Jon G.

Evolution's purpose for stress is to irrate the animal to fight. In the
process of fighting, the animal either gets stronger or dies.

A psychological virus that serves as a source of stress may span many
generations. Like most viruses, it is indifferent whether its host lives or
dies. Perhaps the virus causes stress in order to feed off the new growth
that its host must go through to survive the stress. If so, the host must
constantly fight, but never gets ahead.

Several years ago I wanted to make my dad a leather wallet, so I asked him
how he wanted it made. He wanted a cross on it with "Praise the Lord!"
showing. I decided to brand in his name, "Victor over the Devil" hidded in
the fold. I laced it together and gave it to him.

My dad loves that wallet. He hasn't gotten another one since I gave it to
him.

Every pearl starts out with an grain of sand that gets stuck in the clam and
irritates it. It can't get it out, so it smooths it over to make it easier
to live with and forms a pearl.

The highest standards of morality are humanly impossible to live up to.
They can't be refuted, and they are irritating to the pleasures of common
vices. The grain of sand is something like a man's conscience. The pearl
he forms around it makes his conscience less irritating to forsake it.

But the grain of sand is indifferent over whether its host lives or dies.

I fought that man for 25 years, and it still wrecked the most of my adult
life.

The conscience is to no credit to the glory of the pearl that formed by its
defiance. Neither is the pearl to no credit to the glory of the conscience
that it annealed. Neither would care less if the other were dead.

So build on the hard work of others, stepping on them to do so, and turning
around and ruining them to get full credit, but it won't work for a pearl.
You can't get the grain of sand out of the center of it and ruining it to
get full credit, without ruining the pearl.

But you can get the grain of sand out by ruining the pearl. Then you'll
HAVE your "highest standards of morality," FINALLY. The price for it will
be the death of the species. What, then, will be the use of morality, with
nobody left to apply it to?

I have given my father some thought. I would prefer him remain too illusive
for me to understand, but for the part of him that affected me, I think his
anger came from blaming me, but blaming me for his failings to his own
conscience.

m II

Jon G. wrote:

> "I would prefer him remain too illusive
for me to understand"


The word is 'Elusive', you pseudo intellectual fraud. 'Him remain' is
the second error in that sentence. Your whole concept of grammar and
what constitutes a lucid presentation is deeply flawed.





mike