KacyRay

Happy Birthday Kat.

Without going through all of the thoughts, ideas, and contemplations that got me there, I'll just say that the end result was this (Now, remember... this is armchair psychology here, but here is where my thoughts led me...): First and foremost, I suspect that I feel that absolving myself of missteps and misdeeds of the past would constitute a tacit endorsement of those missteps and misdeeds. Somewhere in my mind I can't allow myself to believe that the passage of time makes a misstep any less of a misstep. Sure, it may be less relevant now than it was when I made it, but it is no less real. It is no less of a blunder. A good analogy here would be a game or a sporting event. If you make a blunder in a chess tournament game, for example, and lose, it will hurt pretty badly. And over time, it will hurt less. Eventually (unless you are either obsessive or the game was historic) the game and the tournament will probably fade from your memory. As an old man, you're probably not going to even care what happened that day. But the blunder was still made. It didn't get become a "less bad" move as time went by. It was bad, it will always have been bad, and it will never not have been a bad move. Just because you don't care about it anymore doesn't make it less bad. Apply that thinking to social situations. If I said something to hurt someone, if I did someone wrong, if I made a social gaffe or made an ass of myself somehow... just because the embarrassment has faded doesn' make the misstep any less of a misstep. It still happened, no matter how much time goes by. There are no waves that will wash that reality from the sands of time. And I feel like if I ever say to myself "You know... forget about it. I screwed up, but I forgive myself" it is no different than saying "You know... what I did wasn't really so bad". It would feel like personal revisionism. It would feel like I was reversing my evaluation of the situation out of mere convenience. I guess I still cannot recognize the fundamental distinction between forgiveness and absolution. The former seems virtuous and healthy. The latter seems self-serving and convenient. But what is really the difference between the two? Would you tell a murderer to forgive him-or-herself? Would you tell someone they need to forgive themselves for having raped someone? If not, then why would you recommend that I forgive myself for having hurt someone's feelings unjustly? Why would self-forgiveness be healthy and virtuous in one situation and not the other? The injury still took place. I was still to blame. Healing was necessary. Just because the healing is finished doesn't mean the incident never happened. In fact, it is precisely the fact that no decision can be undone (as you pointed out) that makes them so damn difficult for me to let go of. If they could be undone... I'd be good to go! So anyway... those are just some of the rambling thoughts that have entered my mind when contemplating why I am so reluctant to let go of the past.

If elected she would be the first president that was also whacking material. She is a babe! Ba'al Chatzaf Bob: You are better than this last post and you know it. A... Yeah, how dare you speak so insultingly about Sarah Palin? Who do you think she is... O'bama???

KacyRay: Now that is an extremely interesting remembrance. I have always, personally, shunned "reunions." I have rarely looked back at decisions and experiences. I fully understand that no past decision can be undone. Nice point. A... I'm actually chronic about dwelling on the past. I've had many conversations with many folks and it took me a while to realize how extreme I am about it compared to other people. And I'm not saying it's a good thing. I still beat myself up over things I did years ago. Sometimes I can't help but dwell on something I wish I hadn't said or hadn't done... even when the other person in question is no longer alive. That's how bad it is. And I've introspected on the reasons why i might do this. In fact, I'll articulate them... once I get back from where I have to go right now.

“If you lose that foundation, John Adams was implicitly warning us, then we will not follow our constitution, there will be no reason to follow our constitution because it is a moral and religious people who understand that there is something greater than self, we are to live selflessly, and we are to be held accountable by our creator, so that is what our constitution is based on" I'm sure Rand would be gushing.

Here she is speaking at Liberty University (which, if that isn't a red flag right away, I don't know what is). This video was posted on YouTube by Liberty University. So... if I watch this video (which I did... but I watched it with the sound muted while George Soros told me what she was saying)... do I get to be part of the club that claims to understand what Palin is all about without being told that the big bad media has taken control of my mind? Or do only her supporters get to make that claim, while those who don't find her amusing in the slightest simply must be under the media's hypnotic trance? Spoiler alert: She's a theocrat and a revisionist. She would turn this entire country into her own personal Christian amusement park if she could.

I know exactly where you're coming from. I think it's why people tend to remain similar while in proximity, but grow apart when physically removed from one another. I'm met friends I hung out with years ago, including a very significant ex-girlfriend... people I had so much in common with at the time... and been astounded at how different we were after time had passed. But it's not necessarily positive or negative. I know without any doubt at all that being in the service has rubbed off on me in many ways, and I've worked hard to ensure that they are all positive ways. If anyone who knew me before I went in were to meet me now and say "Man, you've changed", I am fully confident that such a statement would be complimentary. I would probably say thanks. I enjoy what I do - sad that your lawyer friend does not. But I do share one sorrow with him - I have found that my passion for doing all the things I once aspired to do full-time (music, creativity, etc) has all but died. I basically own a full music studio with every piece of gear I need to make album after album, and I have spent entire days just sitting in it and wondering what the hell I'm doing there. No drive, no inspiration, no passion for it, nothing. If I had owned this gear 15 years ago, or 20 years ago... oh my god, you wouldn't have been able to drag me away from it. I'd have played all day every day. I'd have played late into the night every night. But now... meh. But I think that's a product of other forces. I know plenty of Marines who make music all the time. (P.S. I'm getting the private messages too.)

Right. Most people, when they use the term "universe", they are using it synonymously with "everything there is". The problem is that science is speculating that this may not be the case. There could be entire realms of existence that are not only separate from ours, but metaphysically unreachable from ours. i.e. No possible way for our universe to observe or examine them, even in theory. How then can we know of their existence? I have no clue.

Yes, I'm familiar with that, and that's my point... if one accepts a multiverse, then those other universes would be subsumed under the concept "existence", however they would not be subsumed under the concept of the "universe" in which we dwell. Hence the need to distinguish between those concepts.

Yeah, cats are much more entertaining when they entertain themselves. As much as I love my dogs, it seems the only way they know how to have real fun is if I'm doing all the work.

If one believes that there may exist, or may have existed, or may at some future point existed, *universes* either parallel to this one, or existing prior to or after the death of this one.... then it would be useful to draw a distinction between the "universe" and "existence".

You mean smug? Oh, I forgot... that's only what you call it when Rachel Maddow does it. When you do it, it's "forceful and self confident". Because you're all objective and shit. Anyway, my omission of a response to your substantive points was deliberate and I explained my reasoning. I've grown weary of the presumptions and microaggressions that permeate every comment you direct at me. Just be advised, if you insert those sorts of elements in a comment directed at me, it is unlikely I will respond to the substance of the comment if I respond at all, regardless of whatever other merits the comment might have. And that doesn't apply to everyone. Just you and your soul twin, both of whom have used up of every last bit of my patience.

I think that Palin is brighter than, say, Obama or Elizabeth Warren, not to mention significantly more honest and in touch with reality. I think that if the media were to do to almost anyone what they've done to Palin, hardly anyone would handle it as well as she has. It's really too bad that the right doesn't go after leftist morons in the way that the left goes after its enemies. Instead, we have Republicans running for office saying what intelligent and super-nice and wonderful human beings their opponents are (while being accused by those opponents of starving babies and throwing granny off the cliff). And then rank and file Republicans and libertarians buy into the negative image that the left has created, and start repeating it and reinforcing it themselves, as Kacy is doing here. Democrats never do that. You'll never see them destroying their own no matter how stupid their statements or policies are. What I'd like to see is how well Kacy would hold up to the smears and gotcha "journalism" that Palin has faced. I think that, in the national spotlight, with the media out to make him look foolish, he'd come across as an absolute dunce compared to Palin. J While I always appreciate the insinuation that I am somehow more susceptible to media-generated illusions than, say,you are, I am compelled to trust my own judgment on what I see. It's easy to delegitimize someone elses evaluation with arbitrary contentions that they an unwitting victim of swallowing the caricature someone else is selling, but you state it as though it were established fact. How can you possibly know what I know about Sarah Palin??? Do you realize how presumptuous it is to assume that my evaluation of Sarah Palin is nothing more than a product of manipulation, but yours is not? What justification do you have for assuming that I'm just a puppet bouncing on George Soros's strings but you are a free-thinking, independent thinker with a mind completely untarnished with the opinions and propagations of others? "What I'd like to see is how well Kacy would hold up to the smears and gotcha "journalism" that Palin has faced. I think that, in the national spotlight, with the media out to make him look foolish, he'd come across as an absolute dunce compared to Palin." I'd be happy to take you up on that. "Instead, we have Republicans running for office saying what intelligent and super-nice and wonderful human beings their opponents are (while being accused by those opponents of starving babies and throwing granny off the cliff)." Heh.... ok.

I see. Okay... just was curious.

Heh... I look forward to that.

Is it some sort of subtle, secret handshake-style indicator to other like-minded folks to let them know you're one of them? Is it supposed to make his name seem Irish? Is it just an errant keystroke that you accidentally hit every time you type his name? Enquiring minds want to know!

Giggle giggle. No, really... what's up with that?

"However, at least in the "paper" news business, the "headline" writer is not the article writer." Didn't know that. Learned something today! I skimmed the article. It is interesting indeed... just goes to validate the scientific principle that all models are subject to revision pending further discovery. As should be all knowledge.

KacyRay: I understand. Therefore, would it be fair to say that President O'bama, being our President, and being a politician, would also be in that same "single politcian" category? Absolutely. Have you ever seen me claim to be an Obama disciple? Curious - why do you put an apostrophe in his name that way?

In fact, on further thought... I'll take it a step further and state for the record that I can't actually name *a person* who shares my positions across the spectrum on every point. I think that's a by-product of independent thought. Or maybe I'm just a rogue!!!

Selene, I cannot name a single politician who resonates strongly with my positions, let alone three mayors.

It's a safe bet that any headline that contains the phrase "scientists baffled" is a lead-in to pure bullshit. Which is part of the larger principle that any header which presumes to report on the emotional state of an entire demographic is probably a lead-in to complete bullshit.

Thanks! I don't think time "exists in the universe"... I thought that Einstein demonstrated that time is nothing more than a relationship between space and motion. At least, that's the way I always understood it. Space can be bent. It can be examined. It can be traversed. It is expanding. It obviously exists. Space is not something the universe it sitting in... it is part of the very fabric of the universe. In other words, if ever there was a time (if I can use that term) when this universe didn't exist... then neither did the space we currently observe.

Maybe the GOP could use that as their next campaign slogan, eh? "The choice of crackhead politicians around the world!"

This is a great example of how data conforms to ones worldview. You and I witnessed the very same scene and, in both of our minds, it confirmed our positions, which are exact opposites (almost). You heard Rob Ford say "I'm a conservative, I'd be called a Republican down in the states" and that he doesn't "get" Obamacare. In your mind that translated as "Gee, even ROB FORD sees how absurd Obamacare and liberalism is!" I heard him say he's a conservative and would be a Republican and though, "Heh... of course you would. How's the crack these days, by the way?" I realize we all experience confirmation bias. But that aside... does it not strike a chord of cognitive dissonance when a guy like Rob Ford sides with you? Do you not feel the slightest tinge of anxiety when the laughing stock of Canadian politics says that if he was American he'd be firmly in your camp? When the unhinged crackhead says that your party is where he'd choose to be if he had to make that choice, you might want to contemplate that for a while. It just might mean something.