"Poverty is a state of consciousness"
-
Okay, this presents a perfect opportunity, and I've been trying to figure out how to say this to you for a while now:
No shit.
I feel like you're constantly trying to teach us a concept we already know, and because of that, you can't hear what people are actually trying to express to you.
You speak constantly of freedom for the True Will, yet you constantly react to these others as if their True Will can't possibly include advocating the cause of the truly oppressed. I'm not convinced of that, and I don't think I'm going to let you be the one to convince me of it.
Currently, and based only on your argument, I would characterize you as absolutely and completely cold and indifferent to others, except to say that capitalism has been the best thing for everyone whether they're intelligent enough to understand that or not.
"The Masters are however deeply compassionate towards the plight of the ignorant masses of humanity."
That's the first thing I have ever heard from you that cast compassion in a positive light. Please explain to me how those masters are concretely compassionate in word and deed without being able to be accused of the dreaded weaknesses of sympathy. Also, are masters the only people capable of true compassion? Must it be stamped out and corrected in all others?
-
@Frater LA said
"Okay, this presents a perfect opportunity, and I've been trying to figure out how to say this to you for a while now:
No shit.
I feel like you're constantly trying to teach us a concept we already know, and because of that, you can't hear what people are actually trying to express to you."
First of all why are you speaking in the "collective" of "we" as opposed to "I" that seems like a buffer to me.
"You speak constantly of freedom for the True Will, yet you constantly react to these others as if their True Will can't possibly include advocating the cause of the truly oppressed. I'm not convinced of that, and I don't think I'm going to let you be the one to convince me of it. "
To be honest Labyrinthus is the most honest person on this forum by first being honest with himself, most of these so called advocates are steep in poverty conscious themselves and so they are seeking solace in 'appearing' to be sympathetic [misery loves company]. i bet none of them have actually set a foot in Africa[whilst I have] if that is what we are implying. I probably more than anyone else in this forum have reason to be most empathetic, but empathy is to be distinguished from sympathy. Let us first get this straight there are wealthy people and poor people everywhere, including Africa. How much have you personally donated to the truly oppressed as you put it?? Let us cut to the chase and not argue simply for the sake of demonstrating competence at debating, but as seekers of a practical Truth.
Let each one declare their own perceived status in society before they make any further commentary; i bet you I can just about guess which brackets most of the speakers here fall into. I could have alternately named this thread "WEALTH IS A STATE OF CONSCIOUSNESS"
i have on numerous occasions showed i can go toe to toe with anyone on this forum, there is always another way to make a case against any position, but that doesn't necessarily mean you have to keep on arguing just because you can. in the last debate many of the contributers where side-tracking from the issue at hand, including myself the difference being i was able to read between the lines and take hints by what Labyrinthus was answering and which parts of my posts he was ignoring. Ego is a big problem for us humans and it takes a true man to admit when he comes face to face with a superior argument, most people here evidently don't know how to develop an argument. The only person who gave Labyrinthus a run for his money on that last thread was Jim before he backed out, he simply outclassed the rest of us. he has obviously well thought out his position on this issue, painful to some but true. How can you claim to be sympathetic to people you have never even interacted with when you cant even get past your own ego??@Frater LA said
"I don't think it's all that blasphemous of a statement.
For me, the question is to what extent you feel, or do not feel, their impoverished level of consciousness with them. Are all other beings merely phantoms in a dream you rule alone? Has the king no love for his bride?"
To the extent you feel their level of consciousness with them to that same extent do you posses the same consciousness[who ever "they" are??]
@Labyrinthus said
"[
The true Initiate works quietly on his own or with others of like mind and would never dream of telling others what problems need to be solved or how to behave in general."
"Denial is the most predictable of all human responses" The Architect
-
Buffer... Yeah. Maybe. I really do feel like he's trying to teach a lesson that many here already understand. It's at the core of Thelema. It's like going into a church and saying, "what you guys need to learn about is self-sacrifice!" So, yes, I use "we," but I concede that it's able to be challenged.
You praise Labyrinthus for being honest. Praise me as well.
"most of these so called advocates are steep in poverty conscious themselves and so they are seeking solace in 'appearing' to be sympathetic [misery loves company]. "
This is my last word on any and all such arguments: Compassion and empathy are always accused of being weakness and sympathy. Always. There is no end to it. It is simply one perspective's view of the other, and one can only ever be convinced in one's own mind if one has truly grasped the difference.
What I am trying to say is that all I have heard from Labyrinthus so far is straight running Hadit, no Nuit. His argument would carry much more weight if he, or you for that matter, could give me any concrete way to distinguish between actions performed from sympathy, empathy, or compassion. I challenge you to do so. Otherwise, "sympathy," "empathy," and "compassion" are just the cards used in your street game of three-card Monte, and I am always wrong for acting on feeling what others feel.
As for your challenge to my good works, I will only remind you that you do not in fact know me, and that your own argument shows me that if I stooped to submit to your request, you would only castigate me for being weak.
-
@Frater LA said
"Buffer... Yeah. Maybe. I really do feel like he's trying to teach a lesson that many here already understand. ."
I don't see where he was tying to "Teach" anything?? He was merely presenting his side of the argument. I think it is ultimately up to the individual what he is able to learn from others or not.
-
@Frater LA said
". I challenge you to do so. "
I think it may be advisable for you to quit while your behind, please don't make me take you apart before this whole forum
-
Shall Nuit be chastened for seeking the pleasure of Hadit?
Go ahead, try to make Babalon chaste.
Just remember how you taught me to react the next time you want a little sumthin' sumthin'.
-
.
-
If one where to give all the food in his cupboard to "help the less fortunate," that one now has become the less fortunate.
"Compassion is the vice of Kings."
If I take pity on you, have not then ("between the lines") stated that I perceive myself as superior to you? Should it be preferred that i step down to greet you with a hand out? Or would you wish that I reach down to give you a hand up?
There is a lot of talk in this thread (and elsewhere) about "compassion" and "empathy" and "sympathy," yet no one has appeared to define these terms - or at least I haven't felt satisfied that we are yet defining these terms.
I mean this - which is truly the more "compassionate?" That I step out of my car and say, "oh you poor hungry soul, here is my sandwich I was going to eat - but you obviously need it more than I" or that I step out of my car and say, "dear friend, it appears you are looking for some activity to keep you occupied. You know, I have to mow my lawn and would surely enjoy your company. After, of course, my lady and I are making refreshments. The talk has grown a bit usual and expected, so I would be remiss if you didn't enliven it for her (for my sake)." ?????
Or is one not a greater compassion than the other? If so, I've been wrong for many years.
-
@Takamba said
"After, of course, my lady and I are making refreshments. The talk has grown a bit usual and expected, so I would be remiss if you didn't enliven it for her (for my sake)." ?????
"
Yeah, I was wondering what degree of prevarication to go through as a preamble to my post this morning but I figured 'just say it' and see if the locals will allow for the fact that empathy, sympathy and compassion become interchangeable in a certain colloquial zone so those interested in truly communicating will work with context as best they can.
-
@Labyrinthus said
"
@Takamba said
"After, of course, my lady and I are making refreshments. The talk has grown a bit usual and expected, so I would be remiss if you didn't enliven it for her (for my sake)." ?????
" Yeah, I was wondering what degree of prevarication to go through as a preamble to my post this morning but I figured 'just say it' and see if the locals will allow for the fact that empathy, sympathy and compassion become interchangeable in a certain colloquial zone so those interested in truly communicating will work with context as best they can."
To what degree do you believe you have the talent to call me a liar? The above description I gave as any of my peers, friends, and brothers and sisters will tell you is verily the method I use. I am compassionate to the form that is all, not just the single needy with the form of an insulting hand out. And truth be, you've been told that you are seeming to attempt to teach a lesson that we already know - the above is part of the instruction * of the brotherhood and your inability to recognize it proves you have yet to become part of any of the many brotherhoods this planet is fostering.
-
@Takamba said
"To what degree do you believe you have the talent to call me a liar? "
zuh?!
what the fuh?!
-
@Labyrinthus said
"Yeah, I was wondering what degree of prevarication to go through..."
Perhaps I misunderstood your intent in the above message (so i wish you would improve your delivery), but as I understand it - the word "prevarication" means "lie." I took your message to be saying "yeah, I was wondering how many falsehoods like you used would work in my delivery."
-
yep, I slipped up there fer sure... I was thinking more in terms of political posturing
my bad
-
@Labyrinthus said
"yep, I slipped up there fer sure... I was thinking more in terms of political posturing
my bad
"Very well then. I understand now and I misunderstood before. No bad feelings. I'm just one who wants it understood that the so-called "political left's" notion of giving "charity" actually fosters weakness in the whole, not that "giving" itself is weakness.
Trust me - this position of mine gets misunderstood and although I spend hours in service to help the homeless and jobless and whatnot, I'm often labeled as uncharitable, unempathetical, unsympathetic by some, because I refuse to support the outright "giving" methods they prefer. Yes, like has been explained by someone elsewhere on this site , I see those types who actually in claiming "altruism" really in truth are fostering good feelings in themselves to perhaps rid themselves of bad feelings. That's not my definition of how to be altruistic, but it is the way it actually happens to be. So instead i prefer "pity be let off" as well as "my joy is to see your joy" and all that.
-
No, my system of giving and/or not giving is the morally superior one!
-
Yes, precisely (to Takamba).
As someone who already knows the ins and outs of this debate, I'm demanding more of you, Labyrinthus, than I am initially hearing. So far, I only hear the "let mercy be off" part. As I have heard the debate (and I know my hearing is under debate), I keep hearing other people who are also familiar with this debate trying to get you to admit to the other half of the equation in some form or fashion.
So, my impulse is to think that either you don't understand it, in which case I wish you would quit speaking so dismissively to your readers, or that, knowing it, you are intentionally only using half of the equation to make your immediate point, attempting to teach us, which is annoying.
Now, if you want to take up where Takamba left off, I'm game. I'm good. I'm at least listening. But the way you're currently arguing your point, it's very difficult if you've made it to that part of the discussion yet yourself.
Normally, I'm much more diplomatic, but I've yet to understand the reason to take that stance with people who are advocating severity alone. They describe it as the most palatable form of mercy to them, so I mercifully give it.
-
@Frater LA said
"But the way you're currently arguing your point, it's very difficult if you've made it to that part of the discussion yet yourself."
I have no freekin' idea what you are talking about.
I totally agree with Takamba on ... what he just said....
-
-
@Frater LA said
"Please explain to me how those masters are concretely compassionate in word and deed without being able to be accused of the dreaded weaknesses of sympathy. Also, are masters the only people capable of true compassion? Must it be stamped out and corrected in all others?"
"concretely" ?
was that an edit?
I was looking for a word like 'completely' or something like that and I could not find it. Kind of like asking if the Masters are the "only" people... another gross exaggeration that I can't meaningfully reply to.... Like "all" others....
Those who rephrase my words in such extremes in order to guarantee error in the saying never said will find my replies scarce.
-
@Labyrinthus said
"
@Frater LA said
"But the way you're currently arguing your point, it's very difficult if you've made it to that part of the discussion yet yourself."I have no freekin' idea what you are talking about.
I totally agree with Takamba on ... what he just said...."
I'm sorry Labyrinthus, even i think I may have misunderstood your original point. I thought you said something to the effect that "even the Masters know that compassion (sympathy empathy or a rose by any other name) is a dangerous game" et al what you said. Are we now mistaken in your intent earlier?