Source of Synchronicity

I went ahead and edited to say: Furthermore.

I am comfortable with the concept of co-incidence or coincidence. I understand theological arguments against the term. I also see much evidence that God allows nature to take nature’s course as He made it to do. In the end, I am not willing to discuss or consider God’s direct intervention in a great number of things that are hideous beyond belief. I am not willing “try to learn” from such experiences of mine and others. As I mentioned earlier:

The evil comes with the good for the believer and the unbeliever. They are synchronous. I decline to interpret beyond that.

Anyone is welcome to see differently.
If the Lord wants me to, He will make it clear himself.

3 Likes

That is not totally unreminiscent of these:

ETA: I’m not the cold analytical guy that may sound like and I’m not playing a game pretending to be something I’m not. Some might recall that I’m one who gets damp eyes pretty much every day when I’m watching the evening news and have to get a fresh tissue.

He might even use a coincidence to do it.

What exactly is the difference of understanding?

It’s like arguing over when short hair becomes long hair.

1 Like

Or the difference between the timing and placing of a mutation in DNA compared with the timing and placing of a Turkish translator.

1 Like

And with an infinite potential of worlds, one with and without that translator are possible… at least that’s how some people claim it’s supposed to work.

1 Like

How do I feel about “Doing Stalin in four?” Rather confused.
“doing Stalin in four” is unclear to me. So many ways to break it up. Maybe it’s a colloquialism I’m not grasping? Hmm.

“Doing Stalin” could be imitating him in some way; doing him over (aka mugging him).
“in four” – could be 4/4 time; in a group of four; in four acts; in four minutes; in four hours.
This part is currently impenetrable to me.

How do I (while deliberately exploiting the vagueness of “you” in your question) feel about “Through me. Now that’s a fact.”?

It’s to be expected; feeling is irrelevant. Of course you are the puppet master of any interpretation of the confluence of abstracted persons you encounter here and the way you understand what we have attempted to express. As are all of us. Your reception of the representations of ourselves and our thoughts is entirely a function of your self.
Any meaning you give to our “being here” at the same time, same forum, etc, is entirely up to you.

2 Likes

Four person to person interactions. I can do it in three face to face. By two routes. Like anyone in Hollywood needs two for Kevin Bacon.

1 Like

Three face to face! Impressive. Two can be overwhelming to me.
Edited days later……
@Klax, I think I understand differently and rightly, what you mean by “doing Stalin.” Comprehension can come so slowly at times. “Lucky” you. In 3 steps by two routes. I guess it pays to “know the right people.”

1 Like

Sorry for the long hiatus, y’all. I see I have a lot to respond to! I intend to reply later this weekend, but I have to crash for now. We have an event tomorrow, & it’s late.

Your comprehension isn’t aided by my almost idiolectic Briticisms.

1 Like

I enjoy thinking about what they might mean. So not great for communication but more fun than a bushel barrel full of monkey’s uncles.

2 Likes

You, Sir, are my elder, and I have not respected that enough, not realising it. I have engaged in unnecessarily narrow eyed, no quarter, sword play. My apologies.

2 Likes

My comprehension is, however, frequently broadened. As a former foreign language major, it really is my pleasure to engage with English (even your peculiar variation) in different ways. I’ve never understood how just the right, unique turn of phrase manages to bring me joy, but it does. Humanities people!

2 Likes

If it’s a duel you seek I would suggest canes or hoes. We may not be so far apart in age as my wife is ten years my senior. Met at 30 & 40 at which time she was still in her prime. Everything about aging is better except all the parts that fail. Perfect design, my arse!

3 Likes

Ah HAH! I thought so : ) sOhhhhhhhh, it’s still a level playing field eh? En garde!

1 Like

I can do Churchill in two by two roots, so Stalin in three by four thinking about it. And FDR and Truman and George VI. Once. If Her Majesty slowly driving past me a metre away in Whitechapel counts, then George VI in two! And just about every world leader for 70 years. That’s a lesser qualitative level. Saw Pope Francis too. From the top of a tour bus in Rome.

Sitting in ER (the biggest in the UK) on Thursday for 7 hours, I saw two other punters (Briticism alert) I know personally. The stats are still interesting. In a city of a quarter of a million adults with whom I have a 1:1000 acquaintance and the set of patients and carers was the same OOM, the intersection was four.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.