SamueLSD

Unconditional Love - Question.

66 posts in this topic

@Serotoninluv Please make sure you do get your PhD in speaking out of context.

38 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

You are aware of it within the construct you reside. You are creating that “it”.

You don't know. You're just saying these things without a clue about me or my direct experience. That's extremely arrogant of you, let alone offensive to me. I told you that I'm aware and you insist that I'm not. I can see that you mean well with that, but please don't take on the responsibility of waking me up. That's absolutely my business to mind, not yours.

38 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

You are clearly not aware of something outside your construct. Again, this is not to say that any awakenings you have had are Illegitimate. Yet you are clearly not fluent in another area. When someone can speak Chinese fluently, it’s totally obvious when someone cannot speak Chinese fluently.

*Repeat the reply above*

+ Your relative/subjective assessment of the fluency of others is silly. It clearly demonstrates that you're the one who's identified with his construct, and yet ironically calling out other constructs as not fluent enough.

For all I know, eloquence/rhetoric is completely relative and any judgement made must be based on a construct. Don't shoot yourself in the foot.

38 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Creating a being called “Serotoninluv” that is making assumptions and trapped within his construct maintains contraction within that construct. It creates a dynamic of “my idea” vs “his idea”.

Not necessarily. That dynamic does not exist for me. I am not unaware of it, it does not exist. So, let's skip that in the next reply.

38 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

To say an expansive view is less inclusive than a contracted view is the silliness.

Of course, that's silly. But I didn't conclude which view is the more expansive. I said that I think mine is more expansive. That's my personal opinion at the moment, which might change at any other moment.

38 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

You are creating and attributing an idea of “love” as “Serotoninluv’s” idea that is contrary to your idea. This is your creation.

What I am pointing at says your idea of love is correct AND there is a more expansive understanding that INCLUDES your idea (as true) within a larger truth. 

Yeah, so what? Everyone does that. We're humans, we have sophisticated brains that can do that in the blink of an eye.

However, I didn't mean that our ideas are contradictory. I meant that my explanation/understanding is more inclusive than the love theory. But you can't see that because you think the love theory is more inclusive than mine. How would you solve this problem? I have no idea. Maybe we should just agree to disagree for a now until either of us has some more clarity.

38 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

However, if one extrapolates a finite truth into a broader truth, it becomes a falsehood within the larger truth. 

Yes, exactly! But like I said, we both perceive each other's views as such, so...

Edited by The observer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Everything you think about Love is wrong and will always be wrong.

 

Quote

Leo Gura
Good/bad/right/wrong are things you invented for the purpose of survival as an imaginary self.

No self, no right or wrong.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The observer said:

@Serotoninluv 

You don't know. You're just saying these things without a clue about me or my direct experience. That's extremely arrogant of you, let alone offensive to me. I told you that I'm aware and you insist that I'm not. I can see that you mean well with that, but please don't take on the responsibility of waking me up. That's absolutely my business to mind, not yours.

Part of attachment/identification is creating “my ideas” and “your ideas”. As well as creating things like “my experience”. Such personalization can lead to interpretations such as “you are arrogant”, “you don’t understand my direct experience”, “you offend me”, etc. This appears in my mind at times as well. . . These are reflections of attachment/identification to personality dynamics that relate to belief systems. In a fluid mind that holds ideas lightly, these snags don’t appear. 

1 hour ago, The observer said:

@Serotoninluv 

+ Your relative assessment of the fluency of others is silly. It clearly demonstrates that you're the one who's identified with his construct, and yet ironically calling out other constructs as not fluent enough.

You are missing the point that I can see that you are correct and that I am wrong. 

1 hour ago, The observer said:

That dynamic does not exist for me. I am not unaware of it, it does not exist. So, let's skip that in the next reply.

If that were true, your mind would be fluid like water and you would be able to see and understand how you are wrong and Leo is right. 

1 hour ago, The observer said:

I said that I think mine is more expansive. That's my personal opinion at the moment, which might change at any other moment.

Claiming ownership as a “personal opinion” is one of the best indicators of contraction. Any opinion / belief held tightly by the mind is a contraction. And there is nothing wrong with contraction. Life is an interplay between expansion and contraction. Like the in-breath is expansion and the out-breath is contraction. Yet some minds get stuck in contraction as it grasps. 

If I tightly hold an apple in each hand, how can I play the piano?

1 hour ago, The observer said:

 

However, I didn't mean that our ideas are contradictory. I meant that my explanation/understanding is more inclusive than the love theory. But you can't see that because you think the love theory is more inclusive than mine. 

This is a good place to observe creation. You have created an idea of a love theory of which I think is more inclusive than a love theory you claim as “my personal opinion”. Yet I have not held any love theory. You are creating that. So tell me, what is this “love theory” you have assigned to me? Notice how the mind is creating a love theory that I hold to provide contrast for a love theory that it desires to hold and is attached to. 

1 hour ago, The observer said:

Maybe we should just agree to disagree for a now until either of us has some more clarity.

Agreement and disagreement is a creation of the mind. This is necessary for contrast and ownership of a belief it holds.

I’ve already acknowledged that you are right and I am wrong. And last night I had a conversation with someone in which I illustrated the same ideas you are presenting here. How can we “agree to disagree”? To do so, we need to create an idea that one person holds as true and contrast that with a different idea that another person holds as true.

Notice what it’s like to hold ideas lightly without attachment, as you would the ideas within a birdsong. . . 

Imagine a discussion about geography in which one person only sees a map of France. When the conversation involves Europe, the person says “France is Europe”. Is that correct or incorrect? In a way, it’s correct, yet in another way it’s incorrect since it is contracts Europe within France. From this mindset, someone that claims “Madrid is Europe” will seem like an opposing view. As well, someone saying “All of these cities are Europe” will seem like an opposing view. It’s not that France is technically wrong, it’s just contracted. One would need to hold their map of France lightly to see other maps of Europe and start connecting dots. Yet the mind often thinks “My belief is that France is Europe. This is obviously true. I’m not willing to reject my opinion that France is Europe and accept your opinion that France is not Europe. Let’s agree to disagree”. Yet it’s not about rejecting one view and accepting another. It’s about zooming out and seeing the big picture. When we zoom out and see the big picture of Europe, we are still holding an image of France in our mind, yet we do so loosely - then we can see how France fits into the bigger picture. I’m not disagreeing with you that France is Europe. From one perspective, it is correct. From another perspective it is incorrect. A fluid mind holds these ideas lightly and can see how they are all connected within a bigger picture. France, Madrid, Big Ben, Poland etc. are all Europe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/3/2020 at 0:34 AM, SamueLSD said:

Today during my daily 30 minute meditation, I had various negative thoughts and feelings arise, so I decided it was the perfect time to do some thoughtless shadow work. 

I began to visualise love upon everything

I would not call visualizing love upon everything thoughtless. That is concentration mediation 

 

On 6/3/2020 at 0:34 AM, SamueLSD said:

 

I had a realisation - Love is simply what is when there is no conditions applied / no mind-filter there to decide what is and isn't love. When I had my first awakening/breakthrough, there was only love, simply because there was no one there to judge what love is. Everything was instantaneously accepted and perfect.  

If something exists, it is automatically and unconditionally accepted and loved, and it actually IS love, because it 'is'. 

Now for my question: Is there truth to what I am saying / any traps I might be falling into? 

the trap is perfectionism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

In a fluid mind that holds ideas lightly, these snags don’t appear.

Don't hold this idea tightly.

What you call "snags" appear and they don't care about other people's assessments/judgements. They don't actually indicate anything. That's simply a judgement/construct you've created, and you're contracted inside of it. Personality dynamics has nothing to do with the discussion. I hope you won't bring it up anymore. And here's why:

"Part of attachment/identification is creating “a fluid mind” and “an attached mind”. As well as creating things like “expansion vs. contraction”. Such depersonalization can lead to interpretations such as “your mind is identified”, “you don't have enough detachment”, “you have belief systems”, etc. This appears in my mind at times as well. . . These are reflections of attachment/identification to depersonalised dynamics that relate to belief systems. In a fluid mind that holds ideas lightly, these snags don’t appear."

See. You can't see these blindspots in your belief system, and you use it to devalue other systems since you believe yours is superior or truer or more expansive. But according to whom?

3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

You are missing the point that I can see that you are correct and that I am wrong.

You didn't say that you are wrong before, only now. You said something that indicates my inferiority since it was "obvious to you that I cannot speak Chinese fluently". I'm quite sure I haven't missed anything there.

3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

If that were true, your mind would be fluid like water and you would be able to see and understand how you are wrong and Leo is right.

There's nothing personal between me and Leo or you or anyone. If I see truth anywhere, I will adopt it. And it's not you who decides what truth is. Language is just a medium for sharing ideas, I don't necessarily have to use a depersonalised language to have a conversation. Don't get too hung up on that.

3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Claiming ownership as a “personal opinion” is one of the best indicators of contraction. Any opinion / belief held tightly by the mind is a contraction. And there is nothing wrong with contraction. Life is an interplay between expansion and contraction. Like the in-breath is expansion and the out-breath is contraction. Yet some minds get stuck in contraction as it grasps.

But you're allowed to believe that reality is love. Your beliefs don't cause contraction, but mine do, because they don't agree with yours? So nice!

3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

If I tightly hold an apple in each hand, how can I play the piano?

Exactly! Right back at ya.

3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

This is a good place to observe creation. You have created an idea of a love theory of which I think is more inclusive than a love theory you claim as “my personal opinion”. Yet I have not held any love theory. You are creating that. So tell me, what is this “love theory” you have assigned to me? Notice how the mind is creating a love theory that I hold to provide contrast for a love theory that it desires to hold and is attached to.

Don't be a slick. I'm not going to deconstruct your views for you. That's your work, not mine. You're here trying to point out that Leo is right and I am wrong, in your own words; "you would be able to see and understand how you are wrong and Leo is right".

3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Agreement and disagreement is a creation of the mind. This is necessary for contrast and ownership of a belief it holds.

I’ve already acknowledged that you are right and I am wrong. 

Blah blah blah...

3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Imagine a discussion about geography in which one person only sees a map of France. When the conversation involves Europe, the person says “France is Europe”. Is that correct or incorrect? In a way, it’s correct, yet in another way it’s incorrect since it is contracts Europe within France. From this mindset, someone that claims “Madrid is Europe” will seem like an opposing view. As well, someone saying “All of these cities are Europe” will seem like an opposing view. It’s not that France is technically wrong, it’s just contracted. One would need to hold their map of France lightly to see other maps of Europe and start connecting dots. Yet the mind often thinks “My belief is that France is Europe. This is obviously true. I’m not willing to reject my opinion that France is Europe and accept your opinion that France is not Europe. Let’s agree to disagree”. Yet it’s not about rejecting one view and accepting another. It’s about zooming out and seeing the big picture. When we zoom out and see the big picture of Europe, we are still holding an image of France in our mind, yet we do so loosely - then we can see how France fits into the bigger picture. I’m not disagreeing with you that France is Europe. From one perspective, it is correct. From another perspective it is incorrect. A fluid mind holds these ideas lightly and can see how they are all connected within a bigger picture. France, Madrid, Big Ben, Poland etc. are all Europe.

This 1st grade example only shows that you don't understand what I'm saying. It doesn't represent what's happening at all but rather how you perceive things to be. You confuse your perception with the actual reality, and you still insist that I have a contracted mindset. I'll say it again: arrogant and offensive.

P.S. whatever impression my style might give you is not what is actually happening. I am actually extremely enjoying the discussion. So, thank you for your time. It is appreciated beyond description.

Edited by The observer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The observer said:

Don't hold this idea tightly.

Of course not. Why would I want to tightly hold onto an idea as being true? That would be a limitation of exploration. 

2 hours ago, The observer said:

What you call "snags" appear and they don't care about other people's assessments/judgements. They don't actually indicate anything. That's simply a judgement/construct you've created, and you're contracted inside of it. Personality dynamics has nothing to do with the discussion. I hope you won't bring it up anymore. And here's why:

"Part of attachment/identification is creating “a fluid mind” and “an attached mind”. As well as creating things like “expansion vs. contraction”. Such depersonalization can lead to interpretations such as “your mind is identified”, “you don't have enough detachment”, “you have belief systems”, etc. This appears in my mind at times as well. . . These are reflections of attachment/identification to depersonalised dynamics that relate to belief systems. In a fluid mind that holds ideas lightly, these snags don’t appear."

See. You can't see these blindspots in your belief system, and you use it to devalue other systems since you believe yours is superior or truer or more expansive. But according to whom?

What is referred to as “your belief system” is partial and incomplete (as is any belief). Of course there are blind spots within any belief system. That is a main limitation of any belief system. Imagine standing on a rooftop viewing the city below. Any view is partial and incomplete. 

Another way to look at it. Imagine that we are sharing one connected mind. There is no “my belief system” or “your belief system”. There are merely ideas appearing in our collective mind. This recontextualization alters the energetics and relationship to ideas. A trick of the mind is to create “your belief” and “my belief”.

2 hours ago, The observer said:

You didn't say that you are wrong before, only now.

Yes I did. I had previously written:

6 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Two points you are missing is that I am saying you are right and that I’m wrong. 

Notice how the mind filtered this out. . . 

2 hours ago, The observer said:

There's nothing personal between me and Leo or you or anyone. If I see truth anywhere, I will adopt it. And it's not you who decides what truth is. Language is just a medium for sharing ideas, I don't necessarily have to use a depersonalised language to have a conversation. Don't get too hung up on that

There seems to be some personalization arising. For example, the passage below is not using personal pronouns for the ease of linguistic conversation. It seems like straightforward personalization:

5 hours ago, The observer said:

You don't know. You're just saying these things without a clue about me or my direct experience. That's extremely arrogant of you, let alone offensive to me. I told you that I'm aware and you insist that I'm not. I can see that you mean well with that, but please don't take on the responsibility of waking me up. That's absolutely my business to mind, not yours.

 

2 hours ago, The observer said:

You're here trying to point out that Leo is right and I am wrong, in your own words; "you would be able to see and understand how you are wrong and Leo is right".

This misses a point. You can already see how Leo is wrong and you are right. Why on earth would I point that out to you? You already have that part down. You can clearly see how Leo is wrong and you are right. What you are missing is the awareness of how Leo is right and you are wrong. 

Again, notice how an interpretive mind filter works. . . 

2 hours ago, The observer said:

This 1st grade example only shows that you don't understand what I'm saying you don't understand what I'm saying. It doesn't represent what's happening at all but rather how you perceive things to be. You confuse your perception with the actual reality, and you still insist that I have a contracted mindset. I'll say it again: arrogant and offensive.

I’ve already said it twice and I’ll say it again a third time: I acknowledge that you are right and I am wrong. Lack of this realization is a major block and reveals the limitation of creating a “your position” and “my position”. It restricts the amount of territory that can be explored. 

There is understanding and misunderstanding. I don’t claim to own either. If we create two separate consciousnesses (“you” and “me”), then it is true to say that I don’t understand you if you say that I don’t understand you. You get to create that and I don’t get to override your creation since you are your own authority. You are god creating reality. You can create a reality in which “Serotoninluv doesn’t understand me and is arrogant and offensive”. Or you could create a reality in which “Serotoninluv doesn’t seem to fully understand me, yet he seems to be aware of something that intrigues me”. You have created the former, which is fine. I don’t really care either way since I am not invested into being right or wrong. This would be a waste of effort since any construct created is partially true and partially false.  

As well, seeing an intellectual construct does not equal the ability to utilize that construct. For example, a mind may be able to see various levels of resolution when pointed out. Yet that does not mean the mind has the ability to create various levels, the ability to zoom in and out of various levels or make connections among various levels. This is a much more advanced skill. 

2 hours ago, The observer said:

P.S. whatever impression my style might give you is not what is actually happening. I am actually extremely enjoying the discussion. So, thank you for your time. It is appreciated beyond description.

Thank you. That allows space. Curiosity is one of the most important ingredients to consciousness exploration. I’ve found that when curiosity is expanded, space for observation and exploration is expanded. Notice how the mind can be selectively curious. . . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was a good read...❤

Words can be interpreted differently infinitely... there are never constant and change as the mind is conditioned and or unconditioned.

A great example is a word like consciousness:

A nurse might use it referring to a person that just woke up from a coma and who doesn't even remember his name yet but is in some way coherent.

Another may describe it as a no mind state where everything is viewed with childlike eyes and curiosity( unknowing and unconditional)

Another may describe it as the infinite and all-knowing mind of God or God particle.

THIS is the everything and nothing the empty and full the real and unreal..

Row row row your boat gently down the stream merrily merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream... life is but a dream.

 

 


“Everything is honoured, but nothing matters.” — Eckhart Tolle.

"I have lived on the lip of insanity, wanting to know reasons, knocking on a door. It opens. I've been knocking from the inside." -- Rumi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nahm So, everything


“The psychotic drowns in the same waters in which the mystic swims with delight.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Nak Khid said:

I would not call visualizing love upon everything thoughtless. That is concentration mediation 

 

the trap is perfectionism. 

Visualisations are thoughts , I guess. However what I meant was, there was no logic / words involved.

I was meant to be 'doing nothing', but hey, I make the rules :D


“The psychotic drowns in the same waters in which the mystic swims with delight.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, The observer said:

The word 'love' is a map. The territory is not at all identical to it. 

Maybe you define / think of it differently, but at the end of the day I believe we are talking about the same thing.

 

On 04/06/2020 at 11:21 AM, The observer said:

So does this mean that imagining differences/being trapped is not love? Whether yes or no, it does not matter. That would still be a difference, hence disproving love theory.

I think he meant "Love is the end of all differences", as in "Love is what you realise when you dissolve all differences".

Meaning, being trapped is still love, you just aren't truly aware of it. 


“The psychotic drowns in the same waters in which the mystic swims with delight.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Of course not. Why would I want to tightly hold onto an idea as being true? That would be a limitation of exploration.

I think there can be some reasons for why one would do that, ranging from having no curiosity or desire to further explore things, to the inability to see the limitations of the detached/depersonalised belief system and therefore taking it for granted as the best one. I believe I could brainstorm a few reasons within that range if I wanted to. Not saying anything about you, just putting my thoughts out there. And to further clarify your point, I will say that limitation of exploration isn't a problem in and of itself, but it can be in the context we're interested in and talking about. If that doesn't prove to you that I am aware of my constructs, I don't know what will. I believe we're on the same level regarding this point.

12 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

What is referred to as “your belief system” is partial and incomplete (as is any belief). Of course there are blind spots within any belief system. That is a main limitation of any belief system. Imagine standing on a rooftop viewing the city below. Any view is partial and incomplete.

Another way to look at it. Imagine that we are sharing one connected mind. There is no “my belief system” or “your belief system”. There are merely ideas appearing in our collective mind. This recontextualization alters the energetics and relationship to ideas. A trick of the mind is to create “your belief” and “my belief”.

Yes, I am aware of all that. Ownership and attachment are completely two different things. This allows a feature. I can take ownership of a thought, like any other human being, without being attached to it, like most other human beings.

13 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Yes I did. I had previously written:

Notice how the mind filtered this out. . .

"The mind" didn't filter this out. It simply wasn't in the original script. You probably added it later while I was typing my reply. There's no need to jump to conclusions while you know this.

13 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

There seems to be some personalization arising. For example, the passage below is not using personal pronouns for the ease of linguistic conversation. It seems like straightforward personalization:

"You don't know. You're just saying these things without a clue about me or my direct experience. That's extremely arrogant of you, let alone offensive to me. I told you that I'm aware and you insist that I'm not. I can see that you mean well with that, but please don't take on the responsibility of waking me up. That's absolutely my business to mind, not yours."

Of course, you were crossing my boundaries. I don't and won't tolerate that. I had to draw boundaries between 'you' and 'me' because you were lacking them. Not that it's a bad thing, but that it carried some claims and assumptions that weren't true about me. I told you that once before, but you didn't believe me and you were too much involved in my direct experience and insisted that you know me better than I know myself. I had to put an end to that.

13 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

This misses a point. You can already see how Leo is wrong and you are right. Why on earth would I point that out to you? You already have that part down. You can clearly see how Leo is wrong and you are right. What you are missing is the awareness of how Leo is right and you are wrong. 

Again, notice how an interpretive mind filter works. . .

Well, again, I don't think that Leo's view is wrong. I think it's partial. If you read through my posts where I explained my pov, you will see that I see the validity of his pov, yet I think it's limited since it's just a state. I don't want to explain my pov all over again, partially because I'm bored with it. I like always moving to something new.

13 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

I’ve already said it twice and I’ll say it again a third time: I acknowledge that you are right and I am wrong. Lack of this realization is a major block and reveals the limitation of creating a “your position” and “my position”. It restricts the amount of territory that can be explored. 

There is understanding and misunderstanding. I don’t claim to own either. If we create two separate consciousnesses (“you” and “me”), then it is true to say that I don’t understand you if you say that I don’t understand you. You get to create that and I don’t get to override your creation since you are your own authority. You are god creating reality. You can create a reality in which “Serotoninluv doesn’t understand me and is arrogant and offensive”. Or you could create a reality in which “Serotoninluv doesn’t seem to fully understand me, yet he seems to be aware of something that intrigues me”. You have created the former, which is fine. I don’t really care either way since I am not invested into being right or wrong. This would be a waste of effort since any construct created is partially true and partially false.

Like I said, I can hold these two different views together at the same time. I don't need to choose either one, that would be a limitation for me. And I certainly wouldn't be talking to you if I know it's a dead end. No matter the discussion, I find that you always have something to offer, and that's why I'm still responding to you. Otherwise, I would have probably dismissed your points from the very beginning or said something sarcastic and moved on. I have people that I deliberately dismiss. You're on the opposite side of that. I wanted you to come in and have this discussion from the beginning, but you said that I am trying to figure out what love is through logic, and I didn't want to upset you, so I told you that I'll keep an open mind.

13 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

As well, seeing an intellectual construct does not equal the ability to utilize that construct. For example, a mind may be able to see various levels of resolution when pointed out. Yet that does not mean the mind has the ability to create various levels, the ability to zoom in and out of various levels or make connections among various levels. This is a much more advanced skill.

Sure. The way I perceive myself is that I have some degree of skill regarding this, perhaps at an intermediate level.

13 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Thank you. That allows space. Curiosity is one of the most important ingredients to consciousness exploration. I’ve found that when curiosity is expanded, space for observation and exploration is expanded. Notice how the mind can be selectively curious. . . 

??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, The observer said:

"The mind" didn't filter this out. It simply wasn't in the original script. You probably added it later while I was typing my reply. There's no need to jump to conclusions while you know this.

Not cool. 

First of all, if I edit a post it will be marked as “edited”. That part was in the original post. For some reason, you didn’t see it or process it.

Secondly, if we are to have a mutual exploration of ideas, there needs to be a certain level of trust and personal responsibility. Cynical gaslighting alters the dynamics of a conversation and it is a dealbreaker for me. That quote was in the original post. Period. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

That quote was in the original post. Period. 

I saw it.

Not that you need defending, but just saying, I noticed that he had conveniently ignored it before you even mentioned it yourself.


Alternative Rock Music and Spirituality on YouTube: The Buddha Visions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

First of all, if I edit a post it will be marked as “edited”.

No, it doesn't. Log out of your moderator account and see. No mod comments ever are marked as edited.

39 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Secondly, if we are to have a mutual exploration of ideas, there needs to be a certain level of trust and personal responsibility.

There was no distrust on my part. I only stated what was the case for me. And I am responsible for everything I say. I didn't see that phrase when you first posted your comment. Your original post ended where I last quoted. The rest was added later. If you deny that, then I have nothing more to say.

39 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Cynical gaslighting alters the dynamics of a conversation and it is a dealbreaker for me.

Yes, me too.

39 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

That quote was in the original post. Period. 

For me, it wasn't. I didn't perceive anything written beyond where I last quoted. Otherwise, I would have probably replied at least to some part of it, like I do usually with everything you say, especially that it has new information that can be talked about.

Edited by The observer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Gili Trawangan said:

I saw it.

Not that you need defending, but just saying, I noticed that he had conveniently ignored it before you even mentioned it yourself.

When did you see it exactly? In the exact number of minutes if you can remember. I wasn't implying that he added it one or two hours later. I said that it was added while I was typing my reply. That could be 30 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, The observer said:

When did you see it exactly? In the exact number of minutes if you can remember. I wasn't implying that he added it one or two hours later. I said that it was added while I was typing my reply. That could be 30 minutes.

I don't know.


Alternative Rock Music and Spirituality on YouTube: The Buddha Visions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gili Trawangan said:

I don't know.

So, you're witness is useless. Please don't be a part of this if you don't have proper information. I wasn't gaslighting. I would never do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The observer said:

So, you're witness is useless. Please don't be a part of this if you don't have proper information. I wasn't gaslighting. I would never do that.

Why don't you just assume you missed it in the first place?

Anyway, I'm out, not in the mood for your tone.


Alternative Rock Music and Spirituality on YouTube: The Buddha Visions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gili Trawangan said:

Why don't you just assume you missed it in the first place?

I would, but I remember vividly that the post ended exactly where I last quoted.

3 minutes ago, Gili Trawangan said:

Anyway, I'm out, not in the mood for your tone.

That would be better for everyone. I am getting accused of something I didn't do, and you had me doubting my senses. Learn to be a more effective witness the next time you testify. This is a serious matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now