Ignorance is not always bliss

Disappropriated wrote:

Is there any form of communication that does not have an ego driven purpose?

Or is the problem in its failure to disclose its purpose?

there can certainly be a form of self-expression which can be recognized as a noble motivation, by contrast.
stark contrast, btw.

lavender orchid wrote:

Disappropriated wrote:

Is there any form of communication that does not have an ego driven purpose?

Or is the problem in its failure to disclose its purpose?

there can certainly be a form of self-expression which can be recognized as a noble motivation, by contrast.
stark contrast, btw.

Am I right in thinking you mean one that is not driven by the ego?

Disappropriated wrote:

lavender orchid wrote:

Disappropriated wrote:

Is there any form of communication that does not have an ego driven purpose?

Or is the problem in its failure to disclose its purpose?

there can certainly be a form of self-expression which can be recognized as a noble motivation, by contrast.
stark contrast, btw.

Am I right in thinking you mean one that is not driven by the ego?

at least not by ulterior motives, whether called ego or not, rather easy to perceive but never clearly identifyable before they do any intentional (consciously or not) harm. ()

imho, for caution!

lavender orchid wrote:

Disappropriated wrote:

lavender orchid wrote:

Disappropriated wrote:

Is there any form of communication that does not have an ego driven purpose?

Or is the problem in its failure to disclose its purpose?

there can certainly be a form of self-expression which can be recognized as a noble motivation, by contrast.
stark contrast, btw.

Am I right in thinking you mean one that is not driven by the ego?

at least not by ulterior motives, whether called ego or not, rather easy to perceive but never clearly identifyable before they do any intentional (consciously or not) harm. ()

imho, for caution!

My perception of your definition is a little hazy, but it's probably down to the fact that I'm running on some sort of energy that lasts 2+ days without sleep. If it's any consolation your conception is acceptable.

Disappropriated wrote:

lavender orchid wrote:

Disappropriated wrote:

lavender orchid wrote:

Disappropriated wrote:

Is there any form of communication that does not have an ego driven purpose?

Or is the problem in its failure to disclose its purpose?

there can certainly be a form of self-expression which can be recognized as a noble motivation, by contrast.
stark contrast, btw.

Am I right in thinking you mean one that is not driven by the ego?

at least not by ulterior motives, whether called ego or not, rather easy to perceive but never clearly identifyable before they do any intentional (consciously or not) harm. ()

imho, for caution!

My perception of your definition is a little hazy, but it's probably down to the fact that I'm running on some sort of energy that lasts 2+ days without sleep. If it's any consolation your conception is acceptable.

thanks for the generosity, my energy has been running in a similar schedule for more than a year now.
irony off, just in case.

Truth isn't generosity.

Disappropriated wrote:

Truth isn't generosity.

no such implication, apart from doing both harm as such, again.

Disappropriated wrote:

Truth isn't generosity.

Then generosity is a lie? How do you come to that conclusion?

Mayflow wrote:

Disappropriated wrote:

Truth isn't generosity.

Then generosity is a lie? How do you come to that conclusion?

Affirming a disjunct? I merely said that truth is independent of generosity.

Disappropriated wrote:

Mayflow wrote:

Disappropriated wrote:

Truth isn't generosity.

Then generosity is a lie? How do you come to that conclusion?

Affirming a disjunct? I merely said that truth is independent of generosity.

then why did you not say it that way the first time.

and secondly, can you provide proof for your assertion which you now present as a question?

Disappropriated wrote:

Mayflow wrote:

Disappropriated wrote:

Truth isn't generosity.

Then generosity is a lie? How do you come to that conclusion?

Affirming a disjunct? I merely said that truth is independent of generosity.

Have you ever studied the theories of interdependence? Or are you implying that "truth" is noumenon, and distinct from phenomenon? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon ? Still too fluffy for you?

Truth is not generosity. Truth is independent of generosity. They are the same sentence to me, except the first is shorter.

You mean the 'Affirming a disjunct'? Right, you jumped from me saying that T(ruth) is not G(enerosity) to F(alse) is G. It's not necessarily true that if T ≠ G then F = G.

I think that constitutes a proof.

I might be, though I'm not versed in any theory of independence.

I must share this observation. Controversy causes growth. It forces us to lot within for answers
on how to deal with a difficult situation. I want to move beyond castigation over what I do not
understand. I am reminded of an animal planet episode of a lost young fawn trying to find it's
mother. It approached a herd of bison and was immediately rejected. Such is the human
condition. It reflects ignorance. I myself was susceptible to this curse called ignorance,and still
am. I used to judge "surface" people as ignorant, and sought out "deep" people. I have found
through humility that both are important. I am on a journey of trying to understand other types,
and moving beyond my comfort zone. I personally wish to understand the different types so I
may grow. Deep, up, down, north, all are important perspectives of the human condition.

As far as I am concerned, seek out that which is best suited for your journey and avoid distractions. For the distractions will hinder and perhaps deter you from reaching what you seek. What ever that may be.

I agree with you dearlg1. I am for finding one's gift, actualizing it & living in flow. That is being who one
was meant to be. To do that one must learn to differentiate between what is useful on one's
path, & what is merely pleasurable in the moment. The former one, one can grow. The latter is
a canyon with no way out.

lightsun wrote:

I agree with you dearlg1. I am for finding one's gift, actualizing it & living in flow. That is being who one
was meant to be. To do that one must learn to differentiate between what is useful on one's
path, & what is merely pleasurable in the moment. The former one, one can grow. The latter is
a canyon with no way out.

One very good example of what that is substance abuse of any sorts at any level.

dearlg1 wrote:

lightsun wrote:

I agree with you dearlg1. I am for finding one's gift, actualizing it & living in flow. That is being who one
was meant to be. To do that one must learn to differentiate between what is useful on one's
path, & what is merely pleasurable in the moment. The former one, one can grow. The latter is
a canyon with no way out.

One very good example of what that is substance abuse of any sorts at any level.

marked for in-depth discussion, where and when needed. tx.

I have no problem discussing subtance abuse. My stance on it is firm. I find it a weakness of the first order and is one of the foremost trademarks of what is termed as 'lesser people'.

alright, neither have i.

imho, to me the problem begins with definition and connotations of the word substance abuse.

there is food, and there is nourishment.
there is good use, and there is "abuse".
there is medication, and there is "drugs".
there is herbs, and there is big pharma.
there is "substance" abuse, and there is psychoactive experiences.



and of course, there are the "legal" aspects.

When you take any substance and over use it to the extreme until it it becomes an addiction.

since when would ignorance then be(come) a substance?

Ignorance is not knowing it has substance

www.?

lavender orchid wrote:

www.?

www.ignoranceisbliss.com

dearlg1 wrote:

lavender orchid wrote:

www.?

www.ignoranceisbliss.com

yup. but whose, in the long run?