ATG wrote:

topal63 wrote:

I wasn't condeming your opinion, or attempting to derail the thread, crap, you already know I like you personally (even though we've never met in the real world). I must admit I have hard time understanding the logic oft times - even when I understand the sentiment (where your heart is at - on an issue).
The more complex an issue, the more convoluted my argument may appear.  But, why would you like me if my logic is oft times incoherent?
I am going to go ahead a derail for a momento... OK, and I will answer that!

What does perfection, correctness, or anything like that have to do with: liking a person, valuing a person, etc. If perfect logic was a mandatory for liking anyone - it would end up being a counting system; where every mistake is added up and weighed against the individual (as valuations of that type of thinking/feeling is the opposite of: acceptance, recognizing the whole, moving on, letting be, etc, you know what I mean… ). Also sometimes human intuition, emotion, sentiment, feeling runs counter current to the very things we speak (state) and yet is evident in what we say (state) - even when it is not exactly what we are saying.

a.) Take for example you: my sense, of you, is that you want to see positive change, improvement, maybe even a desire for others to feel the same way as you (about how concern should propel you do desire a solution!).

b.) Example #2: You condemn Gore for eating a fish (that probably isn’t endangered) upon grounds of hypocrisy, but actually would like the environment cleaned up - condemning a guy who at a minimum - is raising public awareness about Global Warming & the environment. You mistrust most politicians & you don’t like Gore. At the same time concerning Global Warming - you don’t really know if you should believe if it is even happening; or what it really is. Then, once again, you do want see a positive solution to fossil-fuel dependency. (IMO) Logically inconsistent and sort of all over the place, but at the same time utterly consistent in sentiment (heart).

Also life, like a “bullshit session,” is a matter of trial and error. Just like: as you (and I, and everyone else) test the waters of life on a daily basis, failing oft times yet learning anyways. An opinionated discourse; a bullshitting session; is the same. We throw out ideas, exchange them, test them, perfection isn’t necessary, perfect logic isn’t necessary, the exchange itself (one of trial & error) with our peers - helps modify them (in ourselves) towards a more sensible state in the end. We can choose not to talk, converse, relate what is on our minds; or we can choose to test the waters. Apparently we both choose the latter.

As relates to specificity, here is why I can relate to you, it is rather easy to explain:
1.) We are product of the same generation.
2.) Both of as are fathers (in contrast to our home-life as youths), and I believe that our negative experiences of family (the contrast to now), have transformed us - passionately - into wanting stability, positive interaction with our family. Which more or less is a catharsis - for each of us.
3.) Art - another common interest & activity.
4.) Music - another common inertest & activity.
5.) Anyone who likes, or liked RUSH, is AOK - in my book!
6.) Your love of nature is self-evident, + the pantheistic view, of a “thou” being everywhere in nature is a poetic way of seeing things.
7.) Your actual positive spiritual sentiment is inspiring. It just took time for me to see it.
8.) Etc.

Weird but I used logic, example and reason - in explaining something transcending logic. Ironic - no?

Last edited by topal63 (2007-07-27 12:55:44)