Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

re: The Rose/B

Expand Messages
  • freyjartist@aol.com
    B:
    Message 1 of 3 , Feb 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      B:<<Ah, but "a response from the
      heart" *can't* "be generated." 
      Such a response cannot be
      stifled by suspicion or any
      other attempt to guard or
      horde something that's is, in
      fact, illusory, time-bound.>>


      F: In ultimate terms, yes, I agree with that.

       
      B:<<My insight into Sandeepji's
      m.o. has no effect on my love
      for him >>


      F: You mean you had an insight about
      an m.o. that Sandeep would have as a means to an end??


      Why would your insight have any effect
      on your love for him?  I didn't say
      anything about that.  I thought we
      resolved that earlier.  Did you see that
      long post where I responded to you?




      B:<<-- we certainly agree
      and commune over much more
      than we disagree or contend. 
      It's a melodramatic, kinetic
      lyric, but its implication
      that insight and savvy about
      nominally interpersonal
      matters preclude open-
      heartedness in relationship
      is false.>>

      F:I was never talking about you and him,
      or anyone else and him.

      I simply asked, you, Bruce, not anyone else,
      if there was a reason
      to keep the thought/belief that Sandeep
      has an m.o. to illicit a certain response.
      From there, everyone continued to defend their
      positions.


      B: <<Understanding the
      human psyche is compassion's
      wise advisor, not its enemy.>>

      F: I never said that it was its enemy.

      I am only attempting to illustrate
      that there isn't any one m.o.
      in any situation,
      and whatever we think we understand
      about the human psyche, it doesn't
      end there.  I never met anyone who knows
      me better than I know myself in this moment.


      That word 'specious' is pretty
      darned specious, imo

      ;-)



      B: Does that mean you're suh-specious
      of my intention(s) to use it?>>


      F: No, I'm not. You are entitled to your opinion
      of what has merit or not.
      In the final analysis, imo, everything has
      merit or some kind of worth, so I would be hard pressed
      to say anything was specious, or had
      no merit at all, even in duality.

      I just probably would never use it.
      You seem to like the word,  and if it works
      for what you are trying to convey,
      please use it and enjoy it!

      ~~freyja


    • Bruce Morgen
      freyjartist@aol.com wrote: B:
      Message 2 of 3 , Feb 3, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        freyjartist@... wrote:
        B:<<Ah, but "a response from the
        heart" *can't* "be generated." 
        Such a response cannot be
        stifled by suspicion or any
        other attempt to guard or
        horde something that's is, in
        fact, illusory, time-bound.>>


        F: In ultimate terms, yes, I agree with that.

         
        B:<<My insight into Sandeepji's
        m.o. has no effect on my love
        for him >>


        F: You mean you had an insight about
        an m.o. that Sandeep would have as a means to an end??
        A fair assessment.


        Why would your insight have any effect
        on your love for him?  I didn't say
        anything about that.  I thought we
        resolved that earlier.  Did you see that
        long post where I responded to you?

        Not sure what you're referring
        to.



        B:<<-- we certainly agree
        and commune over much more
        than we disagree or contend. 
        It's a melodramatic, kinetic
        lyric, but its implication
        that insight and savvy about
        nominally interpersonal
        matters preclude open-
        heartedness in relationship
        is false.>>

        F:I was never talking about you and him,
        or anyone else and him.
        The lyric has certain clear
        implications, but of course
        these can be amplified or
        extended by the reader's
        inferences.

        I simply asked, you, Bruce, not anyone else,
        if there was a reason
        to keep the thought/belief that Sandeep
        has an m.o. to illicit a certain response.
        There is no reason to "keep"
        any "thought/belief," and no
        effective way to do so
        either!
        From there, everyone continued to defend their
        positions.


        B: <<Understanding the
        human psyche is compassion's
        wise advisor, not its enemy.>>

        F: I never said that it was its enemy.

        I am only attempting to illustrate
        that there isn't any one m.o.
        in any situation,
        and whatever we think we understand
        about the human psyche, it doesn't
        end there.  I never met anyone who knows
        me better than I know myself in this moment.
        I don't contend for a moment
        that Sandeepji doesn't know
        exactly what he did and why,
        and I certainly don't claim
        to know more on that account
        than he does.  What he
        reveals concerning this is
        of course up to him.


        That word 'specious' is pretty
        darned specious, imo

        ;-)



        B: Does that mean you're suh-specious
        of my intention(s) to use it?>>


        F: No, I'm not. You are entitled to your opinion
        of what has merit or not.
        In the final analysis, imo, everything has
        merit or some kind of worth, so I would be hard pressed
        to say anything was specious, or had
        no merit at all, even in duality.
        OK, opinion noted :-)

        I just probably would never use it.
        You seem to like the word,  and if it works
        for what you are trying to convey,
        please use it and enjoy it!

        I hear and obey!
        ~~freyja




        Yahoo! Groups Links


      • freyjartist@aol.com
        F: Why would your insight have any effect on your love for him?  I didn t say anything about that.  I thought we resolved that earlier.  Did you see that
        Message 3 of 3 , Feb 3, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          F:  Why would your insight have any effect
          on your love for him?  I didn't say
          anything about that.  I thought we
          resolved that earlier.  Did you see that
          long post where I responded to you?



          B:  Not sure what you're referring
          to.

          F:  post # 12654


          I just probably would never use it.
          You seem to like the word,  and if it works
          for what you are trying to convey,
          please use it and enjoy it!>>



          I hear and obey!>


          OK, "Lightheart"!  

          Good name for a pet, no?  :-)


          ~~freyja






        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.