In an example of unparalleled hubris, Iraqi officials are demanding that the United States apologize and pay $1 billion for the damage done to the city. Officials are complaining that the blast walls installed by the U.S. to protect the public are ugly and that Humvees and vehicles have caused damage in patrolling the city and fighting insurgents.
The city released a statement saying “The U.S. forces changed this beautiful city to a camp in an ugly and destructive way, which reflected deliberate ignorance and carelessness about the simplest forms of public taste . . . Due to the huge damage, leading to a loss the Baghdad municipality cannot afford . . . we demand the American side apologize to Baghdad’s people and pay back these expenses.”
For those of us who opposed the war in Iraq, this is a particularly maddening moment. We continue to lose lives and billions in public funds as our states sell off parks, buildings, and cut critical programs. We have wasted billions of dollars in Iraq with little or no evidence of where money has gone.
In Afghanistan, we have a corrupt president who repeatedly states that he prefers the Taliban and views the United States as an enemy. Karzai also sought to tax U.S. contractors supporting his government and a bailout for his banks.
Yet, we continue to assume towering losses because our leaders are unwilling to take personal responsibility to pull us out of these countries. Rather than risk political backlash, President Obama and others allow our military personnel to die every day for countries that are increasingly openly hostile to us. This is becoming a truly Felliniesque farce.
Source: Reuters
Jonathan Turley
Really.
“Every claim you make about me or my work, if in any way disparaging, is hereby stated to be of falsehood.”
Or as they say on the playground “Uh uh.” That goes nicely with your previous defenses of “I know you are but what am I?” and “I asked you first”.
That is not proof that my criticism of your “work” and the nature of your circular logic, lies, distortion, made up terminology, obfuscation, resorts to religiosity over empirical evidence, appeals to your inappropriate authority and false equivalences.
That’s just more long winded evasion.
Just as predicted.
The bottom line is you cannot logically defend your “work”.
The only falsity here is your postulate that the adversarial process in law as an alternative to self-help dispute resolution is a bad thing. That it somehow supports tyranny and wars and violence when in fact it is a process squarely at odds with tyranny and wars and violence because it is the alternative to those behaviors – behaviors brought about by self-help dispute resolution. Without moderation, there is no justice, only the strong victimizing the weak.
If you could defend your “work”, you would, but you can’t so you don’t. Because you are talking out of both sides of your mouth, Janus. Your “work” seeks to destroy the very thing you claim to wish to promote: peace. That’s because your “work” for the goal you state is at odds with the truth. In other words, it’s a lie.
It’s that simple.
“You have been illustrating how hammering away with a false claim may eventually overcome anyone not sufficiently skilled in the art of trigger spotting temper.”
No. What I have been illustrating is that hammering away at false claims with logic and fact destroys false claims. The truth is always the enemy of the Big Lie. The Big Lie here is that legal dispute resolution techniques in the adversarial mode are bad for society. In fact, they are not only good for society as the alternative for tyranny, violence and wars, these techniques are requisite for the survival of both civilization and the species as illustrated by every civilization in recorded history. Wars happen when the rule of law is disregarded. Crime happens when the rule of law is disregarded. Tyranny happens when the rule of law is disregarded. These are not, unlike your postulate, suppositions or religious beliefs but rather historical facts.
But you should really get this through your troll head – I do not give a damn what you think about me. Got it? Why? Because I think you are a propagandist fraud.
“The news for you, with respect to me, BiL, is that, were you to continue making your false claims about me and/or about my work, and do so a million times a second, and do so forever, and for all eternity, and for whatever comes after that, you would not succeed in contaminating me with a nullity of an iota of a jot of your hatred and its ilk.”
Bad news for you is that I don’t care if you get “contaminated” or not and my claims about your “work” are perfectly true as evidenced by your inability to defend your work from my valid criticism. I only care that anyone reading your bullshit knows exactly how antisocial, anti-Constitutional, anti-legalism and anti-civilization it is. Period. If you were to be “contaminated”? That would only be gravy.
And as long as you are content to spew your toxic “work”?
You just better get used to the fact I’m going to tear it down right behind you, sport. And I’m going to be logical, factual and very very insulting. Insults are what the enemies of civilization deserve at a bare minimum.
You and your “work” are a voice in favor of tyranny as a matter of irrefutable logic.
I am relentless in smashing the messages of tyrants and would-be tyrants.
relentless \ri-ˈlent-ləs\, adj.,
: showing or promising no abatement of severity, intensity, strength, or pace :
Pucker up, buttercup.
As long as you keep pounding away at your Big Lie, I’m going to keep hammering you with the Big Truth.
You’re in for a bumpy ride.
RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 22, 2011 at 9:20 pm
The only pretender here is you pretending you have a clue as to how civilization operates. To be clear, I’m indifferent about your life because I think it’s a fabrication – a shield you are using to keep people from criticizing your patently ridiculous and antisocial ideas. Your ideas are pure acid to the fabric of society. You are not worthy of hate, so don’t flatter yourself.
Your ideas on the other hand, merit nothing but scorn.
As to your suppositions about my “hurting”?
Have a drink on me.
#############################
I had water to drink with dinner, and am not thirsty now.
Of course, my ideas are pure acid, as you may understand acid, for your understanding of existence and my understanding of existence suggest to me that your understanding of existence is rather like upside-down.
Given that you write in such a way and with such content as I can only take to be hateful of anything not of your own wishes, and as I am not of your own wishes, I find it only right and proper that you attempt to treat me with hatred.
Furthermore, to whatever extent civilization operates so as to create an endless stream of war, violence murder, and people who write as you do about my work and life, the eternal demise any such civilization as you apparently believe in, a civilization which holds absolute atrocity as the sacred ultimate good, can never happen too soon.
I imagine that some college or university professor may take the comments you and I have been making and use the set as a demonstration of addictive displacement as a trauma response.
I observe the false claims you continue to make about me and I reject them for their falsehood.
You have been illustrating how hammering away with a false claim may eventually overcome anyone not sufficiently skilled in the art of trigger spotting temper. There is a saying in education and in scientific psychology, “If you are told something often enough, you will come to believe it, no matter what it is.”
The news for you, with respect to me, BiL, is that, were you to continue making your false claims about me and/or about my work, and do so a million times a second, and do so forever, and for all eternity, and for whatever comes after that, you would not succeed in contaminating me with a nullity of an iota of a jot of your hatred and its ilk.
I write as truthfully as words allow, using no deception on my part in any way or manner whatsoever.
I have never had the slightest intention of persuading anyone about anything in making the comments I have been making on the Turley blawg.
I find it would be unethical for me to attempt to use this blawg as a forum in which I would make any sort of persuasive attempt or effort. I have only been describing what I find I have learned, on the chance someone may find it of some use.
However, once someone starts making false claims about me, if I do not acknowledge that the claims have been made and state that I find them false, by default, in your world of time-corrupted error, I affirm the claims by default, and this I will never allow.
Every claim you make about me or my work, if in any way disparaging, is hereby stated to be of falsehood.
It that one swell foop, all your denigrating or otherwise hostile claims are forever said by me to be of falsehood, so I have herewith denied the validity of any and all such claims as you can ever make or have made.
I write for the possible value of my work in the lives of those who have actual capability to care about self and others within the framework of a caring community of people working toward building a society in which simple honest decency is the central principle in use.
The only pretender here is you pretending you have a clue as to how civilization operates. To be clear, I’m indifferent about your life because I think it’s a fabrication – a shield you are using to keep people from criticizing your patently ridiculous and antisocial ideas. Your ideas are pure acid to the fabric of society. You are not worthy of hate, so don’t flatter yourself.
Your ideas on the other hand, merit nothing but scorn.
As to your suppositions about my “hurting”?
Have a drink on me.
RE: Nate, February 22, 2011 at 5:22 pm
As in some recently posted comments I have made, I will use italics to separate my words from yours, Nate. And I thank you for sharing your thoughts and concerns with me and others. –jbh
Dr. Harris,
There is much in what you say that I cannot understand, or cannot relate to due to differences in perception.
There is a very carefully evaluated reason for my writing in the way I have been writing, in addition to writing like this because of the fact that I have to work very hard at finding words I can expect to work in ways other people may accurately understand with respect to my intended meaning. The other reason is my observation that human society appears to me to be in a frangible metastable condition. — Drat! More of them thar words. Try restating: I am concerned about a possible risk of someone misunderstanding my intended meaning with plausibly violent consequences. I write in part as I do specifically to make my writing difficult for some people to grasp because I allow they may become overtly dangerous. Along the way, people w who will not become dangerous will also find my writing difficult. Sorry about that, I do as best I am able to do. When I have found better words which I believe I can use safely, what I am writing will become perhaps astonishingly clearer. — jbh
Having said that, the fact that you managed to successfully complete a doctorate in spite of your autism is for me, something that stands on its own merit. Combined with your obvious desire to help your fellow man and society at large… well, I commend you.
Hostile words and actions have been directed toward me since I was a toddler by some people. Yet all that anyone who has attempted to abuse or otherwise maltreat me has ever accomplished is to inform me of their unresolved traumas. I mentioned having been molested in the shower after a P.E. class during the first half of my sophomore high school year, and subsequently, we moved to Detroit Lakes, Minnesota for the second half of my high school sophomore year. Perhaps it is wise to tell more of the story, the better to clarify why I write as I do and why I am as concerned about child abuse as I am.
The boy who was as though “put up” to molesting me by the P.E. teacher, Mr. Horace Freiman, grabbed my (word suppressed) so firmly and yanked so hard that, had I not been wet enough from the shower, severe injury was possible and I expect that boy would have met with severe legal consequences. However, being wet saved me, my (word suppressed) and the boy who acted as though in a transient psychotic break. Some things happen which are unspeakably horrible and yet may eventually be spoken of.
However, before I had learned to say even one word, I had understood enough of the horrors and worse of war and other human violence, and asked with all of my being that I be given whatever I would need to do my part to bring an end to war, war mongering, and all forms of hatred and retaliation.
It was given to me to never need to retaliate, and to never be able to retaliate and to survive whatever hate, hurt, harm, denigration, or other form of despicable destruction could ever come my way.
It is written that, for “God,” all things are possible, and my life may be about as good evidence for that truth as may ever be needed.
I find no fault with BiL, he is doing as the circumstances of his life both allow and require of him. Such issues as may be mistakenly attributed to BiL are accurately attributed only to situational factors which are, and always have been, entirely outside his actual locus of control and with regard to which BiL is absolutely, totally, and perfectly innocent, and therefore also without any fault and without any deserved blame or punishment whatsoever.
And I’m sorry for all the difficulties you face. It shouldn’t be thus. I doubt my own resolve to do likewise would have been able to withstand so much tribulation before a “fuck the world” attitude would have emerged. Probably I would have just disappeared into the mass of humanity and let it fend for itself.
Because it has been given to me to as-though see, know, and understand the nature of nature and the existence of existence as I am yet able to understand has been given to no one else for want of anyone else having been given, bereft of personal merit as is so for me, the path needed for being ready to accept the life of “a little child willing to lead by example humanity into the way of real peace with self, others, and the whole of existence. I live in such a form of peace and always have.
It has been given to me to live my entire life as though in that promised kingdom of heaven on earth, doing so as actual reality and not as a future promise. For this reason, I do not retaliate, yet protest, as gently as I am able, every form of harm, hurt, abuse, revenge and retaliation of which I am given awareness.
That no person will be able to believe me until first believing in their own self and life is absolutely necessary, else I am just one more sincerely mistaken authoritarian tyrant pretending to be otherwise.
To make sense of what a sincerely mistaken authoritarian tyrant pretending to be otherwise may do, read and re-read the various comments that have been posted by BiL.
Compare and contrast his sequence of plausibly-scathing, perhaps vitriolic comments with my writing in which I decline to accept or internalize his comments and merely report my view that BiL’s view of me, my life, and my work, is plausibly sincerely mistaken; such that I have no need of any form of retaliation while also declining to affirm his false claims by ignoring them.
Were I to provide an admonishment, and I decline to actually do that, I would suggest that BiL is a seriously hurt and hurting person whose life has not yet allowed the healing of his hurts, and I would ask others to not add to the hurts he already has and has shown in his comments regarding my work.
Hatred is not ended by more hatred; real, affirming, validating love alone can heal hurtful hatred.
Veritas ipsa loquitur!
Dr. Harris,
There is much in what you say that I cannot understand, or cannot relate to due to differences in perception.
Having said that, the fact that you managed to successfully complete a doctorate in spite of your autism is for me, something that stands on its own merit. Combined with your obvious desire to help your fellow man and society at large… well, I commend you.
And I’m sorry for all the difficulties you face. It shouldn’t be thus. I doubt my own resolve to do likewise would have been able to withstand so much tribulation before a “fuck the world” attitude would have emerged. Probably I would have just disappeared into the mass of humanity and let it fend for itself.
“That your theory”
Oooo. Going to make up definitions of science and religion to suit your faulty premises, are you? What I said stands:
Science and religion are not incompatible, however, they are intrinsically not capable of unification.
Science operates on empirical facts.
Religion operates on beliefs.
One can believe something to be true absent all the facts, but one cannot have an factual assertion based solely upon belief absent evidence.
The relevant definition of science as you assert you are doing is thus:
science \ˈsī-ən(t)s\, n.,
1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study (the science of law) b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge (have it down to a science)
3a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena
You have not applied the scientific method, ergo, what you are doing is not science in the term you assert.
Contrast with religion:
religion \ri-ˈli-jən\, n.,
1a : the state of a religious (a nun in her 20th year of religion) b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
Your postulates turn on supernatural beliefs or faith devoid of any kind of proof – i.e. religion.
As the scientific method requires measurable, quantifiable data capable of having theories about it proven or disproved by repeatable and verifiable tests, what you are engaged in is still not science.
As to the unification of science and religion? I don’t care who you quote who says they can be unified. They cannot as a matter of operation and definition of both systems be unified. They can be compatible, but that is the extent to the possible nexus. Anyone who says they can be unified is as full of shit as you are, sport. That you quote a theologian as the source of your nonsense is not surprising. No scientist in his right mind would say science and religion are capable of unification, but someone who specializes in faith – unfounded beliefs – might make such a ridiculous claim. On faith of course, since all the evidence backs my assertion that the two are fundamentally incapable of merger.
But make no mistake.
What you are engaging is is neither science nor law but it is closer to theology than any of the other guises of rationality that you’ve tried to hide behind. It’s a run for cover because you cannot defend your ideas. It’s propaganda designed to undermine social systems critical for the survival of civilization. Propaganda that when busted on with facts and logic, you “defend” with lies, evasions, circular logic and false equivalences.
Do you want to know what you proven? The message of your persuasion?
A your theory is a Big Lie being told by a big liar incapable of defending his postulate when challenged.
You know – a challenged theory – like real scientists do during peer review.
Your idea is crap from a legal and historical standpoint. This has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet you don’t, won’t and can’t defend it . . . because you know it is indefensible.
Science?
You wouldn’t know real science if it bit you on the ass.
Bad mouth me all you want. I don’t give a damn. It’s a badge of honor that liars hate me.
You are – without a doubt – a liar: a practitioner of the science of propaganda, schooled in evasions, obfuscation and attempts to reverse meanings by making up definitions to suit your needs.
That is as close as you’ll ever get to science though, troll boy.
That is the extent of what you have proven.
The end sum of your persuasion.
RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 22, 2011 at 2:06 pm
I shall here write using italics, to separate my words from yours while interspersing my views within your sequence of claims or whatever they may be if not claims. Because, as a construct of Adversarial Law, every claim not protested is inextricably affirmed by the object of the claim, I continue to protest every false, albeit plausibly perfectly sincere, claim you can ever make about me and my work -jbh
So in other words, you’re a professional bullshit artist.
Not really. I have dairy farming neighbors, yet I doubt that they have very many bulls. I am grateful for having cow-processed-fertilizer-management artists among my neighbors. They are professional in the manner you seem to me to be describing, and you may be confusing me with some of my neighbors, because, perhaps, you live so far from where I live that you cannot distinguish me from my close neighbors. -jbh</i?
Science and religion are not incompatible, however, they are intrinsically not capable of unification.
One of my Carleton College Professors, Ian G. Barbour (who gave the 1989-1991 Gifford Lectures in Aberdeen, Scotland, and who received the Templeton Prize in the mid 1990s) does not appear to me to share your view. Unless you were a Religion Professor at one of the top ten liberal arts colleges in the United States, as Barbour was, and, as professor emeritus, yet is, I am strongly inclined to have a hunch that you are asserting competence in a field in which you mistakenly believe yourself to be competent. No mistake ever made could or should have been avoided, so any such mistake on your part is a normal form of human error, and not particularly special or exceptional.
Dr. Barbour wrote “When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers, or Partners?” HarperSanFrancisco, 2000.
When someone is mistaken in terribly destructive ways, as you seeem insistent on demonstrating to be fact regarding your weltanschauung, I work at shedding light into the darkness of sincere human ignorance and mistaken beliefs based on fearful temper and angry temper.
More recently, Dr. Barbour wrote, “Nature, Human Nature, and God,” Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 2002.
There are established, brilliant scholars who are also fully competent scientists who understand the world within a vastly broader and more inclusive world view than any small-mind view I have yet heard of from you.
Science operates on empirical facts.
Religion operates on beliefs.
Are you really that adamantly proud of your abysmal ignorance?
If so, pity.</i?
One can believe something to be true absent all the facts, but one cannot have an factual assertion based solely upon belief absent evidence.
My doctoral dissertation exists, the needed evidence is therein mentioned. Claim otherwise and you claim that you are mistaken if not perhaps terrifyingly pathologically delusional.
My, but you are a long winded troll.
I cannot even begin to compete with you that way. Indeed, I will never compete with you in any way at all.
In my world, a troll is of what is beautifully, truthfully, desirable.
But then again, that is the nature of the tactic of obfuscation but especially when combined with avoidance.
At which you are, as best I can yet guess, the most profoundly misguided expert I have ever yet come upon. You simply exude your sincere, yet delusional, atrociously destructive, beliefs, if they be your beliefs, that is.
I would not protest your expressed beliefs save for the minor triviality, if it be of triviality, that I invariably observe your expressed beliefs, when put into actual use, to be the proximate and ultimate, and everywhere between, cause of hatred, war, child abuse, torture, and every other horror ever known, or ever possibly to be known, to humanity.
So in other words, you’re a professional bullshit artist.
Science and religion are not incompatible, however, they are intrinsically not capable of unification.
Science operates on empirical facts.
Religion operates on beliefs.
One can believe something to be true absent all the facts, but one cannot have an factual assertion based solely upon belief absent evidence.
My, but you are a long winded troll.
But then again, that is the nature of the tactic of obfuscation but especially when combined with avoidance.
The following, here below in italics, is the text which has been on the veritalogue(dot)org web page for quite some time:
Verily! Verily! Verily!
Prepare for the Coming of Amazing Truth!
As Religion is about that which is important
to us that we do not yet understand,
So Science is about that which is important
to us that we do understand.
The first time I heard the Keewatin Eskimo
saying, as I remember now, it was like this:
The Wolf and the Caribou are One;
for the Caribou feeds the Wolf,
and the Wolf keeps the Caribou strong.
Religion and Science are One;
for Religion guides the direction of Science,
and Science keeps directing Religion toward Truth.
Affirmational Faith Ministry
Rev. J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E.
The creation of this web site is evolving as the evolution of this web site is being created.
The unification of science and religion has been a future goal of skeptical scientists for quite some time. It was my dad’s future goal, it was my mother’s future goal, it was my brother’s future goal. It was and remains the goal of my Carleton College religion and physics professor, Ian G. Barbour.
The Unification of Religion and Science is the present goal of my entire life work. Nothing else have I ever done than to work toward this goal as it is given to me so to work. Nothing else in this world have I, thus far, any will or intention of ever doing.
As it is given to me to experience, and only experience, existence from within the perspective of science given to me, so I study everything I study as of the work of a scientist, a scientist who, when the realm of science lacks an apparently needed scientific tool, sets about designing and building the needed tool.
When traditional, established science has not a needed tool, I participate as I am so able to participate, in the making of new tools of science. Thus, anyone only familiar with the science tools of the past will work to refute the validity of the work of science which I do because the work I do uses unfamiliar tools.
The science of the past is not, to me, an object of worship.
I read all religious texts as being scientific works written in the language available when written and interpreted through the language available to whosoever interprets the texts as they are being interpreted.
Consider my interpretation as I write these words, as a scientist, of Isaiah 57:1-2, from “The Bible: An American Translation”:
The righteous man perishes,
and none lays it to heart;
And godly men are swept away,
with none to give it a thought.
For in face of the evil the righteous man
is swept away,
he enters into peace;
While they rest upon their beds,
he goes his righteous and upright way.
In the world of “most people” there is no place for me, and, in this is found my greatest rejoicing. For there is no “most people.”
Quoting out of context, for the real context is the totality of all existence, from the cited Bible, from Isaiah 11:6
…And a little child will lead them.
In his ministry, my dad chose to avoid two particular religious traditions characteristic of much of established Christianity. The first was his absolute, unwavering refusal to have a separate “Children’s Time” within any church service, because he regarded having a “Children’s Time” as being a form of child abuse. The second was his refusing to use
the “Lectionary” as a guide for using Scripture in church services, and he did so because he, much like me, experienced the lectionary as a method of instilling dogmatic, doctrinal authortarianisticalish dishonesty into church services.
As an infant, before I spoke my first conventional word, I had heard, in church, religion presented truly as of science and as of only science. I asked with the whole of my being and the whole of my becoming that, if it be possible, I be as though a little child who would be able to lead by example the way of humanity into a world in which all forms of war and war-mongering are only of a forever-remembered past.
I find that my life, the life of an ordinary person who is neither more nor less “special” than anyone else will ever be, is a life actually lived in that kingdom known and knowable only to little children whose conscience is uncorrupted by any and every form of possible deception.
Existence being all that exists, for nothing can exist outside of existence, it is inescapable that, for existence, all things are possible.
Thus, it is possible that all possible things deemed evil by mistake are things which are truly not in any way whatsoever actually evil.
What I have been doing here, with my written posted comments, has been learning whether I could accomplish “an example” in the sense of “an example” in accord with the “Recovery Method” of the work of the late neuropsychiatrist, Dr. Abraham A. Low, whose life work (formerly known as Recovery, Inc.) continues as Abraham Low Self-Help Systems,
www(dot)lowselfhelpsystems(dot)org
I have consistently used words, to the limit of my actual, practical ability to communicate without deception. Within myself I have no deception to use; yet all human languages now in use contain aspects of the Adversarial Principle, and the Adversarial Principle is pure deception and nothing else.
It is inevitable that people who interpret my writings though the deception contained within all now spoken and now written languages will attribute the deception they truly experience as though originating from me, an error of dispositional attribution which is the essence of the Adversarial Principle itself.
I have, without so intending, created an event appropriate to an “Example.”
A Recovery International Example is properly constructed with four steps:
Step 1: Report a single situation or event.
Step 2: Report physical and mental feelings experienced during the event.
Step 3: Report “spotting” of experienced fearful and angry “temper.”
Step 4: Tell of what would have happened before having Recovery International Training, describing the temperamental reactions which would likely have happened before Recovery International Training contrasted with what actually happened through using Recovery International Training.
I began Recovery training in April, 1987. I have learned to use the Recovery International Training in every moment of my life.
Recovery International Training is scientific, not religious in the sense of divisive religious establishments and divisive religious established traditions.
Dr. Low worked as a neuropsychiatrist, as a scientist whose passion, so I observe, was to bring to an end that of human social interaction which results in what he named “temper,” and which I find is the core essence of the Adversarial Principle, and the human tragedy of “The Terrible Twos.”
The Example:
Step 1: The event is my presence as a person posting comments on this Jonathan Turley blawg.
Step 2: The feelings I experienced included transient moments of stark terror, unbounded rage as both angry and fearful temper, palpitations, paralyzing anxiety, fear for my physical safety, lowered feelings, elevated feelings, sorrow accompanied by weeping, fury at being told I am deceptive, a sense of will to forgive any and every injustice I may ever encounter, and far more intense feelings than I can ever likely tell of. During my becoming aware of the feelings that have been coming to me, I kept constantly in mind that objectivity terminates a panic.
Step 3: I trigger-spotted every one of my temperamental feelings by first trigger-spotting what I experienced as fearful and angry temper in those whose comments about my comments seemed to me to be hostile to me and/or my work. I trigger spotted:
A. It is better to excuse than to accuse.
B. It is better to be group-minded than symptom-led.
C. Temper is a luxury I cannot afford.
D. Close outer environment can be rude, crude, and indifferent, without intending to be.
E. Temper leads to Tenseness leads to Symptoms.
F. It is a secure thought to know that I do not know.
G. Helplessness is not Hopelessness.
H. By moving my muscles, I can re-train my brain.
I. Undesirable Exceptionality is a form of Temperamental Deadlock.
J. Feelings are not Facts.
K. I have the will to say yes or no, according to my conscience.
L. The will to bear Discomfort can help to resolve Temper.
M. Romantic Ambition is of Sabotage, Realistic Ambition Trains the Will.
N. Vanity is a form of Temper which may lead me to believe I know better than I actually know.
O. Temper may masquerade as “feeling.”
P. Tantrums have much Force, but very little “Feeling.”
Q. Genuine Feeling and Sincere Thinking are necessary, yet not sufficient.
R. Group-mindedness is better than Self-mindedness.
S. Confusing Subjective Wants with Objective Needs sometimes results in bad things happening.
T. Complaints may be Unconvincing.
U. A Partial View is not a Total Viewpoint.
V. Interpretations are not Conclusions.
W. Any Passion for Self-Distrust is a Form of Temper.
X. To avert Temper, I need to have the Courage to Make Mistakes.
Y. I can predispose myself to accept temperamental feelings as the way to Train My Will to better avoid angry and fearful temper.
Z. Self-Sabotage is a way to Reinforce Temper.
a. Literalness is Temperamental.
b. Discrediting Initial Improvement is Temperamental.
c. Disparaging the Recovery Method is Temperamental.
d. Challenging the Diagnosis of Temper is itself Temperamental
e. Insistence on a Change of Diagnosis is Temperamental.
f. Failure to practice “spot diagnosis” is Temperamental.
g. Failure to spot Sentimentalism is Temperamental.
h. Failure to spot Superstition is Temperamental.
i. Failure to Practice Muscle Control is Temperamental.
j. Belief in “Nervous Fatigue” is Temperamental.
k. Sabotaging Needed Rest and Sleep is Temperamental.
l. Simplifying What is Actually Complex is Temperamental.
m. Complicating What is Simple is Temperamental.
n. Endorsing Vicious Cycles is Temperamental.
o. Endorsing Vitalizing Cycles is Never Temperamental.
p. Attempting to break the strongest link in a chain is Tempermental.
q. Working on Symptoms where they are weakest is Not Temperamental.
r. Temper and Symptoms are Passive Responses to an event.
s. Avoiding Temper requires Active Responses to an event.
t. Seeking health as an end in itself is Temperamental.
u. Endorsing the means of endorsing health is Not Temperamental.
v. Mental Health is the Supreme Goal of Living.
w. Temper can only be avoided by spontaneously living in the present moment.
x. Every setback is an opportunity to better learn the basics.
z. Endorsing Temper is endorsing that which is the most evil of all.
Within a proper Example, I would specify each aspect of the event and its temper-spotting correlate. For the purpose of this example, I shall condense the spotting process, thus:
It has occurred to me that there is intrinsic to the Adversarial Principle a particularly damaging form of Vicious Cycle, which is simply that, once it is believed that wrongdoing merits destructive punishment, no one who has fully accepted the Adversarial Principle can let go of it without plausibly experiencing what may approach starkly unbearable terror at the justly-earned terrible punishment which awaits those who make the most serious of punishable mistakes.
In what BiL has posted in his comments, my sense of his writing is that it is as though flooded with angry temper at the absolute outrage of someone not an attorney at law having the insane temerity to question the inviolable authoritarian tyranny of unbridled self-deceptive authoritarianism.
As I recall one of my thesis committee members said, “The Recovery Method is THE METHOD.” (emphasis added by jbh).
My doctorate was an all-out effort to discover whether any possibility of scientifically invalidating The Recovery Method can be found. No trace has been found of any way to invalidate it, to the best of my present knowledge and understanding.
The(hostile?) comments, particularly those posted by BiL, are stunningly effective instances of expressed fearful and angry temper, in my present view.
I have very deliberately violated one of the basis principles of the Recovery Method as described and espoused by the late Dr. Low. Dr. Low intended the Recovery Method to only be applied to the trivialities of everyday life.
I have worked at applying the Recovery Method to the absolutely least trivial aspect of the whole universe which I have been able to recognize and understand, the mechanism of what is, from a scientific, neurological, biophysical view, the ultimate form of what is usefully deemed “Evil.”
Because I have worked to develop all the skill I can get in using the Recovery Method, I never internalize the temper, whether angry, fearful or both, which BiL has been as though sending my way, and, in not internalizing such temper, am always able to instantantaneously forgive every effort of affront BiL has sent toward me.
It hardly surprises me that he finds our encounter very frustrating, if that is what he has been finding. It is the very purpose of the Recovery Method to frustrate Temper.
The predicament of the Adversarial Principle is that it is inescapably, in the ultimate sense, perfectly adverse to itself and all else that can ever exist.
Because existence cannot not exist, the Adversarial Principle, except as pure delusion, can never actually exist, for the Adversarial Principle, at its innermost essence is the absolute denial of existence in any and every possible way, form, and/or manner whatsoever.
And it surely is the most subtil of all the wild beasts of all of existence, a beast which, by denying its own existence, cannot know or understand that it cannot ever actually exist.
La Kayim!
“well enough to grasp
how”In striking you out, I got a little over zealous with the strike tag.
Get back to us when you have a clue about either law or science.
Because from what I can tell, you don’t know squat about either.
“I would even settle for your being able to understand the philosophy of science well enough to
grasp how absolutely unscientific and ignorantly superstitious the Adversarial Principle really ishow completely full of shit I really am.”There.
That’s better.
Science is the application of the scientific method to gather data and form hypothesis which can then be tested and either verified or discredited.
Your hypothesis – that the adversarial principle is ignorant superstition – has been discredited time and again.
Know science?
Better than you do, sport.
RE: mespo727272, February 21, 2011 at 11:41 pm
means only that you are to pick up some milk, bread, and orange juice upon your next visit to the grocery store.
#####################################
It appears to me that we could use a reserve gallon of milk, and the orange juice did run out after the snow began, but we have enough bread for now.
Two out of three ain’t bad, a majority at that.
Majorities can be dangerous. Just ask a typical deeply loving gay couple in Wisconsin.
I prefer 100 percent when it really matters. Exactly 100.000 (repeating decimal) percent of mistakes actually made were actually 100.000 (repeating decimal) percent unavoidable as unambiguously evidenced by their not having been avoided.
Whenever y’all learn to do real science, let me know.
I would even settle for your being able to understand the philosophy of science well enough to grasp how absolutely unscientific and ignorantly superstitious the Adversarial Principle really is.
Awwww. Thanks for your concern for my safety, troll boy, but I wear big boy pants and can take care of myself. As for what I’m doing to you, it’s called “exposing a troll and a liar”. To be scorned and hated by propagandists and liars is a badge of honor.
Now enough about me.
Let’s talk about you. your “work” and your inability to defend it in a cogent manner.
Evading legitimate criticism of your postulation isn’t good science. I haven’t asked you any questions a scientist wouldn’t ask so don’t try to blame it on “lawylerly shenanigans” either. You haven’t defended your postulate because you can’t.
It’s really that simple.
For the record, decent people don’t support tyranny. Tyrants and the pawns of tyrants support tyranny. You support tyranny by your very postulation about adversarial process. Ergo, you cannot be decent.
RE: mespo727272, February 21, 2011 at 11:41 pm
Silly me.
######################################
Perhaps in contrast with BiL, you are gaining personal insight!
Congratulations. There is yet possible hope for you.
Such a possibility really warms my heart with rejoicing!
JBH,PP:
It must be wonderful to live in a world where words are infinitely malleable and any contradiction is merely profound insight rather than simple foolishness. When you say you’ve never compared yourself to Einstein or Hawking, I must assume your previous statement:
One of my committee members, the UIC scientific methods expert remarked of my work that it is of the nature of a completely new paradigm. Another member, a licensed psychologist and college professor, remarked that it was of the nature of a Unified Field Theory. That is what Einstein did not achieve and Hawking apparently has not attained yet, either.
means only that you are to pick up some milk, bread, and orange juice upon your next visit to the grocery store.
To my enfeebled, unscientific, obtuse brain those words mean that at least one other person believes that you have acomplished something those famed thinkers could not muster themselves by creating a new paradigm, and hence you are comparing yourself favorably to them by mentioning it here.
Silly me.
Oh.
BiL,
I stipulate that I will always intend to evade your lawylerly shenanigans.
My reading of de Tocqueville, “The Old Regime and the French Revolution” informed me that the French Revolution, as understood by him, failed in the sense that too much of what had worked before the revolution was discarded and too much of what the revolution had properly discarded came back with what might have more wisely have been retained, had the French done more of an evolution than revolution.
Opinions vary.
RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 21, 2011 at 9:19 pm
You’re only persuading people that you are completely full of shit and an obfuscating evasive liar.
####################################
BiL,
You really do have a difficulty using words, for you seem to have a vast legalisticalish vocabulary, but only a very tiny set of “vile, filthy” words for someone or something with which you seek to take exception.
Pity.
Silly of you to pick on someone perhaps a thousand times taller in simple human decency than you are?
You are lucky. I strongly advise you to never do to anyone who can harbor hatred or resentment what you seemingly are attempting to do to me.
You are safe in verbally attacking me from any return attack, for the simple reason that I absolutely, categorically, unequivocally, absolutely, utterly and eternally reject the Adversarial Principle as being anything other than that biblical Evil One, as in “Deliver us from the Evil One.”
Where is that in the Bible? You may look for yourself. You may learn something of human decency, if you ever find the necessary courage, unless you have already so looked.
You are giving me some really great practice in trigger spoting angry and fearful temper flares before they are more than scarcely noticeable. See Abraham A. Low, “Mental Health Through Will-Training.”
I do not know where you live, but I hope and trust that there is a nearby meeting of an Abraham Low Self-Help Systems group. I just checked, and Low Self-Help Systems has an Internet chat system, so I logged in, gave an example, and received some spotting from others. A good experience for me.
One aspect of my Ph.D. was to find if anyone having personal or social difficulties of the mental illness realm type had other than symptoms resulting from tenseness resulting from temper. Never found one exception to Dr. Low’s Recovery Method yet.
Temper, Tenseness, Symptoms?
I wonder if your use of language (words parents who did not know better might wash out their children’s mouths for using?) is of a form of Symptoms resulting from Tenseness, resulting from Temper?
I’d also like to take issue with your historically inaccurate lie that “Revolutions always fail.” Many revolutions throughout history have been quite successful. Starting with Sumer (once again). In Lagash, Sumer during 2380 BCE there was a populist rebellion to oust King Lugalanda and replace him with a reformer: King Urukagina. Our own country was founded from a successful revolution against England in 1776 CE. The French Revolution in 1848 CE ended the French monarchy.
And those are just off the top of my head.