Selfishness

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Then your thinking counters what God has declared in scriptures throughout the world of man. God can not be anything but good, else He would be a flawed being (which puts Him at the same level as man and angel). Not an area I care to come close to pondering...

I think for myself. Scriptures help point the way, they don't do my thinking for me. You are trying to define God, by HUMAN standards. This can be done, but it LIMITES God.

God, as I have come to understand God, has NO LIMITS. Therefore, neither the labels of good, nor evil, which are necessarily human perspectives, will apply. Go with Good, if you would Go with God, but do not be suprised when God encompasses all that has been hitherto understood as "evil," as well as "good."

Originally Posted by Quahom1

What does matter to God is that we get with the program He created...

That's what esotericists call `The Plan.' And yes, we don't necessarily have to worry about "ultimates." We strive towards The Good. Yet it helps to know, that the only reason Evil even has a (potential) foothold on us, is because it is within us.

When the last vestiges of "self" (lesser, lower, personal, ego-centered "self") have died ... THEN and then only, GOOD - in the Greater sense, will prevail.

That's how I see it.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

America is an experiment that was doomed to fail from the start...but something went terribly wrong...it turned to God, instead of away from...

I am quite confused. I have come to believe in our highest potential as `The Great Experiment,' and I have come to understand the current time as the Armageddon that was expected, and inevitable. We could been so much more, and in the long run, we may end up a bright moment, a temporarily, hopeful flash - against the deep, dark, and seemingly endless NIGHT.

I hope that it is not so. The "terribly wrong" is not something that was not allowed for. The "terribly wrong," as I see it, is just - human selfishness. And the GOOD within us may yet prevail!

[QUOTQuahom1]The east can't figure out which god to turn to, and so fight over them all.[/QUOTE]'Tis the WEST that has insisted, OUR WAY, or NO Way.

The East allows for many ways to reach THE Divine. I can't, for the life of me, see what you're getting at!

The Law of Rebirth, if misunderstood as the idea that "a man has eternity to slowly and effortlessly crawl his way toward the Godhead" ... will not be any better than the notion that, "You'd better be a Saint, now, since you got NOT MORE chances!"

Maybe that's where part of the problem is.

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Need to look deeper into such "selfless people". The only ones I've ever met, had a frontal lobotomy...

I could introduce you to plenty who don't fit that bill. Doctors, lawyers, airplane pilots, CPAs, restaurant workers, health care professionals, former military officers ... the list goes on. What can I say? I've been quite Blessed ...

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Christ's love, relative? Um, who else would we use to compare the Love of God to? Absolute is the descriptor I would use...

I expected to hear no less. But this is not logical. It is not even possible. The `Absolute,' by definition, is not manifest, it cannot manifest.

It would cease to be - Absolute!

This is elementary ...

Originally Posted by Quahom1

You keep insisting on describing evil as though it has some sort of substance, like it is a viable entity, when in reality it is the lack of "love" and subsequent actions that can occur based on that lack of "love".

Evil is the lack of ... yet we come to understand those who identify themselves with this condition, of the lacking of, as also - "evil." Otherwise, if evil is just lack, then let's STOP.

LACK means "DOES NOT EXIST." GOTCHA ...

Either "evil" is someone(s) or something(s) that LACK, or - it is NOTHING at all ... and, as I say, we can FORGET about "it" - since there is no IT.

IS THERE - anything, anyone, "evil?"

Interesting ... curioser, and curioser ... as Alice said!

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I would think that one educated as yourself would not argue with the obviousness of evil being likened to a void. Fill it with something and it is no longer a void.

Evil is the deprivation of Good/Love...pretty simple.

You can't speak of the Abstract, if you cannot also speak of concrete examples. Let's talk turkey ...

Examples, Q?

either there is, or there is not, "evil"

And don't just say, "lack of" Good ... umm, DUH!

such as ... ?

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Ah ha! Something we both can agree on! What a wonderful change! As long as one understands that "the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number" must be tempered with respectful concern for those in the minority. Otherwise, you only have Mill's utilitarianism...also known as "the end justifies the means." Are you saying it is alright to trample the minority in order to sate the majority? I would hope not, and suggest you reconsider your selfish motives.

Jesus came to heal the sick (minority), not heal the well (majority).

So much discussion in just one day!!! . . . It's been rather difficult to track all the comments. Here's my personal thoughts on selfishness.

I don't think selfishness is inherently wrong. As Juan said, it's what you use it for. Love is about me. I cannot love others without me. Love is a relationship, an interaction between two souls, not just an action.

Imagine if there was a Super Helper Machine going around helping people with their personal problems, healing the sick, giving money to the poor, bringing dead people back from life, etc. But where's the love? This thing is just a machine. There is no self. Where's the relationship? The machine can act but not relate. I could give a million dollars to charity, but I'm not the person out there on the front line doing the healing and helping. I am not involved. I have nothing to do with the people I help.

Every human being has emotional and personal needs. Selfishness is about satisfying your emotional and personal needs.

Is selfishness wrong? I think there's a difference between selfishness and self-absorption or self-indulgence. A selfish person is not necessarily self-absorbed or self-indulged. Self-absorption and self-indulgence go beyond selfishness in that they also strive to satisfy people's wants and desires. In other words, it's not just about needs, but also about wants and desires, much of which may be unnecessarily (they are not essential needs)

It is possible to be selfish without being self-absorbed. I believe it is not selfishness by itself that is wrong, but self-absorption and self-indulgence. A selfish person strives only to satisfy his needs. These are things that are essential and undeniable for each person individually. Wants and desires go beyond basic needs and are neither essential nor necessary.

I needed lunch. I ate my lunch. I am full. But the lunch I had wasn't enough. I want some French Fries, a Sausage McMuffin and a Big Mac. Give it to me. Gimme gimme gimme. I deserve it all. I want it now. Give it to me now. I must have my fries and big mac. It's a part of who I am. I can't be who I want to be without the fries and the mac.

(That's a metaphor and euphemism for many present-day indulgences. Part of the reason why a 23-year-old man, son of a South Korean immigrant, born into American culture, got sick of it, shot 32 people in Virginia Tech last week.)

Greatest Good for the Greatest Number of people? Trouble with that is, how many people can you love? You may help 10,000 people but only "love" 10 of those people. What happened to the other 9,990? You never knew them. You had no relationship with those people.

Love isn't just about doing good things. A man who helps 10,000 people is a good man. A loving man is one who personally knows everyone he helps. Love isn't just about you. Nor is it just about me. Love is about you and me. It's about us and what we're going through.

It's a desire to be a part of something. To go through what someone else is going through. To participate and be a participant. To be a partner in someone else's suffering. It's something to be shared. There is some personal gain coming out of it. You experience something as a result of being there.

Love isn't just about giving. It's also about taking. You love (as in llluuuuvvv) that person. You want something from that person. It's ok to be a taker. That's what love is about -- giving and then taking. Stealing someone else's heart and running away with it like a malicious thief. Give to get what you want from that person.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

I could introduce you to plenty who don't fit that bill. Doctors, lawyers, airplane pilots, CPAs, restaurant workers, health care professionals, former military officers ... the list goes on. What can I say? I've been quite Blessed ...

I expected to hear no less. But this is not logical. It is not even possible. The `Absolute,' by definition, is not manifest, it cannot manifest.

It would cease to be - Absolute!

This is elementary ...

Evil is the lack of ... yet we come to understand those who identify themselves with this condition, of the lacking of, as also - "evil." Otherwise, if evil is just lack, then let's STOP.

LACK means "DOES NOT EXIST." GOTCHA ...

Either "evil" is someone(s) or something(s) that LACK, or - it is NOTHING at all ... and, as I say, we can FORGET about "it" - since there is no IT.

IS THERE - anything, anyone, "evil?"

Interesting ... curioser, and curioser ... as Alice said!

You can't speak of the Abstract, if you cannot also speak of concrete examples. Let's talk turkey ...

Examples, Q?

either there is, or there is not, "evil"

And don't just say, "lack of" Good ... umm, DUH!

such as ... ?

absence of malice... you mistake evil for hate.

But hate and love are flip sides of the same coin. Indifference is the antithisis of emotion. The devil is indifferent to man, and God.

Duh! lol

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Love isn't just about giving. It's also about taking. You love (as in llluuuuvvv) that person. You want something from that person. It's ok to be a taker. That's what love is about -- giving and then taking. Stealing someone else's heart and running away with it like a malicious thief. Give to get what you want from that person.

Some of what you say, I agree with Saltmeister, but not this part.

That people DO TAKE, and give, just so they can GET, is of course true. But that, to me, is not Love at all. That is the desire of being loved.

Love gives all, asks nothing for herself in return.

Examples that come to immediately to mind, besides the Christ, are St. Francis of Assisi (who also gave to our little brothers, the animals) ... and Mother Teresa. But there are more throughout history, some less well known.

~+~+~+~+~+~+~

Again, I'm not saying that many people do manifest the kind of Higher, Perfect Love which Christ taught, and showed. I just don't believe that it's impossible. Nor do I think that a necessary, or acceptable compromise is to love a little, and TAKE a little love, since we can "do no better." I don't buy that for an instant!

We must learn to set reasonable goals, and not expect too much either from ourselves, or others ... and part of that means accepting that we often love with eros, and with philos, rather than the true Agape which is the Ideal.

I believe in "just men, made perfect," and maintain that such men do exist, in part because I have read many firsthand accounts by people who have met such beings. Some almost read like fairy tales, and are perhaps easier to view as creative fiction, than to accept as eyewitness, gospel Truth ... purely factual accounts. Either way, they inspire me to keep striving toward - that Love which is perfect, and a state of being, where "self" as we know it ... DOES cease to exist.

This may sound unlikely or impossible, and it certainly challenges us to go beyond the current ideas we have regarding who and what we essentially are. But this is all part of the path to enlightenment, imho. It is a long journey, and we should not be surprised if we do not arrive at our destination overnight. To know, or believe, that others have gotten there ahead of us, however, inspires me anew ... to keep on keeping on. And sure, sometimes our best efforts, even when successful, do not meet with the results we might hae expected ...

Here are a few words that inspire me, from `Light on the Path' (pt. I):

THESE rules are written for all disciples: Attend you to them.

1. Kill out ambition. [Note on Rule 1. -- Ambition is the first curse: the great tempter of the man who is rising above his fellows. It is the simplest form of looking for reward. Men of intelligence and power are led away from their higher possibilities by it continually. Yet it is a necessary teacher. Its results turn to dust and ashes in the mouth; like death and estrangement it shows the man at last that to work for self is to work for disappointment.]

5. Kill out all sense of separateness. [Note on Rule 5. -- Do not fancy you can stand aside from the bad man or the foolish man. They are yourself, though in a less degree than your friend or your master. But if you allow the idea of separateness from any evil thing or person to grow up within you, by so doing you create Karma, which will bind you to that thing or person till your soul recognizes that it cannot be isolated. Remember that the sin and shame of the world are your sin and shame; for you are a part of it; your Karma is inextricably interwoven with the great Karma.]

8. Yet stand alone and isolated, because nothing that is imbodied, nothing that is conscious of separation, nothing that is out of the eternal, can aid you.

9. Desire only that which is within you.

10. Desire only that which is beyond you.

11. Desire only that which is unattainable.

12. For within you is the light of the world -- the only light that can be shed upon the Path. If you are unable to perceive it within you, it is useless to look for it elsewhere. It is beyond you; because when you reach it you have lost yourself. It is unattainable, because it for ever recedes. You will enter the light, but you will never touch the flame.

These written above are the first of the rules which are written on the walls of the Hall of Learning. Those that ask shall have. Those that desire to read shall read. Those who desire to learn shall learn.

PEACE BE WITH YOU.

~+~+~+~+~+~+~

As for what I mean by "the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number" ... this isn't always easy to put into words. It is a principle, an attempt to express a Universal Truth, in my understanding. But we must learn how to apply this to a given situation.

Don't let the part about "greatest number" throw you. Feeding the multitudes isn't the point here. We are not, perhaps, yet capable. But we can minister to the one or two. The real challenge is to find just how far we can stretch our love and light ... without attenuating them.

If ours is the capability to be there for only one other person, then in that moment, this is to serve the Greatest Good, of the Greatest Number (for when we serve another, we also serve our self; when we love another, we also love ourself ... and in giving, we receive).

The idea of the ego, the independent "me-existence" (I, me, mine) ... is what I'm saying we should challenge. To argue that Humanity, that a human being, is only capable of being selfish, in some form or fashion, on one level or another, is, imho, to assert something that is fundamentally flawed, because in truth, unsound. The assumption is, that "I exist, apart from you" and that in fact, all men, all humans, are separate - or separated - lives.

One doesn't have to be a Buddhist, or a New Ager, or even particularly religious to believe that all life is interconnected. `Light on the Path' speaks about our relationship with all other beings quite matter-of-factly. And the brightest and best of today's scientists, especially quantum physicists, are able to demonstrate increasingly objectively and rather simply, that all life, all matter, all energy, is interconnected.

Thus, what harms another, harms oneself ... and what benefits another, benefits oneself.

His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, suggests that even if what we desire is our own well-being ... then even from this rather personal, self-centered point of view (self-focused not even in a pejorative, or negative sense, just as a condition and a fact, as you are indicating, Saltmeister) ... even from this point of view, it behooves us to "do unto others kindly" - that we might encourage them to do likewise, unto others, and unto us!

But this does not mean that one's highest, or only, motivation, should be, or is, limited to SELF, or self-interest.

What you, and I, and the average Joe ... experience on a day-to-day basis ... ah well, that may not be shining Nirvana, or Sambhogakayic Bliss (I think some Christians say, `rapture' or perhaps `mystical union'). Yet do not discount the testimony, the direct experience(s) of these countless followers ... for they may not be so rare, as we tend to believe!

What can I say? I can be quite cynical, yet I have great Hope in the possibilities and potential of Humanity, and I have 100% Faith in the Greater portion of our Human Nature (that which has never left the Presence of God, and which even now - and eternally - abides in His Bosom, waiting to Accept and Redeem us, with open arms).

Anyway, that's my take on it ... and I just wanted to try and clarify that bit, especially, on the greatest good, greatest number, Saltmeister. Hope it makes some sense ... (and no, we can't always be sure, or know where to "draw the line" - we must just do the best we can!)

cheers,

~andrew

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Sheep aren't known to render assistance to anyone. No, I was thinking more like "Enemy Mine" (Dennis Quad and Lou Gosset jr)...

Matthew 25 says the sheep render people assistance (especially, assistance to the goats)... does it not?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Matthew 25 says the sheep render people assistance (especially the goats)... does it not?

Before or after the "maidens" with lamps of oil...?

nope, not one thing about sheep rendering assistance to anyone...

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Before or after the "maidens" with lamps of oil...?

nope, not one thing about sheep rendering assistance to anyone...

Matthew 25 is a WARNING to those to keep vigilant about the coming of the Bride Groom...

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

absence of malice... you mistake evil for hate.

But hate and love are flip sides of the same coin. Indifference is the antithisis of emotion. The devil is indifferent to man, and God.

Duh! lol

I take hate to be a form of evil. I understand hate as an emotional reaction, or `mindset' (since it is rooted in the very selfishness, or sense of separteness being discussed) ... and NOT the flip side of love as if love is just another emotion (2nd-hand even, but that's Ike & Tina, sex & so forth).

I would say, Love is both an Aspect, or Quality, of our true self, the real Being (Esse, essential self) of Humanity (as also of the Angels). Thus, evil, in terms of this framework, is - yes - the absence of Love. But we experience it ... as a negative, or personality-centered emotion. And it divides, or separates us (further, by amplifying the sense of separateness which we alredy experience, here, in incarnation).

Malice, as ill-will, is like concentrated hate; yet it involves the will power, or `desire nature' (the inversion, or reflection of Willpower from spiritual levels into the personality). This basically just adds to the karma, for where there is forethought, and brooding, intentional planning brought into play, our transgressions are increased.

I do not take indifference to be the antithesis of emotion, but I think I see what you're saying. Apathy, like aloofness, are a sort of coping mechanism that some people more or less conscoiusly employ. And it is also sort of a side effect, or natural result, of attempting to truly live the separated life, or live for the separated self (personality).

The disciple (or spiritual aspirant), of whatever faith & religious practice/background (or none) ... seeks to live for the Greater Good. And this, fundamentally, will involve a shift in his or her definition of `self,' of being, and thus also it will change his or her self-understanding (and by virtue of this, also one's `other-understanding').

To come to regard all of Humanity, gradually, as one's Brothers & Sisters on the Path ... is one of the most fortunate developments that can occur for us, and a sure sign of progress - indicating that we are drawing near to `the One Life.'

It does not mean that we cease to see differences, distinctions or even disputes. And it does not mean that we cease to believe that these matter. It just means we have a different perspective on WHY these things exist, these differences, and such diversity ... and we begin to ask questions like,`How does this serve the Divine Plan (God's Will)?' Or even, `Does this serve ... the Divine Plan?'

And when the answer is no, or is unclear, then I think we are compelled to act accordingly, just as much as when we see how a thing does serve the Greatest Good, for the Greatest Number. What is God's Will? The question is almost always slightly different, for every different situation. The response, GG, GN ... just tries to give us a formula, to work with ...

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Before or after the "maidens" with lamps of oil...?

nope, not one thing about sheep rendering assistance to anyone...

So the goats are prudent? The sheep foolish?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

I take hate to be a form of evil. I understand hate as an emotional reaction, or `mindset' (since it is rooted in the very selfishness, or sense of separteness being discussed) ... and NOT the flip side of love as if love is just another emotion (2nd-hand even, but that's Ike & Tina, sex & so forth).

I would say, Love is both an Aspect, or Quality, of our true self, the real Being (Esse, essential self) of Humanity (as also of the Angels). Thus, evil, in terms of this framework, is - yes - the absence of Love. But we experience it ... as a negative, or personality-centered emotion. And it divides, or separates us (further, by amplifying the sense of separateness which we alredy experience, here, in incarnation).

Malice, as ill-will, is like concentrated hate; yet it involves the will power, or `desire nature' (the inversion, or reflection of Willpower from spiritual levels into the personality). This basically just adds to the karma, for where there is forethought, and brooding, intentional planning brought into play, our transgressions are increased.

I do not take indifference to be the antithesis of emotion, but I think I see what you're saying. Apathy, like aloofness, are a sort of coping mechanism that some people more or less conscoiusly employ. And it is also sort of a side effect, or natural result, of attempting to truly live the separated life, or live for the separated self (personality).

The disciple (or spiritual aspirant), of whatever faith & religious practice/background (or none) ... seeks to live for the Greater Good. And this, fundamentally, will involve a shift in his or her definition of `self,' of being, and thus also it will change his or her self-understanding (and by virtue of this, also one's `other-understanding').

To come to regard all of Humanity, gradually, as one's Brothers & Sisters on the Path ... is one of the most fortunate developments that can occur for us, and a sure sign of progress - indicating that we are drawing near to `the One Life.'

It does not mean that we cease to see differences, distinctions or even disputes. And it does not mean that we cease to believe that these matter. It just means we have a different perspective on WHY these things exist, these differences, and such diversity ... and we begin to ask questions like,`How does this serve the Divine Plan (God's Will)?' Or even, `Does this serve ... the Divine Plan?'

And when the answer is no, or is unclear, then I think we are compelled to act accordingly, just as much as when we see how a thing does serve the Greatest Good, for the Greatest Number. What is God's Will? The question is almost always slightly different, for every different situation. The response, GG, GN ... just tries to give us a formula, to work with ...

it is an emotion, deemed to get a response from the recipient. In love "I want something from you", in hate "I want something from you". Either way, the object of the emotive person matters to that person, hence has value.

Indifference is the absense of emotion of any kind. (walk past a homeless person and do not register his/her existence), that, is EVIL (lack of love).

For example I hate when you try to overwhelm me with diatribe (thinking I'm a podunk from the hills), especially when I can see right through you. Doesn't mean I have lack of love or respect for you...quite the contrary. My anger (not lack of love), is that you don't respect me...get it? duh!

I, think I just gave you a FORMULA to work with... or, maybe not.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Matthew 25 is a WARNING to those to keep vigilant about the coming of the Bride Groom...

Matthew 25:1-13, agreed. Matthew 25:31-46 talks about sheep and goats.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Matthew 25:1-13, agreed. Matthew 25:31-46 talks about sheep and goats.

Then I too, stand down Cyberpi...

v/r

Joshua

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

it is an emotion, deemed to get a response from the recipient. In love "I want something from you", in hate "I want something from you". Either way, the object of the emotive person matters to that person, hence has value.

Hmm. I do not believe Love is just an emotion, or that it originates from the same level as hate. Therefore, the kind of Agape Love I believe in does not, actually, WANT ANYTHING when it is sent forth. It is not conditioned, nor conditioned BY circumstances. Only in the sense that it is not always welcome(d), will it meet with resistance, and fail to do "its Work," which is God's Work.

Hate does not rise to the level of Love. Love does not fall ... to the level of "hate" - yet it can give expression via this aspect (the lesser, or personality aspect) of our being. I may be veering from a Christian understanding here, so I'm hesitant to belabor the point ...

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Indifference is the absense of emotion of any kind. (walk past a homeless person and do not register his/her existence), that, is EVIL (lack of love).

Of course, to bless them is definitely a response, and it does involve our emotional being - as a conduit for something greater. If a person simply tosses change at them, it's usually done to shake off that temporary nagging `conscience' that just inconveniently gets in the way.

That's not cynicism; that's reality. But some people are moved deeper than that, and I'm not suggesting there aren't kindhearted, charitable souls desirous of helping the homeless. I like to offer to buy a sandwich or cup of coffee (if I can afford it myself!) ... yet oddly, I don't seem to get taken up on it too much. Hmmmm ...

Sometimes, the apparent indifference is actually a conscious choice NOT to tap in to the real motive for why lots of folks have drawn up the sign, and are standing there at the corner to begin with ...

Originally Posted by Quahom1

For example I hate when you try to overwhelm me with diatribe (thinking I'm a podunk from the hills), especially when I can see right through you. Doesn't mean I have lack of love or respect for you...quite the contrary. My anger (not lack of love), is that you don't respect me...get it? duh!

I, think I just gave you a FORMULA to work with... or, maybe not.

I can be verbose. This time I'm less verbose. Your "seeing right through me," whether or not you intended that as an insult, is no more respectful toward me, even if you meant nothing by it, than my verbosity. See?

My intent was not to think of you as a podunk from the hills, as that's actually a new one on me! Heaven forbid my relatives should read this forum, as they are wonderful, hard-working people ... and my family!!!

Yet there's plenty of podunk there (my Father's side), truly "hills" there (my Mother's side), and some of what we're discussing, quite frankly, might indeed - be overwhelming.

But I wouldn't want it to be. And you've got my imagined thoughts all wrong!

So you see, the safest thing to assume, would be that between neither of us was - or is - disrespect intended. Amazing how carefully one has to tread, in order even to suggest than more Respect might be called for ... yet I look at it is a 2-sided coin. And diplomacy, and good manners, will never be out of season.

At any rate, thanks for the reminder ...

~andrew

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Hmm. I do not believe Love is just an emotion, or that it originates from the same level as hate. Therefore, the kind of Agape Love I believe in does not, actually, WANT ANYTHING when it is sent forth. It is not conditioned, nor conditioned BY circumstances. Only in the sense that it is not always welcome(d), will it meet with resistance, and fail to do "its Work," which is God's Work.

Hate does not rise to the level of Love. Love does not fall ... to the level of "hate" - yet it can give expression via this aspect (the lesser, or personality aspect) of our being. I may be veering from a Christian understanding here, so I'm hesitant to belabor the point ...

Of course, to bless them is definitely a response, and it does involve our emotional being - as a conduit for something greater. If a person simply tosses change at them, it's usually done to shake off that temporary nagging `conscience' that just inconveniently gets in the way.

That's not cynicism; that's reality. But some people are moved deeper than that, and I'm not suggesting there aren't kindhearted, charitable souls desirous of helping the homeless. I like to offer to buy a sandwich or cup of coffee (if I can afford it myself!) ... yet oddly, I don't seem to get taken up on it too much. Hmmmm ...

Sometimes, the apparent indifference is actually a conscious choice NOT to tap in to the real motive for why lots of folks have drawn up the sign, and are standing there at the corner to begin with ...

I can be verbose. This time I'm less verbose. Your "seeing right through me," whether or not you intended that as an insult, is no more respectful toward me, even if you meant nothing by it, than my verbosity. See?

My intent was not to think of you as a podunk from the hills, as that's actually a new one on me! Heaven forbid my relatives should read this forum, as they are wonderful, hard-working people ... and my family!!!

Yet there's plenty of podunk there (my Father's side), truly "hills" there (my Mother's side), and some of what we're discussing, quite frankly, might indeed - be overwhelming.

But I wouldn't want it to be. And you've got my imagined thoughts all wrong!

So you see, the safest thing to assume, would be that between neither of us was - or is - disrespect intended. Amazing how carefully one has to tread, in order even to suggest than more Respect might be called for ... yet I look at it is a 2-sided coin. And diplomacy, and good manners, will never be out of season.

At any rate, thanks for the reminder ...

~andrew

hmmm good point. There are two kinds of love then yes? One is emotional, and the other is what? logical? You're about to open a whole new can of worms...

There can be no "selfishness" in a logical decision to love another (do what is best for another despite personal feelings or beliefs).

Hey dude, I didn't bring it up...

lol...let's continue.

v/r

Joshua