How well do you understand...

CW wrote:Being Human as it relate to myself is:

• Knowing that right and wrong is based on my own personal perspective
  
• Life is comprised of mistakes that's why there is an eraser on a pencil.
  
• The only one I can change in life is me, I must accept you for who you are.
  
• Stuff happen every day that is totally out of my control.
  
• If I try to control the uncontrollable I will feel helpless.
  
• Knowing that wisdom comes from knowledge, experience and accepting things as they are....
  
• Being human is so wonderful, because I can touch and feel,  I am a physical spirit in body.
  
• Being human means I can be physical, spiritual and emotional at the same time, AWESOME!!!!
  

I can go on and on but I'll stop with that.

Love to all.....
CW

mac wrote:

ameliorate wrote:

mac wrote:

ameliorate wrote:

If you are right, then it is a shame that you have disabled your PM facility since, I am sure you would rather certain issues be kept out of the public domain?

Time to let things drop now, I suggest....

No...not until you tell me why you doctored a post of mine here, i.e. typed your own words into my post!  I regard that as unacceptable.  How dare you!!!

I am referring to my post quoted here

"Mac...it's a shame you have dis......THEN YOU CUT TO YOUR OWN WORDS!  What gives you the right to do that??

It should read "Mac...it's a shame you have disabled your PM facility again."

So, what's the matter here?  Can't face the truth of what you do???

Can we not trust you to stay within the boundaries of your own posts now? 

This is crossing the line and disrespectful.  Would you tolerate if it was done to your posts?

Before becoming any more feather-spittingly indignant over my supposed treatment of your posting may I explain? 

When using the 'Quote' button so much historical material gets included that the most recent can be almost lost at the bottom of an increasingly long new posting - just see as an example posting #43 where skye had thought I'd been responding to her.  I had in fact been replying to other postings, from another member, in which the she'd also replied and hence her posting was also shown!  To clarify the situation I went back and gave the actual post numbers for reference.

So....all I did was to highlight and delete a giant block of text and posting number references to avoid a repeat of this situation.  All your original material is still visible in the thread where you first posted it - as you know I couldn't 'doctor' (as you put it) your posting any more than anyone else can doctor another member's posting and neither would I want to.  Will you please explain how any of this was (quote) "....crossing the line and disrespectful"

Perhaps in future I should do what many members do and that's to make a non-conextual posting leaving the reader to fathom out to whom the response has been made?

ameliorate wrote:

mac wrote:

ameliorate wrote:Yes honest debate is valuable and can be progressive and beneficial.  I guess the trick is to avoid
it becoming heated and a tit for tat ego battle.....not always easy to avoid.

Getting heated should be less a problem if disagreement isn't allowed to become a personality issue.  We can all take responsibility for avoiding that, wouldn't you agree?  Then we can disagree with one-another without resorting to name-calling.

Theoretically but I don't see the divisions as black and white....more grey.  Can a post really be separated from
the person who posted it?  Since posts directly reflect that person's mindset and beliefs...I would say not.

mac wrote:

ameliorate wrote:

mac wrote:

ameliorate wrote:Yes honest debate is valuable and can be progressive and beneficial.  I guess the trick is to avoid
it becoming heated and a tit for tat ego battle.....not always easy to avoid.

Getting heated should be less a problem if disagreement isn't allowed to become a personality issue.  We can all take responsibility for avoiding that, wouldn't you agree?  Then we can disagree with one-another without resorting to name-calling.

Theoretically but I don't see the divisions as black and white....more grey.  Can a post really be separated from
the person who posted it?  Since posts directly reflect that person's mindset and beliefs...I would say not.

We can try to keep points and personality as separate issues, even if ultimately the connection remains.  If we don't try we'll likely not succeed.

It's a demand I make of myself on discussion forums and on the whole I think I achieve it much of the time.  Others may disagree about that and, of course, they're perfectly entitled to.

ameliorate wrote:

mac wrote:

ameliorate wrote:

mac wrote:

ameliorate wrote:

If you are right, then it is a shame that you have disabled your PM facility since, I am sure you would rather certain issues be kept out of the public domain?

Time to let things drop now, I suggest....

No...not until you tell me why you doctored a post of mine here, i.e. typed your own words into my post!  I regard that as unacceptable.  How dare you!!!

I am referring to my post quoted here

"Mac...it's a shame you have dis......THEN YOU CUT TO YOUR OWN WORDS!  What gives you the right to do that??

It should read "Mac...it's a shame you have disabled your PM facility again."

So, what's the matter here?  Can't face the truth of what you do???

Can we not trust you to stay within the boundaries of your own posts now? 

This is crossing the line and disrespectful.  Would you tolerate if it was done to your posts?

Before becoming any more feather-spittingly indignant over my supposed treatment of your posting may I explain? 

When using the 'Quote' button so much historical material gets included that the most recent can be almost lost at the bottom of an increasingly long new posting - just see as an example posting #43 where skye had thought I'd been responding to her.  I had in fact been replying to other postings, from another member, in which the she'd also replied and hence her posting was also shown!  To clarify the situation I went back and gave the actual post numbers for reference.

So....all I did was to highlight and delete a giant block of text and posting number references to avoid a repeat of this situation.  All your original material is still visible in the thread where you first posted it - as you know I couldn't 'doctor' (as you put it) your posting any more than anyone else can doctor another member's posting and neither would I want to.  Will you please explain how any of this was (quote) "....crossing the line and disrespectful"

Perhaps in future I should do what many members do and that's to make a non-conextual posting leaving the reader to fathom out to whom the response has been made?

This is an unsatisfactory explanation.  If it was an error, it would have shown up whilst you were typing, i.e. that you were typing directly into my post.  You could have corrected it.   So your explanation doesn't ring true. Crossing the line means posting your words into my post.  If it was an error, the least you could do would be to apologise.

There is no need to talk of non-contextual posting instead.  I feel you are being dishonest and ridiculous now.

ameliorate wrote:

mac wrote:

ameliorate wrote:

mac wrote:

ameliorate wrote:Yes honest debate is valuable and can be progressive and beneficial.  I guess the trick is to avoid
it becoming heated and a tit for tat ego battle.....not always easy to avoid.

Getting heated should be less a problem if disagreement isn't allowed to become a personality issue.  We can all take responsibility for avoiding that, wouldn't you agree?  Then we can disagree with one-another without resorting to name-calling.

Theoretically but I don't see the divisions as black and white....more grey.  Can a post really be separated from
the person who posted it?  Since posts directly reflect that person's mindset and beliefs...I would say not.

We can try to keep points and personality as separate issues, even if ultimately the connection remains.  If we don't try we'll likely not succeed.

It's a demand I make of myself on discussion forums and on the whole I think I achieve it much of the time.  Others may disagree about that and, of course, they're perfectly entitled to.

Perhaps you should also look where you are typing too, i.e. to ensure that you are not typing directly into someone's posts - when quoting their post!   If you did type in their post, it would be immediately apparent so your explanation (in your post above #75) does not ring true, consolidated by you not apologising for this "supposed" error.

This is a classic example where a post and the personality cannot be so clearly divided.

ameliorate wrote:Mac - I too am baffled why the "error" was not immediately apparent to you, i.e. if you quoted my
post (in purple letters) and your words appeared in the same box (in black box), how this could
be overlooked at all?   Can you explain that?

mac wrote:

ameliorate wrote:Mac - I too am baffled why the "error" was not immediately apparent to you, i.e. if you quoted my
post (in purple letters) and your words appeared in the same box (in black box), how this could
be overlooked at all?   Can you explain that?

I give in - you win. Whatever you say - I can't explain anything about anything...

I guess understanding yourself well might entail knowing that your actions will have repercussions...                                                                                        

CW wrote:

I guess understanding yourself well might entail knowing that your actions will have repercussions...                                                                                        

If I am truly honest with myself and I mean brutally honest with myself....all that I "think" I know about myself is alway subject to change depending on the circumstances.

Yet on the other hand what I know about my spirit is much different than what I know about myself. One would think that its one and the same but it is not. My spirit can thrive without the body, but the body cannot thrive without the spirit which it host. The spirit is emotion in motion, the body has mind and it thinks.

The question here is; how well do you understand yourself? I understand that my true self is not physical and it is not changeable. 

I can understand the nature of myself through spiritual principles or the lack of them. For example: In a kill or be killed situation, "Will I allow you to kill me knowing that you can only kill the hosting body or will I defend this body and blast a hole in my assailant?"

This goes back to what I said in the beginning.....what I "think" I know about myself is subject to change. 

Love to all....
CW

Is there much that needs to be understood about our spirit? Yes there is so much to learn and know about one's own spirit, but first we must realize that spirit is not subject to change. All that we will become...spiritually, we are already, all that we will discovery about our spirit is ancient knowledge and this knowledge has been with us since the day we took our first breath on this earth.  As we grow in age and wisdom the physical part of us gets the credit........this is called ego.                                                                                                                                                                          

Auras wrote:Amy, Mac.

What's wrong with you two?

So much negativity coming from you especially Amy, I've seem you causing many arguments on the forum! Lately, trying to blame Joan aswell the other day! Its not on.

Mac, I'm glad you decided to back off, At least someone knows when to stop when it gets to far.

Auras - I have become familiar with you criticising a situation you have not understood.  Get back to me when you
do and you will see what occurred. (Be grateful he didn't do it to you). You haven't even grasped that much have you?    

CW wrote:

Is there much that needs to be understood about our spirit? Yes there is so much to learn and know about one's own spirit, but first we must realize that spirit is not subject to change. All that we will become...spiritually, we are already, all that we will discovery about our spirit is ancient knowledge and this knowledge has been with us since the day we took our first breath on this earth.  As we grow in age and wisdom the physical part of us gets the credit........this is called ego.                                                                                                                                                                          

ameliorate wrote:

Auras wrote:Amy, Mac.

What's wrong with you two?

So much negativity coming from you especially Amy, I've seem you causing many arguments on the forum! Lately, trying to blame Joan aswell the other day! Its not on.

Mac, I'm glad you decided to back off, At least someone knows when to stop when it gets to far.

Auras - I have become familiar with you criticising a situation you have not understood.  Get back to me when you
do and you will see who was out of line here.

Auras wrote:

ameliorate wrote:

Auras wrote:Amy, Mac.

What's wrong with you two?

So much negativity coming from you especially Amy, I've seem you causing many arguments on the forum! Lately, trying to blame Joan aswell the other day! Its not on.

Mac, I'm glad you decided to back off, At least someone knows when to stop when it gets to far.

Auras - I have become familiar with you criticising a situation you have not understood.  Get back to me when you
do and you will see who was out of line here.

Yes you with your attitude thinking you are right all the time.

ameliorate wrote:

Auras wrote:

ameliorate wrote:

Auras wrote:Amy, Mac.

What's wrong with you two?

So much negativity coming from you especially Amy, I've seem you causing many arguments on the forum! Lately, trying to blame Joan aswell the other day! Its not on.

Mac, I'm glad you decided to back off, At least someone knows when to stop when it gets to far.

Auras - I have become familiar with you criticising a situation you have not understood.  Get back to me when you
do and you will see who was out of line here.

Yes you with your attitude thinking you are right all the time.

OK Auras...so what was the issue then?  What did you understand?  I really doubt that you have grasped
what it was about.

Speaking of attitudes, it is your attitude to go on an aggressive attack without getting to grips with the situation.
 

ameliorate wrote:

CW wrote:

Is there much that needs to be understood about our spirit? Yes there is so much to learn and know about one's own spirit, but first we must realize that spirit is not subject to change. All that we will become...spiritually, we are already, all that we will discovery about our spirit is ancient knowledge and this knowledge has been with us since the day we took our first breath on this earth.  As we grow in age and wisdom the physical part of us gets the credit........this is called ego.                                                                                                                                                                          

I feel there is a confusion here about spiritual knowledge and experiencing spirit.  As you say spirit is not subject
to change so there is nothing to learn/understand - it is about experiencing. There is much to learn about one's own spirit. For example: I came to know that my spirit can leave my body. I learned that my emotions is a communication line that connects my spirit to the universe. I had to learn/understand these things and many more...Although its always been apart of me I my physical self had to discover it. Just as Christopher Columbus discovered America......America was always there he just one day stumbled across it and declared his discovery. 

Spiritual knowledge however concerns moving away from ego more into our spirit - that is the reaped wisdom. I totally agree!!

Violet wrote:yourself?