The best I can say is that I felt your words to be entirely too comfortable and thought playing with them with a tiny bit of aggression might lead somewhere meaningful for us.
My problem now is to figure out where to begin before I drown in a cascade of thoughts. "The best I can say is that I felt" This says to me that you, like me, are open to assessment of this or that context on the basis of inclinations that appear from a source that is not necessarily accessible to language and about which I don't know any real scientific language I can think of to name.
"entirely too comfortable" This is even more difficult to deal with. 1. I feel that is exactly the point I was trying to make, that any judgement we settle on can clarify and blind at the same time. We want to express our feelings as thoughts to appease a stress that comes from not knowing, but, in my opinion at least, thinking we know and not really knowing prevents further searching and is the greatest obstacle to learning the truth I can think of, other, of course, to not really wanting to know, and which makes them intimately connected.
2. If I want to take this seriously I have to ask myself what is it you think I am too comfortable about. Before you asked me if I was calling you a liar I had posted once to you and also had commented on his remark as you did. My inclination is to assume you were commenting on my post to you rather than my post to him. Is that correct?
You had said: "If that is true, then I say we shouldn't have politicians at all. But I don't think that is true, either. Do you truly believe it? If so, what are you doing about your tyrannical government?"
I then tried to suggest that I could see truth not only in what he had said but also in your challenge to him. I had previously also asked Greenman to consider another perspective.
In his corner I put, "I think Greenman is right. I think most politicians perform many actions for political effect. Here in "The problem I have is that I believe that opposites resolve at a higher level of understanding" I implied that you have a corner also namely: "Self hate will turn thought into cunning but not everything people may hope to achieve has always to be bad." I was suggesting you were correct in suggesting, and I may be wrong in assuming this was your intent, but suggesting, as I thought you did, that he was being too negative. Was this where I was too comfortable? He did say most and nobody in my opinion should be too sure of that but in our culture and with the assumptions we commonly make, it fits with the beliefs of many I would say. And depending on what we mean by 'political effect' it would apply universally simply as definitional of what politics is.
At any rate, and if the last thought I just expressed is true, then your remark, "If that is true, then I say we shouldn't have politicians at all." is an impossibility and not something he was suggesting.
Here again, the discussion as to whether we should have politicians opens the door to so many thoughts I just won't go there.
Finally, with regard to: "a tiny bit of aggression might lead somewhere meaningful for us.", if you will believe me, is actually something I considered and was my best hope. But I had recently made some comments on some of your posts and to which you did not reply. The person who taught me the most important things I have ever been exposed to, at least in my opinion, told me that the day I trusted him would be the day I was cured. I may not really be able to trust but I do have some idea as to why I can't which gives me some small ability to separate my negative doubts from fact. I try to know my negative feelings without intellectually assuming they are real. Sadly, how we feel IS our deepest truth, as I see it.
So, I would bet I am too comfortable about many things, none of which I would welcome, so let me lie. Let me ask, then. what I am too comfortable about, as if I were open to hearing?