[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

RE: Still Intoxicated?

Mar 30, 2006 03:43 AM
by carlosaveline cardoso aveline


Who's engaging in discussion with whom?


From: "Vincent" <>
Subject: Theos-World Re: Cass and Carlos- Intoxicated
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 20:22:46 -0000


You wrote:

"This is an excellent example of two minds enslaving each other in
ego.  Why not just substitute "drunk" with "intoxicated".  Two
unspoken truths are the cultivation of a sense of humour and common
sense, let's get back to both eh guys."

Very true, and utmost common sense that you offer here, Cass.
Especially about the ego part.

I tried the humor thing, but Carlos didn't like it apparently,
thinking I was too happy for his tastes.  As for enslavement, he and
I are both good at that, although Carlos might be hesitant to admit
it, I don't know.  I love to get preachy when I'm preached at, hehe.


You wrote:


Others are mirrors for us."

Obviously.  You are welcome to start mirroring.  Think of a twoway
mirror, as opposed to simply oneway.  It's easy to preach, my
friend, and assert as you have that the other should remain silent,
but that works both ways.

"Theos-talk is not about personal discussions."

Where did you get that wild idea?  There are no such restrictions in
this forum.  At least not that you're exercising.  Although, I
certainly wouldn't call our exchanges a 'personal' discussion.  You
simply had a personality conflict with me, and my wordiness rubbed
you the wrong way.  I'm a writer.  It's in my nature, whether you
like that or not.  If you don't like what I have to say, then you're
not obligated to respond.  But you did several times, and I
responded back.  Don't try to pin that on me, my friend.  You played
your part.  Naughty, naughty.

"Compare the number of sentences and level of "personality energy"in
the two cases."

The problem is that you're comparing each person with the other here
in the first place.  An evidence of the aforementioned ego
conflict.  Something that I said had vexed you, and so you engaged
in personal discussion with me, while wildly asserting that this
forum is not for personal discussion.  And somehow you believe
that 'personality energy' is a bad thing, when factually it is not.
It's better to have personality energy than none at all.

The fact that you had internally flipped the concept of 'personality
energy' from a good thing into a bad thing in your mind is simply
evidence of the personality conflict residing within you.  And so
you attempt to correct what you mistakenly believe to be wrong.
You're attempting to correct a mispercieved imbalance, because you
believe that things should be balanced.  When life is not always
that way.

And no, my friend, lots of sentences are not a bad thing either when
one is a writer.  Lots of sentences simply means one has a fluency
with words (as do I), and does not imply either excess personality
energy or word intoxication.  It simply means that I put quality
effort into any endeavor that I undertake, in this case writing.  On
my end, I simply interpret your attention span as perhaps being a
bit short.  Although you did read every word.  It just sort of
reminds me when I was breaking corporate productivity records at
United Parcel Service as a supervisor.  My bosses loved it, but
occasionally a coworker would become offended in their sense of ego

Now what does all of this have to do with Theosophy?  I'll leave
that to you to connect the dots, seeing as how you got preachy with
me.  (Okay, your turn.  You're enslaved, lolol.  And I'm the
energizer bunny.)

"Peace to you."

At last, something constuctive.  Peace to you as well.



--- In, Cass Silva <silva_cass@...> wrote:
> This is an excellent example of two minds enslaving each other in
ego.  Why not just substitute "drunk" with "intoxicated".
> Two unspoken truths are the cultivation of a sense of humour and
common sense, let's get back to both eh guys.
> Cass
> Vincent <vblaz2004@...> wrote: Carlos-
> You wrote:
> "Who called anyone literally drunk here?"
> You comparatively derived a metaphor of 'word' drunkenness from a
> source of literal drunkenness.  'Another way to get drunk' as per
> your thread title.  You were deriving a metaphor from the literal,
> even as all metaphors are derived from the literal as comparative
> communication devices.
> "I thought you could perceive "getting drunk" is a metaphor."
> Most certainly.  And in the context of your obvious offendedness,
> derogatory metaphor at best.  Metaphors are used as comparisons to
> the literal as a literary device.  You were comparing.  And your
> comparative metaphor was in relation to something that you detest.
> "Pay attention, "Vince"."
> Sounds pretty aggressive, lolol.  Forced perspectives don't make
> much headway with me.  I think you're still offended.  At what, I
> really don't know, because you said that you didn't feel that I
> tricked you.  But you're offended nonetheless.  Do you require
> continued assistance working through your offendedness?
> Vince
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously
low rates.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yahoo! Groups Links

Seja um dos primeiros a testar o Windows Live Messenger Beta a geração do seu MSN Messenger.

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application