Guest guest Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 NonDualPhil , xauxaux <no_reply wrote: > > NonDualPhil , Pesi <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > Perception without identification > > is luminous, a blessing beyond > > comparison, and how eager is > > the self to take credit, and to enjoy > > his own absence! It rushes back > > to see, but only sees through the > > shadow it casts. > > > > Then, as in here, it remembers > > and writes a few lines, and feels > > very advanced doing so. > > > > There is an obvious otherness > > to seeing " what is " . All the verbal > > tricks of selfhood can't hide > > that otherness. The self claims > > in vain to be the Self. > > >J: Yes ... but why call that otherness the Self? In doing so you're > abandoning what was a clear insight, and bringing it under the > distorting lens of the spiritual traditions. Just as the self claims > in vain to be the Self, the Self claims in vain to be " what is " . P: Yes, exactly. That's what I said, don't call it self, don't think of it as I'm seeing this. > > > > > There is an otherness that sees > > consciousness, but it is not a self, > > nor has a name, nor care to know > > itself. > > >J: Ah, but aren't you now obscuring what could be plain and clear? That > otherness is simply not 'you', it's the world that actually exists in > its own right. And what is seeing this 'otherness'? None other than > that intelligent, mortal human body called Pete ... momentarily freed > from the illusory inner 'being' that he normally thinks and feels > him-'self' to be. P: Yes, You're right, it's the universe as the body which sees itself as an otherness. But, intellectually, for the benefit of seekers it can be deconstructed, thus: Both, body and universe are made of matter. Matter is made of quarks. Quarks are made of an unknown X which manifests itself as the Universe. So, otherness is the unknown. There are other ways to deconstruct, Greg, for example prefers this: Awareness is not Personal Awareness isn't inside the person. Awareness, which is not physical, cannot therefore be physically limited to a spherical balloon inside the skull. It's the other way around. The skin, muscles, bones, sensations, emotions and thoughts are arisings in awareness. If you grok the possibility of this, then the stage opens infinitely wide. Having grokked this, you also won't hang up on the snag of solipsism, which is a very different thing. Solipsism says " I am the only mind - I can't prove that others exist. " But notice what it assumes. It assumes that minds are real, and goes from there. It personalizes awareness. But your inquiry undercuts this assumption because you are looking at a much deeper level. Solipsism won't be a problem for you. The locus of the " I " is much farther back. How far back? All the way!! --Greg Goode http://www.heartofnow.com P: I prefer the former because to name the unknown awareness seems confusing to me since awareness and consciousness are synonyms. Spanish and German have no word for awareness. In any case, once deconstructed all explanations become moot. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 In a message dated 31/10/2008 8:12:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time, pedsie6 writes: P: What you and I offer is two differentmethodologies of deconstructing the beliefin multiplicity. One cannot use spiritualconcepts to deconstruct materialism, anymorethat one can use French to convince someonewho doesn't speak that language. If amaterialist is to be brought to understand"not two" it can only be done by deconstructingmatter step by step until all is left is anunknown X.Usually, people who deconstruct multiplicityspiritually stop at Awareness. That is leavingthe job undone, the point of deconstruction isto drop all beliefs and dwell in "don't know". *****Phil: Yes, but.......not knowing from whence cometh quarks is not deconstruction, it's just materialism looking for the next answer to the foundation of material, to be followed by the next question, both of which are being made up as we go along. This is leaving the job undone. There's no such thing as deconstructing materialism. It's true that spiritual concepts cannot be used to deconstruct anything. On the contrary, it's the construction of more conceptual perspectives that ultimately have to be seen through. What is needed is the realization to which the concepts are pointing. Without this clarity, there is no deconstruction, and without the willingness to see what is being pointed to, there is no clarity. The 'don't know' certainly doesn't lie at the boundaries of current scientific understanding, it lies at the mystery of Beingness and the arising of life within it. Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5 Travel Deals! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > > > In a message dated 10/30/2008 10:32:48 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > pedsie6 writes: > > P: Yes, You're right, it's the universe as the body which sees > itself as an otherness. But, intellectually, for the benefit > of seekers it can be deconstructed, thus: > > Both, body and universe are made of matter. Matter > is made of quarks. Quarks are made of an unknown > X which manifests itself as the Universe. So, otherness > is the unknown. > > There are other ways to deconstruct, Greg, for example > prefers this: > > Awareness is not Personal > > Awareness isn't inside the person. Awareness, which is not physical, > cannot > therefore be physically limited to a spherical balloon inside the > skull. It's > the other way around. The skin, muscles, bones, sensations, emotions and > thoughts are arisings in awareness. If you grok the possibility of > this, then > the stage opens infinitely wide. > > Having grokked this, you also won't hang up on the snag of solipsism, > which is a > very different thing. Solipsism says " I am the only mind - I can't > prove that > others exist. " But notice what it assumes. It assumes that minds are > real, and > goes from there. It personalizes awareness. But your inquiry undercuts > this > assumption because you are looking at a much deeper level. Solipsism > won't be a > problem for you. The locus of the " I " is much farther back. How far > back? All > the way!! > > --Greg Goode > http://www.heartofnow.com > > P: I prefer the former because to name the unknown > awareness seems confusing to me since awareness and > consciousness are synonyms. Spanish and German have > no word for awareness. In any case, once deconstructed > all explanations become moot. > > > > > The difficulty with the quark idea is that it assumes an objective reality > and simply says, it's of unknown origin. You still have physicality and an > apparent source, and some vague notion that it's the 'unknown source' that's > actually aware of all this. > > In seeing that physicality arises in 'something' nonphysical, you've > effectively done away with the object which never becomes other than the 'something' > itself, and all that remains is the subject aware of it's own arisings. We > can throw away the notion that physicality is somehow imbued with it's source, > because there is nothing apart from it for the source to enter or 'dwell'. > The arising, itself, IS the source. The dream analogy can be helpful here. > Instead of insisting there are mysterious object happenings that are somehow > more real than your thoughts about them or your perception of them, everything > becomes a story unfolding and has no special reality simply because the story > is believed. > > As an unfolding story, there is no need to assume the reality of time, > space, or the objects that seem to inhabit them, or the science that writes > increasingly more detailed stories about it. P: What you and I offer is two different methodologies of deconstructing the belief in multiplicity. One cannot use spiritual concepts to deconstruct materialism, anymore that one can use French to convince someone who doesn't speak that language. If a materialist is to be brought to understand " not two " it can only be done by deconstructing matter step by step until all is left is an unknown X. Usually, people who deconstruct multiplicity spiritually stop at Awareness. That is leaving the job undone, the point of deconstruction is to drop all beliefs and dwell in " don't know " . > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2008 Report Share Posted November 1, 2008 In a message dated 01/11/2008 8:14:20 AM Pacific Daylight Time, pedsie6 writes: Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote:>> > In a message dated 31/10/2008 8:12:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > pedsie6 writes:> > > P: What you and I offer is two different> methodologies of deconstructing the belief> in multiplicity. One cannot use spiritual> concepts to deconstruct materialism, anymore> that one can use French to convince someone> who doesn't speak that language. If a> materialist is to be brought to understand> "not two" it can only be done by deconstructing> matter step by step until all is left is an> unknown X.> > Usually, people who deconstruct multiplicity> spiritually stop at Awareness. That is leaving> the job undone, the point of deconstruction is> to drop all beliefs and dwell in "don't know".> > > > *****Phil: Yes, but.......not knowing from whence cometh quarks is not > deconstruction, it's just materialism looking for the next answer tothe > foundation of material, to be followed by the next question, both ofwhich are being > made up as we go along. This is leaving the job undone. There's nosuch thing > as deconstructing materialism. It's true that spiritual conceptscannot be > used to deconstruct anything. On the contrary, it's the constructionof more > conceptual perspectives that ultimately have to be seen through.> > What is needed is the realization to which the concepts are pointing. > Without this clarity, there is no deconstruction, and without thewillingness to > see what is being pointed to, there is no clarity. The 'don't know'certainly > doesn't lie at the boundaries of current scientific understanding,it lies at > the mystery of Beingness and the arising of life within it.> > > P: Since you are not a materialist, how wouldyou know what works or not for one? You justlove to opine, even in cases for which youjust manufacture an opinion on the spot, justto offer one. You don't have to prove youknow everything, Phil. It's OK not to know. Phil: If you had any integrity, you would respond to the comments rather than dismissal and personal attacks.Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5 Travel Deals! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2008 Report Share Posted November 1, 2008 In a message dated 01/11/2008 11:32:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time, pedsie6 writes: Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote:>> > In a message dated 01/11/2008 8:14:20 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > pedsie6 writes:> > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote:> >> > > > In a message dated 31/10/2008 8:12:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > pedsie6@ writes:> > > > > > P: What you and I offer is two different> > methodologies of deconstructing the belief> > in multiplicity. One cannot use spiritual> > concepts to deconstruct materialism, anymore> > that one can use French to convince someone> > who doesn't speak that language. If a> > materialist is to be brought to understand> > "not two" it can only be done by deconstructing> > matter step by step until all is left is an> > unknown X.> > > > Usually, people who deconstruct multiplicity> > spiritually stop at Awareness. That is leaving> > the job undone, the point of deconstruction is> > to drop all beliefs and dwell in "don't know".> > > > > > > > *****Phil: Yes, but.......not knowing from whence cometh quarks isnot > > deconstruction, it's just materialism looking for the next answer to> the > > foundation of material, to be followed by the next question, both of> which are being > > made up as we go along. This is leaving the job undone. There's no> such thing > > as deconstructing materialism. It's true that spiritual concepts> cannot be > > used to deconstruct anything. On the contrary, it's the construction> of more > > conceptual perspectives that ultimately have to be seen through.> > > > What is needed is the realization to which the concepts arepointing. > > Without this clarity, there is no deconstruction, and without the> willingness to > > see what is being pointed to, there is no clarity. The 'don't know'> certainly > > doesn't lie at the boundaries of current scientific understanding,> it lies at > > the mystery of Beingness and the arising of life within it.> > > > > > > P: Since you are not a materialist, how would> you know what works or not for one? You just> love to opine, even in cases for which you> just manufacture an opinion on the spot, just> to offer one. You don't have to prove you> know everything, Phil. It's OK not to know.> > > > Phil: If you had any integrity, you would respond to the commentsrather > than dismissal and personal attacks.P: I have no integrity. How could no one have integrity?But you must be someone to feel dismissed and attacked.Get rid of that to which attacks attach! If you don'tknow how, ask. Phil: So to further proove your lack of integrity, now you pretend to be Awakened to the Truth beyond human form. As far as how I "feel", my comment was simply that you dismissed and personally attacked rather than addressed the post. This is observable (unless you wish to add denial to your list of attributes) and has nothing to do with my feelings about it. Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5 Travel Deals! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2008 Report Share Posted November 1, 2008 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > In a message dated 31/10/2008 8:12:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > pedsie6 writes: > > > P: What you and I offer is two different > methodologies of deconstructing the belief > in multiplicity. One cannot use spiritual > concepts to deconstruct materialism, anymore > that one can use French to convince someone > who doesn't speak that language. If a > materialist is to be brought to understand > " not two " it can only be done by deconstructing > matter step by step until all is left is an > unknown X. > > Usually, people who deconstruct multiplicity > spiritually stop at Awareness. That is leaving > the job undone, the point of deconstruction is > to drop all beliefs and dwell in " don't know " . > > > > *****Phil: Yes, but.......not knowing from whence cometh quarks is not > deconstruction, it's just materialism looking for the next answer to the > foundation of material, to be followed by the next question, both of which are being > made up as we go along. This is leaving the job undone. There's no such thing > as deconstructing materialism. It's true that spiritual concepts cannot be > used to deconstruct anything. On the contrary, it's the construction of more > conceptual perspectives that ultimately have to be seen through. > > What is needed is the realization to which the concepts are pointing. > Without this clarity, there is no deconstruction, and without the willingness to > see what is being pointed to, there is no clarity. The 'don't know' certainly > doesn't lie at the boundaries of current scientific understanding, it lies at > the mystery of Beingness and the arising of life within it. > > > P: Since you are not a materialist, how would you know what works or not for one? You just love to opine, even in cases for which you just manufacture an opinion on the spot, just to offer one. You don't have to prove you know everything, Phil. It's OK not to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2008 Report Share Posted November 1, 2008 In a message dated 01/11/2008 12:01:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time, pedsie6 writes: ..> > > > > > > > > > > P: Since you are not a materialist, how would> > you know what works or not for one? You just> > love to opine, even in cases for which you> > just manufacture an opinion on the spot, just> > to offer one. You don't have to prove you> > know everything, Phil. It's OK not to know.> > > > > > > > Phil: If you had any integrity, you would respond to the comments> rather > > than dismissal and personal attacks.> > > P: I have no integrity. How could no one have integrity?> But you must be someone to feel dismissed and attacked.> Get rid of that to which attacks attach! If you don't> know how, ask.> > > > Phil: So to further proove your lack of integrity, now you pretendto be > Awakened to the Truth beyond human form. As far as how I "feel", mycomment was > simply that you dismissed and personally attacked rather thanaddressed the > post. P: How can you judge something addressedto you as an attack, and not feel attacked? Phil: So if somebody attacked your wife in front of you (yes, verbally), but you didn't feel personally attacked, you wouldn't even know she had been attacked? Have you ever gotten into trouble with your wife because of that? I only said that you are not a materialist.Are you? I further asked how could youknow then, what works or not for one? Ifyou are not a materialist and you opined,you must like to opine. I don't see anattack in the above, unless you felt attacked. What you actually said was: P: Since you are not a materialist, how would> > you know what works or not for one? You just> > love to opine, even in cases for which you> > just manufacture an opinion on the spot, just> > to offer one. You don't have to prove you> > know everything, Phil. It's OK not to know. Phil: Could it be that the second time you said it, you twisted it to support your argument? Do you see that much, or are you unconscious of your own motivations? Why not at least pretend you have integrity for the benefit of conversation? I don't feel attacked by you saying i have nointegrity, I agree. Get rid of that to whichattacks attach! If you don'tknow how, ask. Phil: The solution to attachment to being integrous is not to be devoid of integrity, it's to actually BE integrous without having to pretend or defend it. Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5 Travel Deals! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2008 Report Share Posted November 1, 2008 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > In a message dated 01/11/2008 8:14:20 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > pedsie6 writes: > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 31/10/2008 8:12:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > pedsie6@ writes: > > > > > > P: What you and I offer is two different > > methodologies of deconstructing the belief > > in multiplicity. One cannot use spiritual > > concepts to deconstruct materialism, anymore > > that one can use French to convince someone > > who doesn't speak that language. If a > > materialist is to be brought to understand > > " not two " it can only be done by deconstructing > > matter step by step until all is left is an > > unknown X. > > > > Usually, people who deconstruct multiplicity > > spiritually stop at Awareness. That is leaving > > the job undone, the point of deconstruction is > > to drop all beliefs and dwell in " don't know " . > > > > > > > > *****Phil: Yes, but.......not knowing from whence cometh quarks is not > > deconstruction, it's just materialism looking for the next answer to > the > > foundation of material, to be followed by the next question, both of > which are being > > made up as we go along. This is leaving the job undone. There's no > such thing > > as deconstructing materialism. It's true that spiritual concepts > cannot be > > used to deconstruct anything. On the contrary, it's the construction > of more > > conceptual perspectives that ultimately have to be seen through. > > > > What is needed is the realization to which the concepts are pointing. > > Without this clarity, there is no deconstruction, and without the > willingness to > > see what is being pointed to, there is no clarity. The 'don't know' > certainly > > doesn't lie at the boundaries of current scientific understanding, > it lies at > > the mystery of Beingness and the arising of life within it. > > > > > > > P: Since you are not a materialist, how would > you know what works or not for one? You just > love to opine, even in cases for which you > just manufacture an opinion on the spot, just > to offer one. You don't have to prove you > know everything, Phil. It's OK not to know. > > > > Phil: If you had any integrity, you would respond to the comments rather > than dismissal and personal attacks. P: I have no integrity. How could no one have integrity? But you must be someone to feel dismissed and attacked. Get rid of that to which attacks attach! If you don't know how, ask. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2008 Report Share Posted November 1, 2008 In a message dated 01/11/2008 3:32:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time, pedsie6 writes: > Phil: The solution to attachment to being integrous is not to be devoid of > integrity, it's to actually BE integrous without having to pretendor defend > it.P: I wonder if you know the main definitionof the word integrity: To adhere to a codeof moral conduct. In other words, to consistently act according to a conceptual blueprint. I actaccording to present circumstances, not the past.So I have no integrity, or feel any need to actor speak consistently. Phil: That's very convenient to feel as though there is no need to be consistent. In a spiritual context, integrity looks more like this: "The quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness." Inconsistency implies a divided condition, typically brought on by egoic conflict. For example, ego wanting to appear as though ego has been transcended, or ego manipulating words in order to create the illusion of being right. To be free of conceptual constraints allows for one to respond in whatever context is appropriate, which may seem to some as inconsistent, but it isn't because there is no internal conflict in the integrated functioning. The inconsistency results from ignorance, unconsciousnes or purposeful deception arising from internal conflict in which the self is not integrated in it's functioning. Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5 Travel Deals! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2008 Report Share Posted November 1, 2008 .. > > > > > > > > > > > P: Since you are not a materialist, how would > > you know what works or not for one? You just > > love to opine, even in cases for which you > > just manufacture an opinion on the spot, just > > to offer one. You don't have to prove you > > know everything, Phil. It's OK not to know. > > > > > > > > Phil: If you had any integrity, you would respond to the comments > rather > > than dismissal and personal attacks. > > > P: I have no integrity. How could no one have integrity? > But you must be someone to feel dismissed and attacked. > Get rid of that to which attacks attach! If you don't > know how, ask. > > > > Phil: So to further proove your lack of integrity, now you pretend to be > Awakened to the Truth beyond human form. As far as how I " feel " , my comment was > simply that you dismissed and personally attacked rather than addressed the > post. P: How can you judge something addressed to you as an attack, and not feel attacked? I only said that you are not a materialist. Are you? I further asked how could you know then, what works or not for one? If you are not a materialist and you opined, you must like to opine. I don't see an attack in the above, unless you felt attacked. I don't feel attacked by you saying i have no integrity, I agree. Get rid of that to which attacks attach! If you don't know how, ask. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2008 Report Share Posted November 2, 2008 > > > > > Phil: The solution to attachment to being integrous is not to be devoid of > integrity, it's to actually BE integrous without having to pretend or defend > it. P: I wonder if you know the main definition of the word integrity: To adhere to a code of moral conduct. In other words, to consistently act according to a conceptual blueprint. I act according to present circumstances, not the past. So I have no integrity, or feel any need to act or speak consistently. > > **************Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot > 5 Travel Deals! > (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212416248x1200771803/aol?redir=http://\ travel.aol.com/discount-travel?ncid=emlcntustrav00000001) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2008 Report Share Posted November 2, 2008 In a message dated 02/11/2008 7:12:53 AM Pacific Standard Time, pedsie6 writes: Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote:>> > In a message dated 01/11/2008 3:32:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > pedsie6 writes:> > > Phil: The solution to attachment to being integrous is not to be > devoid of > > integrity, it's to actually BE integrous without having to pretend> or defend > > it.> > P: I wonder if you know the main definition> of the word integrity: To adhere to a code> of moral conduct. In other words, to consistently > act according to a conceptual blueprint. I act> according to present circumstances, not the past.> So I have no integrity, or feel any need to act> or speak consistently.> > > > Phil: That's very convenient to feel as though there is no need to be > consistent. In a spiritual context, integrity looks more like this:> > "The quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness." P: Ha, ha! You prove my case as to howyou love to opine, and how you improviseto do so. You just looked up that definition and useit now, but your original accusation was notabout my wholeness, but about your perceived lackof moral principles and consistency in me.. Yes, I looked it up to quote the appropriate meaning (was it the quotation marks that gave me away?) because you brought definitions into the discussion as a diversion. How this makes me an improvising opiner I have no idea. Moral principles are social conventions that vary continuously according to culture and time, and define right and wrong on the basis of what scares us and what we like. I have no use for moral codes, but acting consciously is highly desirable in both a spiritual and social context. The absence of internal conflict allows one to act in a more integrated fashion. (Whole, undivided, complete, consistent) That's the sense in which I said you lack integrity, and the examples I gave are consistent with that definition. The examples were describing you and I notice they mysteriously didn't get quoted in this post. Must have been an accident. I've re-inserted the mysteriously omitted text and highlighted in red. > >Phil: Inconsistency implies a divided condition, typically brought on by egoic conflict. For example, ego wanting to appear as though ego has been transcended, or ego manipulating words in order to create the illusion of being right. To be free of conceptual constraints allows for one to respond in whatever context is appropriate, which may seem to some as inconsistent, but it isn't because there is no internal conflict in the integrated functioning. The > inconsistency results from ignorance, unconsciousnes or purposefuldeception > arising from internal conflict in which the self is not integratedin it's > functioning.P: That's right! I'm the worse person in the worldbecause I hurt your feelings. But I still thinkyou're a great guy, and very wise. I love to arguewith you. It's such fun.> Phil: You give yourself waaay too much power, pete. BTW, every time you assign something to me that isn't happening here, the only source of that notion must be within you, and so you reveal your own projections. That might be helpful to you, or it might trigger more unconsciousness. Either way is fine. My feeeeelings have not been hurt, I'm just looking to see what's true because that's what I do.Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5 Travel Deals! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2008 Report Share Posted November 2, 2008 Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote: > > > In a message dated 01/11/2008 3:32:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > pedsie6 writes: > > > Phil: The solution to attachment to being integrous is not to be > devoid of > > integrity, it's to actually BE integrous without having to pretend > or defend > > it. > > P: I wonder if you know the main definition > of the word integrity: To adhere to a code > of moral conduct. In other words, to consistently > act according to a conceptual blueprint. I act > according to present circumstances, not the past. > So I have no integrity, or feel any need to act > or speak consistently. > > > > Phil: That's very convenient to feel as though there is no need to be > consistent. In a spiritual context, integrity looks more like this: > > " The quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness. " P: Ha, ha! You prove my case as to how you love to opine, and how you improvise to do so. You just looked up that definition and use it now, but your original accusation was not about my wholeness, but about your perceived lack of moral principles and consistency in me.. > >Phil: Inconsistency implies a divided condition, typically brought on by > inconsistency results from ignorance, unconsciousnes or purposeful deception > arising from internal conflict in which the self is not integrated in it's > functioning. P: That's right! I'm the worse person in the world because I hurt your feelings. But I still think you're a great guy, and very wise. I love to argue with you. It's such fun. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.