[Mind's Eye] Re: The " I " factor

Ash asks "...what would we say if he succeeded?..."

The answer is all too easy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vezr3dW4J5s

On Jun 6, 7:15 pm, Ash <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/6/2011 8:51 AM, Pat wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 6, 12:50 pm, RP Singh<123...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> Pat , what makes you so sure that Charles Manson and Hitler were
> >> following their true nature , if there is such a thing.
>
> > Also, with respect to Manson, he was happy in prison and didn't mind
> > returning at all.  He'd already spent over half his life behind bars
> > of some variety and was only too happy to let California feed, clothe
> > and shelter him at full cost to the taxpayer.  Manson, a true
> > freeloader with a penchant for controlling others did exactly what one
> > might expect from him, if one knew him.  He controlled a few people
> > and acted in such a way as to land himself back in prison
> > forever...purely his true nature.  Hitler, as he's no longer alive, is
> > harder to assess, but, I think you'll find that he really didn't like
> > Jews to the point of extermination, if possible.  Same for Romany
> > gypsies, blacks and homosexuals.  He had an idea of a perfect race
> > (one that conflicted with his own traits, mind) and acted in such a
> > way as to bring that about.  Of course, he was incorrect in thinking
> > that race matters at all (one might have thought a look in the mirror
> > would have convinced him, but apparently not) and was defeated.
>
> Very interesting reasoning Pat, I've heard an argument like this before
> but think it's used as a farce, never heard it outright! The scariest
> shit.. I just might agree, logically it doesn't seem to make sense
> otherwise. Either take the whole package, or sacrifice omnipresence:
> unless there is a rock God can-not lift (there's an oxymoron). If you
> carry on like this I will have to buy your book, just to imagine all the
> pious ones out there stamping their foot and flaring nostrils at the
> nerve of someone pointing it out. But really, what kind of revolutionary
> doesn't walk into a conversation and agree with everyone then exceed all
> expectations by pissing them all off (something I try to bottle up in a
> chuckle). Good game! :D> But he still serves as a great 'bad example'.
>
> I wonder, what would we say if he succeeded? Aside from the scientific
> in-/validity of the �bermensch hypothesis, that is.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Pat<PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >>> On May 31, 5:24 pm, RP Singh<123...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >>>> Whatever a man does he is bound to do as the Will of God is supreme,
> >>>> but a person is not a robot. The " I " is an active agent and it is
> >>>> the individual who taking control over his nature does good in this
> >>>> world and on letting himself go does the bad. Strength of resolve is
> >>>> inherent in every person , some use it a lot, others let their
> >>>> impulses rule most of the time. It is in man's hand to keep his nature
> >>>> under control , and again in his hand to let it run amok.
> >>> I agree with one exception.  Actually, it's more of an inclusion.  An
> >>> individual must discover their nature before taking control of it.
> >>> Then the rest follows...good or bad.  For example, I fully believe
> >>> that Charles Manson DID discover his true nature and STILL inflicted
> >>> great injuries against humanity.  The same for Hitler.  Sometimes,
> >>> knowing one's nature does not prevent one from doing evil but leads
> >>> them to do it.  In other words, if it is God's will that X be done and
> >>> X is perceived by most people to be evil, X will still be done, as it
> >>> is the will of God.- Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -