Commenter Archive

Comments by Scott Miller

On “Like I said, we’re no angels

bob wrote:

I say “perceived” because I think the perception of threat, and its ending produces the crying out, not the actuality of the threat.

Good point.

"

@ CK MacLeod:
Now you're not just in mid-season form, you're like, I don't know, Reggie in October. And since we've been seguewaying strangely in and out of basketball comments as well, I'll throw in that I think Pau is getting an unfair amount of the criticism. The team is just burned-out. Phil's burned-out. I think for a laid-back European intellectual Pau did pretty well mustering up as much muster as he did for the last two years. And unlike most of them, he did it straight. I'm not saying Kobe is on steroids anymore, but he takes something. He was always competitive, but not like he has been in the last few years. There was something going on, it wasn't just Lamar sharing his candy, and I'm sure someday we'll know what it was.

"

Interesting perspective. The thing I would review and reflect on myself would be the part about the Divine being a different category. My sense is that mystics see us as divine. That separates their outlook from the institutionalized religious idea about us being eternally separate from God and "His" angels. It goes to the difference between dualism and non-dualism. So I would recommend continuing to be clear about this being a particular religious perspective on things as opposed to being religious substantiation of why it's okay for humans to celebrate violence.

On “Brought us the head of Osama Bin Laden

CK MacLeod wrote:

Even while we kill and punish we must try to feel about the enemy as we feel about ourselves – to wish that he were not so bad, to hope that he may, in this world or another, be cured: in fact, to wish his good. This is what is meant in the Bible by loving him: wishing his good, not feeling fond of him nor saying he is nice when he is not.

changed for accuracy in a different way than usual

"

@ CK MacLeod:
I believe in it, yes. Could I be trusted to follow through with a pacifist action as people around me were being gunned down? It might not go so well. My meanness might get the best of me. But in respect to advocacy, I believe that hate always swallows the hater no matter how justified the hating may be. Positioning ourselves for peace is the only way to give peace a chance in my opinion. I don't believe we can position ourselves well and believe in the power of hate, so, in theory, I am willing to be a sacrifice for peace if necessary. In theory, I would rather be killed than kill to protect myself if that's what you're asking.

"

What? You'd rather be like me--not demeaned, which is to say still mean?

"

@ CK MacLeod:
Let it be known that I, Scott Miller, believe CK MacLeod to be fully aware of irony and tragedy. I enjoy your awareness of irony and tragedy beyond measure and have on countless occasions stated that fact. If I weren't such a meanie I would just go into that truth further in respect to the present post, but I can't help relating things back to self-esteem. You know I'm your biggest fan. You know I credit you for having an unbelievably great awareness of irony and tragedy, but it hasn't sunk in because you're too busy taking pride in things that demean you and since my criticism counters everything I've tried to put forth in previous comments, here I am again, not helping. Is that ironic or tragic, or both?

"

@ CK MacLeod:
I'm not the boss of you, but you danced around the fact there that you made me an island unto myself. "Prior to any determination of the rightness or the wrongness of the mission, everyone except Scott already takes pride, already is happy to see him- or herself reflected in the society that could produce Seal Team 6 (if that’s really what they’re called) and send them safely to smite a villain many thousands of miles from home."
Now, you've indirectly corrected that statement. Millions of people do not take pride there. And here comes the New Age meanness:
People who do take pride in it have low self-esteem. Granted, there are lots of people with low self-esteem.

"

@ miguel cervantes:
I checked out the link, Miggs. Sounds like a good book. One thing I would say about the Gandhi quote about pre-war German Jews and about CK's reference to God "always criticizing us for something or other" is that non-violence must always be adjusted to the present. If CK is right and this killing leads to closure and a new day, great. We are always in need of moving on from the violence. If Gandhi was wrong about the Jews and the efficacy of non-violence in that situation, fine. We move on. And as far as God goes, I've been meaning to suggest this book for a few days and this a good time. I highly recommend "Tattoos on the Heart" by Father Gregory Boyle. The whole point of the book is to help us relate to life in context of God loving us. Far from relating to the idea of God as being critical of us, Boyle wants us to see how wonderful life is when we relate to the Divine as something that loves us as we are in this moment. In this moment, we are not being violent with each other or promoting violent ideas. Is it possible for us to stay there, recognizing each other's need to be loved and to be the one who fulfills that need?

"

Fortunately, I am not anywhere close to being alone in my beliefs. That was the whole point in posting the MLK quote, which still stands as a countering of the perspectives voiced here again. I understand that your perspective is nuanced. Mine-not so much. It goes along completely with what MLK and Gandhi taught. These are not fringe characters in the human drama. You error in your attempt to marginalize the perspective. Millions of people in this country alone see things as they did.

On “How about this celebratory tide?

Scott Miller wrote:

You got back in mid-season form so quickly.

And I'm serious. That statement was a statement within a statement.
CK MacLeod wrote:

t will help those playing along at home to follow the action.

CK just let me know that he could have won the game if he wanted to, but he didn't want to because it meant playing by my rules.

"

CK MacLeod wrote:

Anyway, you’re not the boss of me, so there.

You got back in mid-season form so quickly.

"

I win the game. You blinked. Of course, you only lost because you're tired, so it's no real victory. At least you lost well and that means I will spare you from my New-Age meanness.

"

Some of those are actually funny. I don't know, though. I think you guys managed to somehow trivialize my original Zen-ness in a way that makes me want to do the opposite-same thing by pointing out that there was an innocent victim involved in the incident that I have until now refused to reference and that everyone's glossing over of her death reveals just how much crap is involved in the we fight terrorists as a way to free women idea. And if you want to prove that you understand the game here, you will only retaliate with something even more deep-thought-ish, not with some comment about my assumption being wrong.

"

Also...
I was going to say that I get the most credit for going first and establishing the ridiculousness, but then I realized how much more genius it took to retaliate so perfectly and how much cool it took for you not to explain what you were doing. The question is did you have any faith that I would realized the move you had made, or did you think maybe I would just react to the annoyance?

"

@ CK MacLeod:
There is a certain perfect balance to our mutual taunting. I think my positive affirmation link caused the exact effect on you that your Dalai Lama link had on me and I think we need to credit ourselves. It was truly masterful what we did there, and so perfectly useless that I imagine a whole flock of dead Zen priests cheering us on with wild applause.

"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1VBC1wqKU

On ““A” rarely if ever equals “A” only

CK MacLeod wrote:

Common sense opposes itself to reason, which it calls intellectualism or sophistry. It always claims to know what’s right, what needs to be done, without needing to explain itself. It has therefore been adopted as a political value, a slogan, by so-called “common sense conservatives.” Common sense seems to tell them all sorts of things. If you don’t accept them, you’re simply wrong. There’s nothing to discuss. Your claim to want to discuss them is a trick, a sign of weakness or decadence or ulterior bad motives. It’s also, of course, a sign of distance from the common man, who knows in his heart (who feels) that he’s right, and can’t be expected to put it in terms that you East Coast Ivy League Big City types will like.

I'm thinking of reading this quote before yoga in the morning. My students would appreciate your insight. Of course, they wouldn't understand the "you E.C. Ivy League Big City types" part.

"

Even though the idea of pressing toward agreement might at first seem to be at odds with Buddhist philosophy regarding speech, I think it goes to what Buddhist's refer to as "idiot compassion." We don't want our compassion to be idiotic. It becomes idiotic if we give up and just stand by as people harm themselves karmically. We're supposed to speak up and let people know when they're screwing up. Otherwise, it's idiot compassion, and its opposite would mean pressing toward agreement. Mindfully, of course. So Fuster might want to refrain from calling you an ass. Although, I know you could take it, so that was fine. "Ass" away. Naturally, given my avatar, I would eventually arrive at that sense of things.

On “On Loughnerism

And if we're going to get serious, I do want to point out that in India, Vedic Astrology has been conducted with great skill by some of the world's smartest people for thousands of years, and even when we're just playing around with western astrology, it can lead to some interesting scientific recognitions. For example, most people don't know what Eris is. Thanks to astrology, lots of people find out.

"

@ CK MacLeod:
OMG! The astrologist didn't have her facts straight?! In her defense, she did write, "I believe..."

"

Okay. Astrology as final word:

Eris stationed in the sign of Aries, which rules the head. While we’ve had many men assassinated or threatened in our rather violent history, I believe Ms Giffords might have been the first woman and first Jew shot for her politics. As you might guess, Our Favorite Cowgirl, RELOADing Sarah Palin (February 11, 1964, 4:40 pm, Sandpoint, Idaho) has a VERY prominent Eris. Sarah does seem to sow discord as part of her path on earth! Eris in Aries squares Sarah’s Nodes of Destiny. Eris is in Sarah’s Tucson chart’s eighth house of death ~ so the ASTROLOGY indicates Sarah WAS “involved” due to her map with the bull’s eye rifle sighting imagery on Gifford’s Congressional District even as pundits argue that Sarah wasn’t involved.

"

@ fuster:
I like the spicy-carrot contrivance idea. I'll work on it.

"

@ fuster:
Colin jokingly points out from time to time that things are my fault. This time it really is. I'm always thanking him for things after I've done the real work. He picked the habit up from me.

"

@ CK MacLeod:
I will use that link--sometimes even directly.

Related

From the Featured Archives

Categories

Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins