POTENTIAL AGREEMENT
Awareness is the experience of sharing.
Care is the value of that attention.
Appreciation encourages trust-worthy values.
Respect understands relation of partnerships,
as the primary principle of understanding agreement.
The first thing we must be is agreeable, and this sets (self-image) standards.
There is the parent in our head that says, "do what I say, not what I do."
This is a symptom for (possible) borderline personality disorder . . If we can deny ourselves our own best behavior, can we recognize this dis-ease?
The borderline runs between (choosing) approval and criticism (reflexes.)
This creates a center where we can share contentment with personal acceptance in a cultural agreement.
Administrators wanted responsibility for the collective future with selfish financing.
The Securities Industries have redistributed values into socialistic conditions that demands compensation from expecting more from lessers (rankism.)
Socialism results when leaders separate themselves above standards.
Insurance (taxes) couldn't insure against this extreme? No assurance in reality?
The difference in constitutional compliance is in fact enough change to apply to those holding assets.
Penalties for non-compliance projects the hollowness (in-substantiation) that collapsed monetary values.
The switching treatment for this toxic condition relieves obvious desperation with generosity as the option. (The challenged may be more giving, proportionately?)
The desperation administrators show to own (control) all the money must be treated with non-profit forms of credit.
I heard John McCain say all the money spent on campaigns could equalizes social costs, implying appropriate redistribution could work.
Power of observation is the role of agents which is implied by representational government. Those best represented by federal policies get around appropriate support of their partner (The USA.) They owe more for the damage exuding from that influence of their standards than deserving compensations. This conceptual infliction is depleting all human potential exponentially. To indulge donation exercises as beneficial relief for their defenses could make all life more agreeable.
Care is the value of that attention.
Appreciation encourages trust-worthy values.
Respect understands relation of partnerships,
as the primary principle of understanding agreement.
The first thing we must be is agreeable, and this sets (self-image) standards.
There is the parent in our head that says, "do what I say, not what I do."
This is a symptom for (possible) borderline personality disorder . . If we can deny ourselves our own best behavior, can we recognize this dis-ease?
The borderline runs between (choosing) approval and criticism (reflexes.)
This creates a center where we can share contentment with personal acceptance in a cultural agreement.
Administrators wanted responsibility for the collective future with selfish financing.
The Securities Industries have redistributed values into socialistic conditions that demands compensation from expecting more from lessers (rankism.)
Socialism results when leaders separate themselves above standards.
Insurance (taxes) couldn't insure against this extreme? No assurance in reality?
The difference in constitutional compliance is in fact enough change to apply to those holding assets.
Penalties for non-compliance projects the hollowness (in-substantiation) that collapsed monetary values.
The switching treatment for this toxic condition relieves obvious desperation with generosity as the option. (The challenged may be more giving, proportionately?)
The desperation administrators show to own (control) all the money must be treated with non-profit forms of credit.
I heard John McCain say all the money spent on campaigns could equalizes social costs, implying appropriate redistribution could work.
Power of observation is the role of agents which is implied by representational government. Those best represented by federal policies get around appropriate support of their partner (The USA.) They owe more for the damage exuding from that influence of their standards than deserving compensations. This conceptual infliction is depleting all human potential exponentially. To indulge donation exercises as beneficial relief for their defenses could make all life more agreeable.
posted by brad4d | 3:45 PM
5 Comments:
As to your first sentence, I potentially disagree! Can I not be aware in my solitary observation of my own life?
As to your second, yes, I feel that care is a value given to the object of awareness.
Third, yes OK.
Fourth: yes, but to me the relation of partnerships is ultimately brotherhood---the basis of all respect.
Your second paragraph. Yes, I see it. My reflex is certainly to criticise, because I find myself in an alien world, or a world in which I am the alien. My criticism is the search for the essence of that discord. My acceptance and approval is the looking below the surface of criticism to the essential oneness (or you can call it brotherhood, not just to those of the same species, not just to the animal kingdom or the vegetable kingdom, but the whole.)
In your third I am confused by the word "socialism" which I suspect in America always has a negative connotation except amongst the tiny minority who dare to call themselves socialists. I also suspect that redistribution of wealth is another dirty word over there, a euphemism for socialism. But I'm not sure, so I cannot read your shorthand.
But in your fourth I see that you may not be not against redistribution, though you recognise that his own words properly interpreted may reveal him as someone who has faith in the possibility of redistribution, even if, given the power, he could stop short of actually being a redistributor (i.e. someone who gives government money to those who need or deserve it?)
In your final paragraph, the meaning of the last three sentences escapes me. I would welcome any elucidation!
I wonder if consciousness is al-one but awareness must at least share a time and place? Anything compared is shared?
Your UK observation angle adds great perspective! Yes I am expecting socialism to be uncomfortable as perceived by most, so did I push and pull equally?
The potential for redistribution is in the reader, so that spirit seemed to work because the last three sentences hope there is no conclusion, so continue questioning.
Your response helps so much open, your right, there is no closing, thanks IVM
Re socialism: in UK socialism was intellectually respectable and officially related to the Labour Party, until Tony Blair became its leader and he masterminded the transformation to "New Labour", code term for "same party without the Socialism". He did it to become more electable.
Another factor was the demise of the USSR which seemed to have signalled to intellectuals that Marxist socialism wasn't possible any more. Though it survives very successfully in Cuba.
The Labour Party is still in power in UK and by US standards is very socialist indeed, constantly wanting to eliminate inequality and relative poverty and any advantage accruing to the rich which is not accessible to the poor.
Great validation to change the socialistic recipe, you must know that my favorite pallet cleaner is the Common Sense link I place everywhere.
I'm sure that I've mentioned that mankind is bat shit crazy, and that democracy is bullshit, it's just a bunch of nine year olds wanting to run the show.
No one minds a little socialism, as long as it's pointed their way.
Post a Comment
<< Home