Divinorumus wrote:
Oh, I wasn't specifically addressing or attacking you or anyone .. I was just trying to say there will always be disagreement .. always .. the problem is, how should we prioritize these issues? I myself prefer to attack the REAL issues FIRST .. then if there is any time left we can make up make-believe issues and fight about them. But really, we're at WAR with nature, and SHE has the power to do us ALL in, and so I make no apologies if I think that is more important than who we think our daddy should be.
Div... you and I are on the SAME side on this. Really. In my opinion, there IS no other issue more important, more REAL, as you say. You wrote: "we're at WAR with nature, and SHE has the power to do us ALL in." I don't see it as US being at war with HER (or more to point, *I* am not at war with HER… I kinda
like HER, ya see, and do my best to honor, respect, and work with HER), but I do agree with you that "SHE has the power to do us all in." She is mightily pissed, and we've got to get our act together, or yes, SHE will be at war with US. If we don't make a course-correction --and SOON--then
nothing else really matters. In this, you are absolutely correct.
But however important
you or I may see this, we might as well just twiddle our thumbs and wait… UNLESS there are some changes at levels that neither you nor I can affect
directly. It all depends on one’s circle of influence. Yours and mine are relatively small comparatively. UNLESS there are some changes at levels where the circles of influence are much greater, we are ALL going down.
Where we disagree, I suppose, is that I don’t think we’re going to get to where we need to be WITHOUT these changes happening
first. It's NOT that I think things like the U.S. Attorney scandals are a higher priority in the scheme of things. They aren't. But, as I see it, they form a PART of the road that must be built (sometimes, something old must be torn down so that we can build something newer and stronger) to get us to where we need to be.
To me, any prioritizing means looking at the available options, making a plan, and then working that plan. I might be cold, and I might think I need a fire to warm me, but building that fire first requires gathering fuel. This is a part of that fuel-gathering. One stick added to the pile, one step along the road we MUST travel, IF we are to survive at all.
There’s a lot of work to be done. But we won’t get there by attacking and belittling those who are trying to get there along with us, who are also trying to help. That is why I asked you—or tried to—to let up. Haranguing fellow travelers seems pretty counter-productive to me. It won’t help us get to THERE from HERE.
As far as I can tell, Div, we’re on the SAME page. We just differ in how we think we will get there. I see it as “you can’t do what without what?” and I’m not sure what you think, but it
appears to me that you think there has to be a mass shift in consciousness. Kind of an all or nothing sort of thing? I see that as reaching critical mass, and this would be great, IF possible, and I do believe it IS another of the “sticks” we are gathering. I sincerely HOPE we get there, and am doing my part as best I can to help GET us there. When/if we reach that point, yes, there WILL be a shift, and things will begin to change rapidly (for the better). But I see many steps that must be taken BEFORE we can even begin to get to that point. IMHO. Maybe you think that dooms us all. Maybe it does. But it still, from my point of view, just is what it IS. It’s just how things ARE. It may be too slow, but it’s all we’ve got.
I hope I've made it clearer to you where I'm coming from and why your tirade was offensive (or maybe more accurately, frustrating) to me on a personal level. I'd really prefer some dialogue without the bizarre rhetoric, but I realize this may just be your style. You've got a lot to say that is good, but most of the time, sadly, it gets lost in the delivery. At least it does for me.
So… Div… truce? I won’t holler at you if you’ll stop treating me like some kind of imbecile.
Deal?
Anchors Aweigh!
I meant the Dali Lama, not Gandhi. However, in retrospection, it probably applies to both of those great leaders.
