Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2014 11:32:38 GMT -5
Thanks Max,that's very good of you... For what it's worth, many would say seeing something is not the same as realising or becoming it (or should that be Not-becoming, hee hee) Anyway, I am still curious about the 'process'. Are you in a position to share with some detail what was said and done (it's a bit of a cop out I know. I could just go and ask, but would rather not. What a whimp!) Probably the commonality in process was: -->Look (inwardly) for any bit of self. Is there anyone there? -->A proposal was put forth -- there is no you. There's seeing, tasting, sensing, but no one actually doing any of that. Just seeing with no seer. -->Look and see. Then other parts of the process just varied by individual. I don't seem to have the interest right now to engage with it myself. Try liberationunleashed.com/ -- they're not nasty or anything. You do have to have maybe some courage if you are highly invested in yourself. If you're not, it might not seem like a big deal. |
|
|
|
Post by humbleseeker on Dec 10, 2014 14:11:55 GMT -5
aha, thanks Max. i understand. don't mean to drag up the past (no pun intended). actually the website is quite interesting. i almost want to say slightly frightening, not because it is real but because it's so convincing. to it's credit, the forum introduction states this: "We are fully aware of the fact that the term “Liberation” has different meanings in different traditions. In order to not set up false expectations, we'd like to make it clear that we use the word in a very specific way. In the context of Liberation Unleashed, liberation refers to the clear, unambiguous and direct realisation of the absence of a separate self. Because not everyone, perhaps no one comes to the Gate without at least some degree of latent tendencies, what we refer to as liberation may not be what you expect of it. Seeing self for what it really is - a story, does not mean that your life is suddenly upgraded in every conceivable way. Old habits, beliefs, programming and conditioning will very probably remain in place. Awakening from the story of you allows old patterns to drop away quickly. The foundation upon which these patterns were based is gone. In this sense, liberation is just the beginning." so therein lies the confusion - and now lack of it (thank you). I (wrongly) assumed they were claiming Liberation in the 'traditional' sense... my remaining question would be, what would they call the state that everyone else calls Liberation or enlightenment? hee hee thanks Max; you've been very helpful  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2015 15:33:43 GMT -5
aha, thanks Max. i understand. don't mean to drag up the past (no pun intended). actually the website is quite interesting. i almost want to say slightly frightening, not because it is real but because it's so convincing. to it's credit, the forum introduction states this: "We are fully aware of the fact that the term “Liberation” has different meanings in different traditions. In order to not set up false expectations, we'd like to make it clear that we use the word in a very specific way. In the context of Liberation Unleashed, liberation refers to the clear, unambiguous and direct realisation of the absence of a separate self. Because not everyone, perhaps no one comes to the Gate without at least some degree of latent tendencies, what we refer to as liberation may not be what you expect of it. Seeing self for what it really is - a story, does not mean that your life is suddenly upgraded in every conceivable way. Old habits, beliefs, programming and conditioning will very probably remain in place. Awakening from the story of you allows old patterns to drop away quickly. The foundation upon which these patterns were based is gone. In this sense, liberation is just the beginning." so therein lies the confusion - and now lack of it (thank you). I (wrongly) assumed they were claiming Liberation in the 'traditional' sense... my remaining question would be, what would they call the state that everyone else calls Liberation or enlightenment? hee hee thanks Max; you've been very helpful Hello Humbleseeker, much love. That's a good question. I don't know what they would call it, but I would call it source having the experience of a thought. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 3, 2015 20:20:22 GMT -5
Hi guys sorry for dragging open this old thread. but my question is regarding this 'teacher' so seemed the best place to put it. personally I think the idea of becoming enlightened in a few minutes is ludicrous (besides the exceptions). but I also accept that I have no idea what this chap says to make these people think they are enlightened. i am also fascinated by this idea, as it is impossible to prove (as far as I can) whether someone is or is not. To me, it is far more than 'seeing' something. but then again, who am I? (hee hee) to my question: Does anybody know what this RT chap says or does (and I am very sorry if this was shared somewhere in the previous 98 pages, but that's too much to read). thanks guys Mr. Healy originally defined enlightenment for himself as realizing the absence of self. He shared his story and had some dialogues with a few folks early on that seemed to see the sense in that as well. This was excitedly referred to as popping. Liberation/enlightenment were regarded as seeing through the assumption/presumption/illusioin of there being a separate person running the whole show. Then Mr. Healy tried to 'industrialize enlightenment' operating on the assumption that the false assumption of selfhood was at the root of all suffering worldwide. The methodology chosen was There is No You. Various incentives were put into play to encourage the liberated to liberate more, hoping to spur an exponential explosion of liberation. RT was shut down but two other sites came out of it, the more assertive truthstrike and the more touchy feely ecumenical liberation unleashed. Truthstrike fizzled but as far as I know LU is still happening. Personally, I was dubbed liberated in this way but have never really bought it. There are probably others too. One of the things I liked about RT was it's motivation to end suffering, etc. I failed to see this change much at all with my 'liberation.' And I failed to see any sort of increase in compassion with many of the more prominant liberated RT-style (one memorable occasion in this thread had one threatening raping me with a rusty chainsaw LOL). The argument was an a55hole prior to liberation is an a55hole after liberation. But doesn't a55holishness contribute to suffering as well? The buddha points to various 'sublime abodes' or attitudes that naturally arise with the cessation of self-referential thinking or endless grasping of pleasure or avoiding displeasure. Compassion, loving kindness, sympathetic joy, equanimity. This makes more sense to me and seems to be more indicative of what liberation/awakening might foster. I never saw this among the claimants of the RT definition of liberation. So it makes me wonder if the seeing through of the assumption of selfhood was more conceptual or superficial. Perhaps the buddhist tack of ceasing that grasping or averting is needed to a greater depth? One experience commonly related over at the Tolle board is of getting into a period of deep inner peace and alignment by seeing through the ego that doesn't last. Jim Carrey alluded to this once in a public speech, with a comment along the lines of "I've been trying to get back to it ever since". Every person is unique ... some people will be effected the way that Carrey was, others won't. In this, I'm not referring to the differential between a tight-centralized inner voice and one that's less so -- what I'm referring to is the effect on the life situation of this kind of experience. Theoretically, a sense of self as separate from what that self isn't can form the basis of egoic self-identification regardless, but it's probably likely to be less a source of stress if it's less centered, less concentrated. As you alluded to, it's likely to be a bigger deal in one case than the other, but what I'm referring to isn't that, it's rather to the curiosity and the pull toward self-inquiry in response to the "I" going on temporary hiatus. There are lots of different scenarios that could lead someone in a different direction from intense interest in what a collapse of the "I" was all about. There's the Christian parable of the four types of ground that fits here. If you remember the experience of Midnight, it would seem that a glimpse into the void of the absence of self can rattle the stones of the pattern that generates existential fear, a pattern that serves the purpose of sustaining itself. The most likely case of thorny ground of course would be the opposite of Midnight's self-described situation:a lifestyle that makes heavy outwardly directed demands on time and attention. Reminders of the appearance between inner and outer are constant and insistent in the life of a householder. Ayda wrote about that in "Dancing" -- how the Buddhist monasteries were set up to nurture the seed of awakening, but that in these times, people are popping like kernels so fast that this solution is now impractical.  Sekida's "Zen Training" presents the notion of "self-mastery". My take on this is that every culture teaches self-mastery to one degree or another, but this mastery is toward the end of some type of material self-service. We're taught to suck it up at work, to not let our emotions show in the face of co-worker deviousness or an unreasonably demanding superior. We learn that courtship is sometimes an intricate dance where the ball must be hidden until the right moment. If we're lucky, someone clues us into the fact that everyone has problems and that there are plenty of people who have it worse off than us in one way or another, so kindness is a virtue worth cultivating and it's worth giving someone who's rude the benefit of the doubt ... at least, at first. But this is not what Sekida means by the term, not really. The Zen version of mastery is blatantly in the context of the master becoming one with what is mastered. This is not the mastery of coercion, not a self-mastery that is in the service of self-centered gain in terms of the "I" that the Truther's were inviting peeps to see through. Mastery is always about control but the very idea of control in this instant is incredibly piquant because there is nothing that is apparently outside of oneself that is subject to it. The only interest in quelling is of the "I" pattern, but anyone who gets serious about meditation realizes very quickly that any attempt to force the quelling is just the "I" in disguise, or as the brainwashing bullies of ST refer to it, a "split mind". The hard ground is the ground of self-centered, cultural "self-mastery". The mind that grasps and clings to and won't let go of the sense of identity, not even for a single moment. No seed can grow there. I empathize with Healy in that in encountering this hardness the natural response is simply to give up on it and resort to mirroring, but this natural response is devoid of true self-mastery. The mistake of striking the hard ground is one that the rastaphant would stare at with no outward sign of his internal mirth -- it is the mistake of thinking that one can witness the arising of ego in others. Sometimes, it becomes so blatant, so obvious -- sometimes the drama resorted to by the personally identified can be so outrageous as to seem almost a cry for help ... but in seeing that, simply in recognizing the devil, we conjure him within ourselves. I understand and forgive Healy his mistake, because really, all that suffering that Buddha was whining about really is due to that hard ground. Every war, every Kafkaesque institution, all the abuse of debt and inequity involved in resource distribution, all the tribal animosities and any and every cruelty -- if there was no "I", there would very obviously be none of that. |
|
|
|
Post by Ishtahota on Feb 5, 2015 9:02:37 GMT -5
Once a relationship starts, it never ends ever. I may pick back up this lifetime and it may wait for a few more lifetimes. And in between lifetimes we will be reconnected. The bigger the feeling of lose, the bigger the ego. Our feelings of pain and lose are equil to how our love really was not love in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Feb 5, 2015 23:31:08 GMT -5
Mr. Healy originally defined enlightenment for himself as realizing the absence of self. He shared his story and had some dialogues with a few folks early on that seemed to see the sense in that as well. This was excitedly referred to as popping. Liberation/enlightenment were regarded as seeing through the assumption/presumption/illusioin of there being a separate person running the whole show. Then Mr. Healy tried to 'industrialize enlightenment' operating on the assumption that the false assumption of selfhood was at the root of all suffering worldwide. The methodology chosen was There is No You. Various incentives were put into play to encourage the liberated to liberate more, hoping to spur an exponential explosion of liberation. RT was shut down but two other sites came out of it, the more assertive truthstrike and the more touchy feely ecumenical liberation unleashed. Truthstrike fizzled but as far as I know LU is still happening. Personally, I was dubbed liberated in this way but have never really bought it. There are probably others too. One of the things I liked about RT was it's motivation to end suffering, etc. I failed to see this change much at all with my 'liberation.' And I failed to see any sort of increase in compassion with many of the more prominant liberated RT-style (one memorable occasion in this thread had one threatening raping me with a rusty chainsaw LOL). The argument was an a55hole prior to liberation is an a55hole after liberation. But doesn't a55holishness contribute to suffering as well? The buddha points to various 'sublime abodes' or attitudes that naturally arise with the cessation of self-referential thinking or endless grasping of pleasure or avoiding displeasure. Compassion, loving kindness, sympathetic joy, equanimity. This makes more sense to me and seems to be more indicative of what liberation/awakening might foster. I never saw this among the claimants of the RT definition of liberation. So it makes me wonder if the seeing through of the assumption of selfhood was more conceptual or superficial. Perhaps the buddhist tack of ceasing that grasping or averting is needed to a greater depth? One experience commonly related over at the Tolle board is of getting into a period of deep inner peace and alignment by seeing through the ego that doesn't last. Jim Carrey alluded to this once in a public speech, with a comment along the lines of "I've been trying to get back to it ever since". Every person is unique ... some people will be effected the way that Carrey was, others won't. In this, I'm not referring to the differential between a tight-centralized inner voice and one that's less so -- what I'm referring to is the effect on the life situation of this kind of experience. Theoretically, a sense of self as separate from what that self isn't can form the basis of egoic self-identification regardless, but it's probably likely to be less a source of stress if it's less centered, less concentrated. As you alluded to, it's likely to be a bigger deal in one case than the other, but what I'm referring to isn't that, it's rather to the curiosity and the pull toward self-inquiry in response to the "I" going on temporary hiatus. There are lots of different scenarios that could lead someone in a different direction from intense interest in what a collapse of the "I" was all about. There's the Christian parable of the four types of ground that fits here. If you remember the experience of Midnight, it would seem that a glimpse into the void of the absence of self can rattle the stones of the pattern that generates existential fear, a pattern that serves the purpose of sustaining itself. The most likely case of thorny ground of course would be the opposite of Midnight's self-described situation:a lifestyle that makes heavy outwardly directed demands on time and attention. Reminders of the appearance between inner and outer are constant and insistent in the life of a householder. Ayda wrote about that in "Dancing" -- how the Buddhist monasteries were set up to nurture the seed of awakening, but that in these times, people are popping like kernels so fast that this solution is now impractical. Sekida's "Zen Training" presents the notion of "self-mastery". My take on this is that every culture teaches self-mastery to one degree or another, but this mastery is toward the end of some type of material self-service. We're taught to suck it up at work, to not let our emotions show in the face of co-worker deviousness or an unreasonably demanding superior. We learn that courtship is sometimes an intricate dance where the ball must be hidden until the right moment. If we're lucky, someone clues us into the fact that everyone has problems and that there are plenty of people who have it worse off than us in one way or another, so kindness is a virtue worth cultivating and it's worth giving someone who's rude the benefit of the doubt ... at least, at first. But this is not what Sekida means by the term, not really. The Zen version of mastery is blatantly in the context of the master becoming one with what is mastered. This is not the mastery of coercion, not a self-mastery that is in the service of self-centered gain in terms of the "I" that the Truther's were inviting peeps to see through. Mastery is always about control but the very idea of control in this instant is incredibly piquant because there is nothing that is apparently outside of oneself that is subject to it. The only interest in quelling is of the "I" pattern, but anyone who gets serious about meditation realizes very quickly that any attempt to force the quelling is just the "I" in disguise, or as the brainwashing bullies of ST refer to it, a "split mind". The hard ground is the ground of self-centered, cultural "self-mastery". The mind that grasps and clings to and won't let go of the sense of identity, not even for a single moment. No seed can grow there. I empathize with Healy in that in encountering this hardness the natural response is simply to give up on it and resort to mirroring, but this natural response is devoid of true self-mastery. The mistake of striking the hard ground is one that the rastaphant would stare at with no outward sign of his internal mirth -- it is the mistake of thinking that one can witness the arising of ego in others. Sometimes, it becomes so blatant, so obvious -- sometimes the drama resorted to by the personally identified can be so outrageous as to seem almost a cry for help ... but in seeing that, simply in recognizing the devil, we conjure him within ourselves. I understand and forgive Healy his mistake, because really, all that suffering that Buddha was whining about really is due to that hard ground. Every war, every Kafkaesque institution, all the abuse of debt and inequity involved in resource distribution, all the tribal animosities and any and every cruelty -- if there was no "I", there would very obviously be none of that. Just wanted to give this a bump, great read. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 6, 2015 10:59:32 GMT -5
Just wanted to give this a bump, great read. thanks for the kind words rs. |
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Nov 15, 2015 12:49:50 GMT -5
Well i regard everyone is entitled to their opinion. Can you see any other explanation for his behavior, other than consciously scamming others? |
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Nov 15, 2015 13:20:08 GMT -5
Well i regard everyone is entitled to their opinion. Can you see any other explanation for his behavior, other than consciously scamming others? Love of self. How does 'love of self' translate to him not scamming others when he offers his services? |
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Nov 15, 2015 13:43:57 GMT -5
How does 'love of self' translate to him not scamming others when he offers his services? I don't understand your question. It is contradictory to your first post. How can you claim it's contradictory if you state you don't understand the question? You are forming a conclusion, 'It's a contradiction' on something you state you don't understand. My interpretaton is perhaps you did not understand my first question. I shall clarify. You state Mr.Healy is a fraud, that he is scamming others, ripping them off by taking money for his services. I asked... Can you see any other explanation for his behavior, other than consciously scamming others?I was asking can you see any other reason he offers his services for a fee, other than he is consciously scamming people? You responded with 'love of self', and i then asked what has him loving himself have to do with my original question(underlined) |
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Nov 15, 2015 14:24:59 GMT -5
How can you claim it's contradictory if you state you don't understand the question? You are forming a conclusion, 'It's a contradiction' on something you state you don't understand. My interpretaton is perhaps you did not understand my first question. I shall clarify. You state Mr.Healy is a fraud, that he is scamming others, ripping them off by taking money for his services. I asked... Can you see any other explanation for his behavior, other than consciously scamming others?I was asking can you see any other reason he offers his services for a fee, other than he is consciously scamming people? You responded with 'love of self', and i then asked what has him loving himself have to do with my original question(underlined) I see. I didn't understand that your second question related to the first one as such You did not understand, yet you did not seek clarification to resolve your lack of understanding. Instead, you concluded there was an error on my part.(contradiction) Now you see you were mistaken after i clarified. Can you imagine how many things you potentially have gotten wrong or may get wrong if you do not seek clarification when things do not add up for you. Other explanation for his behaviour (although 'behaviour' is the wrong word here, 'motivation' is better perhaps ) is - Love of self. He offers his services for money, yes. But the main motivation is Ego = Love of self. If you conclude 'behavior' is the wrong word to use, then that it how it is to you, and i see no rational reason to dispute how you see things when i have no problem with using 'behavior', because i see behavior is the result of motivation. I have not come across that definition of Ego before...'Ego is love of self'. I use the commonly accepted one as defined in the dictionary... Ego -" the “I” or self of any person; a thinking, feeling, and conscious being, able to distinguish itself from other selves." The term 'Ego' is a noun, while 'love of self' is a verb, as exemplified by the term 'motivate'. It's something one choose to do towards their understanding of themself. I have never seen 'Ego' used as a verb. But i suppose everyone is free to define existence as they choose, and this also must include creating new or different definitions of words that already have them. But unless these differences have been identified, it can increase misunderstanding. Anyways...it seems to me your latest response still does not answer my original question because i reason a person can still consciously choose to scam others from a motivation of love of themself. What i am asking you is can you see him offering his services to others for money where he is not consciously scamming them? And if you can, how would he do this, what reason would he have for sharing his services, other than consciously scamming? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 15, 2015 15:52:22 GMT -5
Mr Healy has a new flash website (came up this year) and charges £100 per session of his Ignition Training... ah, everyone comes up with own 'brand name' fo whatever programme they are trying to sell. Six session should 'empower and stabilise your personality'...He was in contact with Jed for some time, then Jed stopped responding. Mr Healy never got over it. He is Ego Personified. From his website (with a nice big photo of him): "Ciaran Healy is a philosopher. In 2014 he was awarded a Fellowship by the Royal Society of Arts.
He has pioneered a new understanding of human nature. It includes breakthroughs from neuroscience, evolutionary theory and philosophical elements from the Western and Eastern traditions.
It opens an unprecedented level of access to the core mechanics of human nature."
FRAUD. Does "Fraud" indicate that you believe he is knowingly turning away from that which he knows to be true, to purposefully mislead? While I am quite surprised to see that the formerly uncompromising dude behind 'ruthless truth' has now seemingly back-tracked and is currently offering personal growth teachings/coaching, I also understand where he may be coming from. You may recall that Jed McKenna admits that for anyone who has a choice in the matter, he recommends "human adulthood" over enlightenment...says himself that if awakening doesn't happen, then the only question that matters is; Is it a good dream or a bad dream? ..He also admits that the drive to awakening, to enlightenment is not something that is under any individuals control, even less so, the actuality of awakening. From that vantage point, it could be argued that Ciaran has simply decided that his understandings are best put towards helping those who are simply very unlikely to awaken, to enjoy a better dream. If so, I wholeheartedly support him. After all, however you slice it, a life experience that is rife with happiness and joy is a much different experience than a life rife with misery and sorrow. I expect Ciaran has had yet another major realization since his monumental 'no self' realization...all indications point to him having moved from seeing it's all just a play..a dream, to seeing that there is really nothing else to do after this seeing, than to once again, don the outfit and get back on stage to engage with the story-line, this time, fully conscious of what's happening. Thanks for sharing the link. |
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Nov 15, 2015 21:04:02 GMT -5
You are asking the same question using different word combinations. Well that is part of the process of clarification...describing something in a different way so the other can understand your meaning. I have already answered this. I am well aware you have already given an answer, and i have already expressed I don't see how "love of self" is defining a different motive other than conscious scamming of others. Please clarify in your mind what it is that you want to know. Asking clear questions will lead to better answers. I regard i have already expressed my question in clear terms and in multiple ways. I do not see how i can express the question any better, and thus i theorize you and i think too differently for you to understand me. But I feel you don't want an answer, not really. That does not seem to me to be a conclusion based on rationality...evidenced by you citing you are basing it on feelings. If you conclude i am asking questions that i really don't want answers to, then a rational response would be to simple not answer them, of which if you choose to do this, i will be okay with it...though the info i seek will remain undisclosed. I consider the question, 'Is there another motive besides a desire to scam others for offering services to others?' is a simple, clear and straightforward question. If your answer remains as, 'He loves himself', and you remain confident that is a valid answer, and i remain convinced it does not address the question, then there is nothing more to discuss on the matter. You are free to remain convinced Mr Healy (whoever this person may be) is a fraud, and i will remain convinced there are potentially other reasons\motives for his behavior. |
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Nov 16, 2015 15:07:09 GMT -5
'empower and stabilise your personality', from Mr Healy's website. My answer didn't relate to the petty business of money making. All have to eat and survive. , you were the one who brought up the money part... Mr Healy has a new flash website (came up this year) and charges £100 per session of his Ignition Training... ...and though i interpret you do not have a problem with people earning money when you say, "All have to eat and survive", you also judge earning money as "petty". But i theorize you only consider a person's effort to make\earn money as "petty" when their behavior does not align with your personal beliefs\code of conduct. However, I cannot see how anyone with a genuine SR/TR could possibly offers this kind of 'programme''. I had already speculated you may have sight issues when the only thing you can see is he is behaving fraudulently. Perhaps, in regards to your new statement, the reason you can't see how a person who you perceive has genuinely self realized could offer and charge for the programme mentioned, is you cannot fathom\see anything beyond your current beliefs about SR\TR. Mr. Healy is not behaving according to your own beliefs about SR\RT, so all you can conclude\judge is he is behaving fraudulently. This seems to explain why you cannot come up with another reason other than fraud for his behavior. His presentation screams 'I know how!'. "I am the best in the business!" According to simple observation of words, of just reading the words, the only person "screaming", 'I know how!'. "I am the best in the business!", is you...yet you claim it is Mr.Healy who is screaming this, when the evidence is quite clear that it is you that has said these things. It seems to me you have read Mr.Healy's words, none of them stating this by the way, "I know how!'. "I am the best in the business!"...and you have interpreted\translated things he actually said into, "I know how!'. "I am the best in the business!". And this process of interpretation\translation of a set of words into something entirely different, you call, "I don't so much read the words, but the true intent behind." It seems to me then that you believe your interpretation of things is the truth of the matter, which i find kinda strange in regards to communicating with others if you don't so much read(or listen) to what the other is saying. What is the bulk of your activity you are engaged in when another is talking to you or you are experiencing written text, if you are not so much reading\listening? I would logically speculate if someone were talking to me or i was reading what they have said, i would focus the bulk of my attention on what they are sharing so as to grasp as much understanding of the content as possible. This is deceiving self - at best, and deceiving others - at worst. Finally, you have expressed another reason other than consciously behaving fraudulently. If a person is delusional-self deceived, they cannot be consciously ripping people off. They are convinced what they are offering is beneficial to others, and most likely are doing so because they love others enough to help them on their journeys. As for the feeling versus rationality... I don't so much read the words, but the true intent behind. I genuinely hope that process serve you well. Though it is already evident to me it is one reason why our interaction is not going well. You didn't want the answer, Jay. You wanted to prove something ''wrong'' to me. This would be a clear example of you believing your interpretation is correct, the truth. And according to my interpretation that you now seem quite convinced your interpretations of existence are correct, the truth, i reason any attempt to encourage you to self examine to make sure would be either a waste of time or very difficult and time consuming. Tano, if you interpret, and are now convinced a genuine question, and my response that i think your answers did not address the question, is i never wanted an answer and i am out to prove you wrong about something, then you are free and entitled to interpret existence as you see fit. I could see another reason and i simply wanted to know if you could see another reason other than fraud for a person's actions of offering paid services to others. You finally have by stating Mr.Healy could be delusional, so thanks for answering the original question. As for proving something wrong, i have shared many times that i do not operate with a 'right-wrong' mindset for many issues of life. I do not engage in lengthy arguments that sets out to prove me or anyone else right or wrong, nor do i seek or desire to know the truth about many matters. I simply explore a topic or person i am interested in, and i ask lots of questions as i travel. And on my travels i have noticed that the main types of people who are adversely affected by my interaction style, my abundant use of questions\inquiry, are people with 'right-wrong' mindsets, people who are strongly attached to their beliefs, things they hold as correct or true, and they simply feel threatened by my interactive behavior as i make deep inquiry or express disagreement. ( please note that disagreement can occur without anyone claiming right or wrong about an issue) Whether you, your beliefs, attitude or actions are actually right or wrong is yours to self determine and make use of. I will suffer no adverse affects in my own journey if you are proved to be right or wrong, hence i have no need or desire to go around proving others right or wrong. I simply wanted to know if you saw another reason for Mr.Healy's behavior. How you or others interpret a question, and the subsequent responses provides me with info to help me decide if a continuation of interaction is mutually beneficial or not. (satchitanada as a prime example - i asked him a couple of questions, his response is to call me a troll and never speak to me again...this is a grown man having a major hissy fit just because i asked a few questions) In other words, when i simply be myself and enjoy hanging out with others, getting to know them, allowing them to know me, i get on really well with many folks online and off, and not with many others. I then simply choose who i will spend more time with without creating or harbouring any ill thought or feeling towards others where there are various levels of incompatibility between us. In closing, i again do thank you for finally offering an alternative to fraud for Mr.Healy's behavior. |
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Nov 16, 2015 19:43:31 GMT -5
Jay, I kinda lost track of what you are trying to say, too many words. I don't see how one can lose track of reading another's words. Just read one word after the other, from left to right. Perhaps you suffer from something similar to Tzu, he admits to getting confused or overwhelmed when a post contains more than one element of the topic discussion, which is seen more in large posts. And similarly as i said to Tzu, if you struggle with large posts, then we shall rarely interact as most of my posts are larger than what many judge to be acceptable small sizes for online discussions. I agree, though i find it intriguing you felt to mention this. I am satisfied with my current state of being and do not need or desire validation from others. Negative and positive assessments offered from others are analysed and dealt with rationally and respectfully. Just state your questions with clarity and no hidden agenda next time, and all will be well. These issues have already been addressed, tano, but you are not aware of this due to your struggles with large groupings of words. I did state my questions clearly and there was no hidden agenda. You have finally offered an alternative to 'fraud', and i said thanks for finally answering my simple and clear question. But i am confident, based on my interactions thus far with you that you will continue to believe i have not expressed myself clearly and i had a hidden agenda, of which regardless if you remain attached to these current beliefs about me or you change your mind, i will be well either way. Mein himmel, look at the huge amount of drama you have injected into this interaction when all you had to do was provide the straightforward, clear and simple answer that you finally did give. I think you will fit really well into this forum. |
|
