08-06-2017, 12:00 AM
Pixie wrote:To clarify because you asked... lol... language can certainly be imprecise: the tonal meaning physical manifestation of self (the physical body and physical reality aka matter). Ego meaning awareness (or lack of awareness aka non-matter). What I meant was when people tear down the tonal (which sure, can sometimes mean ego too) the person responsible for that progression can be hated. Killing the ego can kill the tonal if someone has too much ego (disconnection with Spirit). The tonal can die if it doesn't have enough Spirit to fall back on--reflecting the idea that it's good not to have all eggs in one basket.
What I want to do is complicated xP Sometimes killing the ego frees the Spirit within a person so yeah, sometimes I want to kill ego. I never said I wanted to destroy the tonal to aid the spiritual. I said sometimes it's necessary to destroy the tonal to aid the spiritual. Ideally, I don't think I would ever deem it necessary to destroy an entire tonal (aka murder). I'm not that much of an extremist. There have been sketchy situations where I've stripped a lot of the tonal away from an individual or two.... and those were incredibly messy situations. Ones that were even a bit too close for comfort for even myself... but those situations orchestrated themselves (Spirit was at fault).
I hope that clarifies? I can clarify further because it feels like I didn't do a great job identifying the source of confusion. Not sure, I'll see what you say lol.
ok, I understand somewhat what you mean by 'tonal' and 'ego'. For you tonal is basically life in matter. So dying means the tonal died. And ego is just being unaware. I think my term of what ego means is pretty different yet somehow we can still talk and understand each other heh. Because it ends up as the same thing. Being self-important means one lacks awareness.
But then what do you mean by tearing down someone's tonal? You seem to distinguish between tearing down and destroying. Cause yea, destroying means killing in your definition. When you tear down a tonal what do you do?
Does tearing down the tonal mean killing the ego and the effect that has on the tonal?
Interesting to me is how I speak of when I speak of some of what you speak of (rofl haha). So, I say that the person can die with the ego for two probable reasons: They are extremely rigid (they lack fluidity) and they like drama
. Drama is evil . Self-importance links to drama. If one is dramatically afraid they can even die. So, interestingly, I did not link it to having a lack of spirit in the tonal. But I totally see your point. If there is enough spirit present then the person is not that rigid that they die or that dramatic that they die.
It is a bit funny how you say Spirit was at fault heh.
How are these individuals you mentioned doing now?
---------------------
Pixie wrote:Ideally killing of the ego should serve the tonal and spiritual, I agree with your conclusion. Ego is a form of mental construct and yes, it's abstract as it's not matter. I view ego as an unevolved form of self-importance. Self-importance is necessary as it allows self-care to take center stage. Definitely an interesting shift.
In my terminology, one can understand the importance and value of things as well as oneself and not be self-important. Self-care is not linked to self-importance for me therefore and also because for me that links to care of everything. Actually, what helped me take better care of myself is when I realized that I am actually mean or not good to my own being. I can take so much care with other people but then my own being is like what? I realized I gotta take care of not just others but my own being. My body is also a body. If I take care not to damage another person's body why not take care not to damage mine? etc etc. It was not self-importance that got me to turn to take better care of myself. it was forbearance, politeness, care to all things. I am part of everything hence I deserve care too.
I guess that is weird lol.
Before this step, I had to do self-care ofc to be able to function. That is not linked to self-importance either. Just practicality and necessity.
And then anger got me to take care of myself too.
I mentioned these 3 influences. Chronologically they went 1) practicality and necessity 2) anger 3) not sure what to call it
maybe love heh.
The center stage - that realization comes with the normal rational realization that I cannot help anyone (including myself) or do anything if I am done for. I can calculate or decide on a diminishing in my own well being but I cannot go beyond a certain line.
---------------
Pixie wrote:Your thoughts on hijacking peoples paths are interesting. You say you won't hijack paths, but your mere presence (the presence of anyone) has the potential to hijack paths. Easy scenario: I walk into a banquet hall with my wife--there are other men around who are more dashing in their suits, obviously have more money, and I'm petty. All those men just hijacked my path (for the moment). Or I walk into an insane asylum and pretend to be the only sane person present; this is hijacking. Or I'm a fitness model and walk into a weight watchers clinic; I'm hijacking. Or I'm an esteemed writer going to a writing course for beginners; I'm hijacking (unles I'm the teacher). We hijack paths so frequently that we can either be aware of ourselves and the potential impact and make adjustments for those--or we can ignore ourselves and expect Spirit to save the life of a bloody cyclist. Even when we are positive and share acts of kindness can we hijack someones path. Your love for everyone has hijacked my path. So whether or not you care to admit it--you're a path hijacker.
again you go into very tiny things when I am talking about major things. Yes, I see your point here but that is not what I call hijacking someone's path
. Your path was not hijacked by those men, you just got into a different state temporarily and not even that different for you. It just allowed you to express something that you already had the bend for and ready and ripe for expression, all they did is provide an impulse for you and the rest you did yourself. I am not saying I dont want to provide impulses to people, impulses are like invitations. I allow things. I don't force them. So the men did not force you to feel jealous or whatever. (I do not all that well understand all your examples heh but I use the one I do). What you call hijacking is like I said providing an impulse or a gear shift, but it doesn't hijack one's path just maybe bring forth an emotion that otherwise would not have come in that moment. But I agree with what you say about adjustments in those situations.
Spirit might be saving the cyclist by having you there in the situation. And if you sit and wait for Spirit to i dunno materialize and do something that would be tragic.
So then I assume that when you say I hijacked your path you just mean in the sense like in your other examples. Which is not that big of a deal really .
---------------------
Pixie wrote:You mention not wanting to hurt people but damn it, you're going to learn something right now. When you are kind to mean people, KINDNESS can hurt them. Kindness gives mean people hope and hope is one of the most dangerous things to give a person. So--if you don't want to hurt mean people then you have to be mean to them, but that would be mean toward your Spirit. So what are you gonna do eh? I'll tell you what I would do. I would be kind to a mean person, violate their tonal and tear down that ego, and serve their spirit. xP In all fairness I've also been mean to a mean person because my spirit flows both ways and sometimes I prefer to be self-serving. Depends on whether I've had coffee. Just because you think kindness doesn't hurt, doesn't mean it can't be a weapon to disarm even the darkest of people. You wouldn't believe the number of cranky old men who've wept uncontrollably because someone loved them unconditionally; usually, these scenarios have involved young children giving them hugs.
This is a language thing heh. I meant to hurt as in to damage. Tere is hurt and Hurt. heh. Some hurt is a byproduct of healing, sadly. I am all for healing. I would not want to hurt as in damage a person.
I know kindness can hurt (as in be painful) to hurt (as in damaged) individuals. But that is not the fault of kindness or the kind person it is the fault of whatever that resulted in damaging/hurting the individual who became closed off or mean. When the heart/soul of such an individual temporarily starts to come alive it is something they are not used to any more. It is the fact that they have become bent that hurts.
I do not know why you talk about hope. I mean yes it can give them hope but why say that as a link to hurt? Does hope hurt? I guess it can same as kindness and opening one's hurt heart. But it is interesting that you focus on hope out of all the other things that could link to this open heart and kindness. I do not think hope is the most dangerous. If a person did not have hope then they were basically a goner already. Nothing much worse can happen to them in the sense of hope or non-hope than losing the hope they didn't have before. Yea they can fall a bit lower, so to speak, but it is not really that big of a difference, is it? And could one not argue that they had not lost hope in the first place? Otherwise, could it really be rekindled? And say someone comes and affects a change of hope in a person. This person now hopes but this someone lets them down. Instead of losing hope the person should cling to it and create the world of it. - Is what I'd say. Just because someone is imperfect doesn't mean the hope is not perfect and impeccable.
Yea, I also say in my post that kindness can disarm and affect people who are well cold and militant are the words I used, we could also say mean haha.
--------------------
Pixie wrote:I enjoyed what you said about the elements. One thing to note, while lightning may not be as big a death dealer as the other elements overall--keep in mind in Colorado we have a higher rate of death by lightning strikes than other locations. I'm not nerdy enough to understand why that is, but if I'm guessing it has something to do with being higher in elevation. "Eagles may soar in the clouds, but weasels never get sucked into jet engines" (can't remember the author). So location-based features may play a significant factor in the possibility of death regarding the elements. While lightning may not be high-risk for you, I sure as hell won't go for a hike in Colorado during a storm. I don't worry about fires in Hawaii, but I do in California. Elemental death rates aren't quite as simple as you make them appear lol.
The death and elementals topic... the point is that neither element is undeadly. Of course, no one will drown in a desert but that does not say anything about the undeadliness of water. People need to be aware where they live. I was not advocating you get careless with lightning, no matter where you live . Funny about the weasels .
----------------
Pixie wrote:I would definitely agree with you in that every AP has a type of blindness involved. It's why I love to play host to thousands of APs..... I don't like being blind. I've found blindness to be divisive so the more the merrier.
But would you not have to hold these different APs at the same time in order to assess the situation while trying to not have the blind spot? I think some of the emotions are mutually exclusive - like we said with the open hearted love.
It is possible to dream more dreams at once so it is possible to hold more APs at once. But to be at this level in normal daily interactions hmm.
-----------------------------
Pixie wrote:Being annoyed is different than being angry or hateful (at least for me). Like I'm terribly annoyed with ignorance. I don't hate ignorant people because I can't control them. I can control myself, so I can hate myself. Annoyance doesn't have to lead to anger either (though it can). I view anger as very similar to hate--it's a passionate dislike. So maybe the easiest way to explain this is I view hate on the far right and annoyance on the far left...but they both share the same spectrum. So they're similar, but each is a difference of intensity. I try to avoid anger/hate because chaos often unfolds when I reach those extremes...
To the topic of annoyance and being angry or feeling hate:
Intriguing how you link control to hate. I do not have this link. I do not hate myself because I can control myself. But I do see how hate can come due to not being able to control (others and oneself too). And lol this sentence (I do not hate myself because I can control myself) has now a double meaning but I mean foremost that just because I have the ability to control myself does not make me hate myself when I fail.
It is a bit confusing how you mix anger and hate. For me they are different emotions. You link annoyance to hate but not that much to anger, while for me annoyance and anger are basically the same thing just different in intensity and hate is different. Hate is a condition of the heart/soul like love. Anger, in general, is fleeting and reactionary. (Of course hate utilizes anger and in these cases anger can linger for long times or come by very often.)
Anger is a stronger form of annoyance. Annoyance already has in it anger it is just not yet blossomed fully. Hate is something that needs a lot more to come into the equation. I can be angry at my mother but I dont hate her, I can be even aware that I love her while I am angry at her.
Im trying to formulate what ingredient comes to make anger.. its forming... there is a certain additional bent that needs to happen. But what is it precisely? Hmm...
Anger is not hate but hate comes with anger. In hurt there is a sense of injury, hurt, pain, maybe shame. Anger is not long lasting on its own, hate is. Anger is more rational or practical. If something is causing you pain (can be also in form of unfairness and injustice) you get angry and retaliate/free yourself. Hate wants to cause pain without this type of practical reason.
But what to call this bend that needs to happen for hate to come about... dunno atm. Maybe you can help
What I want to do is complicated xP Sometimes killing the ego frees the Spirit within a person so yeah, sometimes I want to kill ego. I never said I wanted to destroy the tonal to aid the spiritual. I said sometimes it's necessary to destroy the tonal to aid the spiritual. Ideally, I don't think I would ever deem it necessary to destroy an entire tonal (aka murder). I'm not that much of an extremist. There have been sketchy situations where I've stripped a lot of the tonal away from an individual or two.... and those were incredibly messy situations. Ones that were even a bit too close for comfort for even myself... but those situations orchestrated themselves (Spirit was at fault).
I hope that clarifies? I can clarify further because it feels like I didn't do a great job identifying the source of confusion. Not sure, I'll see what you say lol.
ok, I understand somewhat what you mean by 'tonal' and 'ego'. For you tonal is basically life in matter. So dying means the tonal died. And ego is just being unaware. I think my term of what ego means is pretty different yet somehow we can still talk and understand each other heh. Because it ends up as the same thing. Being self-important means one lacks awareness.
But then what do you mean by tearing down someone's tonal? You seem to distinguish between tearing down and destroying. Cause yea, destroying means killing in your definition. When you tear down a tonal what do you do?
Does tearing down the tonal mean killing the ego and the effect that has on the tonal?
Interesting to me is how I speak of when I speak of some of what you speak of (rofl haha). So, I say that the person can die with the ego for two probable reasons: They are extremely rigid (they lack fluidity) and they like drama
. Drama is evil . Self-importance links to drama. If one is dramatically afraid they can even die. So, interestingly, I did not link it to having a lack of spirit in the tonal. But I totally see your point. If there is enough spirit present then the person is not that rigid that they die or that dramatic that they die. It is a bit funny how you say Spirit was at fault heh.
How are these individuals you mentioned doing now?
---------------------
Pixie wrote:Ideally killing of the ego should serve the tonal and spiritual, I agree with your conclusion. Ego is a form of mental construct and yes, it's abstract as it's not matter. I view ego as an unevolved form of self-importance. Self-importance is necessary as it allows self-care to take center stage. Definitely an interesting shift.
In my terminology, one can understand the importance and value of things as well as oneself and not be self-important. Self-care is not linked to self-importance for me therefore and also because for me that links to care of everything. Actually, what helped me take better care of myself is when I realized that I am actually mean or not good to my own being. I can take so much care with other people but then my own being is like what? I realized I gotta take care of not just others but my own being. My body is also a body. If I take care not to damage another person's body why not take care not to damage mine? etc etc. It was not self-importance that got me to turn to take better care of myself. it was forbearance, politeness, care to all things. I am part of everything hence I deserve care too.
I guess that is weird lol.
Before this step, I had to do self-care ofc to be able to function. That is not linked to self-importance either. Just practicality and necessity.
And then anger got me to take care of myself too.
I mentioned these 3 influences. Chronologically they went 1) practicality and necessity 2) anger 3) not sure what to call it
maybe love heh.The center stage - that realization comes with the normal rational realization that I cannot help anyone (including myself) or do anything if I am done for. I can calculate or decide on a diminishing in my own well being but I cannot go beyond a certain line.
---------------
Pixie wrote:Your thoughts on hijacking peoples paths are interesting. You say you won't hijack paths, but your mere presence (the presence of anyone) has the potential to hijack paths. Easy scenario: I walk into a banquet hall with my wife--there are other men around who are more dashing in their suits, obviously have more money, and I'm petty. All those men just hijacked my path (for the moment). Or I walk into an insane asylum and pretend to be the only sane person present; this is hijacking. Or I'm a fitness model and walk into a weight watchers clinic; I'm hijacking. Or I'm an esteemed writer going to a writing course for beginners; I'm hijacking (unles I'm the teacher). We hijack paths so frequently that we can either be aware of ourselves and the potential impact and make adjustments for those--or we can ignore ourselves and expect Spirit to save the life of a bloody cyclist. Even when we are positive and share acts of kindness can we hijack someones path. Your love for everyone has hijacked my path. So whether or not you care to admit it--you're a path hijacker.
again you go into very tiny things when I am talking about major things. Yes, I see your point here but that is not what I call hijacking someone's path
. Your path was not hijacked by those men, you just got into a different state temporarily and not even that different for you. It just allowed you to express something that you already had the bend for and ready and ripe for expression, all they did is provide an impulse for you and the rest you did yourself. I am not saying I dont want to provide impulses to people, impulses are like invitations. I allow things. I don't force them. So the men did not force you to feel jealous or whatever. (I do not all that well understand all your examples heh but I use the one I do). What you call hijacking is like I said providing an impulse or a gear shift, but it doesn't hijack one's path just maybe bring forth an emotion that otherwise would not have come in that moment. But I agree with what you say about adjustments in those situations.Spirit might be saving the cyclist by having you there in the situation. And if you sit and wait for Spirit to i dunno materialize and do something that would be tragic
.So then I assume that when you say I hijacked your path you just mean in the sense like in your other examples
. Which is not that big of a deal really .---------------------
Pixie wrote:You mention not wanting to hurt people but damn it, you're going to learn something right now. When you are kind to mean people, KINDNESS can hurt them. Kindness gives mean people hope and hope is one of the most dangerous things to give a person. So--if you don't want to hurt mean people then you have to be mean to them, but that would be mean toward your Spirit. So what are you gonna do eh? I'll tell you what I would do. I would be kind to a mean person, violate their tonal and tear down that ego, and serve their spirit. xP In all fairness I've also been mean to a mean person because my spirit flows both ways and sometimes I prefer to be self-serving. Depends on whether I've had coffee. Just because you think kindness doesn't hurt, doesn't mean it can't be a weapon to disarm even the darkest of people. You wouldn't believe the number of cranky old men who've wept uncontrollably because someone loved them unconditionally; usually, these scenarios have involved young children giving them hugs.
This is a language thing heh. I meant to hurt as in to damage. Tere is hurt and Hurt. heh. Some hurt is a byproduct of healing, sadly. I am all for healing. I would not want to hurt as in damage a person.
I know kindness can hurt (as in be painful) to hurt (as in damaged) individuals. But that is not the fault of kindness or the kind person it is the fault of whatever that resulted in damaging/hurting the individual who became closed off or mean. When the heart/soul of such an individual temporarily starts to come alive it is something they are not used to any more. It is the fact that they have become bent that hurts.
I do not know why you talk about hope. I mean yes it can give them hope but why say that as a link to hurt? Does hope hurt? I guess it can same as kindness and opening one's hurt heart. But it is interesting that you focus on hope out of all the other things that could link to this open heart and kindness. I do not think hope is the most dangerous. If a person did not have hope then they were basically a goner already. Nothing much worse can happen to them in the sense of hope or non-hope than losing the hope they didn't have before. Yea they can fall a bit lower, so to speak, but it is not really that big of a difference, is it? And could one not argue that they had not lost hope in the first place? Otherwise, could it really be rekindled? And say someone comes and affects a change of hope in a person. This person now hopes but this someone lets them down. Instead of losing hope the person should cling to it and create the world of it. - Is what I'd say. Just because someone is imperfect doesn't mean the hope is not perfect and impeccable
.Yea, I also say in my post that kindness can disarm and affect people who are well cold and militant are the words I used, we could also say mean haha.
--------------------
Pixie wrote:I enjoyed what you said about the elements. One thing to note, while lightning may not be as big a death dealer as the other elements overall--keep in mind in Colorado we have a higher rate of death by lightning strikes than other locations. I'm not nerdy enough to understand why that is, but if I'm guessing it has something to do with being higher in elevation. "Eagles may soar in the clouds, but weasels never get sucked into jet engines" (can't remember the author). So location-based features may play a significant factor in the possibility of death regarding the elements. While lightning may not be high-risk for you, I sure as hell won't go for a hike in Colorado during a storm. I don't worry about fires in Hawaii, but I do in California. Elemental death rates aren't quite as simple as you make them appear lol.
The death and elementals topic... the point is that neither element is undeadly. Of course, no one will drown in a desert
but that does not say anything about the undeadliness of water. People need to be aware where they live. I was not advocating you get careless with lightning, no matter where you live . Funny about the weasels . ----------------
Pixie wrote:I would definitely agree with you in that every AP has a type of blindness involved. It's why I love to play host to thousands of APs.....
I don't like being blind. I've found blindness to be divisive so the more the merrier. But would you not have to hold these different APs at the same time in order to assess the situation while trying to not have the blind spot? I think some of the emotions are mutually exclusive - like we said with the open hearted love.
It is possible to dream more dreams at once so it is possible to hold more APs at once. But to be at this level in normal daily interactions hmm
.-----------------------------
Pixie wrote:Being annoyed is different than being angry or hateful (at least for me). Like I'm terribly annoyed with ignorance. I don't hate ignorant people because I can't control them. I can control myself, so I can hate myself. Annoyance doesn't have to lead to anger either (though it can). I view anger as very similar to hate--it's a passionate dislike. So maybe the easiest way to explain this is I view hate on the far right and annoyance on the far left...but they both share the same spectrum. So they're similar, but each is a difference of intensity. I try to avoid anger/hate because chaos often unfolds when I reach those extremes...
To the topic of annoyance and being angry or feeling hate:
Intriguing how you link control to hate. I do not have this link. I do not hate myself because I can control myself. But I do see how hate can come due to not being able to control (others and oneself too). And lol this sentence (I do not hate myself because I can control myself) has now a double meaning but I mean foremost that just because I have the ability to control myself does not make me hate myself when I fail.
It is a bit confusing how you mix anger and hate. For me they are different emotions. You link annoyance to hate but not that much to anger, while for me annoyance and anger are basically the same thing just different in intensity and hate is different. Hate is a condition of the heart/soul like love. Anger, in general, is fleeting and reactionary. (Of course hate utilizes anger and in these cases anger can linger for long times or come by very often.)
Anger is a stronger form of annoyance. Annoyance already has in it anger it is just not yet blossomed fully. Hate is something that needs a lot more to come into the equation. I can be angry at my mother but I dont hate her, I can be even aware that I love her while I am angry at her.
Im trying to formulate what ingredient comes to make anger.. its forming... there is a certain additional bent that needs to happen. But what is it precisely? Hmm...
Anger is not hate but hate comes with anger. In hurt there is a sense of injury, hurt, pain, maybe shame. Anger is not long lasting on its own, hate is. Anger is more rational or practical. If something is causing you pain (can be also in form of unfairness and injustice) you get angry and retaliate/free yourself. Hate wants to cause pain without this type of practical reason.
But what to call this bend that needs to happen for hate to come about... dunno atm. Maybe you can help