Re: The Rose
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "carolina112900"
> Concept and reason and true compassion/unconditionalThat is arguable, when one has constructed a way of
> love don't really have anything to do with each
'understanding' compassion/unconditional love.
That is also arguable, because elements that co-exist,
such as 'being human' and 'Being being', do have a
relationship. If nothing else, they are 'juxtaposed',
and so, do have some something to do with the other.
> Maybe this understanding you're referring to,Nope.
> thinking one understands where another is coming from,
> it's just more of a way of viewing the world with heels dug
> in even deeper that one can truly understand
> or judge something-anything.
> The human reasoning perspective, perceptual mechanism, is limited.Yep, it is limited, but it is 'what we have'...
no matter whether or not you feel you are coming
from a place of "unconditional love/compassion".
> The vastness of unconditional love/compassion
> embraces all of it. Not what the mind thinks it
> knows. Unconditional love/compassion sees no other.
> Everything, exactly the way it is, is the truth.
> > To suggest that because someone can recognize lies
> > or cheats they are lies and cheats, is a false logic.
> > Have you checked to see if they can recognize
> > straight-talk and generosity? What if they can recognize
> > all of those? What, then, by your logic, does that
> > make them? What, then, by your logic, are you, based on
> > your recognition that tightwads recognize other tightwads?
> > Meditation and self-study are ways of getting beyond this
> > way of viewing the world and the 'others' in it.
> > You can give yourself away freely and recklessly to other
> > humans, or you can give yourself away freely and recklessly
> > to yourself. Your choice.
> > Nina
- --- In email@example.com, "Nina"
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "texasbg2000"freyjartist@a...
> <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote:
> > --- In email@example.com,
> > wrote:something
> > >
> > > It's the heart, afraid of breaking
> > > That never learns to dance
> > >
> > > It's the dream, afraid of waking
> > > That never takes the chance
> > >
> > > It's the one who won't be taken (or tricked or manipulated)
> > > Who cannot seem to give
> > >
> > > And the soul, afraid of dying
> > > That never learns to live
> > >
> > > ~from "The Rose"
> > > sung by Bette Midler
> > Nice poetry Freyja. People who want to run others lives or 'con'
> > into giving up their money or freedoms lose something.
> > That one line that one who won't be taken cannot give is
> > believe.
> > People who want to 'take' others look at others as if they were
> > trying to do the same to them. A person who lies is more
> > of others lying than one who does not. An honest person will
> > a cheater sooner than another cheater will.
> > The worst part is that they do not want to be controlled. They
> > to control others. If it becomes an obsession to not be
> > then you probably should look to see if you are manipulative or awith
> > control freak yourself.
> > Resisting being controlled by circumstances seems to interfere
> > giving to me. It sets one aside from a situation and interferesdont
> > participation. Sure you get taken in a lot by people but you
> > have to keep a tight asshole all the time like they do.Dear Nina:
> > Just some thoughts
> > Love
> > Bobby G.
> There is a way of viewing the world that is neutral
> and allows that there are liers and cheaters as well
> straight-talkers and generous people. In fact, it
> may be seen that we each carry a mix of these manifestations
> within us, to differing ratios. Once this is realized,
> it is even easier to understand where another person
> is coming from... with compassion of the sort Bruce
> Morgan has described.
I think the lyric is intended to make us see there is something
valuable in being vulnerable. I wrote a short essay years ago about
manipulators resisting manipulation themselves and the way it
distorts interaction, and this touched a nerve on that topic.
It is my way to try to see the effects on myself of my actions and
that is the direction I intended for this response to the lyrics.
That is, if I manipulate others to my advantage, when I know it is to
their disadvantage, what sort of fallout will I receive from that?
My idea is that it limits my involvment in a general sense. It
separates me and creates dualism of the fourth type (Ken Wilber- the
Shade and the Personna).
Acts of the Shade type are acts which I think are not typical of me.
The "Me" acts which I think are typical of me are are the actions I
admit to, those of the Personna.
It is typical to believe that the things I do that I believe are
negative is just a slip up. But in this dualism way of describing
events they would simply be actions of the Shade, the 'me' that I do
not admit is me.
Of course the reverse is true too. The personna can be negative
things and the shade are 'good' things I do that I cannot admit are
So if I manipulate others I can believe I really am a negative person
and the positive things I do are all faked for whatever reasons. Then
everything gets complex.
>"A person who lies is more
> To suggest that because someone can recognize lies
> or cheats they are lies and cheats, is a false logic.
of others lying than one who does not. An honest person will
a cheater sooner than another cheater will." It still seems right
to me. I dont personally know anyone who is not a cheater or a
liar. If you did not ever encounter a lie in someone else are you so
sure that you could lie?
> Have you checked to see if they can recognizeIt is a dangerous world. But it is reckless in a sense to become too
> straight-talk and generosity? What if they can recognize
> all of those? What, then, by your logic, does that
> make them? What, then, by your logic, are you, based on
> your recognition that tightwads recognize other tightwads?
> Meditation and self-study are ways of getting beyond this
> way of viewing the world and the 'others' in it.
> You can give yourself away freely and recklessly to other
> humans, or you can give yourself away freely and recklessly
> to yourself. Your choice.
If I see others as myself then I dont mind if they get something from
me. But if they get hurt more taking something from me (because they
increase the shade-personna split) then I dont want them to take
advantage. Is this giving myself to myself?