How to prove "I" properly

[Stillness_Speaks]

Thank you Matthias for your threads. But I just thought of another approach that can be applied. (If you are a person with common sense, stop reading and leave this thread :smile: ) We seem to look for scientific proof of this or that. Gods, spirits and similar "big" juicy stuff. Now I wonder, where is the proof of "I"? Who wants to find proof of this and that. What is a scientist? :icon_eek: , more than a body, cells, brain and chemical substances and all the other stuff we are tought in school. To my knowledge, that is not proven. Yes, science measure signals, defines areas in the nervous system in the brain, memory, how the brain processes information and so on. But where is the "boss", the I? Have the scientist found any real proof of something like a person inside? Or have they just proven the existence of small offices, mailboxes and theorys about a head office? Maybe they have, but have they found the I without any doubt? What is the real I? Where is it and where is the proof of it? Do any proof of an I exist other than signs of it? I mean like, "we proven this behaviour to be a fact so we assume there must be an I that is responsible for that behaviour". :dontknow:

[Visitor]

IMHO. 'I' is the mind's way of making sense of itself.
Mind is a by-product of brain activity. No brain activity - no mind, and no 'I'.
The closest thing that measures mind, is its relationship to brain activity scans and brainwaves.

[Baile]

Why do people look outside themselves for proof, and why devise theories and mental constructs about things we can't see and/or do not as human beings experience directly?

I think, therefore I am.

[Stillness_Speaks]

IMHO. 'I' is the mind's way of making sense of itself.
Mind is a by-product of brain activity. No brain activity - no mind, and no 'I'.
The closest thing that measures mind, is its relationship to brain activity scans and brainwaves. I bet most people don't see themselves as a by-product of brain activity :D Serious, it is still assuming. Brain activity, yes. I? No.

[Stillness_Speaks]

Why do people look outside themselves for proof, and why devise theories and mental constructs about things we can't see and/or do not as human beings experience directly?

I think, therefore I am.

That is another issue but I guess it is a curiosity, to understand how we and the world works? Maybe based on fear, a desire to have control? The culture we live in today seems to be proof/science based compared to former cultures but the historians have to answer that.

Thinking just happens. If there was an I that was thinking, that same I could control the thoughts and no depressions or phycological problems would exist. A driver that is really driving the car can stop the car or turn left. A driver in the backseat can pretend he/she is driving the car but the car turns left for other reasons :confused: :icon_eek:

[Baile]

Thinking just happens. If there was an I that was thinking, that same I could control the thoughts and no depressions or phycological problems would exist.You're doing here what I was suggesting the problem is: You're devising a theory based on a mental construct, with no real data to support any of it. It's like saying God exists because who else could have created the universe? Well, the fact is we can come up with countless different theories about how the universe was created, and the idea of a God is just one possibility out of many.

I'm saying the essential problem with spiritual and religious examination, is that people start from the theoretical, when we should be starting from the experiential.

I am. That is my experience.
I think. That is my experience.
I think, therefore I am. These are my experiences.
This is what I know, and why I know. Because I experience it.

Everything that is not experiential, is empty theorizing. That's not to say it's not fun to theorize. But the problem happens when people insist their theorizing is actual truth on some level. Which is how religious and spiritual doctrine is created: when people who can't actually prove what they theorize to be the reality regarding God or how the mind works, still insist it's real.

[Baile]

If there was an I that was thinking, that same I could control the thoughts and no depressions or phycological problems would exist.I appreciate your wish to converse about this so I'll try and give an example of how I would go about addressing this same question, based purely on experiential examination.

-I experience myself as an I.
-I experience thinking going on in me.
This tells me that I am the one thinking those thoughts.

-I experience times when I can control my thoughts.
-I experience times when I struggle to control my thoughts.
This tells me that I have the ability to control my thoughts to some degree. It also suggests that, ultimately, it may be possible in the future to learn to control my thoughts to such an extent that I can avoid depression and psychological problems.

Do you see? By examining things from an experiential POV, I don't have to invent theories about the I, and how the mind works. I don't have to clutter my mind with these theories. And that then frees me up can get on with experimenting with ways of controlling my thoughts, with the possibility of eventually learning how to avoid depression and psychological problems.

Practical, experiential spirituality, in action. That's what I'm talking about. That's true knowledge and wisdom IMO.

[Stillness_Speaks]

Practical, experiential spirituality, in action. That's what I'm talking about. That's true knowledge and wisdom IMO.
Wonderful. We both have practical experiences but also make assumptions based on those experiences. I assume that there is no I (weird sentence uh?) and you assume that you will be able to control the thoughts in the future. Good luck with that :wink:

[Lorelyen]

Thinking just happens. If there was an I that was thinking, that same I could control the thoughts and no depressions or phycological problems would exist.
:confused: :icon_eek:

That seems a non-sequitur. You're still thinking whether you can control the thoughts or not.

[Baile]

Wonderful. We both have practical experiences but also make assumptions based on those experiences. I assume that there is no I...You just jumped from the experience of the I, to creating a mental construct in your mind about it. That's the difference right there, and what I'm talking about.

[Stillness_Speaks]

That seems a non-sequitur. You're still thinking whether you can control the thoughts or not.
Maybe so. But this I don't buy it anymore. The bakerman is baking bread and he don't know what he puts in it? He is baking and baking but have no control over it, is he really baking then, is he really the bakerman? Anyway, it was proof of "I" that was searched for. Even if you have no proof, what is I in your view? When you say "I" or "You" what do you mean?

[Baile]

You're still thinking whether you can control the thoughts or not.Yes, exactly.

[Stillness_Speaks]

You just jumped from the experience of the I, to creating a mental construct in your mind about it. That's the difference right there, and what I'm talking about.

And you are doing the same thing, it is very easy to slip in to it. This is not experience, it is pure speculation and theory:

This tells me that I have the ability to control my thoughts to some degree. It also suggests that, ultimately, it may be possible in the future to learn to control my thoughts to such an extent that I can avoid depression and psychological problems.

[Baile]

And you are doing the same thing, it is very easy to slip in to it. This is not experience, it is pure speculation and theory:

This tells me that I have the ability to control my thoughts to some degree. It also suggests that, ultimately, it may be possible in the future to learn to control my thoughts to such an extent that I can avoid depression and psychological problems.I'll answer, but in all honesty I'm getting the impression it really won't matter what I say as your mind already seems made up here.

Yes, you are correct, to a degree. It's speculation, sure. The difference however is my speculating and theorizing arises from, and is an extension of, from my direct experience: I experience the ability to control my thoughts in some situations, which then leads me to speculate about being able to further control my thoughts in other ways. Second, I form no belief and make no determination one way or the other as to whether any of that will be possible. I will only know if my theory is correct, if and when I have an experience of it.

[Adrienne]

just curious, why people feel such a need to prove things ?

Is there such a thing as proving something " properly " ? ...... what is considered "properly " by one person may not be considered " properly" by the next person .... seems like one is just asking for confusion :D

[Stillness_Speaks]

The difference however is my speculating and theorizing arises from, and is an extension of, from my direct experience:
My speculating and theorizing is not arising from reading a dusty book in a library in Ulan Bator. I'm watching thought hours every day. I like to see for myself and experience. I am just like you :wink: But I also like to question common ideas and concepts, that is a part of getting experience. The unquestioned "I" is under the microscope now.

[Matthias]

I had hoped to make it clear in my prior postings, that by declaring God as our "true self" or "true identity" that I didn't mean to exclude the "I" and leave it out of the big picture by any means.

I have tried to explicate that our spiritual development is a search for who we are. We grow the consciousness of self aka "I".

Descartes got himself in trouble with the "I think, therefor I am"
It's contradictory, it's simply a wrong statement.

He made it seem, like the existence of I required a certain activity of I. He made the existence of I depending on one of its activities in that case "thinking". So if I stopped thinking I stopped being. But that is nonsense, because I am, regardless of what I am currently doing. The current activity is just a possibility of me and therefor requires my existence in the first place.

Being is always prior to what being does. If we look at only the first part of the sentence "I think" it becomes obvious, that "I" stands there as a fact prior to its activity. We cannot just say "think", we have to refer it to the subject, but as we do so we accept that we require its existence.

So how do we prove that we exist. The simple answer is, we don't have to, because our existence is evident. Even if we deny ourselves, it requires us for this state of denial, it's again just an activity of us, a self-deception an illusion in our mind.

As I tried to explain in my post. We are the same being as God. When Moses asked God for his name he said "I am who I am.. this is what you are to say to the Israelites: I AM has sent me to you."

"I am" aka God doesn't just carry a random name, he is the absoluteness of I and when we say "I" we refer to that same being that we are and represent in different states of self-realization.

[Stillness_Speaks]

just curious, why people feel such a need to prove things ?

Is there such a thing as proving something " properly " ? ...... what is considered "properly " by one person may not be considered " properly" by the next person .... seems like one is just asking for confusion :D
I don't know, I did copy/paste with the title from M's thread and replaced a word :smile:

[Stillness_Speaks]

"I am" aka God doesn't just carry a random name, he is the absoluteness of I and when we say "I" we refer to that same being that we are and represent in different states of self-realization.
I as something floating and changing, sort of? Not a hardcore and hardwired part of the brain. I as being. I as a part of God, a part of the whole. I like.... hmm, God like this :)

[BlueSky]

I had hoped to make it clear in my prior postings, that by declaring God as our "true self" or "true identity" that I didn't mean to exclude the "I" and leave it out of the big picture by any means.

I have tried to explicate that our spiritual development is a search for who we are. We grow the consciousness of self aka "I".

Descartes got himself in trouble with the "I think, therefor I am"
It's contradictory, it's simply a wrong statement.

He made it seem, like the existence of I required a certain activity of I. He made the existence of I depending on one of its activities in that case "thinking". So if I stopped thinking I stopped being. But that is nonsense, because I am, regardless of what I am currently doing. The current activity is just a possibility of me and therefor requires my existence in the first place.

Being is always prior to what being does. If we look at only the first part of the sentence "I think" it becomes obvious, that "I" stands there as a fact prior to its activity. We cannot just say "think", we have to refer it to the subject, but as we do so we accept that we require its existence.

So how do we prove that we exist. The simple answer is, we don't have to, because our existence is evident. Even if we deny ourselves, it requires us for this state of denial, it's again just an activity of us, a self-deception an illusion in our mind.

As I tried to explain in my post. We are the same being as God. When Moses asked God for his name he said "I am who I am.. this is what you are to say to the Israelites: I AM has sent me to you."

"I am" aka God doesn't just carry a random name, he is the absoluteness of I and when we say "I" we refer to that same being that we are and represent in different states of self-realization.
I enjoyed that very much. It was very well articulated.

[r6r6]

I-ness is conceptual inflection or inflexion

U-ness in conceptual uninflected, non-inflected, exflection or exflexion, outflexion, exflection.

The concept is unchanging( absolute ) but what that which is being inflected or uninflected upon is ever changing, or a least for the time period of living existence( life span ). imho

This appears to be fairly simple conceptualization. imho

r6

[Black Sheep]

I'm saying the essential problem with spiritual and religious examination, is that people start from the theoretical, when we should be starting from the experiential.

I am. That is my experience.
I think. That is my experience.
I think, therefore I am. These are my experiences.
This is what I know, and why I know. Because I experience it.
I quite like this perspective.

I experience the ability to control my thoughts in some situations, which then leads me to speculate about being able to further control my thoughts in other ways. Second, I form no belief and make no determination one way or the other as to whether any of that will be possible. I will only know if my theory is correct, if and when I have an experience of it.
Hey, if your game...I agree with your speculation, with modification....now would you say it's control....or more like not participating emotionally or removing the restraints, which by intern allows for a more natural and harmonious expression which is sort-of control but not as I personally define it(with force/struggle/oppression).

Perhaps that is what you are intending to say, IDK. But hey you throw some fun ideas!

[Baile]

I agree with your speculation, with modification....now would you say it's control....or more like not participating emotionally or removing the restraints, which by intern allows for a more natural and harmonious expression which is sort-of control but not as I personally define it(with force/struggle/oppression).That's it exactly. To speculate and wonder and imagine is human, and that's natural. And like you said, speculating about things without getting attached to any particular idea or particular outcome. There's a lifetime or even several lifetimes of self-development learning right there.

I would say the average adult in their 50s, 60s and 70s responds to stimuli in the same way they did as teenagers. Most people don't outgrow that juvenile need to be emotionally "lit up" by life's circumstances. And the media caters to this arrested development in people, by inundating us with shows and newscasts filled with sappy emotional shallowness. Whereas true emotion - inspiration of the spirit - is a soul revelation. And I'm just clarifying that in case people misunderstand what's meant here by emotion.

EDIT: Just found this quote by one of the SF oldies (whose account was unfortunately suspended as he always had something wise to offer):

Hence, my recommendation to simply look, without expectation or agenda, Life will reveal itself, to you through you, just pay attention..
~TzuJanLi

[Black Sheep]

There's a lifetime or even several lifetimes of self-development learning right there.I agree. I heard somewhere, forget who(I think many though) exactly, but if one just focuses on what you said so eloquently, one can learn in say a year what some folks take decades to learn. It's like a compressed learning method.

I would say the average adult in their 50s, 60s and 70s responds to stimuli in the same way they did as teenagers. Most people don't outgrow that juvenile need to be emotionally "lit up" by life's circumstances. And the media caters to this arrested development in people, by inundating us with shows and newscasts filled with sappy emotional shallowness.I've noticed similar, I find it odd, I don't understand it fully, but common nonetheless.

Whereas true emotion - inspiration of the spirit - is a soul revelation. And I'm just clarifying that in case people misunderstand what's meant here by emotion.Very true, amazing just how profound and all pervasive it would be as well as exciting!

Very few people stir me, and inspire me. Thank you for taking the time to clarify!

[Baile]

Very true, amazing just how profound and all pervasive it would be as well as exciting!
Very few people stir me, and inspire me. Thank you for taking the time to clarify!You are welcome! Actually, I want to respond to your first comment above, given something I said obviously clicked for you. BTW, I'm not assuming you don't understand what I'm about to say. I'm just explaining this for clarification. In every moment, we have the ability to be inspired by our circumstances. This is something we choose or don't choose. We can choose to be excited and amazed at life, always. For me, this enlightenment journey we're on is about one thing only: the level of understanding and ability one is able to achieve with regards to choosing to be excited and amazed at life, at all times.

Emotions of the shallow variety take us out of the moment, which prevents us from attaining this constantly amazed state. "We are terrified of our own brilliance," the saying goes. I believe we unconsciously sabotage our brillance in a number of ways. Allowing our emotional life to remain at the juvenile level is one of the ways we do that.

Whereas spontaneous soul emotion is something else altogether. This is something that's referenced in esoteric writings. Some Christian writings for example refer to it as spontaneous tears brought on by the Holy Spirit. It's a monumental soul feeling and knowing. In many regards, it's a bonafied religious experience. And it doesn't have to manifest as tears, but it can be so overwhelming that tears are just a natural response, like a non-verbal outflowing and acknowledgement. Tears of joy certainly, but more like tears of profound amazement at the beauty of life and the universe.

Getting back to your comments about natural and harmonious and removing the restraints: It's all a bit like swimming for the first time. Our need for control - our need to explain and define existence via intellectual ideas and/or religious/philosophical beliefs - is our fear of the water. It's our apprehension at what might happen if we let go of our footing, and let go of that which we (think we) know for sure. The other choice is to jump in, and discover the universe happily holds us up in the water, and then carries us around the pool to wherever it is we need to go.

[r6r6]

See all of the posts at SF for proof of "I"...:D

r6

[Stillness_Speaks]

See all of the posts at SF for proof of "I"...:D

r6

He-he. Well, a lot of us say "I" all the time. I believe, I think, I want, I like... etc. And more serious, "I am very depressed". What exactly is depressed? Perhaps... there is the key to "no-depression... What is I? No, I don't buy such statements as "It is self-evident". If it is so clear and obvious, why can not people say what it is? Why is there so few answers to this thread? Because we don't really know what "I" is and we never question that. It is more comfortable to avoid this issue and continue another 15 years living from a place that is... uh...what? Continue to toss out ideas and opinions, make choices, do this or that, without questioning the foundation of all these thoughts. ideas and actions. The "I". That is why we don't know what it is or if it even exist. How big is it? What is it? An energy form? A thought structure? Memories? What if "I" is just a thought? :icon_eek:

[Adrienne]

What is I? No, I don't buy such statements as "It is self-evident". If it is so clear and obvious, why can not people say what it is? Why is there so few answers to this thread? Because we don't really know what "I" is and we never question that.

It is more comfortable to avoid this issue and continue another 15 years living from a place that is... uh...what? Continue to toss out ideas and opinions, make choices, do this or that, without questioning the foundation of all these thoughts. ideas and actions. The "I". That is why we don't know what it is or if it even exist. How big is it? What is it? An energy form? A thought structure? Memories? What if "I" is just a thought? :icon_eek:

And is there a problem with not questioning what "I" is ? in the grand scheme of things does it really make a difference ? or is it just one of those questions to provide a circle for one to walk round and round in, where there really is no answer ? :D just endless wandering around .......

[Stillness_Speaks]

Very good questions. That does not mean I have the answers, just that I like them :) Hmm... in the grand scheme of things? Nothing.
Hmm..... "just endless wandering around ......".... is probably what we are doing (for 400 lifetimes or more) until we examine this. I believe this is very important, what we think we are, because that determines what we experience and how.
In the not so grand scheme of things, my personal experience, there is a change in the experiences I am having in daily life. More this and that, less of tit and tat.

[LeoJeo]

Well there is the Ego and the soul, the lower and higher selves. You are your soul, but you have taken on a human ego in this life in order to survive and live in the 3d world.

[r6r6]

Stillness_Speaks}--What exactly is depressed? What if "I" is just a thought? :icon_eek:[/QUOTE]

Nervous system depression is a reduction of sensory awareness. Barbituates are typical nervous system depressants.

Mental/pyshcgical depression may be related. I dont know.

"included everything = all inclusive"

"hold on to nothing' should be stated as hold on to no things.

"I" is a metaphysical something i.e. a metaphysical concept of mind/intellect.

Drpression appears to be a metaphysical association of lesser and lesser valuing of "I".

"I" inverted association as individual

"U" extroversion association of individual

"We" and "Us" introverted group etc...

[Baile]

Well there is the Ego and the soul, the lower and higher selves. You are your soul, but you have taken on a human ego in this life in order to survive and live in the 3d world.Wise words Leo, good stuff. It's that clear and simple, yes.

[Stillness_Speaks]

Well there is the Ego and the soul, the lower and higher selves. You are your soul, but you have taken on a human ego in this life in order to survive and live in the 3d world.
OK, but the question remains, then what is the ego? In your view of course, not some absolute truth.
Practical, when Ms Jane says to her friend; You have hurt me! I will never forgive you!! What does she mean? What is hurt, the soul? The ego? In that case, what exactly is hurt and by what? This is not just a word game, I find it very important and no Baile, it is not simple at all for me. The more I look into it, meditate, question it and so on, the more fleeting and vague it becomes. This "I" that seems so obvious.

[Stillness_Speaks]

Stillness_Speaks}--What exactly is depressed? What if "I" is just a thought? :icon_eek:

Nervous system depression is a reduction of sensory awareness. Barbituates are typical nervous system depressants.

Mental/pyshcgical depression may be related. I dont know.

"included everything = all inclusive"

"hold on to nothing' should be stated as hold on to no things.

"I" is a metaphysical something i.e. a metaphysical concept of mind/intellect.

Drpression appears to be a metaphysical association of lesser and lesser valuing of "I".

"I" inverted association as individual

"U" extroversion association of individual

"We" and "Us" introverted group etc...[/QUOTE]

Nice definitions :) For clarification, I don't know what Gangaji reall means with nothing :redface: but for me it is when I try to hold on to no thing, I mean all things, also thoughts and ideas.

[Stillness_Speaks]

"I" is a metaphysical something i.e. a metaphysical concept of mind/intellect.


Very good, but kind of scary. With my previous analogy, that would mean that a metaphysical concept is hurting another metaphysical concept.... :icon_eek:

[Baile]

and no Baile, it is not simple at all for meWhy did you single out my comment? It's simple for me. And I have no idea how simple it is for others, nor do I care. Now, if you're asking me to share how and why it's that simple for me, then I care and I am happy to share. But I don't argue with people and write things like, "Yes Stillness, it is that simple."

[Stillness_Speaks]

Why did you single out my comment? It's simple for me. And I have no idea how simple it is for others, nor do I care. Now, if you're asking me to share how and why it's that simple for me, then I care and I am happy to share. But I don't argue with people and write things like, "Yes Stillness, it is that simple."
Uh?...eh.... ok....

[Baile]

Uh?...eh.... ok....Do you want to know what I'm talking about, or do you want things to continue to remain vague and fleeting for you? That's the real question here. And it's the same question many people on this forum are facing: Do they want clarification, or is it more important to remain in a state of confusion? Because confusion is actually a safe place for people. People choose to remain in a confused state as a way of avoiding change. I can link you to several threads on this forum to show you what I mean.

Concepts and ideas surrounding the ego, the I, the higher and lower self, and so forth, are very easy to grok form a certain perspective and spiritual vantage point. If you truly want to get clear on some of this, there are ways to do that.

[r6r6]

Very good, but kind of scary. With my previous analogy, that would mean that a metaphysical concept is hurting another metaphysical concept.... :icon_eek:

words and sentences have power, because they are representations or expressions of physical existence ergo we hear the words physically and that sets of chain reaction of emotions/feelings ergo the complementary the ego/"I" is hurt or happy etc.

The metaphysical-1 mind/intellect is in eternal existence as a complementary to our metaphysical-3 gravity and our physical/energy occupied space Universe.

1) mind/intellect concepts
^above^--------v-below-v
2) non-occupied and occupied space.

Occupied space shapes the non-occupied space, from within, because non-occupied space is outside and embraces occupied space.

[Stillness_Speaks]

Do you want to know what I'm talking about, or do you want things to continue to remain vague and fleeting for you? That's the real question here. And it's the same question many people on this forum are facing: Do they want clarification, or is it more important to remain in a state of confusion? Because confusion is actually a safe place for people. People choose to remain in a confused state as a way of avoiding change. I can link you to several threads on this forum to show you what I mean.

Concepts and ideas surrounding the ego, the I, the higher and lower self, and so forth, are very easy to grok form a certain perspective and spiritual vantage point. If you truly want to get clear on some of this, there are ways to do that.

Ok, again, the only interest here is what people mean when they say "I". Please leave speculations about forum acivity out of this thread. What is the "I"? Is there any proof of it? What is the "I" for you or anyone else that is interested in this topic.

[r6r6]

See all of the posts at SF for proof of "I"...:D r6

I agree it is obvious and that the above is proof of "I". "I"m still posting...after all these years....

Sung to the tune" I"m still dancing after alll these years...billy joel(?)

r6

[Stillness_Speaks]

The thread "100 proofs of God" now has 298 posts. The thread " What is " The Image of God?"" now has 542 posts. Are we afraid of looking inside? To examine what we are? Perhaps it is more safe to define God and tell others about our so callled thruths and how the Universe works. What exactly is it that wants to define God (or anything else)?

Sung to the tune "I am I said, to no one there..." (Neil Diamond) :)

[Baile]

The thread "100 proofs of God" now has 298 posts. The thread " What is " The Image of God?"" now has 542 posts. Are we afraid of looking inside?Yes but 567 of those 840 posts are from people arguing against the notion of God and for your POV!

[silent whisper]

You just jumped from the experience of the I, to creating a mental construct in your mind about it. That's the difference right there, and what I'm talking about.


but didn't you?:D

[Baile]

but didn't you?:DDid I? I don't know, it's been so long since I posted that, I would have to go back and look. Pretty much everything we think and discuss is a mental construct so you're no doubt correct.

Unless one is channeling the Source as they type and post here, which I suppose is possible. You seem to be in that lofty space at times!

[silent whisper]

Did I? I don't know, it's been so long since I posted that, I would have to go back and look. Pretty much everything we think and discuss is a mental construct so you're no doubt correct.

Unless one is channeling the Source as they type and post here, which I suppose is possible. You seem to be in that lofty space at times!

Lofty??

Does that mean heaven helps my heart...I feel it could hold some truth in its hand....:)

[Baile]

Lofty??You appear to practice what you preach, that's my pragmatic answer to that. More than most anyway, and more than me a lot of the times certainly. If real and authentic openness can be considered lofty, then yes, lofty.

[silent whisper]

You appear to practice what you preach, that's my pragmatic answer to that. More than most anyway, and more than me a lot of the times certainly. If real and authentic openness can be considered lofty, then yes, lofty.'



Oh neat...me approves of that answer...not that you need to know my approving ways of being..:wink:

Noticed me didn't use eye once..:D

This could get tricky though...:wink:

[Baile]

Noticed me didn't use eye once..:DOh you do that too, do you? I've tried to stop using I when possible, for some time now. Tough to do on the internet. Oh and thanks for the hand, support and reminder.

[Baile]

not that you need to know my approving ways of being..:wink:Approval can be a expression of one's joyful relationship with life. Remove the self-doubt and the need for confirmation from the equation, and approval between one I and another I is like a loving glance that says, "Look what we created together." At that point it's impossible to know which I is doing the approving, and which I the receiving.

[silent whisper]

Approval can be a expression of one's joyful relationship with life. Remove the self-doubt and the need for confirmation from the equation, and approval between one I and another I is like a loving glance that says, "Look what we created together." At that point it's impossible to know which I is doing the approving, and which I the receiving.

It can indeed...joyful celebration of being true to self in many forms of being true..:)

*look what we created together*

Yes I see.