Solving problems

I wouldn’t write a word, if I hadn’t experienced what I write in here, myself. This is not information out of books.

I’m in a posititon that I can make this work. And I write it for others who can make it work too. I’m sorry if it can’t work for all. It is a very steep, I know. But it’s also the best for me. Do it only if you really understand it and want it/ if you’re feeling good about it.

Everything is truly alright.

If you try to depart from being yourself, your true self, you can create illusions of problems. Problems are illusions.

Just trust yourself once more –your inner self, your true self, spirit, God, call it how you like. Stop looking into the past, stop looking inside your mind, stop the ‘figure figure’, stop looking ‘out there’. You yourself can know the truth. Don’t cover it with external information. Don’t put your attention inside endless labyrynths/mind tricks. The truth/the solution is within you, within your true nature –not within your guts, not within your brains, not within mental trips.

Just do it and see what happens. Don’t push yourself to do it right. When you do it right, it is alright. No pushing is needed. Everyone can do it. It is only a matter how you interpret my words. Which is why I tried to define ‘spirit’ etc in my previous post. Read my previous post, to understand this, better. Ask me for clarifications, if needed.

Advertisements

60 thoughts on “Solving problems

    1. Looks like I put the reply above in the wrong place. It should have gone under the comment of your before the one above. I guess figured that out. 😛

  1. “Fine Marildi. I am arrogant. Because I don’t have OT and auditor diplomas and tons of hours of work, for the cause, like those master Scientologists. I am not right, like them. I can’t send them to find their MUs, as I always know better. They can. That’s what you think. I don’t.”

    You’re not arrogant, Spyros, Just defensive. Or so it seems. It’s your right to be defensive (or whatever else you choose to be) – I just don’t see how it could be coming from your true self. That was my point.

    I didn’t understand the last part of the above quote: “That’s what you think. I don’t.” What do you think i think?

    You also wrote: “This isn’t about me and the blog. It’s about the sorts of guys I refer to.”

    Here again you bring up those “sorts of guys” when no one else was talking, or even thinking, about them. Btw, this current comm cycle is an example of why it would be helpful if we could look back at exactly what has been said by each of us, in order to look at in a new unit of time. But once again you decided to delete the whole thing – even before the exchange was finished. You say this isn’t about you or the blog, but apparently it is if you ‘re more worried about someone not understanding than in bringing about an understanding between you and me – which would probably be understood by anyone reading, as truth communicates more easily than anything to most people, even if they don’t get all the specifics.

    My intention wasn’t to make you wrong but to point out something I observed that you might want to take a look at – and if you saw that you in fact were not free in that particular area, then you could now go about freeing yourself. Or you could at least start to become free of it by looking at it – and to the degree you were able to do that, to look at it and confront it, you would separate from it. You would gain enough distance from it that it would no longer be a part of the so-called “you.” Sometimes it takes looking at a habitual response a number of times before enough freedom from it is achieved that it’s no longer causing much (if any) reaction. At least, that has been my experience, but I will admit I’m pretty new at doing this and certainly not an expert.

    My whole point, from the beginning when I challenged you, was that I have noticed you keep repeating certain “problems” – and when you do, it seems like it must be the ego talking, not you.

    1. Marildi, we definitely don’t have the same idea about that ‘true self’.

      No true self would sit and argue. You tell me about ego, but without an ego, there would be no Spyros to send and receive communications to. Your idea of true self is a kind of separated being, but it isn’t mine.

      To challenge or tell me something about me, and me explain it to you, that it isn’t like that, you can call defensive, alright, from my behalf. But then why do you do it? Offensiveness? With no ego sure, you would have no response at all, from any Spyros.

      Its like somebody say “look i just took a shower, im clean”. And another comes around and says “Here, catch this ball, and lets play volley.” And while you play, he tells you “look, your hands are dirty”. Why play volley then? With the arguments you pose, you ask for analogous responses.

      You have some standards what you consider charge or not. I consider all non ‘true self’ charge. Without it, communication would be like talking to yourself.

      1. “To challenge or tell me something about me, and me explain it to you, that it isn’t like that, you can call defensive…”

        Not at all what I said. I was saying that it was those “sorts of guys” and what they said to you that you were defensive about, such as what you wrote here:

        “Isn’t it ‘true’ that to argue with such a master means you always have MU and charge –or to spell it differently, that you are wrong? Which one of those who would argue has ever even tried what I describe in here? One of them masters (a grand one) was mocking and laughing at the axioms of his own religion the other day. First he engaged into logical argument then when he had nothing to say, ‘go find your MU. I know better because I have studied… and …’. Of course, its my charge.”

        This is a theme you’ve talked about many times, on other blog threads too. Not that you can’t or shouldn’t, but for one thing it’s odd that you seem to be carrying around the BPC to an extent that you keep going back to it.

        For another thing, more significant, I thought that you were into the non-dual approach (like I am trying to be) – which would be recognizing that ALL one’s ideas are simply fabrications of the mind and that the true self comes from a place of intuition, not rationality, and in this sense it does operate in life. Although rationality can be used when it’s appropriate to a living situation and is needed, it isn’t the highest form of knowing.

        1. Yes, you keep telling me the same too, and although I answer to you, you say it again as if I had not answered.

          Consider whether you have refered to the same more than once, instead of doing that to me. And consider that ‘non-dual’ doesn’t include the communication of two terminals.

          1. “Yes, you keep telling me the same too, and although I answer to you, you say it again as if I had not answered.”

            Too much of a generality. Please be specific so I can look at what you’re saying.

            “And consider that ‘non-dual’ doesn’t include the communication of two terminals.”

            As I explained, my understanding of “non-dual” is not that you can’t use that level of being in life – but you aren’t coming from your own accumulated ideas but from your direct perception of whatever you’re looking at. In any case, let’s forget about giving it the name of “non-dual” – instead, call it coming form “Now” instead of “The Past.” Or in Scientology terms, TR 0 should be kept in.

            1. That’s it. You evaluate me against TR0.

              What I talk about has nothing to do with TR0.- Don’t compare it. It’s a different thing. If you think it isn’t different, ok. Just understand I don’t consider it the same –not even close.

              Another important thing is our talks have rarely if ever being addressed to present time. SCN to me is memories. I don’t have any now.

              I don’t remember what ‘the same’ I was talking about then.

              Really Marildi we need to take one topic at a time. and if you think there’s something wrong about me, instead of interrupting the already complex topic, wait to finish the topic first. For me, your evaluations are your perspective and your standards. Should you have no charge, you would see none in me either. So, don’t tell me I see charge in them while I shouldn’t. You talk like their the holy ones whom I shouldn’t evaluate, while you grant the liberty to yourself to evaluate me.

              1. “Another important thing is our talks have rarely if ever being addressed to present time. SCN to me is memories. I don’t have any now.”

                Whether the talk is or isn’t addressed to present time wasn’t in any way the point. Let me try again to make myself clear. First of all, to repeat, I thought you had a similar idea to mine about non-duality with regard to what a non-dual approach to life/communication would be. Now I know that you don’t have a similar idea, but based on thinking you did, I challenged your approach because it didn’t seem to be non-dual (the way I understand non-dual in life). That’s all it was.

                “Really Marildi we need to take one topic at a time, and if you think there’s something wrong about me, instead of interrupting the already complex topic, wait to finish the topic first.”

                I tell you honestly, the above is exactly what I was thinking about you – that you need to take one topic at a time. Before anything was said about Scientology at all, I had mentioned that you were getting upset and that you should consider this in the light of non-dualism (my idea of it, at least). That’s when you started talking about things that occurred in Scientology or with Scientologists – which I never did see how it was related.

                “Should you have no charge, you would see none in me either. So, don’t tell me I see charge in them while I shouldn’t. You talk like their the holy ones whom I shouldn’t evaluate, while you grant the liberty to yourself to evaluate me.”

                The first sentence isn’t true – one can see charge in another without having charge oneself. The second sentence is a misduplication on your part because I never said anything about seeing charge in anyone but you. Please give specifics.

                And what was it I said that sounded like I think they (“those guys,” whoever they are) are “the holy ones” and that you shouldn’t evaluate them. Your evaluation of them had nothing to do with anything I said – I was only talking about your reaction to them. So what did I say that you interpreted that way? Seriously, please don’t drop this – I want to know where you are coming from on this and on the second sentence. One or both of us can learn something.

                1. Got it. Marildi, all this started with what you said about playing games just for fun. And because I considered it an implant (I will explain you why) I backtracked it to what I considered it’s source.

                  The why is that all games are fun. Life is a game and fun. There can’t be lifeless life, funless life. And to get raped (a nasty example) would be a game too, and fun as well. It doesn’t mean what should do it just because it’s fun. Clearer now?

            2. And while I engage to explain to you all that stuff, you accuse me of being defensive. I guess you’re not defensive jumping to criticize me, when I criticize them, like it’s a jumper engramic command. I wont explain myself once again, if you can’t confront a topic. But I will let you quit the game, if you want, as you have the right to, and I have it too.

              1. “And while I engage to explain to you all that stuff, you accuse me of being defensive.”

                No, that wasn’t it. Look again at my replies – I was saying that you were defensive towards those guys, not me.

                “I guess you’re not defensive jumping to criticize me, when I criticize them…”

                There was nothing I was defending about myself or anybody else. And I didn’t mean to just be critical, which I explained my previous reply.

                “I wont explain myself once again, if you can’t confront a topic. But I will let you quit the game, if you want, as you have the right to, and I have it too.”

                Now you’re saying I am the one who can’t confront a topic and yet you are the one who is talking about quitting.

                1. The thing is I wasn’t thinking tha way you thought I was thinking. I’m not as upset as you think I am. It isn’t hostility I express, but you take it that way. I don’t intend to go harm anybody, while I hold myself back in fear or anything like that. I disagree with ideas. If I wasn’t talking to you and if you hadn’t referred to G, there would be no reason to refer to SCN. But SCN has been our common ground. At least in the past.

                2. Most of my charge in this cycle is failing to get what I wan across and understood by you. And getting semi-irrelevant responses, and opening irrelevant topics and more and more misunderstanding. And again it isn’t frustration against the terminal ‘you’, it is against the failure.

                  1. “Most of my charge in this cycle is failing to get what I want across and understood by you. And getting semi-irrelevant responses, and opening irrelevant topics and more and more misunderstanding. And again it isn’t frustration against the terminal ‘you’, it is against the failure.”

                    Do you consider that you yourself had any part in “MY failure” to understand you? And who was the one with the “irrelevant responses, and opening irrelevant topics and more and more misunderstanding” – me or you? Mostly me? It might surprise you that from my point of view it seemed like mostly you. 😛

                    But it was probably both of us equally, because I believe that both sides of a comm cycle are fully responsible for its success or failure – no matter which one is mostly not duplicating or is mostly non-duplicatable.

                    And now we’re also back to the basic thing I was pointing out, which is that you sometimes get charged up – and that it is noticeable, which doesn’t help the comm cycle. People who are charged up lose the clarity in their comm and are harder to understand – and the one they’re communicating to can get thrown off too by the noticeable charge.

                    It’s true that you are hard to understand sometimes, mainly because there’s a language barrier even though your English is adequate most of the time. Rather than get frustrated with others for not understanding, I think you should focus on figuring out what you wrote that wasn’t clear. Take it as a possible opportunity to improve your English whenever others are apparently not understanding you.

                    If you want to be a great writer in English – and I think you have that potential – you should read a lot and continue to write a lot as well. This is the advice of experts, actually. 😉

                3. Ronny used to point out every second day, what implanters and what implants were. He didn’t tell anyone to go fight them.He also said to form a group to enchance human rights, not fight against psychiatry etc, leave alone to raise money for it. And he also said one is responsible for all he experiences.

                  Do you think he wouldn’t do the same about SCN implanters? Do you think he wouldn’t point out MUs, suppressives, ser facs etc as he had done in KWS 1? It’s a matter of perspective whether you take it as fighting or not, and if you become fanatic about it.

                  1. I will say again that it wasn’t the pointing out that I was talking about – it was the charge you had on it. Don’t you read my replies? 😛

                    1. No, I dont agree. You don’t judge a person’s charge, sanity etc by his emotions (even though you don’t know mine). That’s psychology. “calm down” etc. And TRs are not an emotion either. TRs are used to you wont show reaction and disturb the PC, and keep the comm going.

                      I write condensed stuff within few words. I know that.

                    2. “TRs are used [so] you won’t show reaction and disturb the PC, and keep the comm going.”

                      TRs courses, including even the Professional TRs Course for auditors, are also meant for aplication to communication in life. They aren’t for the purpose of not showing reaction – either in session or life. Their purpose is for you to be able to view from present time, without some past moment(s) in time affecting you.

                      “You don’t judge a person’s charge, sanity etc by his emotions (even though you don’t know mine).”

                      Charge IS emotion. But not PT emotion – it’s emotion coming from the past.

                    3. I don’t have any past to affect me, anywhere that I know, but in your imagination.

                      I can feel a variety of emotions, get pissed, get cheerful, this, that, and I don’t need to have my body like a static statue. You can be unsatisfied with that, and think of me as whatever pleases you.

                    4. First let me say again the same thing I said a couple years ago – you were grossly mis-supervised on TRs. TRs do not mean that your body is like a statue – they mean that you are you are present as a being. Those who practiced or supervised them as if they were meant to be some sort of mechanical circuit were just adding that circuit to the ego.

                      Secondly, you aren’t the only one who has no past, no one does. Because there is no such thing as time. The “past” is just a construct – a way of talking about ego, actually. And we all have an ego – or we would be fully enlightened. So rather than getting into mere semantics with you, I’ll go back to using the word “ego,” which I have been using since the beginning of this discussion.

                      The reason I brought up that you get miffed/upset was because I had recently had some wins on understanding what ego really means, and I thought you might have a win on it too and then certain things wouldn’t bother you as much as they seem to do.

                      My new understanding of the meaning of ego is that it is made up of all our pre-set, conditioned thoughts, which are all about how we see ourselves (in the sense of an ego) – and thus how we think others should see us. And if others don’t see us that way, we have an emotional reaction and get upset because our ego (who we think we are) has been “attacked.” This may seem like a pretty radical world view, but to me it rings of truth.

                      Regardless of whether that world view is true or not, I generally like the “Spyros ego.” He’s smart and witty and creative – and nice, at least to me. It’s a very likable ego, actually. You did a good job in creating it…for the most part. 😛 🙂

                    5. It seems with TRs we were meant to discard some pars of old egos, and replace them with another.

                      I can’t believe those people who say that DM is so bad, yet the SCN they’ve gotten under his authority is so good. Same with TRs. I mean I can’t believe they could believe that.The contradiction could make a logical computer jam.

                      I can and do create egos often. I don’t have to.

                      The times I had wins by people who pointed out faults about me, could be counted in my fingers –maybe of both hands. The reason was they were looking at their minds, putting them on me, instead of perceiving me. In short, they didn’t know shit what they were talking about. That’s not how it goes in LRH SCN, except from rare occasions of one doing something gross like black DN, so he’d be declared, for the sake of the rest. It doesn’t go like that in my philosophy either. It goes like that in psychology, psychiatry and possibly other spiritualities.

                    6. “…they were looking at their minds, putting them on me, instead of perceiving me.”

                      I wasn’t talking about a perception of you. It was a perception of your ego, which I saw as defensive – this definition:

                      2. very anxious to challenge or avoid criticism. “He was very defensive about that side of his life.” synonyms: self-justifying, oversensitive

                      What should I have perceived about your ego or about the real you?

                    7. That’s what I’m tell you –I don’t have a permanent state of ‘ego’, while you tell me I am like this and that. And no ‘real me’ would be here discussing. Don’t you understand what I tell you? I don’t think ‘TRs in’ means ‘real me’, specially with plenty of analytical mind. But I thought like you, instead of being ‘defensive’ I would query your reluctance to comment on what I was saying, instead of analyzing me.

                    8. “And no ‘real me’ would be here discussing. Don’t you understand what I tell you?”

                      Well, you wrote “…they were looking at their minds, putting them on me, instead of perceiving me.”

                      And I replied, “I wasn’t talking about a perception of you. It was a perception of your ego.”

                      So what did you mean by “me” when you said “instead of perceiving me”?

                    9. I was writting thoughts. Instead of commenting on the thoughts you comment on me. You commented on what you think was me, my ego ego, and you evaluate it with criteria of your own. I neither have that criteria, nor was I what you had been thinking.

                    10. You wrote: “I don’t think ‘TRs in’ means ‘real me’, specially with plenty of analytical mind.”

                      I basically agree. But at least the “real you” can be more present with TRs in than when they are out. With TRs in, the being can, to some degree, be at cause over the automatic responses dictated by the mind – which is simply a collection of all the thoughts and feelings that have accumulated. And the mind (including the analytical) is the same thing as the ego. All thoughts and emotions = mind = ego.

                      Then you wrote: “But I thought like you, instead of being ‘defensive’ I would query your reluctance to comment on what I was saying, instead of analyzing me.”

                      Thanks for querying. 😛 The reason I was reluctant to comment on what you were saying was because you were changing the subject. The subject wasn’t about Scientology – it was about you being upset when you discuss that subject (Scientology). You seem to think I am criticizing your views on Scientology, and you keep wanting to explain them to me. But I’m not critical of your views on this subject – I almost always agree with you!

                      However, your particular views are beside the point – the point was only about you getting upset when talking about the subject, and I thought you might prefer not to get upset – so I tried to tell you how you might accomplish that. If you aren’t interested and prefer to retain your emotions on the subject, and they aren’t getting in your way – then fine. That’s your choice.

                    11. SCN is irrelevant until what one tells me is taught therein. In that case, it was games and fun.

                      I have answered all the rest about defensiveness and upset etc.

                    12. “I have answered all the rest about defensiveness and upset etc.”

                      Actually, the above isn’t even an acknowledgement. I’ve been trying in several posts to get you to understand exactly what I’ve been doing – which was NOT what you’ve been saying I was doing. The comment you just replied to was another attempt – this time to explain it thoroughly. But your “reply” makes it seem that you still didn’t get it. Do you understand what I wrote? And can you see that you misinterpreted my meaning and intentions?

                    13. I got it on your intentions. But I didn’t mean your were intending to reduce me. You just attempted to. Like one doesn’t want to reduce himself thinking he is at effect of his past, but that’s what he does. If you don’t take responsibility for your actions, that’s what you do. But that’s not what I do.

                    14. It isn’t directly you. It is that frame of thinking, that you employ. You consider things like if anger=past influence. But I don’t agree. You can use an emotion, and know that it’s you who uses it.

                    15. You must have fixed ideas of what you THINK I consider – in spite of what I wrote in a previous comment:

                      “But my concept doesn’t mean you can’t have emotions below 2.0 – which might be appropriate to the situation. It simply means that you remain rational while being appropriate in your emotion, because the emotion wouldn’t be coming from past grievances that you still feel resentful about.” https://spyrosillusionist.wordpress.com/2015/11/03/solving-problems/comment-page-1/#comment-199

                    16. You really think it’s irrational to say games shouldn’t be played just for the fun, like they preached there and elsewhere. But you think that to do so, is rational. That’s your view on rationality.

                    17. I don’t think I’m at effect of any grand master, nor anybody else. They a play a game together with others who play along, even as pieces. But that doesn’t mean I couldn’t mention it a source f thoughts, like I did back then. The charge is not on 1D.

                    18. As you said, you’re too sparse sometimes. You need to be more aware of being duplicatable, IMO.

                      Anyway, I can’t spend too much more time tonight – got to get some work done. 😛

                    19. Ah, good. Then you have reality on what I do.

                      Your two comments before this one were also assumptions on what you THINK I think. Lucky for you, I really do have to cut back on the blog comments now. 😛

                      Anyway, you have a nice day! 🙂

                    20. I’d prefer it if you commented on how come you’ve been mocking up case for me, calling me irrational and misemotional, for saying that about games, it’s source, and how it’s used to manipulate people.

                      Have a good night.

                    21. Show me where I said you were irrational or misemotional for saying something about games – or any other time I said such a thing.

                    22. I have long deleted those messages. But it seems you were telling me about some past charge that influenced me and made me upset and so on. Not completely irrational, but more like partially, with regards to that matter.

                      But hey I don’t feel like digging now in what happened then. It’s so old.

                      And understand I no longer use those ideas that I used 10 years ago –about case and so on. And I can’t address and analyze something I no longer have. Up there I have written about a solution. Thats what I use to solve problems -should I make any- these days. I don’t think about theories –dogmatically, nor logically. Whatever is, I perceive it in the now. And I must tell you things are nothing like I think without applying that solution.

                    23. “But hey I don’t feel like digging now in what happened then. It’s so old.”

                      For pity’s sake, Spyros – you were the one who started diggin into “what happened then.” In my reply above, I wanted to know what YOU were talking where you wrote:

                      “I’d prefer it if you commented on how come you’ve been mocking up case for me, calling me irrational and misemotional, for saying that about games, it’s source, and how it’s used to manipulate people.”

                      And now you say you don’t feel like digging! 🙄

                      It’s not of interest to me either to get into a long, tedious breakdown of me supposedly calling you irrational or misemotional. It appears that you were either being oversensitive and thus dubbing in something that wasn’t there, or else you simply misinterpreted what I said and stretched it into something different.

                      In the future, please be more conscientious about your interpretations and what you casually throw out there but afterwards decide you don’t want to dig into. And I will try to do the same. 😛

                    24. “I don’t think about theories – dogmatically, nor logically. Whatever is, I perceive it in the now. And I must tell you things are nothing like I think without applying that solution.”

                      This is excellent!

                      Incidentally, what you describe is what I envision TRs to be when they’re at their best.

                      Also, I remember on one of Eckhart Tolle’s videos, in a Q&A session he had with the audience, he told them that he himself doesn’t know the answer to a question until someone asks him! And in Lester Levenson’s book, he said something similar – and that sometimes he thinks to himself, “Hey, that was pretty good” – after he hears what he himself just said!

                      Btw, your latest blog post is excellent too. You might not get any replies, however, because the title still isn’t clickable. JFYI 😛

                    25. M, I just saw the blog as an outsider (not an owner) and it’s clickable to me. What computer and browser do you use?

                      Something that gave me a needle reaction about Tolle, from the few minutes I’ve watched, is that he seems to consider some states of being right or wrong. And I must tell you some years ago I had tremendous gains by handling that. It simply granting beingness. I define an infinity perspective (for those who want it) for the sake of achieving something. I don’t want anybody to make self wrong for being whatever it is.

                      But if somebody attacked my identity, I might not hesitate to point he is an idiot. I think granting beingness should be mutual. But above all it should be from oneself to oneself.

                    26. “I define an infinity perspective (for those who want it) for the sake of achieving something.”

                      That’s what I was trying to do with you, as regards the emotion thing. Perhaps it would have been more helpful if I had just granted you beingness. And perhaps I had some ego going on too – maybe both of us did. 😛

                      Here’s something Lester wrote about granting beingness:

                      “If we love this world we accept the world the way it is. We don’t try to change it. We let it be. We grant the world its beingness. Trying to change others is injecting our own ego.”

                      As you see, he expresses granting beingness in terms of love. And he says that unconditional love is our true beingness – we ARE love.

                      I meant to share with you another quote of Lester’s, which is like what you were saying about how you perceive in the Now:

                      “Realized [meaning “made real”] knowledge is non-intellectual, although the means we use are intellectual. We use our mind, we direct our mind toward the answer. But you will discover that the answer does not come from the mind. It comes from a place just behind the mind. It comes from the realm of knowingness, the realm of omniscience. By quieting the mind through stilling our thoughts, each and everyone of us has access to this realm of Knowingness. Then and there you realize, you make real. You know and you know that you know.”
                      .

                      To answer your question, I have a HP Windows 7 and my browser is Chrome.

                    27. Nice about knowingness. That’s what I think, too.

                      Strange that you cannot enter inside articles with that computer. Are you sue you click the title of each article? I don’t mean any blog’s title, but each article’s title.

                      I’m going to write a new one, somewhat related to what we were talking about.

                    28. Just now I went to your blog post of today (“The Relative Rights…) and the title still doesn’t click, but this time there was a reply box already at the bottom of the page. That was not the case for previous blog posts. I also noticed on the comment I posted earlier today, that I now have a different “icon” than before (and it’s ugly! 😛 ). Maybe WordPress has made changes?

                      I also tried clicking on the date of the blog post and I see that does click, so if there is no reply box at the bottom next time, I’ll try clicking on the date.

                    29. You saw the reply box because you were inside the article, and not inside the general blog 😛 I’ll trust in your newbie-ness and that the blog works alright.

                      I changed the icons, but I haven’t seen them in action, yet… I’ll have a look.

                    30. I think I’ve always been going to the new blog post in the same way – by clicking on the email notification for it. Anyhoo, seems good now.

                    31. That’s what the guy I was telling you yesterday (I think) was doing too, other than telling me to find my MUs.

                      If we had a brawl here, who is more right and wrong than whom, instead of what he says, there would be fireworks. I call it fighting.

                    32. “If we had a brawl here, who is more right and wrong than whom, instead of what he says, there would be fireworks. I call it fighting.”

                      I didn’t get it. Can you rephrase?

                    33. If I argued about you being wrong and not right, valid or invalid, -like you’ve been doing- instead of arguing with your thoughts, we would have some serious fun in here.

                      That grand master I was telling you, judging by his words, was appearing calm and in-TRs and he was invalidating both me and what I had said, while caring to point out to me to find my MUs. He was just talking about himself.

                    34. Like a psychiatrist, with different vocabulary, he was pointing out how crazy I was. And all that because I had pointed out-tech in his TRs, that he had been delivering.

                    35. * it’s one thing to point out an illogical elements, in a supposedly logical sequence, or maybe say that something is untrue, and another to point out fault about another’s being.

                    36. p.s. Actually, even the sanity level can be affected when emotion from the past is present, at least for that moment in time.

          2. Correction – TR 0 should be kept in IF you want to operate that way. Your choice, of course. Obviously, I was mistaken in thinking you had the same concept in mind that I did.

            But my concept doesn’t mean you can’t have emotions below 2.0 – which might be appropriate to the situation. It simply means that you remain rational while being appropriate in your emotion, because the emotion wouldn’t be coming from past grievances that you still feel resentful about.

      2. Sorry, I accidentally left out part of what you wrote that I quoted. Here’s the whole thing, with the part left out in all caps:

        Isn’t it ‘true’ that to argue with such a master means you always have MU and charge –or to spell it differently, that you are wrong? Which one of those who would argue has ever even tried what I describe in here? One of them masters (a grand one) was mocking and laughing at the axioms of his own religion the other day. First he engaged into logical argument then when he had nothing to say, ‘go find your MU. I know better because I have studied… and …”. Of course, its my charge FOR POINTING IT OUT. HIS SER FAC FROM HERE TO MARS IS FINE.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s