbours.Know your neighbours, that's men's eleventh commandments.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
~mercedo 1 hour 36 minutes ago Hide
mercedo wrote today at 1:28 AMA war is in the end killing because of the difference in language, culture. I think the value of life is much more important than just the difference in language, culture. In order to prevent such atrocities men tend to commit, we'd like to try to learn a bit more about our neighbours.Know your neighbours, that's men's eleventh commandments.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
mercedo wrote today at 1:28 AMA war is in the end killing because of the difference in language, culture. I think the value of life is much more important than just the difference in language, culture. In order to prevent such atrocities men tend to commit, we'd like to try to learn a bit more about our neighbours.Know your neighbours, that's men's eleventh commandments.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
Hirota & Hitler, one common point
Aug 23, '07 2:45 AMfor everyone
Hirota was the only civilian politician among 7 executed war criminals in Far East War Tribunal held after the WWII. Other 6 were all military commanders.
This tribunal was held under over lawful considerations. Under the Constitution at that time Emperor was the supreme commander of all military forces and adminislative body couldn't possibly interfere any decision military forces determined. Military was where no political power could reach. Hirota, prime minister in time of war was not guilty if they applied existing laws at that time to him, but he was charged and hung to death in the end.
In Germany, Ribbentrop was executed though he was a civilian politician. General Headquarters of Far East wanted to execute Matsuoka too, he was a foreign minister and civilian politician. He was dead in natural cause during the trial. Some civilian politician had to be hung in this trial at least to reinforce the justification of political forces in Allied by denying the political power in Axis countries. In my opinion, Hirota was chosen to act for this justification. Hitler was of course a civilian politician.
Aug 23, '07 2:45 AMfor everyone
Hirota was the only civilian politician among 7 executed war criminals in Far East War Tribunal held after the WWII. Other 6 were all military commanders.
This tribunal was held under over lawful considerations. Under the Constitution at that time Emperor was the supreme commander of all military forces and adminislative body couldn't possibly interfere any decision military forces determined. Military was where no political power could reach. Hirota, prime minister in time of war was not guilty if they applied existing laws at that time to him, but he was charged and hung to death in the end.
In Germany, Ribbentrop was executed though he was a civilian politician. General Headquarters of Far East wanted to execute Matsuoka too, he was a foreign minister and civilian politician. He was dead in natural cause during the trial. Some civilian politician had to be hung in this trial at least to reinforce the justification of political forces in Allied by denying the political power in Axis countries. In my opinion, Hirota was chosen to act for this justification. Hitler was of course a civilian politician.
Hirota & Hitler, one common point
Aug 23, '07 2:45 AMfor everyone
Hirota was the only civilian politician among 7 executed war criminals in Far East War Tribunal held after the WWII. Other 6 were all military commanders.
This tribunal was held under over lawful considerations. Under the Constitution at that time Emperor was the supreme commander of all military forces and adminislative body couldn't possibly interfere any decision military forces determined. Military was where no political power could reach. Hirota, prime minister in time of war was not guilty if they applied existing laws at that time to him, but he was charged and hung to death in the end.
In Germany, Ribbentrop was executed though he was a civilian politician. General Headquarters of Far East wanted to execute Matsuoka too, he was a foreign minister and civilian politician. He was dead in natural cause during the trial. Some civilian politician had to be hung in this trial at least to reinforce the justification of political forces in Allied by denying the political power in Axis countries. In my opinion, Hirota was chosen to act for this justification. Hitler was of course a civilian politician.
Aug 23, '07 2:45 AMfor everyone
Hirota was the only civilian politician among 7 executed war criminals in Far East War Tribunal held after the WWII. Other 6 were all military commanders.
This tribunal was held under over lawful considerations. Under the Constitution at that time Emperor was the supreme commander of all military forces and adminislative body couldn't possibly interfere any decision military forces determined. Military was where no political power could reach. Hirota, prime minister in time of war was not guilty if they applied existing laws at that time to him, but he was charged and hung to death in the end.
In Germany, Ribbentrop was executed though he was a civilian politician. General Headquarters of Far East wanted to execute Matsuoka too, he was a foreign minister and civilian politician. He was dead in natural cause during the trial. Some civilian politician had to be hung in this trial at least to reinforce the justification of political forces in Allied by denying the political power in Axis countries. In my opinion, Hirota was chosen to act for this justification. Hitler was of course a civilian politician.
mercedo wrote today at 1:03 AM
It is silly for all of us to undermine or admire the dead excessively. It's better for us to pay simple respect to the dead though some are revered in a mausoleum and others are just buried in a humble tomb .
It is silly for all of us to undermine or admire the dead excessively. It's better for us to pay simple respect to the dead though some are revered in a mausoleum and others are just buried in a humble tomb .
mercedo wrote today at 1:03 AM
It is silly for all of us to undermine or admire the dead excessively. It's better for us to pay simple respect to the dead though some are revered in a mausoleum and others are just buried in a humble tomb .
It is silly for all of us to undermine or admire the dead excessively. It's better for us to pay simple respect to the dead though some are revered in a mausoleum and others are just buried in a humble tomb .
~mercedo 8 seconds ago Hide
mercedo wrote today at 11:47 PMThis is not a pipe. If this statement is true, we ought to think this is similar to pipe, but it's a musical instrument, or a trash box, people's residential house, simple art objet, tunnel, pot, hammer, golf patter, jar, vase, or a balloon, anyway anything other than pipe.If you think this statement tells us this is not a pipe, but a painting of pipe, you are failing to understand the essence of language. Pipe means a real pipe, pipe in paintings, pipe objet, whatever.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART UsersReply
~mercedo 52 minutes 1 second ago Hide
mercedo wrote today at 10:49 PMYeah, sort of..If someone were a hypocrite, he would try to hide their evil and pretend to be a good person. He has to pretend to be a good person, therefore he must be evil.If someone's moral standard is extremely high, he would always feel he are committing some sin. Therefore he might say he is an evil person, but actually he is not.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
mercedo wrote today at 11:47 PMThis is not a pipe. If this statement is true, we ought to think this is similar to pipe, but it's a musical instrument, or a trash box, people's residential house, simple art objet, tunnel, pot, hammer, golf patter, jar, vase, or a balloon, anyway anything other than pipe.If you think this statement tells us this is not a pipe, but a painting of pipe, you are failing to understand the essence of language. Pipe means a real pipe, pipe in paintings, pipe objet, whatever.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART UsersReply
~mercedo 52 minutes 1 second ago Hide
mercedo wrote today at 10:49 PMYeah, sort of..If someone were a hypocrite, he would try to hide their evil and pretend to be a good person. He has to pretend to be a good person, therefore he must be evil.If someone's moral standard is extremely high, he would always feel he are committing some sin. Therefore he might say he is an evil person, but actually he is not.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
~mercedo 8 seconds ago Hide
mercedo wrote today at 11:47 PMThis is not a pipe. If this statement is true, we ought to think this is similar to pipe, but it's a musical instrument, or a trash box, people's residential house, simple art objet, tunnel, pot, hammer, golf patter, jar, vase, or a balloon, anyway anything other than pipe.If you think this statement tells us this is not a pipe, but a painting of pipe, you are failing to understand the essence of language. Pipe means a real pipe, pipe in paintings, pipe objet, whatever.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART UsersReply
~mercedo 52 minutes 1 second ago Hide
mercedo wrote today at 10:49 PMYeah, sort of..If someone were a hypocrite, he would try to hide their evil and pretend to be a good person. He has to pretend to be a good person, therefore he must be evil.If someone's moral standard is extremely high, he would always feel he are committing some sin. Therefore he might say he is an evil person, but actually he is not.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
mercedo wrote today at 11:47 PMThis is not a pipe. If this statement is true, we ought to think this is similar to pipe, but it's a musical instrument, or a trash box, people's residential house, simple art objet, tunnel, pot, hammer, golf patter, jar, vase, or a balloon, anyway anything other than pipe.If you think this statement tells us this is not a pipe, but a painting of pipe, you are failing to understand the essence of language. Pipe means a real pipe, pipe in paintings, pipe objet, whatever.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART UsersReply
~mercedo 52 minutes 1 second ago Hide
mercedo wrote today at 10:49 PMYeah, sort of..If someone were a hypocrite, he would try to hide their evil and pretend to be a good person. He has to pretend to be a good person, therefore he must be evil.If someone's moral standard is extremely high, he would always feel he are committing some sin. Therefore he might say he is an evil person, but actually he is not.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users
Wednesday, 22 August 2007
mercedo wrote today at 10:17 PM
briangriffith said I don't have to pretend.
When you say so people immediately understand you must be an evil. Those who pretend to be evil usually say 'I am evil'. Because they want us to believe they are evil.
So when you say 'I don't have to pretend ( because I am evil ), you are saying the word in parenthesis, and I understand your moral standard is very high to the point you consider yourself as evil.
briangriffith said I don't have to pretend.
When you say so people immediately understand you must be an evil. Those who pretend to be evil usually say 'I am evil'. Because they want us to believe they are evil.
So when you say 'I don't have to pretend ( because I am evil ), you are saying the word in parenthesis, and I understand your moral standard is very high to the point you consider yourself as evil.
mercedo wrote today at 10:17 PM
briangriffith said I don't have to pretend.
When you say so people immediately understand you must be an evil. Those who pretend to be evil usually say 'I am evil'. Because they want us to believe they are evil.
So when you say 'I don't have to pretend ( because I am evil ), you are saying the word in parenthesis, and I understand your moral standard is very high to the point you consider yourself as evil.
briangriffith said I don't have to pretend.
When you say so people immediately understand you must be an evil. Those who pretend to be evil usually say 'I am evil'. Because they want us to believe they are evil.
So when you say 'I don't have to pretend ( because I am evil ), you are saying the word in parenthesis, and I understand your moral standard is very high to the point you consider yourself as evil.
ullangoo wrote on Aug 21
Different shrines sound absurd to me. It could perhaps be argued that war criminals shouldn't be respected at all - in my opinion a rather arrogant attitude. The alternative is to say: they were punished, they paid for their crimes, now they are like every other soul. I believe we all get the chance to learn what we didn't learn in this life, as "spirits" and/or in our next incarnation. Judging those we don't understand and accept gets us nowhere whether they are alive or dead.
reply
briangriffith wrote on Aug 21
In WWII, all the beligerants engaged in a race to eliminate their enemies' civilian populations. Those with insufficient air power tried to do this extermination directly on the ground, as in the Japanese army order to shoot all Chinese on sight. The Western allies were able to do this from the air, with their thousand-bomber raids or fire-bombing of German or Japanese cities. Several fire bombing raids on Japanese cities managed to kill more people than the atomic bombs did. The only thing superior about this, compared to what the Japanese did in China, was simply a matter of taste -- that it seems more civilized to slaughter civilians from a distance, with high-tech impersonal devices of mass murder, rather than with guns and swords at close quarters.At present we have the USA and Israel trying to make the same distinction between their own killing and that of their enemies. Terrorists, they say, directly intend to target civilians, while the civilized nations only accidently kill civilians in the crossfire, while trying to kill only the enemy. In my opinion the distinction is totally imaginary. We have already seen the firepower which the Western nations bring to bear on any community which may "harbour" their enemies.
Different shrines sound absurd to me. It could perhaps be argued that war criminals shouldn't be respected at all - in my opinion a rather arrogant attitude. The alternative is to say: they were punished, they paid for their crimes, now they are like every other soul. I believe we all get the chance to learn what we didn't learn in this life, as "spirits" and/or in our next incarnation. Judging those we don't understand and accept gets us nowhere whether they are alive or dead.
reply
briangriffith wrote on Aug 21
In WWII, all the beligerants engaged in a race to eliminate their enemies' civilian populations. Those with insufficient air power tried to do this extermination directly on the ground, as in the Japanese army order to shoot all Chinese on sight. The Western allies were able to do this from the air, with their thousand-bomber raids or fire-bombing of German or Japanese cities. Several fire bombing raids on Japanese cities managed to kill more people than the atomic bombs did. The only thing superior about this, compared to what the Japanese did in China, was simply a matter of taste -- that it seems more civilized to slaughter civilians from a distance, with high-tech impersonal devices of mass murder, rather than with guns and swords at close quarters.At present we have the USA and Israel trying to make the same distinction between their own killing and that of their enemies. Terrorists, they say, directly intend to target civilians, while the civilized nations only accidently kill civilians in the crossfire, while trying to kill only the enemy. In my opinion the distinction is totally imaginary. We have already seen the firepower which the Western nations bring to bear on any community which may "harbour" their enemies.
ullangoo wrote on Aug 21
Different shrines sound absurd to me. It could perhaps be argued that war criminals shouldn't be respected at all - in my opinion a rather arrogant attitude. The alternative is to say: they were punished, they paid for their crimes, now they are like every other soul. I believe we all get the chance to learn what we didn't learn in this life, as "spirits" and/or in our next incarnation. Judging those we don't understand and accept gets us nowhere whether they are alive or dead.
reply
briangriffith wrote on Aug 21
In WWII, all the beligerants engaged in a race to eliminate their enemies' civilian populations. Those with insufficient air power tried to do this extermination directly on the ground, as in the Japanese army order to shoot all Chinese on sight. The Western allies were able to do this from the air, with their thousand-bomber raids or fire-bombing of German or Japanese cities. Several fire bombing raids on Japanese cities managed to kill more people than the atomic bombs did. The only thing superior about this, compared to what the Japanese did in China, was simply a matter of taste -- that it seems more civilized to slaughter civilians from a distance, with high-tech impersonal devices of mass murder, rather than with guns and swords at close quarters.At present we have the USA and Israel trying to make the same distinction between their own killing and that of their enemies. Terrorists, they say, directly intend to target civilians, while the civilized nations only accidently kill civilians in the crossfire, while trying to kill only the enemy. In my opinion the distinction is totally imaginary. We have already seen the firepower which the Western nations bring to bear on any community which may "harbour" their enemies.
Different shrines sound absurd to me. It could perhaps be argued that war criminals shouldn't be respected at all - in my opinion a rather arrogant attitude. The alternative is to say: they were punished, they paid for their crimes, now they are like every other soul. I believe we all get the chance to learn what we didn't learn in this life, as "spirits" and/or in our next incarnation. Judging those we don't understand and accept gets us nowhere whether they are alive or dead.
reply
briangriffith wrote on Aug 21
In WWII, all the beligerants engaged in a race to eliminate their enemies' civilian populations. Those with insufficient air power tried to do this extermination directly on the ground, as in the Japanese army order to shoot all Chinese on sight. The Western allies were able to do this from the air, with their thousand-bomber raids or fire-bombing of German or Japanese cities. Several fire bombing raids on Japanese cities managed to kill more people than the atomic bombs did. The only thing superior about this, compared to what the Japanese did in China, was simply a matter of taste -- that it seems more civilized to slaughter civilians from a distance, with high-tech impersonal devices of mass murder, rather than with guns and swords at close quarters.At present we have the USA and Israel trying to make the same distinction between their own killing and that of their enemies. Terrorists, they say, directly intend to target civilians, while the civilized nations only accidently kill civilians in the crossfire, while trying to kill only the enemy. In my opinion the distinction is totally imaginary. We have already seen the firepower which the Western nations bring to bear on any community which may "harbour" their enemies.
reply
morosoph wrote on Aug 21
Yep, it's Tim.I think that we're on the same track. BTW (regarding your clarification) pantheistic isn't polytheistic.Yin and Yang aren't quite it: the concepts are too "human"; it's the same error that leads to the Christian God, IMO, and leads to the need for a theory of evil (such as Yin not "obeying" Yang). Such theories are usually too simple.To me, it is the "being" that is the wrong concept. At that point we are overgeneralising, and we are doing so to an even greater extent as to when we "personalise" nations (vis, Britannia, Uncle Sam, etcetera). At least nations are made of people; nature is not a being, and making it one falsifises our intelligence concerning nature, as one would if one were seeking comfort, rather than truth.The image that I chose is called "The Treachery Of Images"; that is no arbitrary title. It is our greatest risk, that in seeking meaning, we overturn truth.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 21
Sure - I know Spinoza and pantheism, but I wrote something about polytheism in a reply far above and thought I'd gather the loose ends.I don't really know what to call the fundamental principles; yin and yang are better for me personally than most others because I don't hear these words as one negative and one positive. I don't trust all those human value judgments (including my own at this stage). The "Being" - well, sometimes I sense a presence that feels like a "person". Aspects, manifestations, something/body that shows me the tiny parts that I'm able to comprehend. I can't define it. Maybe it's one aspect of whatever and nature is another, and you and I have chosen to focus more on one than on the other.Maybe there's nothing that chooses except me, i.e. sometimes I'm open and sometimes not. Jeez - this is difficult to put in words. I don't have so many answers, anyway.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 21, edited on Aug 21
Do some people say that Yin should obey Yang? I didn't know that - it's utter baloney. It's just one more judgment of something we don't understand.
Reply deleted at the request of the author.
reply
morosoph wrote on Aug 21
ullangoo saidDo some people say that Yin should obey Yang? I didn't know that - it's utter baloney. It's just one more judgment of something we don't understand. Only strong Confucians would say that, but it is assumed in Chinese philosophy that Yang should lead and Yin should follow. To interpret that as "obey", and to rigidly allocate Yin and Yang to particular people is to miss the subtlety, I agree.Partly, I am sure, to avoid this, the Richard Wilhelm translation of the I Ching uses the terms "firm" and "yielding" concerning the six-line forms that the book describes. The Lynn translation, while academically superior, simply doesn't have the Wilhelm translation's humanity. It uses "Yin" and "Yang" to refer to the lines, and doesn't cushion the reader from patriarchal assumptions within the text. In a way I prefer that, for it leaves me the job of contextualisation, but it can go too far, as I feel that it does in another book "The Elemental Changes" that is structurally interesting, but the interpretations in that book are pointlessly strict, IMO.
reply
morosoph wrote on Aug 21
Yep, it's Tim.I think that we're on the same track. BTW (regarding your clarification) pantheistic isn't polytheistic.Yin and Yang aren't quite it: the concepts are too "human"; it's the same error that leads to the Christian God, IMO, and leads to the need for a theory of evil (such as Yin not "obeying" Yang). Such theories are usually too simple.To me, it is the "being" that is the wrong concept. At that point we are overgeneralising, and we are doing so to an even greater extent as to when we "personalise" nations (vis, Britannia, Uncle Sam, etcetera). At least nations are made of people; nature is not a being, and making it one falsifises our intelligence concerning nature, as one would if one were seeking comfort, rather than truth.The image that I chose is called "The Treachery Of Images"; that is no arbitrary title. It is our greatest risk, that in seeking meaning, we overturn truth.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 21
Sure - I know Spinoza and pantheism, but I wrote something about polytheism in a reply far above and thought I'd gather the loose ends.I don't really know what to call the fundamental principles; yin and yang are better for me personally than most others because I don't hear these words as one negative and one positive. I don't trust all those human value judgments (including my own at this stage). The "Being" - well, sometimes I sense a presence that feels like a "person". Aspects, manifestations, something/body that shows me the tiny parts that I'm able to comprehend. I can't define it. Maybe it's one aspect of whatever and nature is another, and you and I have chosen to focus more on one than on the other.Maybe there's nothing that chooses except me, i.e. sometimes I'm open and sometimes not. Jeez - this is difficult to put in words. I don't have so many answers, anyway.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 21, edited on Aug 21
Do some people say that Yin should obey Yang? I didn't know that - it's utter baloney. It's just one more judgment of something we don't understand.
Reply deleted at the request of the author.
reply
morosoph wrote on Aug 21
ullangoo saidDo some people say that Yin should obey Yang? I didn't know that - it's utter baloney. It's just one more judgment of something we don't understand. Only strong Confucians would say that, but it is assumed in Chinese philosophy that Yang should lead and Yin should follow. To interpret that as "obey", and to rigidly allocate Yin and Yang to particular people is to miss the subtlety, I agree.Partly, I am sure, to avoid this, the Richard Wilhelm translation of the I Ching uses the terms "firm" and "yielding" concerning the six-line forms that the book describes. The Lynn translation, while academically superior, simply doesn't have the Wilhelm translation's humanity. It uses "Yin" and "Yang" to refer to the lines, and doesn't cushion the reader from patriarchal assumptions within the text. In a way I prefer that, for it leaves me the job of contextualisation, but it can go too far, as I feel that it does in another book "The Elemental Changes" that is structurally interesting, but the interpretations in that book are pointlessly strict, IMO.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)