I.c.e Quotes

r o l l t h e d i c e if you’re going to try, go all the way. otherwise, don’t even start. if you’re going to try, go all the way. this could mean losing girlfriends, wives, relatives, jobs and maybe your mind. go all the way. it could mean not eating for 3 or 4 days. it could mean freezing on a park bench. it could mean jail, it could mean derision, mockery, isolation. isolation is the gift, all the others are a test of your endurance, of how much you really want to do it. and you’ll do it despite rejection and the worst odds and it will be better than anything else you can imagine. if you’re going to try, go all the way. there is no other feeling like that. you will be alone with the gods and the nights will flame with fire. do it, do it, do it. do it. all the way all the way. you will ride life straight to perfect laughter, its the only good fight there is.

We want you to write it down--to camouflage it. Only for the present, of course. Once the thing gets going we shan't have to bother about the great heart of the British public. We'll make the great heart what we want it to be. But in the meantime, it does make a difference how things are put. For instance, if it were even whispered that the N.I.C.E. wanted powers to experiment on criminals, you'd have all the old women of both sexes up in arms and yapping about humanity. Call it re-education of the mal-adjusted, and you have them all slobbering with delight that the brutal era of retributive punishment has at last come to and end. Odd thing it is--the word 'experiment' is unpopular, but not the word 'experimental.' You must'nt experiment on children; but offer the dear little kiddies free education in an experimental school attached to the N.I.C.E. and it's all correct!

My apologies, see, I forgot my manners. I get on the mic ’cause it’s my life. You show off for girls and cameras. You a pop star, not a rapper. A Vanilla Ice or a Hammer. Y’all hear this crap he dumping out? Somebody get him a Pamper. And a crown for me. The best have heard about me. You can only spell “brilliant” by first spelling Bri. You see, naturally, I do my shit with perfection. Better call a bodyguard ’cause you gon’ need some protection, And on this here election, the people crown a new leader. You didn’t see this coming, and your ghostwriters didn’t either. I came here to ether. I’m sorry to do this to you. This is no longer a battle, it’s your funeral, boo. I’m murdering you. On my corner they call me coroner, I’m warning ya. Tell the truth, this dude is borin’ ya. You confused like a foreigner. I’ll explain with ease: You’re just a casualty in the reality of the madness of Bri. No fallacies, I spit maladies, causin’ fatalities, And do it casually, damaging rappers without bandaging. Imagining managing my own label, my own salary. And actually, factually, there’s no MC that’s as bad as me. Milez? That’s cute. But it don’t make me cower. I move at light speed, you stuck at per hour. You spit like a lisp. I spit like a high power. Bri’s the future, and you Today like Matt Lauer. You coward. But you’re a G? It ain’t convincing to me. You talk about your clothes, about your shopping sprees. You talk about your Glock, about your i-c-e. But in this here ring, they all talking ’bout me, Bri!

problem is, some people are living, breathing I C E B E R G S just waiting for the perfect moment to pull you under.

The writer sees himself reading to the mirror as always . . . He must check now and again to reassure himself that The Crime Of Separate Action has not, is not, cannot occur . . . Anyone who has ever looked into a mirror knows what this crime is and what it means in terms of lost control when the reflection no longer obeys . . . Too late to dial P o l i c e . . .

to be open and straightforward about their needs for attention in a social setting. It is equally rare for members of a group in American culture to honestly and openly express needs that might be in conflict with that individual’s needs. This value of not just honestly but also openly fully revealing the true feelings and needs present in the group is vital for it’s members to feel emotional safe. It is also vital to keeping the group energy up and for giving the feedback that allows it’s members to know themselves, where they stand in relation to others and for spiritual/psychological growth. Usually group members will simply not object to an individual’s request to take the floor—but then act out in a passive-aggressive manner, by making noise or jokes, or looking at their watches. Sometimes they will take the even more violent and insidious action of going brain-dead while pasting a jack-o’-lantern smile on their faces. Often when someone asks to read something or play a song in a social setting, the response is a polite, lifeless “That would be nice.” In this case, N.I.C.E. means “No Integrity or Congruence Expressed” or “Not Into Communicating Emotion.” So while the sharer is exposing his or her vulnerable creation, others are talking, whispering to each other, or sitting looking like they are waiting for the dental assistant to tell them to come on back. No wonder it’s so scary to ask for people’s attention. In “nice” cultures, you are probably not going to get a straight, open answer. People let themselves be oppressed by someone’s request—and then blame that someone for not being psychic enough to know that “Yes” meant “No.” When were we ever taught to negotiate our needs in relation to a group of people? In a classroom? Never! The teacher is expected to take all the responsibility for controlling who gets heard, about what, and for how long. There is no real opportunity to learn how to nonviolently negotiate for the floor. The only way I was able to pirate away a little of the group’s attention in the school I attended was through adolescent antics like making myself fart to get a few giggles, or asking the teacher questions like, “Why do they call them hemorrhoids and not asteroids?” or “If a number two pencil is so popular, why is it still number two,” or “What is another word for thesaurus?” Some educational psychologists say that western culture schools are designed to socialize children into what is really a caste system disguised as a democracy. And in once sense it is probably good preparation for the lack of true democratic dynamics in our culture’s daily living. I can remember several bosses in my past reminding me “This is not a democracy, this is a job.” I remember many experiences in social groups, church groups, and volunteer organizations in which the person with the loudest voice, most shaming language, or outstanding skills for guilting others, controlled the direction of the group. Other times the pain and chaos of the group discussion becomes so great that people start begging for a tyrant to take charge. Many times people become so frustrated, confused and anxious that they would prefer the order that oppression brings to the struggle that goes on in groups without “democracy skills.” I have much different experiences in groups I work with in Europe and in certain intentional communities such as the Lost Valley Educational Center in Eugene, Oregon, where the majority of people have learned “democracy skills.” I can not remember one job, school, church group, volunteer organization or town meeting in mainstream America where “democracy skills” were taught or practiced.

In addi t ion, the pr a c - t i t ione r should compl e t e the pr e l imina ry pr a c t i c e s and achieve a thorough grounding in the founda t iona l pa ths of the sut r a s , whi ch includes the deve lopment of the a l t rui s t i c int ent ion to a t t a in enl ight enment (bodhicitta), the deve lopment of c a lm abiding- the s t abi l i s a t ion of a t t ent ion on an int e rna l obj e c t of medi t a t ion- and the deve lopment of pene t r a t ive ins ight - an ana lyt i c a l medi t a t ive s t a t e tha t dissects the na tur e of its obj e c t , its r e l a t ionships , cha r a c - teristics and func t ion. The deve lopment of c a lm abiding and pene t r a t ive ins ight a r c the me ans by whi ch the pr a c t i t ione r c an cul t iva t e his or he r unde r s t anding of empt ine s s , whi ch is an appr e c i a t ion of the tot a l abs enc e of inhe r ent exi s t enc e and selfident i ty wi th r e spe c t to all phenomena

subiect, ceea ce de fapt conduce la suprimarea principiului noncon­ tradicţiei. " La modul general - spune Aristotel --'- cei care contestă pr inc ipiul noncontradicţiei suprimă Fiinţa. Căci este necesar ca ei să pretindă că toate cele sunt contexte, sau relaţii contextuale, şi că nu există ceva ce omul s au anima lul sunt intrinsec." Trebuie s ă spunem totuşi că legătura dintre relativismul epistemologie ş i negarea principiului noncontradicţiei nu este chi a r atât d e necesară log i c pe cât i s e părea l u i Aristotel : ma i înt â i afirmaţia lui Protagoras poa t e fi înţeleasă nu numai i n d i ­ vidua l - subi ectiv ( o r i c e o m e măsura tuturor lucrurilor), ci ş i specific-kantian ( omu l în general dă măsura lucrurilor). Ap o i p r i n c i p i u l noncontradicţiei nu p e rmi t e să se facă afirmaţii contradictorii despre acelaşi subiect şi sub acelaşi rapo rt ; or, a afirma, de pi ldă , că toate propoziţiile sunt adevărate poate însemna, eventual, că "toate propoziţiile sunt adevărate doar sub un anume aspect, diferit însă de la caz la caz, ceea nu contra­ zice neapărat pr inc ipiul noncontradicţiei. Totuşi este de netăgăduit că, filozofic vorbind, există o legă­ tură între relativismul ontologic ş i cel epistemologie, pe de -o parte, şi sofistică, pe de a l t ă parte, şi că Aristotel nu greşea foarte mult asociindu-le. Aşadar, să admitem că, dacă se suprimă Fiinţa, în final, s e suprimă principiul noncontradicţiei. Rămâne atunci de arătat doar că principiul noncontradicţiei nu poate fi suprimat, p e ntru a arăta că suprimarea Fiinţei este inacceptabi l ă . O bună pa r t e a Că r ţ i i Gamma e s t e dedi c a t ă tocma i acestei chestiuni : să se arate că principiul noncontradicţiei nu poate fi suprimat. Fi reşte, în sine, principiul noncontradicţiei, fiind o axiomă, nu poate f i demonstrat, iar cei care încearcă s-o facă se înşală - explică Aristotel. Dar se poate foarte b i n e arăta, în s ch i m b , că negarea lui este impos i b i l ă pentru o persoană care vrea s ă gândească coerent şi să comunice limpede gândul s ău. Es t e ceea ce s-a numit metoda " r e sping e r i i " (refutatio ) . Într-adevăr, spune Aristotel, dacă am putea face afirmaţii contradictorii despre acelaşi subiect ş i în acelaşi moment, n-am mai pu tea nici gândi, nici comunica nimic determinat; astfel încât nimic, nici măcar această teză - anume că principiul

Do you know how to spell “hard water” using only three letters? Dave: I’m pretty sure that’s impossible! Andrew: No, it isn’t. I-C-E is hard water!

The ultimate purpose of N.I.C.E., then, is not to improve the lives of Britons by making things more efficient or improving material conditions, but to create an omnipotent god from the substance of man that will rule over them all, that will enslave them, for eternity. Hence the final terminus of the materialism espoused by the logical positivists—who must eventually lose all sense of right and wrong, or even that there is such a thing as right and wrong—is that in time they will cease to be men at all. This is what Lewis meant by “the abolition of man,” that by “stepping outside the Tao, they have stepped into the void.” But even in the void, says Lewis, the Conditioners will act— motivated by nothing but their own emotions and desires