ELEMENTARY BRAIN WASHING MATERIAL...

[LMNO]

Oh, and here I thought you were joining the fray of dissecting this thing VS curiosity of where I stand on shit.

The two are intertwined.  I am dissecting this thing.  You used (as you admitted) purposefully vague and undefined terms.  These terms mean one thing to me, and quite possibly a completely different thing to you.  I cannot possible dissect your work until I know what these terms mean to you.  Otherwise, I am dissecting my own interpretation, which I don't really need you for.

I'd say in reference to the term "damned thing" it's whatever you want to call it, and as long as those who you are communicating it to get a sufficient estimation of what you are communicating, then it really doesn't matter what it's called.  Shakespeare. "A rose by any other name..."

I disagree.  If you consider "true faith" to those who are "benevolent" to be a positive, then for me to also consider it a positive, I would need to know your definitions, because I consider it to be borderline meaningless, tending towards negative. 

It is as if you were defining "rose" to mean something that smells sweet, and I was defining "rose" to mean something with thorns.  Without your context, your meaning becomes distorted.  And if you are not concerned with conveying accurate meaning, why bother posting?

Where I stand on subjective issues is completely transitory based on indiviual circumstance with history factoring in at a low percentage but increasing exponentially with repeated patterns.

Yes, we have all come to the fairly obvious conclusion that subjective opinions are subject to change dependent upon experience.  This is nothing new.

The point is, of course, to determine your definitions right now, so we can understand your message as you intend it right now.  Trust me when I say we don't hold it against anyone if they want to change their mind.  In fact, we dig on it.  So open up, man, and communicate.

[Ambassador KAOS]

As an example I will use the  Vietnamese during the war there that would lead U.S. patrols into ambushes, while "guiding" them through hostile territory. These Vietnamese were being benevolent to the U.S. Army, but were in fact brutally betraying them.(1)

My belief is that my integrety is directly linked to my choices, as I only make choices that will benefit me, which fits into my own "code if you will" then I always have Integrity. Integrity is, in essance, consistancy. I will let that point go however, what the problem is is the use of the word "right". What is "right" and "wrong" defined by?(2)

Integrity (consistancy) is a virtue that others see in individuals. It is not really something we ever see in ourselves, because we always do what we believe is right. The NAZIs did not believe they were evil after all.(3)

Honour is very much, as you say, based on reputation, but it is something that we use to measure ourselves. I made no mention of honour in my first post, because I didn't feel it neccesary to do so. Honour is again based on a personal "code". If you have Honour, as in something that others perceive in you, then they are measuring you against their own "codes", not yours. Do you really care what others think about you? (4)

The philosophy that I subscribe to is that I am enslaved. By myself. By my possessions and the flotsam and jetsam of life. But to no one else. I will look out for friends and family yes, but only when it will benefit me. Very stark yet again, but I count love as a benefit too, so it's not so bad. I also totally believe that nothing is predetermined. Therefore any obligations or duties are self imposed through my choices. (5)

I think a lot of this boils down more succintly into either "think for yourself, schmuck!" or "kill yourself, fuck the body", but thats maybe just me.(6)

1) this would be a poor choice in subordinates.  In this circumstance, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.  In circumstances of war it's best to keep a tight run ship and keep everything internal as far as governing goes.

2) integrity isn't just consistency, you have to also have to possess the wisdom to know when it's a good time to change and how to go about doing so.  Consistency can be abused to be lacking in integrity (following the letter of the law and still dissobeying the spirit of it).  Right and wrong is defined by whatever entity you are a slave to (money, boss, free will, etc.)

3)  I think some of the nazi's had a good idea that something was bad news at some point but found ways to ignore it in favor of other things tey wanted to believe (jews are evil , so they deserve to die, over killing is not nice)  Integrity can be kept track of internally if you hone your self monitoring skills and thus does not require an outside observer to exist, though without one, their would be no need for it.

4) I said honor is confused often with reputation...  Honor is possessed without outside observers in the form of self image, though honor cannot be containted to this deffinition alone.  Honor, like integrity however, is of little use without an outside observer.

5) I don't argue with that and agree with it and subscribe to it on many levels, but it's still an opinion.

6)  I'd say these points are relavent to discussion but not what I was intending to impress.  Those things apply more to the interperative aspect rather than the subject matter.

[Payne]

I'm gonna leave this to others now, he's far more experienced at it.

I'm trying to entice you into showing some subjectivity, rather than just shooting down arguments. I fail. So I go.

Good luck with this though. Once more stuff is dragged from you, by wild horses one presumes, we will have content, and we will have a ray of sunshine.

[LMNO]

2 & 3:

If one's wisdom is subjective, then one's sense of integrity is also subjective, is it not?

[Ambassador KAOS]

Oh, and here I thought you were joining the fray of dissecting this thing VS curiosity of where I stand on shit.

The two are intertwined.  I am dissecting this thing.  You used (as you admitted) purposefully vague and undefined terms.  These terms mean one thing to me, and quite possibly a completely different thing to you.  I cannot possible dissect your work until I know what these terms mean to you.  Otherwise, I am dissecting my own interpretation, which I don't really need you for.
(1)

I'd say in reference to the term "damned thing" it's whatever you want to call it, and as long as those who you are communicating it to get a sufficient estimation of what you are communicating, then it really doesn't matter what it's called.  Shakespeare. "A rose by any other name..."

I disagree.  If you consider "true faith" to those who are "benevolent" to be a positive, then for me to also consider it a positive, I would need to know your definitions, because I consider it to be borderline meaningless, tending towards negative. 

It is as if you were defining "rose" to mean something that smells sweet, and I was defining "rose" to mean something with thorns.  Without your context, your meaning becomes distorted.  And if you are not concerned with conveying accurate meaning, why bother posting?

(2)

Where I stand on subjective issues is completely transitory based on indiviual circumstance with history factoring in at a low percentage but increasing exponentially with repeated patterns.

Yes, we have all come to the fairly obvious conclusion that subjective opinions are subject to change dependent upon experience.  This is nothing new.

The point is, of course, to determine your definitions right now, so we can understand your message as you intend it right now.  Trust me when I say we don't hold it against anyone if they want to change their mind.  In fact, we dig on it.  So open up, man, and communicate.
(3)

1) didn't really see it from that angle, thanks for the explanation.

2)true, context is everything... perhaps instead of "sufficient estimation"
I should have said "elemental (or critical, depending on the nature of the topic) understanding"

3)Pardon me if I wasn't so forthright and eager to jump out onto the into the firing range again  

Generally I find for my writing, I make it a point to not be specific to allow for the subject matter to be as universally understood as possible by allowing for open interperetation of the piece; ie "it is whatever you think it means, but I wanted to show you this to see where it took you".  This is a habbit that comes from writing songs for years and not essays for this forum.  

I'll make it a point to attempt to tailor my writings here more for the readers of them to continue with the theme of playing to the audience which is far more important than if anyone actually gets what you are saying or even understands the message at all as if they really care they'll figure it out for themselves eventually in their own time.

In this fashion do you have any suggestions on how to appraoch that whole ball of wax?  It's hard for me to relate to that idea because I generally make it a habbit to undermine anything I start to take "too seriously" as soon as I spot it.

Being universal and interperative has traditionally allowed me to work primarilly on the them angle to win hearts and minds, but it seems like this approach would require something quite different.

[Ambassador KAOS]

2 & 3:

If one's wisdom is subjective, then one's sense of integrity is also subjective, is it not?

yeah but that doesn't mean people still don't play games with themselves and justify bullshit that they know to be horse hockey.

One of my more potent experiences was learning to trust in my training when I could not trust in myself.

Yourself will fail on occasion, to live up to it's own ethical standards, in my experience.

[Ambassador KAOS]

I'm gonna leave this to others now, he's far more experienced at it.

I'm trying to entice you into showing some subjectivity, rather than just shooting down arguments. I fail. So I go.

Good luck with this though. Once more stuff is dragged from you, by wild horses one presumes, we will have content, and we will have a ray of sunshine.

and I thought was being forthcoming =P

[Messier Undertree]

Alright, market research results are in for the day and Ambassador Kaos has decided to school you mother fuckers on some core values as it seems many of you either 1, got dropped on the head too many times as an adult or 2, had parents that didn't properly instill a sense of individuality in you and you've since been living your life as a sad excuse for a failed abortion.

Well, no more excuses. Sit down and shut up you moron.

Leadership acronym.  LDRSHIP.


Loyalty    Bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the Army, your unit, and other soldiers.yourself and those that provide benevolence to you.

Duty    Fulfill your obligations.

Respect    Treat people as they should be treated.  Respect everyone, be they subordinate, enemy or stupid people in large numbers.

Selfless-Service    Put the welfare of the nation, the Army, and your subordinates before your own.

Honor    Live up to all the Army values.  Go research code of the Samarai, that's where stole this shit from anyhow.

Integrity    Do what,Äôs right legally and morally... and do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law, but don't expect people to praise your integrity you frequently go on changing the rules to suit your whims.

Personal Courage    Face fear, danger, or adversity (Physical or Moral).




...that ain't no white Trash talkin redneck bear fucking hippie bullshit neither.  That's straight from Ft. Benning GA, home of the US infantry, largest corperation in America. 

Say what you will about American administration or having a military to begin with, but realize that your peace protests won't do much VS a bullet fired from any man who leads himself responsibly. 

Further, a killer with respect and values will always be superior to one who acts out in anger.

Learn this shit and free yourself from any idea of instITution; in this manner when your safety nets fall apart you'll still be able to land on your feet.

MENTAL ENDURANCE PEOPLE, MENTAL ENDURANCE...

what

[saint aini]

This rant of AKK is like AKK trying to lead a pack of flaming cats on leashes to attract moths while dosed in white gas and carrying a powder keg.

You're in Discordia now.  This is not the army.  We form connections based on merits and personal likes and dislikes.

As an ambassador, you should know that our Cabals comprise only those who agree with its Episkopos.  Therefore, represent with a more nuclear model.  This is not a city-state.

Do you really think we care about any group other than those that we choose?

Do you really think we're all that hierarchal?

Communication is only possible between equals.

If you can't be specific or if you must always be vague, WAYSA?
Srsly.  The age of the prophetess uttering nonsense and people believing it to mean something ended when you logged in here.  Go fuck with EB&G if you want to be all vague and honored as a sublime prophet rather than flamed here.  We are non-prophet and irreligious.

And one of my most potent experiences is that it's all me, babe. I am the master of my universe.  Next to Nothing I want happens unless I do it.

I do not consider you to be my equal.  So, why I am not telling you to ?

[Cain]

Umm....

[LMNO]

In this fashion do you have any suggestions on how to appraoch that whole ball of wax?  It's hard for me to relate to that idea because I generally make it a habbit to undermine anything I start to take "too seriously" as soon as I spot it.

Two options (well, more, but these are the two I'm offereing):
1. You can keep your original writing style, but answer questions about your subjective interpretations.
2. You can write in e-prime, effectively giving a heads-up to everyone that these are subjective thoughts.

Being universal and interperative has traditionally allowed me to work primarilly on the them angle to win hearts and minds, but it seems like this approach would require something quite different.

But as we already discussed, it is not universal, and it is poor communication, as it encourages solipsism.

2 & 3:

If one's wisdom is subjective, then one's sense of integrity is also subjective, is it not?

yeah but that doesn't mean people still don't play games with themselves and justify bullshit that they know to be horse hockey.

One of my more potent experiences was learning to trust in my training when I could not trust in myself.

Yourself will fail on occasion, to live up to it's own ethical standards, in my experience.

While some people play games, others ttruly believe in wisdom that may oppose yours.  The argument stands unanswered.

Also, how do you know you can trust your training?  And waht exactly is this training?

[Ambassador KAOS]

And one of my most potent experiences is that it's all me, babe. I am the master of my universe.  Next to Nothing I want happens unless I do it.

despite the rash of the rest of this post this stood out and your awareness makes me like you some...

I don't credit anyone with knowing anything they don't demonstrate.  Please excuse my lack of faith in bipedals as a whole, they usually dissappoint me.

[Ambassador KAOS]

Umm....

thanks for the article.  good read, I eat this shit up often.  I appreciate that you took the time to demonstrate those points within the article.

I have a good chunk of this going for me (always room for improvement though) but my big fail in this is that I suxxorz at the eye contact.

I compensate for this with the sunglasses and goggles for live shows.  I have studied some lie detection techniques and such which only increased my overall paranoia about how much my eyes betray of my thoughts.

Silly crutch I suppose, but shit, whatever works for now.

[Ambassador KAOS]

While some people play games, others truly believe in wisdom that may oppose yours.  The argument stands unanswered.

Also, how do you know you can trust your training?  And waht exactly is this training?

If they have beliefs that oppose mine then that doesn't make them wrong, nor do I take offense to them.  I'm excessively liberal in how people want to lead their lives so long as they are supporting it through their own blood sweat and tears.

I don't usually get cranky until they start pushing their shit on me or attempt to fuck with my methods (by this I mean, not sharing but imposing).  This applies to the usual social taboos of sex, drugs, religion and politics and probably a bunch of others.

How do I know I can trust my training?  Well, truly, trusting in anything completely gets you in a bad way in my experience.

Like most humans I am content to wander the earth with my hands on my balls and a dopey grin on my face until some shit lands in my lap.

In crisis my training usually takes the form of a pragmattic philosophy and runs down the list:

Assess the threat
Fight or flight
assess the damage
damage control
Learn form the crisis
Refortify stronger


complexity may allow for various strategies to take place within that outline.

Reacting to adversity is something I've found can only really be meditated on for so long and quickly you will reach a point that trial by fire is the only way to advance this skill...

ie, booklearning can not take you all the way on this one unlike many other skills that can be achieved to near mastery from booklearning alone (although hands on is most always preffered for expedience and experimentation that includes variables like potential crisis).

[LMNO]

With all due respect, you post didn't answer the current questions at hand.

1.  If wisdom is subjective, and intergrity is subjective, then those who believe in their personal wisdom, and keep their personal integrity itact are ok in you book, right? 

And while there are those who knowingly delude and/or try to rationalize their lack (or don't follow) their personal wisdom and break their personal intergrity, there are those who believe and keep intact, even if their personal wisdom and integrity are different than yours.

And you have said that you do not take offense to that.

So then, you would be ok with those SS troops that believed their wisdom and kept their integrity intact?

2. While not trusting in anything completely, how do you mostly know you can trust your training?