> On Jan 8, 7:55 am, "Pieter" wrote:

>> "Carrie" kingcon.com> schreef in
>> berichtnews:flv2pv$j2t$1@aioe.org...
>>
>>
>>

>>> Anyway... maybe instead of apologizing to Katie, those here who are
>>> tempted to respond to her with counter attack and defense, etc could be
>>> grateful to her for showing them their own issues, and touchy spots. If
>>> they didn't have issues and touchy spots, they wouldn't need to attack
>>> her, discredit her, and/or drive her away.

>>
>> I agree with this. Surely true!
>> This is seeing the useful side
>> of whatever is happening.

>
> ~Well, Pieter that's because you are pretty much a screwball who has
> very limited thinking skills. You apparently haven't the foggiest
> notion of the proper way to reason from principle.
>
> So here's a clue. If you are talking in abstractions then its
> incumbent upon you to identify the principle which you are employing
> and then its also incumbent that you take the abstract to the concrete
> to see if what you are saying makes sense and clearly does not violate
> the principle which you are claiming to follow.
>
> So here's a go. Attack is not justified, Hence attack is not justified
> by alleged teaching purposes, or showing issues or pushing buttons.
> And attack is not justified by a response of gratitude.
>
> And that's exactly what you and Carrie are arguing --justification of
> attack.
>
> On the other hand, attack is not justified in response to attack. So
> there is clearly many errors of thought all around, which is what
> should be expected in an environment where attack is allowed,
> supported and encouraged as a teaching tool.
>
> Clearly errors in thought can be in every mind in this situation, and
> the central notion is mental errors should be healed and corrected,
> not indefinitely perpetuated because you wish to argue Katie Dean's
> attacks are justified as a teaching tool, or creating a learning
> environment, then argue the opposite --that attack is never justified
> as a response to Katie Dean's attacks.
>
> If attack is not justified as a response to attack, then it clearly
> mental consistency demands that attack is NEVER justified. So
> fairness, equity and consistency demand that you limit your comments
> in this situation to attack is not justified, without a tacit and
> counter productive assertion that Dean's attack are somehow justified.
>
> This is counter -productive because this approach is clearly both
> counter-intuitive, and clearly a self-serving interpretation for those
> who seek some round about justification for attacking. In other words,
> an interpretation designed to perpetuate attack, perpetuate an
> environment where attack is justified, and ensure that mental
> corrections are postponed indefinitely so abuse games for the sake of
> teaching attack are never undone.
>
> Another principle here is that though attack is never justified,
> attack is the natural consequence of adhering to the thought system of
> ego, where the notions of sin, guilt punishment and attack and death
> are meaningful.
>
> Clearly the course teaches that one CANNOT give up part of the thought
> system by retaining any part of the thought system without still being
> fully in the grip of that thought system.
>
> Hence and very clearly, when you argue and teach that attack is never
> justified but yeah --sometimes justified for teaching and expressing
> gratitude, then you are doing nothing more than perpetuating belief in
> attack and thus the perpetuating the belief in the ego thought system.
>
> Clearly the way out this impasse is course based mental correction,
> where the ego thought system as a whole is completely undone, and not
> thought and not believed, and thus NOT projected.
>
> An asshole environment where attack is encouraged, made real,
> selectively denounced, and then asserted as a teaching tool, clearly
> keeps the thought system fully intact, and thus beyond correction,
> which is certainly the purpose of this newsgroup.