For Kelly Jones

[Pam Seeback]

Reading this thread from start to this point only strengthens my awareness that pure logic and pure reason [thinking void of any attachment] is an impossible state to attain as long as one is aware of their flesh mortality. The ad hominem attacks by those who claim to be enlightenment of logic and reason are evidence enough for me of the substance of my wisdom.

By ad hominem, I am not referring only to the in-your-face projectile vomiting of foul nouns, adverbs and adjectives that appear all too frequently on this board, but to every and all interpretations, good or evil of another's state of mind or believed intent as if one knows what it IS. The putting of others into categories to suit one's worldview, to me, has nothing to do with wisdom of the infinite, and everything to do with one's awareness of, and consequently one's fear of, one's own finiteness of flesh, ego included. This is why the grandest delusion of all is that awareness of the infinite and awareness of the finite [dualities] are one and the same awareness. It is my observation that infinite evils are committed in the name of good while under the spell of this delusion. The pattern of thinking being "my finiteness is also my infinity, ergo, my words are truth."

A truly wise man realizes that once he becomes aware of the infinity of himself, his finite thoughts begin their path of being swallowed up, or absorbed into the silence of this awareness. This is why a truly wise man of the infinite speaks only of the finite from this vertical [transcendent] perspective, and why he does not see any enlightenment in the horizontal ping-ponging, mud-slinging of finite [mortal] thoughts as if they "are wisdom of the infinite."

[Diebert van Rhijn]

This is why the grandest delusion of all is that awareness of the infinite and awareness of the finite [dualities] are one and the same awareness.

As a rule the biggest 'evils' and 'wrongs' we perceive are a reflection of our own greatest attachment, our own greatest "no-go area". Why are you so afraid of the very notion of your "awareness of the infinite" being essentially the good old same awareness of dualities? There's no greater truth and liberation than discovering and embracing this fully. It's also the greatest hurdle.

[Cahoot]

Here’s a fascinating and controversial essay. Many here are probably already aware of it.

The Myth of Mental Illness

It reminds me of "anti-psychiatrists" like R.D. Laing, John W. Perry, Jan Foudraine ("Messiah of the schizophrenics") and perhaps also Joseph Campbell. It's a complex subject and certainly psychiatry has won the argument for now but perhaps only because the increased instability of the modern mind.

One comment on something in the Szasz article:

Our only rational means for lightening it is more understanding, and appropriate action based on such understanding. The main alternative lies in acting as though the burden were not what in fact we perceive it to be and taking refuge in an outmoded theological view of man. In the latter view, man does not fashion his life and much of his world about him, but merely lives out his fate in a world created by superior beings.

This is a little bit in conflict with the rest of his article as he implies that our fate (mental order-disorder) is related to the presence of "personal, social, and ethical conflicts". But what is the difference between invoking super-structures and larger-than-human entities like the 'social' and the 'ethical' around us, and something like "superior beings". Only a name change?

One is still not having personal responsibility when we portray ourselves as victim of such circumstance. What is missing is understanding of the maximum response-ability coming with "no-self" and no "free" will.

To address the highlighted question:

I think Szasz is proposing that the lack of a difference puts the concept of mental illness on par with theology.

Responsibility is a key term he emphasizes.

Individual responsibility in terms of entities such as the ethical means accepting that individual human relations are inherently fraught with difficulties such as disharmony and conflict, and dealing with these difficulties is the responsibility of the individual human.

Responsibility in terms of theological superior beings means abnegating the responsibility for behavior to the theological superior being, in much the same way that responsibility for behavior can be abnegated to mental illness.

[Dennis Mahar]

Pam,

The putting of others into categories to suit one's worldview

And yet your post itself was composed of categories and properties.

How does thought relate to Reality?

If thoughting is effectively the naming of an identity,
and an identity is known to lack inherent existence.

Is any thought useful?

[Pam Seeback]

Pam: This is why the grandest delusion of all is that awareness of the infinite and awareness of the finite [dualities] are one and the same awareness.

Diebert: As a rule the biggest 'evils' and 'wrongs' we perceive are a reflection of our own greatest attachment, our own greatest "no-go area". Why are you so afraid of the very notion of your "awareness of the infinite" being essentially the good old same awareness of dualities? There's no greater truth and liberation than discovering and embracing this fully. It's also the greatest hurdle.

Diebert, what you are asking me above is perfect example of you projecting your belief on me. Rather than giving me your impersonal argument as to why what I am saying you believe to be in error, you resort to making the assumption that I am afraid of a notion that I clearly stated was not a notion that I held to be true wisdom. Also, where is there enlightenment in the using of the world "essentially?" Either awareness of the infinite is the same as "good old same awareness of dualities" or it is not.

There is no great truth or liberation in speaking freely what is on one's mind such as what was demonstrated in this thread. This is childish, ego-saturated name-calling, plain and simple. The greater truth is in exercising self discipline and keeping to oneself one's self righteous opinion of another's intent and dealing with the ideas place forward, and only the ideas. This ongoing sacrifice of not allowing one's biases out into the world is true reconciliation of the dualities unto spirit. True reconciliation of the dualities and the greatest hurdle.

[jufa]

This is why the grandest delusion of all is that awareness of the infinite and awareness of the finite [dualities] are one and the same awareness.

As a rule the biggest 'evils' and 'wrongs' we perceive are a reflection of our own greatest attachment, our own greatest "no-go area". Why are you so afraid of the very notion of your "awareness of the infinite" being essentially the good old same awareness of dualities? There's no greater truth and liberation than discovering and embracing this fully. It's also the greatest hurdle.

There is no greater lie than the misunderstanding of the truth of what is expressed by one. Why is this jufa? Because "it is not what one is aware of that matters, but how one interprets that which they are aware of." This voids all "as a rule" generalization and boils down to what one has been influenced by. This means whatsosever has been influential to a person becomes an individual responsibility to go beyond written words and begin demonstrating the activity of truth of what one have experienced beyond reading and absorbing some ones else's experience as if it were their own.

Why? because when one expresses their truth of experience, it plants a seed for growth which will eventually leads the way for the collective whole to become responsible individually for a transcending transition from darkness of the self projected images the human mind projects, to illumination of "Christ in you the hope of glory." This lesson revealed and utilized can then begin to open the human mind to the lesson the Teacher is teaching.

The lesson the Teacher is teaching is that for the man of flesh to be the instrument of Spirit, whether he interprets it to be human or beyond, he must comprehend he is the Teacher teaching himself from/by the experience of the good, the evil, and the spirituality of his living and comprehension that living is not collective and, that man is the student learning what he is being taught by himself.

Now being the Teacher and the Student are one and the same, then the teacher whose teaching, and the student being taught must become a unit of one objective/subjective [female/male-male/female] will, if truth is to be the substance and essence of the Spirit of the individuality of the collective whole.

This reality will allow mankind to transcend the pits, and maze of their own human mentality, and rise unto the infinity of their Being; the Christ. Only this reality will keep mother/father/expression -off-springs of equal order- in "the way, the truth, and the life." To take any other path will be abused by the ignorance of the beholder. This is blaspheming the Holy Spirit of the life given by Life to all equally.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Pam Seeback]

Pam,

Pam: The putting of others into categories to suit one's worldview

And yet your post itself was composed of categories and properties.

How does thought relate to Reality?

If thoughting is effectively the naming of an identity,
and an identity is known to lack inherent existence.

Is any thought useful?

Dennis the use of impersonal, finite categories or concepts purposed to accomplish their transcendence is not at all of the same intent as the ad hominem attacks such as were used in this thread.

In answering your questions, I can only give you the wisdom of my observations. You are free to relate to these observations by way of your observations. This, to me, is honest wisdom, absent of self righteous 'conjecturing' or guessing [often disguised here as compassionate 'ego busting'] as to the intent or mindset of the other.

In this realm of flesh or sense awareness, of attachment, thought of the activity of repentance and sacrifice is useful as a sword to keep one focused on, or obedient to, one's awareness of the emptiness of form. This sword of thought is purposed to stop one from using speech that makes claim that form contains truth or is truth.

There is the agreed-upon, sense-based thought reality for the sake of communication [emptiness of imagined form] and there is the permanent thought reality [permanent spirit forms or principles] that is the life of the awareness that allows one to agree that a tree is a tree and a rock is a rock.

[Dennis Mahar]

Pam,
What you are supplying us with is Identities, just as others are.

What we have to look at is:
The Principle of Identity.
A=A.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

The ad hominem attacks by those who claim to be enlightenment of logic and reason are evidence enough for me of the substance of my wisdom.

I'm pretty sure that Kelly has not claimed to be enlightened. If prince has claimed to be enlightened, he was either being snarky or he was seriously mistaken.

If there were people who claimed to be enlightened of logic and reason, and said people attacked by ad hominem, that says more about the claims of enlightenment than about your wisdom.

Reading this thread from start to this point only strengthens my awareness that pure logic and pure reason [thinking void of any attachment] is an impossible state to attain as long as one is aware of their flesh mortality.

None of this follows. This thread does show some unenlightened behavior - but you must have missed some enlightened behavior based on unattached logic, reason, and non-attachment - like Dan turning this into an illustration of causality rather than just booting prince out on his heavily worn welcome mat.

Logic is only the beginning of wisdom, but it is an irreplaceable foundation. Non-attachment makes logic and reason achievable. Even if one lives a life generally of emotion and attachment, in order to employ logic and reason at all, one must set aside one's emotions and attachments for that moment. If one does not, any resemblance to making logical or reasonable choices will be little different from a result of chance.

By ad hominem, I am not referring only to the in-your-face projectile vomiting of foul nouns, adverbs and adjectives that appear all too frequently on this board, but to every and all interpretations, good or evil of another's state of mind or believed intent as if one knows what it IS.

Including correct interpretations? Correct or incorrect interpretations are not ad hominems, they are conclusions. Coming to correct conclusions happens most often when using good reasoning skills, and good reasoning skills are facilitated by avoiding logical fallacies. Ad hominems are only one kind of logical fallacy. This site can provide a good review of logical fallacies.

The putting of others into categories to suit one's worldview, to me, has nothing to do with wisdom of the infinite, and everything to do with one's awareness of, and consequently one's fear of, one's own finiteness of flesh, ego included.

Not quite sure I know what you mean here. If you are talking about categorizing people based not on reality, but to satisfy one's preconceived ideas - that is not logical. You're right that it has nothing to do with wisdom of the infinite - so its placement here bears resemblance to a straw man argument.

This is why the grandest delusion of all is that awareness of the infinite and awareness of the finite [dualities] are one and the same awareness.

I'm not sure what awareness you are referring to here. All things are Ultimately One, and dualities and the concept of dualities are parts of the Totality - but awareness of dualities is not the same as awareness of the Infinite. A thing is only what it is. A=A

This is why the grandest delusion of all is that awareness of the infinite and awareness of the finite [dualities] are one and the same awareness. It is my observation that infinite evils are committed in the name of good while under the spell of this delusion. The pattern of thinking being "my finiteness is also my infinity, ergo, my words are truth."

Illogical thinking does lead to illogical actions.

A truly wise man realizes that once he becomes aware of the infinity of himself, his finite thoughts begin their path of being swallowed up, or absorbed into the silence of this awareness. This is why a truly wise man of the infinite speaks only of the finite from this vertical [transcendent] perspective, and why he does not see any enlightenment in the horizontal ping-ponging, mud-slinging of finite [mortal] thoughts as if they "are wisdom of the infinite."

It seems here that you are participating in, as you put it "putting of others into categories to suit one's worldview."

[Pam Seeback]

Pam,
What you are supplying us with is Identities, just as others are.

What we have to look at is:
The Principle of Identity.
A=A.

I am not supplying you with identities as other are. As for you wanting me to look at The Principle of Identity being A = A, I bring forward a previous post of yours addressed to prince:

Normally you would treat that statement like this:
Kelly Jones labelling me as "mentally ill'' = Kelly Jones labelling me as "mentally ill''.

Thereby refuting the object.
realising it lacked inherent existence, is empty.

Why attach this time?

If truly you could see that form is empty, then there would be no labelling it "mental illness." Or any other label. This is why there is no wisdom in saying, as you did "Kelly Jones labelling me as "mentally ill" = Kelly Jones labelling me as "mentally ill." This is meaningless, because if Kelly did label prince as being mentally ill [and I'm not sure that is what happened], then she must have believed what she was saying was the truth. Or why else say it? I do not see it as the truth, because Kelly does not know the true mental status of prince. It is my observation that no one truly knows such a thing about anyone, not even themselves.

The wisdom of A = A applies only to one's one united truth of oneself, and cannot apply, at any time, to one's opinion of another. If Kelly believes prince is mentally ill, this is her truth, which is really a belief, but it is not truth, so should not be said.

[Dennis Mahar]

What I meant was:

In the past prince has suffered the projections of others upon his personhood.
He has dealt with those projections thusly:

Insult=Insult...A=A...Identity.

Identity has no inherent existence.

Insult cannot apply.

I just asked him why he was attached to 'insult' this time.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

the use of impersonal, finite categories or concepts purposed to accomplish their transcendence is not at all of the same intent as the ad hominem attacks such as were used in this thread.

Why are you putting so much significance on ad hominems between Kelly and prince? Kelly and prince engaged in ad hominems, and from that you seem to believe this somehow vindicates your position that it is impossible to set one's emotions aside and be logical.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

The wisdom of A = A applies only to one's one united truth of oneself, and cannot apply, at any time, to one's opinion of another.

That is not correct. A=A means that a thing is exactly what it is. One's specific opinion of another is simply that. If someone named Joe held the opinion that you were a grape, then that would mean that Joe held the opinion that you were a grape. It would not mean that you were a grape. You would still be Pam. If anyone believed that you were a grape merely because Joe held that opinion, that would be a violation of A=A.

Joe opines that Pam is a grape = Joe opines that Pam is a grape
A = A

[Pam Seeback]

Logic is only the beginning of wisdom, but it is an irreplaceable foundation. Non-attachment makes logic and reason achievable. Even if one lives a life generally of emotion and attachment, in order to employ logic and reason at all, one must set aside one's emotions and attachments for that moment. If one does not, any resemblance to making logical or reasonable choices will be little different from a result of chance.

This is true. The wisdom that comes out of logic and reason is that there is a foundation of invisible thought that gives rise to logic and reason. Realizing this wisdom allows one to transcend the wisdom of logic and reason.

None of this follows. This thread does show some unenlightened behavior - but you must have missed some enlightened behavior based on unattached logic, reason, and non-attachment - like Dan turning this into an illustration of causality rather than just booting prince out on his heavily worn welcome mat

It is not true that none of this follows if this thread does show some unenlightened behavior. I do agree, however, that Dan was a voice of reason.

movingalways: The putting of others into categories to suit one's worldview, to me, has nothing to do with wisdom of the infinite, and everything to do with one's awareness of, and consequently one's fear of, one's own finiteness of flesh, ego included.

Elisabeth: Not quite sure I know what you mean here. If you are talking about categorizing people based not on reality, but to satisfy one's preconceived ideas - that is not logical. You're right that it has nothing to do with wisdom of the infinite - so its placement here bears resemblance to a straw man argument.

Let me try to clarify. As I mentioned earlier, there are many here who believe that the finite, the mortal, and the infinite, the immortal, are one and the same thing, which leaves one open to the fear of their mortality, which causes them to remain attached to their mortal thoughts, believing them to be truths, such as "he is a moron" or "she is mentally ill", etc.

I'm not sure what awareness you are referring to here. All things are Ultimately One, and dualities and the concept of dualities are parts of the Totality - but awareness of dualities is not the same as awareness of the Infinite. A thing is only what it is. A=A

Yes, all things are Ultimately One, but it is the enlightened or awake or aware man, who yet remains under the spell of believing in two things, that is tasked to make the two, one.

It is not my comprehension that dualities are parts of the Totality, as if the Totality is a jig-saw puzzle, but rather, that awareness of duality is a temporal-spatial emanation or extension of the Totality. This is how it is 'made into one' by the enlightened man by way of reconciling this emanation to its Source, the Totality or Infinite. This is how one can discern awareness of dualism from awareness of the Infinite. The first is awareness of the senses, or the creature emanation as identified by Eckhart, the second is awareness of spirit, that which is the silent 'spark' of life or light within one's conscious. The Kingdom of Heaven or God within.

It seems here that you are participating in, as you put it "putting of others into categories to suit one's worldview."

As I said to Dennis, I must use categories, and I do have a worldview, but I do not give finite [worldly] advice or make finite [worldly] assumptions about personalities on this board. I question their wisdom, yes, but not their personalities, which I recognize as being the very thing that needs to be detached.

[Pam Seeback]

What I meant was:

In the past prince has suffered the projections of others upon his personhood.
He has dealt with those projections thusly:

Insult=Insult...A=A...Identity.

Identity has no inherent existence.

Insult cannot apply.

I just asked him why he was attached to 'insult' this time.

Thanks for the explanation.

Am I correct in comprehending that it is the belief of 'insult hurlers' on this board that they are helping others overcome their attachment to form in the hurling of insults? If so, the deeper wisdom to me is to constantly and consistently address the emptiness of form when one is speaking, to cut to the chase, so to speak. Why use the whip on the back, when one already has the wisdom that the whip and the back are empty of identity? Also, if one is 'on to the game' of ego-smashing, is not the game then made redundant?

And if one does not have this wisdom of the emptiness of the whip and the back, I cannot believe that more harm than good is done by using the whip on one's back.

[Pam Seeback]

the use of impersonal, finite categories or concepts purposed to accomplish their transcendence is not at all of the same intent as the ad hominem attacks such as were used in this thread.

Why are you putting so much significance on ad hominems between Kelly and prince? Kelly and prince engaged in ad hominems, and from that you seem to believe this somehow vindicates your position that it is impossible to set one's emotions aside and be logical.

My referencing of Kelly and prince was to clarify some points with Dennis.

The ad hominems that I was referencing in my original post were those of all who indulged in such unenlightened behavior in this thread.

My intent was to point out that wisdom goes beyond setting aside one's emotions and being logical, to hopefully breaking this spell in the belief that logic and reason, the male principle or male psyche, is the arrival point of enlightenment. This thread seemed to be the perfect catalyst for making this point.

[Pam Seeback]

The wisdom of A = A applies only to one's one united truth of oneself, and cannot apply, at any time, to one's opinion of another.

That is not correct. A=A means that a thing is exactly what it is. One's specific opinion of another is simply that. If someone named Joe held the opinion that you were a grape, then that would mean that Joe held the opinion that you were a grape. It would not mean that you were a grape. You would still be Pam. If anyone believed that you were a grape merely because Joe held that opinion, that would be a violation of A=A.

Joe opines that Pam is a grape = Joe opines that Pam is a grape
A = A

What you are saying agrees with what I am saying, at least by my understanding. As I stated to Dennis, the use of A = A seems, to me, to be a circular path of reasoning. The deeper wisdom of Joe opining that Pam is a grape is that Joe must know what being a grape is in order to believe Pam is a grape, which makes Joe a grape, not Pam.

[Dennis Mahar]

Insult, ad hominem, wild accusation, grandstanding, barnstorming...
they're just commitments people make for their personhood.
people commit to shit like that.
go figure.

It's caused, lacks inherency, can change.

[Dennis Mahar]

As I stated to Dennis, the use of A = A seems, to me, to be a circular path of reasoning. The deeper wisdom of Joe opining that Pam is a grape is that Joe must know what being a grape is in order to believe Pam is a grape, which makes Joe a grape, not Pam.

Pam=Pam...A=A
Joe=Joe...A=A
grape=grape...A=A

Pam=grape...A=B
Joe=grape...A=B

there's no wisdom in mixing up the ontologies.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I believe that the most useful application of A=A here is to realize that Joe's opinion is Joe's opinion, which does not make it a fact. That is where many logical slips happen. Joe might think that you are a grape, but that is unlikely to confuse you about whether or not you are a grape (though it could). The bigger concern is when Sally walks up, and has to decide whether or not you are a grape. When she hears Joe opine that you are a grape, if Sally is logical she will know that it is Joe's opinion that you are a grape. If Sally's logic skill are not what they should be, Sally might also believe that you are a grape, merely because Joe said so.

If Sally only has logic and Joe's opinion at her disposal, she won't know whether or not you are a grape, but at least she will know that she does not know that, and that all she knows is that Joe's opinion is that you are a grape. If Sally knows what a grape is, she may then be able to compare you to her knowledge of what grapes are, and be able to then deduce that you are not a grape.

If you, Sally, and a grape are in the same room, and Sally is instructed to eat the grape, Sally does not have to be a grape herself to know which of you to eat.

Sally may not know what it is like to be a grape, but even if Sally were a grape herself, she still would not know what each grape's experience is. She would only know what it was like to be Grape Sally - assuming, of course, that she was a self-aware grape. This is also A=A. Grape Sally = Grape Sally. Grape Sally is not the same as just any other grape.

All grapes may have a certain set of characteristics that allow us to categorize them as grapes, and certain grapes may be of a similar enough kind and condition that for general purposes they can be considered equivalent, but that does not mean that any one grape actually IS another grape.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

There is no greater lie than the misunderstanding of the truth of what is expressed by one.

All lie is misunderstanding of truth.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Pam: This is why the grandest delusion of all is that awareness of the infinite and awareness of the finite [dualities] are one and the same awareness.

Diebert: As a rule the biggest 'evils' and 'wrongs' we perceive are a reflection of our own greatest attachment, our own greatest "no-go area". Why are you so afraid of the very notion of your "awareness of the infinite" being essentially the good old same awareness of dualities? There's no greater truth and liberation than discovering and embracing this fully. It's also the greatest hurdle.

Diebert, what you are asking me above is perfect example of you projecting your belief on me.

Or it is a perfect example of you projecting the act of projecting on me. This doesn't help.

Now if you'd have asked if my sense of "our own greatest attachment" would be not in itself a reflection of attachment, it would have been more helpful. Because indeed that sense cannot be else but also a reflection on my own sense of attachment. But it remains consistent!

Also, where is there enlightenment in the using of the world "essentially?" Either awareness of the infinite is the same as "good old same awareness of dualities" or it is not.

One can be aware of many, including but not limited to one.

There is no great truth or liberation in speaking freely what is on one's mind such as what was demonstrated in this thread. This is childish, ego-saturated name-calling, plain and simple.

If it's not for you then step over it and let it go. Possibly you're making too much out of it because it irks you somehow.

[Dennis Mahar]

Pam,

As I stated to Dennis, the use of A = A seems, to me, to be a circular path of reasoning.

That is the deficient understanding arrived at by so many people of the importance of A=A.

From Liebniz:
The great foundation of mathematics is the principle of contradiction or of identity, that is to say, that a statement cannot be true and false at the same time and that thus A is A, and cannot be not A. And this single principle is enough to prove the whole of arithmetic and the whole of geometry, that is to say all mathematical principles.

But in order to proceed from mathematics to physics another principle is necessary, as I have observed in my Theodicy, that is, the principle of a sufficient reason, that nothing happens without there being a reason why it should be thus rather than otherwise.

This is why Archimedes, wishing to proceed from mathematics to physics in his book On Equilibrium, was compelled to make use of a particular case of the great principle of sufficient reason; he takes it for granted that if there is a balance in which everything is the same on both sides, and if, further, two equal weights be hung on the two ends of the balance, the whole will remain at rest. This is because there is no reason why one side should go down rather than the other. Now by this principle alone, to wit, that there must be a sufficient reason why things are thus rather than otherwise, I prove the existence of the Divinity.

It's doubtless reality.
'a thing is itself'
'it's caused'.

[Kelly Jones]

Sorry for not replying to any comments, if that was expected of me. I've been away from the computer almost five days, including volunteering at Cygnet folk festival.

Basically, I sum the issue up like this. If someone gets agitated by participating in a metaphysical discussion (when participants are simply telling reality as seen) to the point where their reasoning fades out, and they do this consistently, then there's a reason why for that irrationality - namely, psychological blockages. That's where the ad hominem is a reasonable response.

Regards prince, he has openly shared some details about his childhood traumas, which he hasn't yet learnt to overcome. There's nothing to be ashamed of, in any intrinsic way, for that. But such a situation creates in him a mental illness, being damaged emotions. It's not a psychiatric disease. More like a chronic cold, something that could be cured. There's no value judgment in saying that it is a mental illness. It's simply a situation, one which can be changed. It's not doing anyone any favours to ignore the situation, especially when it can be overcome with a bit of fearlessness, simplicity, and acceptance.

It is not an unreasonable ad hominem by any means, because it's too characteristic of prince to give agitated emotional reactions without supported reasoning. I'm not the only one on the forum who seriously wants prince to lift his game. If he isn't interested in doing so, one has to ask why.


.

[jufa]

There is no greater lie than the misunderstanding of the truth of what is expressed by one.

All lie is misunderstanding of truth.

Now this is a lie and it is not because of a misunderstyanding. It is a lie because it is a deliberate statement which would appear to be right, but is totally wrong.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa