Re: the language of relatives . . .

[Guest guest]

>>I didn't find any appropriate word

[label] that can correctly describe

main negative tendencies of my wife.

>>Because, I haven't found any other

" label " , for the purpose of this

message; I will call her " bad " !

>>My wife is " bad " ...

>>As...

>>Alaska is Cold!

Of course, it is not absolutely true

that my wife is not " bad " nor it is

absolutely true that Alaska is cold!

Yet, it is perhaps; ok to use these

words to describe " general "

characteristics of these in " relative "

terms!

There may be really no " cold " or

" warm " in absolute terms... but, only

some variation in temperature. Some

place might be 28 degree F and other

might 92 degree F. Further, a place

like India too might be cold few days

and Alaska too might have some warm

days! Yet, in the common language that

often talks in terms of " relatives " ; it

is ok to call Alaska cold and India

warm! Especially, if this " information "

is not causing any pain...

Scientists say that in reality, there

is nothing like dark or bright... but,

only varying degree of light! Yet,

knowing that we still call nights dark

and days bright and we use that

" information " to prepare " alternative "

light source for the " dark " nights!

Bottom line...

As we speak of " dark " and " bright "

only based on degrees of light and

" cold " and " warm " only based degrees of

" heat " it might be " ok " to " label "

people " bad " or " good " , " selfish " and

" unselfish " , " kind " and " cruel " simply

based on the degrees of certain

qualities knowing fully well that all

of us might contain those qualities in

varying degrees. I find it especially

" ok " if I use it only as " information "

to plan and prepare and not to 'argue

against What_Is' and create pain!

[And, if I also understand that in reality,

I can only talk in terms of the degrees

of grey [relative] not really in black

and white [absolute]...]

[Guest guest]

please buy a diary!

or get a good layer and divorce your wife

or go to a shrink

just leave us alone

thank you, Tami

>

>

>

> >>I didn't find any appropriate word

> [label] that can correctly describe

> main negative tendencies of my wife.

>

> >>Because, I haven't found any other

> " label " , for the purpose of this

> message; I will call her " bad " !

>

> >>My wife is " bad " ...

>

> >>As...

>

> >>Alaska is Cold!

>

> Of course, it is not absolutely true

> that my wife is not " bad " nor it is

> absolutely true that Alaska is cold!

> Yet, it is perhaps; ok to use these

> words to describe " general "

> characteristics of these in " relative "

> terms!

>

> There may be really no " cold " or

> " warm " in absolute terms... but, only

> some variation in temperature. Some

> place might be 28 degree F and other

> might 92 degree F. Further, a place

> like India too might be cold few days

> and Alaska too might have some warm

> days! Yet, in the common language that

> often talks in terms of " relatives " ; it

> is ok to call Alaska cold and India

> warm! Especially, if this " information "

> is not causing any pain...

>

> Scientists say that in reality, there

> is nothing like dark or bright... but,

> only varying degree of light! Yet,

> knowing that we still call nights dark

> and days bright and we use that

> " information " to prepare " alternative "

> light source for the " dark " nights!

>

> Bottom line...

>

> As we speak of " dark " and " bright "

> only based on degrees of light and

> " cold " and " warm " only based degrees of

> " heat " it might be " ok " to " label "

> people " bad " or " good " , " selfish " and

> " unselfish " , " kind " and " cruel " simply

> based on the degrees of certain

> qualities knowing fully well that all

> of us might contain those qualities in

> varying degrees. I find it especially

> " ok " if I use it only as " information "

> to plan and prepare and not to 'argue

> against What_Is' and create pain!

>

>

> [And, if I also understand that in reality,

> I can only talk in terms of the degrees

> of grey [relative] not really in black

> and white [absolute]...]

>