Agreed it is not selfish because it is a action of inactioning or an inactioning of action.
It holds no reason because it is same backwards as frontwards, it cancels itself out it has no reason and does not need to be explained.
It is just for the is of it.
No debating it.
Neither selfish or selfless.
But not all actions are that separable from inactioning, an action of actioning could possibly be as much selfish for its ends as for selfless endings.
You did not have action over whether you were tired or not it was an inaction for actions sake just as much an action for inactions sake.
Inactioning for of inactioning is non existent.

Why is it an inaction? Suppose I just lie down to take a nap. Is that an inaction?

Sorry about the break i needed to sleep, so slept, because sleep needed me inaction actioning, action inactioning.
I had a nap but didn't need it and was selfish action actioning over the body.
Body before or as self is inaction only if actioned. Whilst you are alive
It is an inaction because it is body self over self self, self because of body.
Self is action?
Body is inaction?
Body for body cannot be self
Self for self cannot be body.
It is when we think self can be more than the body or the body more than the self we meet our undoing. Selfish and selfless get over used and we end up abusing the self or the body.
There is no such thing but perhaps death that is solo inaction, all inactions are actions if you are alive, just as all actions are inactions when dealing only with the body and the need precedes the choice of self.
We think we can put choice and self above the needed solvancy of the body and inaction action, action inaction.
Self over body as self self is action action and may not really exist. But to make them we use selfish and selfless.
WE think just because we think we can become self self action action that this is what dictates the entire body of inaction action.
Body an explanation requirement unto its self, inaction action, action inaction. Eventuually inaction inaction.
Self an explanation requirement unto its body,
Over self is where selfish and selfless come in and give us avenuse for describing action actionings more solidly.
still undecided if self can be an explanation requirement unto itself???
It leaves me with the questions whether self self action action can indeed exist that does not solve the only equation we need to be and be solved because of just bein gour selfs and bodies, we all to run perfectly should be +1-1=0 this is all that is really required of us, but we have this need to continuously add to ourselves, we believe we are more because we believe we are 1+1+1+1+........................-1-1-1-1-1-...................this may be part of it but all we really need it +1-!=0 Selfless+1 or -1 only if the other is the opposite, selfish +1 or -1 only what the other is opposite. WE all end up as zero, it may be a delusion and possible misuse of the = - scale that we think we can be mor eor less than zero is where the self rules over the body or the body rules over the self.


You got the really really short version and i am still not sure of my findings.
Mainly because i keep finding more with this.
Let me know if any of this made sense.......................yet.

Not much..................

Read it again, slowly.
And if you want more indicate and i shall come back with something else, after my inaction actioning body gets what i can hear it needs, sleep..................

Notorious!!!? I thought you said it was all the fault of European colonization. Apparently it is not. So the fault is what? That Haiti is small? That it has little tourism? (Whose fault is that?) Or that it isn't India or the USA? Exactly what are you saying? Except that everything is the fault of Europeans and Texans? It is ever the fault of others, and never one's own fault. I suppose that's the infallible truth. Typical liberalism in action. The earthquake fault was not that of people of Haiti. But after 210 years of independence, that they and their government were helpless in dealing with it, that's another issue. You think it is the fault of colonization, although Haiti has been independent (and not a colony) for 210 years. Doesn't that sound implausible; even to you?

And, speaking of predictability, do you ever use an argument that is not an abusive ad hominem?

True Peace transcends time you have caught and catch something that you could not be without and even forget to wonder what it was you missed before you had it. You just have it and all else is forgotten.
Planetary peace i suspect is something quite different from True peace.
When it comes to humans being i often wonder if True peace is possible in life and no tonly in death. But hey at least we are pretending to do something abou something.

People ar enicer in these times because they wake up to the fact it could happen to them and would want also to be compensated when it will happen to them.

They care sure but it is selfish, is there any such thing as a selfless act that is not born of some form of selfishness?

The fish will all be gone soon, nothing left to teach.
All there will be left is beggars in street with no-one to give to them not because we will be without carity but becaus ethere will nothing to spare.

They were easily dismissed befor ethe disaster because they were not us.
Disaster reminds us all that we are the same and that this is happening to all of us.

I went to sleep last night because I was very sleepy. Was that selfish of me? I don't think so. Everyone else was already asleep.

Agreed it is not selfish because it is a action of inactioning or an inactioning of action.
It holds no reason because it is same backwards as frontwards, it cancels itself out it has no reason and does not need to be explained.
It is just for the is of it.
No debating it.
Neither selfish or selfless.
But not all actions are that separable from inactioning, an action of actioning could possibly be as much selfish for its ends as for selfless endings.
You did not have action over whether you were tired or not it was an inaction for actions sake just as much an action for inactions sake.
Inactioning for of inactioning is non existent.

. From the said point of view, ever conscient action is the result of one's desires, therefore ever conscient action is selfish.

)

Wonder if there is a link between our selfish conduct and the situation Haiti is in.

You think that snoring is "inaction" too? How about just breathing softly?

Quick reply;
If in sleep, in inaction actioning, action inactioning, yes snoring and light breath is inaction for actions sake action for inactions sake.
The inaction part is 'no choice', it is design, or mor esurly put it is the building that is the design or the design that is the building.
Inactionin gina ny part no matter how small or large but never alone is Not Voluntary.
You dont choose if you snore, so yes it is an inactioning action.
Now it is the over actioning or action actioning of the design and the body building that may change this body and create a new design new set of involuntaries and a new set of inaction actionings.
Shows that the self does infact have dominion over the body, but we tend to forget that the reason we are snoring is the bodies new set of rules involuntaries it has had to make for its new situation, its new imposed body because of the self impossition.
But i doubt you are trying to make this point. Shrug.

No. I am just trying to find out what you mean by "inaction". And all those other words you use, like "actionings", and an "inaction action", and "over actioning" I have never heard of, and I doubt are in the dictionary, so I cannot find out (except from you). What do they mean?

And you help me define them, thanks for that, but what do you read into or get out of them? i would be as interested in,
as what i am trying even with an ill equiped vocab to find is not always what i can show with a good one.
I was not flipping you off with my shrug, maybe just myself

---------- Post added 01-26-2010 at 08:09 PM ----------

Ask me another question, i like it when you do.
It is hard to make things known asking only the self what the self already thinks it knows.

No. I am just trying to find out what you mean by "inaction". And all those other words you use, like "actionings", and an "inaction action", and "over actioning" I have never heard of, and I doubt are in the dictionary, so I cannot find out (except from you). What do they mean?

I cannot help you define them. I don't have any idea what you think they mean. After all, you invented them.

I just read an article indicating selfish behouviour increases if you reward it with a bonus. With -our- I meant people in general. I should only speak for myself.

Of course because the body and the self comes to believe that the selfish is the selfless, and that all it needs to run itself is the selfish because there is a reward there is an addition to one of the two, especially an addition to the body, rather than a subtraction or a disolving dissoluble to both body and self at the same time. How the body runs the self is supposed to be -1+1=0
How the self runs the body should only be (if at all) +1 +selfless.?

Good discussion. I am; however, a bit disappointed to not see the usual claim that the whole event was a Government Conspiracy.

That's because the coverup is working.

Cover-ups always work, since even when they appear not to work, that is also a cover-up; one even more sinister than the one that appeared not to work. That's part of the whole cover-up. For example, when AMDs were not discovered in Iraq, that was only a part of the cover-up. It is important to know that great cover-ups cover up what is being covered up, so that even the participants in the cover-up are confused.

Good discussion. I am; however, a bit disappointed to not see the usual claim that the whole event was a Government Conspiracy.