The Central Texas Corinthian

Not much point arguing with non-sentient people

Rate this Entry
We have to start realizing that there isn't really much point discussing some subjects with non-sentient people.

Sentient, and non-sentient
. . . especially when he brought in his callers. I was reminded of Mark 8:18: "Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?" I was also reminded of this passage from one of my insomniac readings recently:
Between 1837 and 1841, it became clear to sentient observers that an apocalyptic battle was looming between North and South; or, more accurately between Union and Slavery -- a struggle that would dwarf the acrimonious debates over economic policy that had dominated the previous decade. . . The storm was still two decades off, but its headwinds were already blowing fiercely. -- Ted Widmer, Martin Van Buren, page 15.
"Sentient observers." The word sentient is defined by Websters as "able to feel, see, hear, smell, or taste." Last night brought home to me once more something that I already knew from my experiences during my Benedict Arnold period: that we are really dealing with people who are truly, willfully and irretrievably NON-sentient. We inhabit differing world views, different realities, which is why they fall back on calling us names such as "paranoid" and "gun nuts" and "insane." We are, as David Codrea has pointed out, "not of the body" as collectivists see it.
The "not of the body" link is more immediately informational, unless you want to learn what motivates the owner of Sipsey Street.
0 Thanks, 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes, 0 LOL, 0 Saddened by

Updated February 4th, 2015 at 11:02 AM by Mestral

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags