Semantics

[jimrich]

I just came from a local meeting of seekers and experienced non-dualists and noticed a tendency to make speeches, quote major spiritual teachers BUT rarely ever use the 'I' word to speak of their own, direct experiences and/or understandings.
I come from a background of sharing meetings in support groups so, using the 'I' word is both easy and also way more significant to me than listening to pompous lectures, theories or disguised advice from self appointed authorities so some "spiritual" meetings are both irritating and uninformative.
If others could or would just talk about their own direct, personal and ACTUAL experiences with awakening, realizing, knowing, doing, feeling, understanding, I could learn a lot from that and take away a lot more from such simple HONESTY. The pompous though emotionally safer use of words like: we, you, they, them, us, others, all, everyone, etc. rather than the more honest and authoritative terms such as: I, me, my, mine, my self, for me, etc. work a lot better for me and gives the speaker some credibility.
I'd much rather hear or read of someone's own, personal awakening than have them tell me how it's going to be or feel for me, us, them, we or you.
"I am that" carries way more authority and meaning for me than to be told "YOU ARE THAT! ...or We are that, etc." by some self made authority figure. I know this is just about semantics but I personally prefer and can HONOR statements that come from someone's own, direct experiences rather than speeches and pompous quotes, etc. :smile:

[Shivani Devi]

I just came from a local meeting of seekers and experienced non-dualists and noticed a tendency to make speeches, quote major spiritual teachers BUT rarely ever use the 'I' word to speak of their own, direct experiences and/or understandings.
I come from a background of sharing meetings in support groups so, using the 'I' word is both easy and also way more significant to me than listening to pompous lectures, theories or disguised advice from self appointed authorities so some "spiritual" meetings are both irritating and uninformative.
If others could or would just talk about their own direct, personal and ACTUAL experiences with awakening, realizing, knowing, doing, feeling, understanding, I could learn a lot from that and take away a lot more from such simple HONESTY. The pompous though emotionally safer use of words like: we, you, they, them, us, others, all, everyone, etc. rather than the more honest and authoritative terms such as: I, me, my, mine, my self, for me, etc. work a lot better for me and gives the speaker some credibility.
I'd much rather hear or read of someone's own, personal awakening than have them tell me how it's going to be or feel for me, us, them, we or you.
"I am that" carries way more authority and meaning for me than to be told "YOU ARE THAT! ...or We are that, etc." by some self made authority figure. I know this is just about semantics but I personally prefer and can HONOR statements that come from someone's own, direct experiences rather than speeches and pompous quotes, etc. :smile:What about "WE are That?" This is what "I" go with. lol

Seriously though the lack of personal pronoun use to indicate some kind of 'transcendence' of the personal is plain silly.

People should know it that "I" means the ego, or 'self' or 'little me" so to say "I am That' means the ego isn't the end of the person because there's 'That'...there's everything else including the "I".

I was also an Advaita Vedantin for quite a while, but I never got into the "I am That" or "You are That" bit because those sayings, those mahavakyas were contradictory in themselves. If they would have been "I am" or just simply "That" it would make a lot more sense because the relation between "I am" and "That" is what kicks off the whole duality game.

So when "I" speak, you know it can't be anything other than "I" because "I" don't know if the "not-I" as in "Brahman" even has a voice beyond OM!

Yes, it is all semantics and why I left the path of Advaita Vedanta and embraced the path of Tantra fully after that. It was the next step in my spiritual evolution and the most logical route for me to take.

[Shivani Devi]

Oh, my Higher Self just kicked in.

"In basic terms, yes but there's a lot more to it than that. In certain academic philosophical circles of non-duality, any kind of 'personal experience' is seen as subjectively anecdotal and why wouldn't it be?

It is nice to speak of our experiences and share them with others, but the sublime experience related to non-dual consciousness cannot be described or spoken of with anybody really because words just don't exist for it.

The phrases "I am That" and "You are That" originate from the Upanishads, a branch of Vedanta dealing with the limitations of individual human thought and experience within the framework of that which lay beyond them. In the end, there is nothing more one can say, after ALL has been said and done but "thou art That". It means, 'I've taken you as far as I can go, the rest is up to YOU now'...what one makes of that is personal and individual.

This is why personal pronouns are never used and apart from that, there's the damn stupid experience of getting in with a bunch of Advaitins and alluding to the ego by saying "I" only to have them retort "and just what is this "I" you speak of?" so it's easier to just omit any reference to yourself whatsoever.

It's an experience and a half, put it that way, but yeah it's quite ridiculous".

[Starman]

I have often thought about this and came to the conclusion that most people live their lives vicariously through other people. They identify with the characteristics of others, that person is their role model, their hero, their savior. It would be wonderful though if we could all speak in an original voice, our own, about our own experiences.

I have used the experiences of others which have stood the test of time as a reference, or template, for my own experiences. We pass on knowledge by sharing our experience as related to the experiences of others. This is how we come up with the term "normal." Normal is what the majority of people are doing or how they function; normal is what we see the most in our environment; normal is what gives us "abnormal." It is based on the experience of others, and then most people compare and contrast their own experience with that designation of "normal."

I believe that we are all inter, and intra, related and part of my learning and growing is dependent on the experiences of others; they are as one possible example of what I might, or have, encountered. My story of life is interwoven with the story of others, but they are not the authority on my life. I am my own authority even to the extent that I turn my authority over to others, a higher power, etc., or refer to some noted person as an authority; for even in giving it away I have exercised my authority to make a choice.

[Baile]

The pompous though emotionally safer use of words like: we, you, they, them, us, others, all, everyone, etc. rather than the more honest and authoritative terms such as: I, me, my, mine, my self, for me, etc.I use the words religion versus spiritual to highlight the two different ways people embrace and utilize their personal beliefs. The religious person generally speaks of we: We are all sinners as the classic example. Religion is primarily an outward belief-path; projecting one's beliefs onto the world. The spiritual person speaks of I and me: My personal self-development, my self-realization path. The inward belief-path. Reflective, rather than projective.

[jimrich]

What about "WE are That?"
Who/what is asking? Who are you? Who or what is this "we" and what is the "That"? I have my own answers to these questions but chose not to offer them here.
Seriously though the lack of personal pronoun use to indicate some kind of 'transcendence' of the personal is plain silly.
To you!

People should know it that "I" means the ego, or 'self' or 'little me"
Sometimes, yes and sometimes, no. This 'I' can refer to whatever someone want it to, IMO. The impersonal Absolute can say: I and a personal frog can say or FEEL: I.

so to say "I am That' means the ego isn't the end of the person because there's 'That'...there's everything else including the "I".

I would want to define the 'I' and then define the "That" in that cliche before deciding what it means.

I was also an Advaita Vedantin for quite a while, but I never got into the "I am That" or "You are That" bit because those sayings, those mahavakyas were contradictory in themselves. If they would have been "I am" or just simply "That" it would make a lot more sense because the relation between "I am" and "That" is what kicks off the whole duality game.
The ego's misunderstanding and personalization of those sayings/cliches is what kicks off the whole duality game (where there is no duality to begin with!). The personal mind/ego is INCAPABLE of understanding any of those cliches that point to Oneness or Non-duality.

So when "I" speak, you know it can't be anything other than "I" because "I" don't know if the "not-I" as in "Brahman" even has a voice beyond OM!

When you speak or not, it is always and only the Absolute or Brahman doing and BEING whatever appears here. All there is, is Brahman or god but the separate ego is not capable of understanding that and is very FRIGHTENED by such teachings and pointers which seem to ELIMINATE the ego.

Yes, it is all semantics and why I left the path of Advaita Vedanta and embraced the path of Tantra fully after that. It was the next step in my spiritual evolution and the most logical route for me to take.
To each his own........ :hug3:

[jimrich]

It is nice to speak of our experiences and share them with others, but the sublime experience related to non-dual consciousness cannot be described or spoken of with anybody really because words just don't exist for it.That is why so many modern spokespersons refer to "pointers" pointing to "non-dual consciousness" rather then attempts to describe it. I actually enjoy the new and improved terms and phrases that attempt to describe it such as the Actuality, Energy, Nothing and on and on. Keep 'em coming!

The phrases "I am That" and "You are That" originate from the Upanishads, a branch of Vedanta dealing with the limitations of individual human thought and experience within the framework of that which lay beyond them. In the end, there is nothing more one can say, after ALL has been said and done but "thou art That". It means, 'I've taken you as far as I can go, the rest is up to YOU now'...what one makes of that is personal and individual.
I'd say that it become Impersonal after the egoic mind fails to grasp or understand the "thou art That" concept or teaching.

This is why personal pronouns are never used and apart from that, there's the damn stupid experience of getting in with a bunch of Advaitins and alluding to the ego by saying "I" only to have them retort "and just what is this "I" you speak of?"
For me, it's the best way of all to see, know and FEEL the subtle difference between a personal 'me' and the Boundless Energy/Being that I actually am. Once I can see/feel the false, non-existent, limited 'me' that I have long believed was me, the Real me or Absolute become glaringly obvious and is seen and FELT here. The (threatening) question is only inviting you to stop and realistically see or feel who/what is actually there - You (the Real) or your (false) ego?
so it's easier to just omit any reference to yourself whatsoever.
It's an experience and a half, put it that way, but yeah it's quite ridiculous".
That is how the fearful, angry ego sees it and always has. This very same egoic fear nailed Jesus to the cross and executed his followers. The ego is and always will be terrified of any concept that seems to threaten it's (apparent) existence and will fight such ideas to the bitter end.
So who are you - the Real or an angry, frightened, temporary little person????
:icon_eek:

[Shivani Devi]

Who/what is asking? Who are you? Who or what is this "we" and what is the "That"? I have my own answers to these questions but chose not to offer them here.

To you!


Sometimes, yes and sometimes, no. This 'I' can refer to whatever someone want it to, IMO. The impersonal Absolute can say: I and a personal frog can say or FEEL: I.



I would want to define the 'I' and then define the "That" in that cliche before deciding what it means.


The ego's misunderstanding and personalization of those sayings/cliches is what kicks off the whole duality game (where there is no duality to begin with!). The personal mind/ego is INCAPABLE of understanding any of those cliches that point to Oneness or Non-duality.


When you speak or not, it is always and only the Absolute or Brahman doing and BEING whatever appears here. All there is, is Brahman or god but the separate ego is not capable of understanding that and is very FRIGHTENED by such teachings and pointers which seem to ELIMINATE the ego.


To each his own........ :hug3:By the way you worded your initial post, I thought you were disagreeing with people who choose to make their experiences impersonal and I was agreeing with you....then I read "to you" and "to each their own" which reads like you are disagreeing with me agreeing with you. Thus I am confused now. :redface:

[jimrich]

I have often thought about this and came to the conclusion that most people live their lives vicariously through other people.
For me, living through others began in early childhood with my parents and older brother. I was not allowed or encouraged to follow my own, innate intelligence and desires and soon became quite Codependent or a Doormat to the big and powerful people around me.

They identify with the characteristics of others, that person is their role model, their hero, their savior. It would be wonderful though if we could all speak in an original voice, our own, about our own experiences.
Yes, it would be wonderful and very few individuals are ever allowed or encouraged to follow their own conscience or path which is why religion, philosophy and psychotherapy was invented to help us get back to our own Realities.

I have used the experiences of others which have stood the test of time as a reference, or template, for my own experiences. We pass on knowledge by sharing our experience as related to the experiences of others. This is how we come up with the term "normal." Normal is what the majority of people are doing or how they function; normal is what we see the most in our environment; normal is what gives us "abnormal." It is based on the experience of others, and then most people compare and contrast their own experience with that designation of "normal."
I call "normal" what is currently acceptable within a culture and occasionally someone dares to do or be something "different" and then that becomes the new norm or acceptable but this is not based on the experiences of others but is based on the inner promptings or conscience of certain innovators or adventurers who occasionally step outside of the "normal" box often at their own peril.

I believe that we are all inter, and intra, related and part of my learning and growing is dependent on the experiences of others; they are as one possible example of what I might, or have, encountered. My story of life is interwoven with the story of others, but they are not the authority on my life. I am my own authority even to the extent that I turn my authority over to others, a higher power, etc., or refer to some noted person as an authority; for even in giving it away I have exercised my authority to make a choice.
And hopefully the "choices" that you make will NOT upset the "normal" folks. :smile:

[jimrich]

Although I feel any path is good enough since there is only One thing or Being here, I see Religion as the egoic or personal path and Spirituality as the Impersonal or Pathless path. IMO, it's just a matter of choice and preference as to what "path" is taken. The joke is that there is no path or anywhere to go since this is it! This is all that there is! The limited mind/ego/self cannot grasp that and is frightened of that truth so Religion was invented to offer this frightened ego some comfort and a process to finally get "there" or into "heaven" when the comical truth is that all there is, is heaven or this right here and now! There is no where to go or become because this is already IT!
The ego or person hates and fears such a message and fights it to the bitter end. It sees such a message as a threat to it's existence, happiness and FUTURE where as Religion offers the ego: comfort, purpose, things to do to be "saved" and get to heaven some day.
Religion is for the ego. Spirituality is for the Spirit.
I use the words religion versus spiritual to highlight the two different ways people embrace and utilize their personal beliefs. The religious person generally speaks of we: We are all sinners as the classic example.
I'd say the use of "we" comes from being Shame-based" where the term 'I' is both very vulnerable and shameful whereas the term "we" is both safer and less "egotistical". Many of us were taught to be ASHAMED of our 'I' so we may feel afraid to say 'I' least someone, like your parents, attack you for saying 'I'. After I did some self esteem work, my very religious mother told me that I am a Sinner and I boldly told her that I am NOT a sinner but she is welcome to believe whatever she like ABOUT HER SELF. LOL she had nothing more to say about Sin or her self crippling beliefs.

Religion is primarily an outward belief-path; projecting one's beliefs onto the world.
For me, Religion is the Ego's path to safety and continuation as a limited person who will be all cleaned up and free of Sin in some far off place like Heaven. It's the promise of eternal life as a SOMEONE or embodied ego living WITH or next to some other person called god, Jesus or whatever this other SOMEONE is called. The ego loves and embraces these Religious concepts since the ego does not want to die or disappear into Nothingness or the Void and wants to go on and on forever more as a Someone with places to go to and PERSONAL things to do there.
The spiritual person speaks of I and me: My personal self-development, my self-realization path. The inward belief-path. Reflective, rather than projective.
IMO, the "spiritual" person no longer carries the burdens of egoic Shame and can honestly and innocently use terms like: I, me, my, mine as well as you, we, us, they, them as free and meaningful expressions of what is. The Spiritual persons identifies with Spirit or Reality and is free to speak in whatever terms fit the situation whereas the Religious person is bound by strict rules, fears, SHAME and religious expectations that usually come from other "authority" figures. The Spiritual person can speak from conscience but the Religious person has to quote a bible or their minister!
The basic difference is that a Spiritual person is free and honest but a Religious person is caught in learned concepts and beliefs so is only able to speak like a Parrot or robot. Spiritual folks "think" - Religious folks NO NOT think but only repeat what they've heard or read somewhere. Spiritual folks are OPEN - Religious folks are CLOSED.

[jimrich]

By the way you worded your initial post, I thought you were disagreeing with people who choose to make their experiences impersonal and I was agreeing with you
Unfortunately, the entire commentary is not quoted here so I have no idea what you are referring to.

....then I read "to you"
I went back to the post and found this: "Seriously though the lack of personal pronoun use to indicate some kind of 'transcendence' of the personal is plain silly." So I wrote: "To you!", meaning that I see this as your opinion or personal experience but not as a disagreement.

... and "to each their own" which reads like you are disagreeing with me agreeing with you. Thus I am confused now. :redface:
Here again, I've gone back to the original commentary to find this: Yes, it is all semantics and why I left the path of Advaita Vedanta and embraced the path of Tantra fully after that. It was the next step in my spiritual evolution and the most logical route for me to take. I wrote "To each his own." to merely indicate that I am OK with whatever path or process you or anybody wishes to take or follow but not to agree or disagrees with your choices.
I don't see agreeing or disagreeing as a very healthy way to discuss things whereas personal choices might work better in a discussion. I have my unique preferences and assume that others also have unique preferences as well and those preferences do not need to be identical for me to have a useful, friendly discussion with others. :hug3:

[Shivani Devi]

I just came from a local meeting of seekers and experienced non-dualists and noticed a tendency to make speeches, quote major spiritual teachers BUT rarely ever use the 'I' word to speak of their own, direct experiences and/or understandings.
I come from a background of sharing meetings in support groups so, using the 'I' word is both easy and also way more significant to me than listening to pompous lectures, theories or disguised advice from self appointed authorities so some "spiritual" meetings are both irritating and uninformative.
If others could or would just talk about their own direct, personal and ACTUAL experiences with awakening, realizing, knowing, doing, feeling, understanding, I could learn a lot from that and take away a lot more from such simple HONESTY. The pompous though emotionally safer use of words like: we, you, they, them, us, others, all, everyone, etc. rather than the more honest and authoritative terms such as: I, me, my, mine, my self, for me, etc. work a lot better for me and gives the speaker some credibility.
I'd much rather hear or read of someone's own, personal awakening than have them tell me how it's going to be or feel for me, us, them, we or you.
"I am that" carries way more authority and meaning for me than to be told "YOU ARE THAT! ...or We are that, etc." by some self made authority figure. I know this is just about semantics but I personally prefer and can HONOR statements that come from someone's own, direct experiences rather than speeches and pompous quotes, etc. :smile:
This is your original post.

How I interpreted it, was that you preferred that others use personal terms to describe their experiences, yet the moment "I" did, you went "to you!" do you see it now?

I thought you were saying you thought that people who used impersonal terms were being pompous and arrogant. I replied by saying "yeah, it is silly" but maybe being pompous and arrogant isn't silly? I don't know.

Wait up...yeah, it's coming through now.

Lately, I have been advised to "own my own statements" because I have got into the habit of using the "royal we" or the "royal one".

To quote an internet meme..."one simply does not..." it should be "I simply do not".

I guess some people...some people like to believe their experience isn't as personal as they'd like to think...and say "we would be well-advised..." instead of saying "I would be well advised.."

I can see where you are coming from because I get my own butt dragged over the coals for it from time to time. It happened again yesterday.

By saying "we" and "us" it sounds like a lecture, It is seen as an appeal to inclusion, but some of "us" or rather, I should say that "I" tend to do it out of habit alone.

So, I can see where you are coming from now. It doesn't really have anything to do with duality or non duality, or anything to do with semantics, it's all about people not owning their experiences, using deflection to avoid any negative repercussions thereof...or just doing it because they have a multiple personality or something. ;)

[jimrich]

I sat with a teacher up in Ojai, CA and at the end of the discussion about the Absolute, he asked me what would be left if I fell dead on the floor of a heart attack and, after thinking about that for a moment, I said, "Some form of consciousness or awareness would be left here." He seemed happy with my answer. Now, if asked such a question, I'd say, "I/me would be left here if my body suddenly died!" I may not have much more to say about this "I/me" that is left here after bodily death but that's more about semantics than my experience or feelings.
When my brother in law died of cancer, he = the living being/personality, was right there, invisibly hovering over his dead body and was as alive and real as he ever was in a body! He was and still is right here WITHOUT the need of any body! This was and still is true for my mother, grandfather, several of my late wife's family members and also my late wife. They are all still very alive and well in the Afterlife which has shown me that there is way more to life and Being than what is experienced in the physical plane.
The problem with discussing any of that usually comes up over SEMANTICS and WORDS more than anything else. I cannot PROVE that my relatives are still alive & right here nor can I prove that I will still be here and alive and well after this form dies, mostly because our culture's language does not honor such non-material things yet many other cultures and languages do! Even though my late brother in law was absolutely obvious to me (and my late wife), I would be hard pressed to find adequate words to describe what happened, how I felt and what my late wife saw, felt and experienced. It was really beyond any words that I currently have other than stuff like: surreal, spiritual, mystical, mysterious, strange, esoteric, telepathic, impressions, feelings, knowing, sensing, etc., none of which meet the requirements of proof or fact.
It was once pointed out to me that other languages and cultures like India, South America, Australia and the Far East contain concepts and words that cannot be found in the West and that even in the West, there are certain "secret" or hidden languages and words that are rarely found in common everyday use so it seems that while studying semantics might help to understand some things, a person may need to go beyond: words, concepts and the limited "mind" in order to fully understand certain things such as: Advaita, Non-duality, the Afterlife, Reality, Spirit, god, Infinity, That, Consciousness, Christ, etc.

[Shivani Devi]

Well, I guess if I was asked the same question, I would honestly respond with "whatever it is, I wouldn't know about it anyway, so I have no idea".

The semantics come when trying to describe the indescribable, like I said before.

My mind got blown when the same heiroglyphs appear in ruins of ancient cities in Pakistan and those found in South America (Peru) - they have been dated to about 12,000 years ago...now, how did that happen? but that's a story for another day.

[jimrich]

Lately, I have been advised to "own my own statements" because I have got into the habit of using the "royal we" or the "royal one".
I was taught to use 'I' statements in self help sharing meetings and later came to see how Shame forces folks to avoid 'I' statements in favor of safer and more acceptable 'you' statements. After several months at sharing meetings, I got very good at saying 'I' and Shame gradually evaporated.

To quote an internet meme..."one simply does not..." it should be "I simply do not".
For me, the form of the statement is not all that important but 'I' contains less shame and feels less bossy or demanding than "one" or "you". It comes down to my intentions and I feel better about saying "I do not..." rather than "one dose not..." or "we should not...", etc. And it also feels more HONEST to say 'I'.

I guess some people...some people like to believe their experience isn't as personal as they'd like to think...and say "we would be well-advised..." instead of saying "I would be well advised.."
If the person is carrying Shame, the use of "we" is safer and less painful or fearful than 'I'.

I can see where you are coming from because I get my own butt dragged over the coals for it from time to time. It happened again yesterday.

By saying "we" and "us" it sounds like a lecture, It is seen as an appeal to inclusion, but some of "us" or rather, I should say that "I" tend to do it out of habit alone.
I believe that "habit" is taught to us early on by our parents and others who resent or carry Shame about the 'I' word so they MAKE us use more impersonal but SAFER words just to make them selves feel good and not threatened.

So, I can see where you are coming from now. It doesn't really have anything to do with duality or non duality, or anything to do with semantics, it's all about people not owning their experiences, using deflection to avoid any negative repercussions thereof...or just doing it because they have a multiple personality or something. ;)
IMO, they do it because of SHAME! They're ashamed of anything personal or "selfish".
Shame is a very deep subject if someone wants to explore it. Shame was the first emotional pain that Adam and Eve experienced when they had to leave the Garden! Shame is a killer and infects most cultures. Shame is the horrifying companion to Self Contempt and forces humans to commit most if not all of the wrong and bad things we do. Shame says I was born wrong/bad and nothing can ever be done to fix that! I simply am WRONG/BAD but, if I pray enough or play my cards right, god MIGHT come and save me! Shame silently runs through most cultures and causes all the crime and horror that we see here! But there is a way to beat Shame if someone wants to be free of it! It's called SELF LOVE & RESPECT. :hug: :hug3: :smile:

[Shivani Devi]

Hmmm...I guess that for some it could be 'shame' whilst for others, it's comes out of a need for inclusion and not feeling so isolated. By making "I" statements, it feels I am cutting myself off from everything, but by saying 'we' it feels like I am appealing to 'anybody else who feels the same way I do".
I wouldn't say it is 'shame' really, but more like a general insecurity; "Is what I am saying okay?" ..."maybe if I say "we" it may resonate with another who thinks the same way..."

I learned to use "I" statements whilst being assertive.

[jimrich]

My mind got blown when the same heiroglyphs appear in ruins of ancient cities in Pakistan and those found in South America (Peru) - they have been dated to about 12,000 years ago...now, how did that happen? but that's a story for another day.
IMO, that happens if there is telepathic communications between the peoples or that they all had the same ideas and concepts due to the Oneness of Consciousness/Life. It seems that many ancient cultures knew more and had more than us modern folks do. I'd say that spirit, consciousness, being, the Absolute, or Energy can do whatever it likes or wants, including Alien activities, regardless of how current people see or feel about all of it. Most of the current metaphysical folks just say it's a "mystery" and don't even bother to explain much of what happens in life.

[jimrich]

Hmmm...I guess that for some it could be 'shame' whilst for others, it's comes out of a need for inclusion and not feeling so isolated.
Which is also an aspect of Shame. Shame says: You're not good enough and need to feel included or acceptable so stop saying 'I' - that's selfish! Shame also tells us: When you say 'I', I feel isolated from you and lonely!

By making "I" statements, it feels I am cutting myself off from everything, but by saying 'we' it feels like I am appealing to 'anybody else who feels the same way I do".
Both of those can he true depending on the INTENTIONS behind the uses of 'I' or 'we', etc. and the INTENTIONS of the one hearing or seeing my 'I'/'we' statements. This brings up the subtleties of communications were things need to be carefully examined to make our intentions clear to each other. My 1st wife and I had very bad communications but, after a few years in therapy, I finally learned how to communicate better so my 2nd wife and I had a much better marriage.

I wouldn't say it is 'shame' really, but more like a general insecurity; "Is what I am saying okay?" ..."maybe if I say "we" it may resonate with another who thinks the same way..."
When you study Shame, you will see how it affects and infects just about everything including feelings of insecurity or security and problems with semantics (communication), attitudes, misunderstanding, fear, expectations, confusion, anger, hostility, hurt feelings, disrespect, etc. Shame has been called the "Master Emotion" (by John Bradshaw https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/94854-healing-the-shame-that-binds-you) because it affects all other emotions, beliefs and behaviors in very damaging ways.
Google: Toxic Shame [http://psychcentral.com/lib/what-is-toxic-shame/]

I learned to use "I" statements whilst being assertive.
Me too. I still have a little trouble being Assertive though! :hug3:

[Shivani Devi]

I don't understand how shame is associated with loneliness and isolation.

I can understand it when people say "I am not good enough to be with others" but not when it's "I am good enough, maybe too good for others and that's why I am totally left out of everything".

Maybe "shame" is one of those subconscious emotions that people are not even aware they are experiencing, because if you were to ask me "do you feel shame?", I can honestly, in my heart of hearts say 'no, I do not'.

Then it becomes "am I ashamed because somebody else says I am?" and "what would they know about it anyway?" and "what gives them the authority to say I am 'ashamed' or 'fearful?" and "Is it just what another person only believes about me, irrespective of whether it is true or not for me?" and on and on this goes.

In the end I go "STOP IT, I am NOT afraid, ashamed or any of these emotional labels being placed upon me".

However, if shame is an emotion I am not consciously aware of, it makes sense, but there's no way I'll believe another person when they say "This is how you look like to ME" because the number of perceptual lenses this must filter through to get it 'palatable' by the brain of another is phenomenal.

It's like trying to pass a message down the line and the 'end message' is nowhere near the original one sent, because people will only repeat what they thought they heard, or put their own little spin on it. It is called cognitive bias.

So, if you think I am 'ashamed' you are entitled. If I think I am 'not ashamed', I am entitled...and in the end, neither of us nor anybody else out there (and I CAN use the plural in this regard) would be any the wiser as to the reason why I project my experiences or my mental state whilst doing so. *hugs*

[Shivani Devi]

Yeah, so my guides and all are laughing now going "Necro is a shameless hussy" - but it's true! it's oh so true.

Not being able to experience shame has put me in hot water more than once, I can tell you.

Besides that, it's impossible to reconcile "shame" with an "impulsive personality" anyway.

I wouldn't go and dance in the street naked, but that has nothing to do with being ashamed. It is self-preservation due to the shame of others (i.e I will go to jail) and besides that, what is seen cannot be 'unseen'. :p

[jimrich]

I don't understand how shame is associated with loneliness and isolation.
You would need to get some books about it - maybe from a library - to understand how it works. All I can say is that Toxic Shame causes it's victims to feel not good enough and lonely. It can also make the victim feel and believe that they are better than others and so the victim becomes isolated and lonely. But that's just a snippet of what Shame does.

I can understand it when people say "I am not good enough to be with others" but not when it's "I am good enough, maybe too good for others and that's why I am totally left out of everything".
Shame comes in two forms: less than others and better than others so it makes the victim feel and BELIEVE they are either better or worse and that produces corresponding effects such as loneliness, isolation, bad communications, etc.

Maybe "shame" is one of those subconscious emotions that people are not even aware they are experiencing, because if you were to ask me "do you feel shame?", I can honestly, in my heart of hearts say 'no, I do not'.
You have hit the nail on the head! Shame is generally an unconscious, secret feeling or set of beliefs that are INSTALLED in us during our very early childhood when we do not know it's happening and have no experience to STOP IT. We are open and innocent so whatever signficant others say to or show us is accepted as TRUE and/or REAL.

Then it becomes "am I ashamed because somebody else says I am?"
As an innocent, open child, this will be our TRUTH and we will take it as a FACT and begin living a SHAME-BASED life - just like those who conditioned us to feel ASHAMED or SUPERIOR or BOTH!

and "what would they know about it anyway?"
A small, innocent child will not question the adult authority and will SWALLOW whatever the adult says or does in most cases which is why and how toxic shame is subtly slipped inside of most of us.

and "what gives them the authority to say I am 'ashamed' or 'fearful?"
Often they do not even know that they are infecting the small, innocent child with their own toxic shame so it is unwittingly passed from generation to generation without anyone even noticing what's happening.

and "Is it just what another person only believes about me, irrespective of whether it is true or not for me?" and on and on this goes.
Mostly these are unconscious beliefs and behaviors that older folks never question and simply inject into the innocent children as "natural and normal" beliefs and behaviors that very few cultures ever examine or question - like the Santa Clause myths.

In the end I go "STOP IT, I am NOT afraid, ashamed or any of these emotional labels being placed upon me".
Yes, that is one way to confront and stop toxic shame AFTER it has been injected into you from early childhood. Most folks just go on with their lives without ever questioning the stuff their parents and others injected into them as little kids.

However, if shame is an emotion I am not consciously aware of,
The main problem of toxic shame is that it's victims are rarely aware of it and it's effects in their lives. Robber just go on robbing. Politicians just go on LYING & CHEATING. Perverts just go on offending children and women. Killers just go on killing. Arsonists just go on setting fires, etc. It's the rare person who ever stops to ask: Why am I doing this stuff?

It's like trying to pass a message down the line and the 'end message' is nowhere near the original one sent, because people will only repeat what they thought they heard, or put their own little spin on it. It is called cognitive bias.
And that is also one of the aspects of Toxic Shame.

So, if you think I am 'ashamed' you are entitled. If I think I am 'not ashamed', I am entitled...and in the end, neither of us nor anybody else out there (and I CAN use the plural in this regard) would be any the wiser as to the reason why I project my experiences or my mental state whilst doing so. *hugs*
IMO, all that matters is what I think and believe about my self and my behaviors and, if I come to recognize the negative effects of the toxic shame that my parents and some others injected into me so long ago, I can either live with it and perhaps pass it to the next generation, try to undo the damages with therapy or spirituality or commit suicide! Well there may be some other alternatives such as: enter a monastery or ashram, turn to drugs or self hypnosis or ??? Many folks, like my dad, try to deal with Shame by DRINKING, using DRUGS, over EATING or SEX.
It all begins with me seeing that I am infected with my family's Toxic Shame and then go from there. If it turns out to be some kind of genetic thing or disorder, I'd still look for a solution before killing my self or be killed by the cops.

[Shivani Devi]

Thing is, lets say I am not ashamed...just entertain that thought. Will somebody saying "you are ashamed and you should feel shame" make me feel it if I am not ashamed?

Then of course the next step will be "the reason why you do not feel shame is because you are in denial of it".

So, it has gone from one emotion I do not feel to two, shame AND denial...and on and on this goes until I am like "hey, I didn't even know I was feeling all these things...yeah, maybe that is because I am not".

However, I understand this all now anyway. What you are referring to, only applies to the neurotypical or 'normal' brain functioning and human emotion responses. I am Autistic, which means I have a huge sign across my forehead which reads "does not apply".

So, you are right and I am right, according to how the brain has been wired since birth.

[Ground]

... I know this is just about semantics but I personally prefer and can HONOR statements that come from someone's own, direct experiences rather than speeches and pompous quotes, etc. :smile:
Pride and conceit are human traits not equally prevalent in different individuals. Depending on the prevalence of these the individually preferred kinds of speech may be different.

[Baile]

Religion is for the ego. Spirituality is for the Spirit.
I'd say the use of "we" comes from being Shame-based"
For me, Religion is the Ego's path to safety
IMO, the "spiritual" person no longer carries the burdens of egoic ShameI agree with these, very insightful, very important points if one wishes to come to an understanding of the inner motivations behind peoples' chosen belief paths. I often say, I'm not interested in peoples' beliefs -- we all have them -- I'm interested in people and what it is that motivates their thinking and beliefs.

[Jyotir]

Hi jimrich,

I get your gripe because I feel your pain - been there; done that.

I just came from a local meeting of seekers and experienced non-dualists and noticed a tendency to make speeches, quote major spiritual teachers BUT rarely ever use the 'I' word to speak of their own, direct experiences and/or understandings.
All well and good as your observation, your presumption, your conclusion, implying your preference - and by contrast, what is not. But some people do see the world and their life-experience impersonally, abstractly, generalized, through ‘broad strokes’. And in the given context, some of what you describe would seem normal as attributed to the fact that these people in question are designated - or view themselves as - presenters or teachers of some kind, and perhaps why they are there.

Induction or deduction? Personal or impersonal? Which is ‘better’? Both or either are two sides of the same non-dual coin, which exists by virtue of its own division into those two halves. iow - You are merely stating your own personal preference by assuming it to be preferable. And it may be. And that may change tomorrow...

I come from a background of sharing meetings in support groups so, using the 'I' word is both easy and also way more significant to me than listening to pompous lectures, theories or disguised advice from self appointed authorities so some "spiritual" meetings are both irritating and uninformative. Again, a contrast based on your own experience, further derived (induced) as a preference.
You then base judgments of others upon those preferences which are based on individual personal experience, and as a result, the derision of others’ offerings as “pompous” (inferring superior attitude), “disguised” (imputing negative motive), “self-appointed” (indicating arrogance), “ “spiritual” ” (seeming to imply pretension).

Meanwhile, “irritating” (an affront to preference), and “uninformative” (a conclusion based on comparison to your own limited knowledge base) are pretty straight-forward invalidations - Yet, amazingly - you go to attend these events. Why? To search for what fulfills your own expectations? e.g. Expecting the world to reflect your own experiences, attitudes and conclusions? To report on your own shattered yet necessarily unreasonable expectations? Just asking rhetorically. But I know that's not really why, because there is something deeper at play.

What is common to the whole thing, whichever aspect is emphasized by preference, whether embodied as others’ presentation or your own preference, is the underlying and emergent spiritual aspiration, and the inspiration available within any experience that reflects it. There is always a positive ‘take-away’ available if not clouded by divisive judgment. That is what needs attention, concentration, and commitment. The inspiration of the emerging aspiration, not the divisive judgment...just so we're clear about why you posted this in the non-dual forum!

And that helps to facilitate discrimination of what you choose to utilize in a practical sense, for yourself. Therefore it is possible to find inspiration even in what you cannot use personally, even if in oneness with others who do utilize 'it' or 'whatever'. To appreciate what is not your preference. To celebrate and be grateful for others’ preferences within the general aspiration of humanity. It is literally the presentation of options for your own use and benefit. So use what works - don‘t use what doesn’t work - that’s a double negative and that ain‘t no positive.

If others could or would just talk about their own direct, personal and ACTUAL experiences with awakening, realizing, knowing, doing, feeling, understanding, I could learn a lot from that and take away a lot more from such simple HONESTY. But they are - its just not in a particular form you wish to be emphasized.

The pompous though emotionally safer use of words like: we, you, they, them, us, others, all, everyone, etc. rather than the more honest and authoritative terms such as: I, me, my, mine, my self, for me, etc. work a lot better for me and gives the speaker some credibility. See how the former bolded is the basis for the latter? Meanwhile in a larger perspective - it all works for somebody, and really - it’s therefore all credible.

I'd much rather hear or read of someone's own, personal awakening than have them tell me how it's going to be or feel for me, us, them, we or you. Then keep exploring or write it yourself, which is basically the same thing. However…

There is also a way in which those same preferences (bolded) of yours - negated by contrast - are honest from another viewpoint - as simply inductive vs. deductive conclusions, and essentially transitory anyway. As long as we are in the non-dual forum…both could be seen as fallacies. In that case, why argue over which preference is the so-called ‘more real’ fallacy?

"I am that" carries way more authority and meaning for me than to be told "YOU ARE THAT! ...or We are that, etc." by some self made authority figure. I know this is just about semantics but I personally prefer and can HONOR statements that come from someone's own, direct experiences rather than speeches and pompous quotes, etc.
Its about semantics and more. People do choose words that are approximations of attitudes, orientations and intentions. Therefore it is possible that these generalities voiced by others are actual subjective conclusions they have reached or intuited.

This sentiment about honoring (one’s own preference) is echoed on many threads here at SF. Accordingly, people seem to have a demonstrated preference for endless discussion and argument over what amounts to posturing their personal preference as The Truth, while incredibly, at the same time, often finding the need to assert that ‘there is no truth’, etc., OR more incredibly, negating and invalidating others’ same or equivalent - what amounts to a battle of mutually ignorant opinion.

Meanwhile, simple acceptance of others’ position as-it-is, in-the-moment relieves the necessity of reaction, which is a dualistic separative impulse.

In general, the acceptance of others’ benign preference does not intrinsically negate one’s own. Just sayin…

~ J

[jimrich]

[INDENT][COLOR="Navy"]Hi jimrich,
I get your gripe because I feel your pain - been there; done that.
Been where and done what?.
jim :smile:

[Baile]

Been where and done what?Irritation with pompous people who use emotionally safe words and expressions, instead of simple honesty. Honestly, it's pretty simple as I see it.

[jimrich]

I just came from a Grief Recovery meeting where once again the problem of words and semantics reared it's ugly head although we did not get into a fight over the words but misunderstanding and misinterpretations were all over the place. I refrained from trying to help others understand my words since it didn't seem all that important. It still feels hurtful to have someone misuse my words but, since we are not married, I did not feel a need to CORRECT those who misused my words and phrases and they were obviously not out to hurt me as often happens in forums. I once read a book where each and every word was carefully examined, explained and defined to make the entire text as clear as possible. This deeply impressed me and I could see that, unless someone can or will go very deeply into a topic or thought, all kinds of misunderstanding and hurt feelings can happen. My late wife and I got very good at being clear and real with each other due to us being in therapy and our "reality checks" paid off over and over as we learned how to honestly say what we really mean in clear and functional terms while staying with good will in the process. I have found it very difficult if not impossible to go that deeply with strangers since most folks cannot say what they really mean and will become very defensive and hostile if questioned beyond a certain point. Small talk is the norm and asking questions usually invites defenses and hostility.

[shiningstars]

I have often thought about this and came to the conclusion that most people live their lives vicariously through other people. They identify with the characteristics of others, that person is their role model, their hero, their savior. It would be wonderful though if we could all speak in an original voice, our own, about our own experiences.

I have used the experiences of others which have stood the test of time as a reference, or template, for my own experiences. We pass on knowledge by sharing our experience as related to the experiences of others. This is how we come up with the term "normal." Normal is what the majority of people are doing or how they function; normal is what we see the most in our environment; normal is what gives us "abnormal." It is based on the experience of others, and then most people compare and contrast their own experience with that designation of "normal."

I believe that we are all inter, and intra, related and part of my learning and growing is dependent on the experiences of others; they are as one possible example of what I might, or have, encountered. My story of life is interwoven with the story of others, but they are not the authority on my life. I am my own authority even to the extent that I turn my authority over to others, a higher power, etc., or refer to some noted person as an authority; for even in giving it away I have exercised my authority to make a choice.

You are so beautiful, Starman.

Ever your fan.

[Joe Mc]

I just came from a Grief Recovery meeting where once again the problem of words and semantics reared it's ugly head although we did not get into a fight over the words but misunderstanding and misinterpretations were all over the place. I refrained from trying to help others understand my words since it didn't seem all that important. It still feels hurtful to have someone misuse my words but, since we are not married, I did not feel a need to CORRECT those who misused my words and phrases and they were obviously not out to hurt me as often happens in forums. I once read a book where each and every word was carefully examined, explained and defined to make the entire text as clear as possible. This deeply impressed me and I could see that, unless someone can or will go very deeply into a topic or thought, all kinds of misunderstanding and hurt feelings can happen. My late wife and I got very good at being clear and real with each other due to us being in therapy and our "reality checks" paid off over and over as we learned how to honestly say what we really mean in clear and functional terms while staying with good will in the process. I have found it very difficult if not impossible to go that deeply with strangers since most folks cannot say what they really mean and will become very defensive and hostile if questioned beyond a certain point. Small talk is the norm and asking questions usually invites defenses and hostility.

I get the feeling from what you say Jim, that your reliance on the use of words in a particular format, therefore, observation, analysis, argumentation is part of your conditioning that you haven't come to terms with yet. Do you sing ? Perhaps you need to walk into the middle of the street and start singing for awhile. This too involves the use of words too ?

I think you have been conditioned somewhere in your past to over rely on language to get to the bottom of things ? For example, someone can be brought up in legalistic environment, both parents are lawyers etc. and this could impinge on how they relate to language in a good or bad way. Probably a silly example I know but nevertheless, the amount of people I have run across so far in my life who reckon they are smart, educated, worded, around language is incredible and they usually are never the Charles ****ens -D ickens ( lol the obscene language detector doesn't approve )of the world or the Mark Twains. But there is really a pride there isn't there.

As for people dropping personal pronouns as if it brought them closer to something we term non duality. Well as has been stated already, it's just downright silly that one. So yes your post there got me thinking really that you have faith in language to solve arguments which I myself don't. This sounds like a rift which existed, a dichotomy of Plato/ Aristotle.. one a believer in poetry and the other a believer in logic. A bit of an over simplification I know but that divide lets say has always been there within human education.

Anyway bye for now Jim.

[jimrich]

I get the feeling from what you say Jim, that your reliance on the use of words in a particular format, therefore, observation, analysis, argumentation is part of your conditioning that you haven't come to terms with yet.
Hmmm.....
Do you sing ? Perhaps you need to walk into the middle of the street and start singing for awhile. This too involves the use of words too ?
LOL, I do sing but I see no value in singing in the middle of a street and why do you often add the "?" character to sentences that are not questions?

I think you have been conditioned somewhere in your past to over rely on language to get to the bottom of things ?
LOL, is that a question or a statement? Your writing style is very confusing to me. I honestly do not "over rely" on anything except maybe my ears when playing music. But I can see an over reliance on words in your communication here. I'd recommend that you stop relying on all these unnecessary, complicated words and phrases and just say what you mean as honestly and simply as possible. Oh, and it might help to drop your tendency to accuse others of such and such and just speak for and about your self. The over use of the word "you" is often quite offensive and accusatory! Use 'I' more and 'you' less!
For example, someone can be brought up in legalistic environment, both parents are lawyers etc. and this could impinge on how they relate to language in a good or bad way.
Please offer some examples of good and bad ways to relate to language.

But there is really a pride there isn't there.
LOL, if you say so!

As for people dropping personal pronouns as if it brought them closer to something we term non duality. Well as has been stated already, it's just downright silly that one.
I agree.

So yes your post there got me thinking really that you have faith in language to solve arguments which I myself don't.
Sorry but you've lost me here. Please quote the post that you are referring to. How do you solve arguments?

Joe, I suppose that you're trying to tell me something important about language, pride and "coming to terms" with whatever but I honestly do not get whatever it is/was that you attempted to say there. Perhaps you need to take a deep breath and come back here with a more direct and simple version of what you are trying to say to me here. I recommend that you drop all those mysterious "?" characters, leave out references to Mark Twain, use 'I' more and 'you' less and just stick to what you know and/or have personally experienced to say whatever it is that you've attempted to say here.
So far, all I got from your comment is that you "feel" there is something WRONG with me and/or my communications so why not just come right out and say what you think, feel and believe about things? Just be HONEST! :rolleyes:

[jimrich]

The religious person generally speaks of we: We are all sinners as the classic example.
This is about Toxic Shame. A Shame-based person (usually SHAMED in early childhood by other Shame-based folks such as parents) has to keep the focus off of their SHAMEFUL and unacceptable self so they are forced to focus on and judge others as "sinners" etc. Being Shame-based and ashamed of them selves, the only way to feel a little better is to find fault with others and thereby see them selves as not so bad after all. It's basic psychology: I feel bad but YOU are worse than me! Looking DOWN seems to "lift up" the victims of Toxic Shame - like Religious people.... "My god's better than your god!"

Religion is primarily an outward belief-path; projecting one's beliefs AND TOXIC SHAME onto the world.

The spiritual person, who might be free of TOXIC SHAME, speaks of I and me: My personal self-development, my self-realization path.
Anyone who is free of Toxic Shame can and will easily speak of and for them selves because they are NOT ashamed of them self and carry no pain about who/what they are whereas a Shame-based person is in constant pain, fear and self contempt BUT covers their pain up with all kinds of strategies such as blaming, accusing, criticizing, judging, DRINKING, using DRUGS, sex, food, meditation, working too much, too much of anything that MIGHT help the victim of Shame to feel a little better. Almost every affliction or problem in the world comes from the sickness of TOXIC SHAME which is generally seen as perfectly normal.
In the story of Adam & Eve, they left the Garden of Eden IN SHAME! They SHAMEFULLY covered their naked bodies! Observe that a little child is NOT ASHAMED until after those around this innocent child begin the process of MAKING a child feel ASHAMED of their body and finally their very being or self.
Children are taken from shameless innocence to personal SHAME by Shame-based others at a very early age! Very few ever escape the damages of Toxic Shame in Western cultures.
Google Toxic Shame and learn all about it. Many people in western cultures suffer with Toxic Shame!

[Joe Mc]

Hmmm.....

LOL, I do sing but I see no value in singing in the middle of a street and why do you often add the "?" character to sentences that are not questions?


LOL, is that a question or a statement? Your writing style is very confusing to me. I honestly do not "over rely" on anything except maybe my ears when playing music. But I can see an over reliance on words in your communication here. I'd recommend that you stop relying on all these unnecessary, complicated words and phrases and just say what you mean as honestly and simply as possible. Oh, and it might help to drop your tendency to accuse others of such and such and just speak for and about your self. The over use of the word "you" is often quite offensive and accusatory! Use 'I' more and 'you' less!

Please offer some examples of good and bad ways to relate to language.


LOL, if you say so!


I agree.


Sorry but you've lost me here. Please quote the post that you are referring to. How do you solve arguments?

Joe, I suppose that you're trying to tell me something important about language, pride and "coming to terms" with whatever but I honestly do not get whatever it is/was that you attempted to say there. Perhaps you need to take a deep breath and come back here with a more direct and simple version of what you are trying to say to me here. I recommend that you drop all those mysterious "?" characters, leave out references to Mark Twain, use 'I' more and 'you' less and just stick to what you know and/or have personally experienced to say whatever it is that you've attempted to say here.
So far, all I got from your comment is that you "feel" there is something WRONG with me and/or my communications so why not just come right out and say what you think, feel and believe about things? Just be HONEST! :rolleyes:
Perhaps I misquoted you Jim, as i was replying to a post you put up regarding being at a non duality meeting were people there were not using personal pronouns. This, according to your post, irritated you it seems. Why ? Don't you know language is a vehicle and people mis-use it all of the time ? As for grammatical mistakes, no big deal, what's a couple of mis-placed question marks ? It's bad manners to become an English Teacher all of a sudden when the question in relation to language is to do with non-duality and not English grammar, says alot about you Jim. The only time I've seen people questioning each others grammar or punctuation is on youtube comments by trolls. So quite a poor show really Jim. Language is also highly allusive and metaphorical, some people call that type of language poetry or figurative language, and some people also claim that poetic language is quite closely linked to music and song, I thought you might pick up on that point Jim as you say you are involved in creating music. What does hmmmmm mean i've never seen much written about it ..is it a particle of written language or something ? lol

[jimrich]

Joe, I have gone to the trouble of reconstructing the entire exchange that this post by you is referring to since this forum does not include all of the material that was quoted or discussed for the sake of clarity and accuracy..........
Originally Posted by Joe Mc
I get the feeling from what you say Jim, that your reliance on the use of words in a particular format, therefore, observation, analysis, argumentation is part of your conditioning that you haven't come to terms with yet.

Jim: Hmmm.....

Joe Mc Do you sing ? Perhaps you need to walk into the middle of the street and start singing for awhile. This too involves the use of words too ?

Jim: LOL, I do sing but I see no value in singing in the middle of a street and why do you often add the "?" character to sentences that are not questions?

Joe Mc I think you have been conditioned somewhere in your past to over rely on language to get to the bottom of things ?

Jim: LOL, is that a question or a statement? Your writing style is very confusing to me. I honestly do not "over rely" on anything except maybe my ears when playing music. But I can see an over reliance on words in your communication here. I'd recommend that you stop relying on all these unnecessary, complicated words and phrases and just say what you mean as honestly and simply as possible. Oh, and it might help to drop your tendency to accuse others of such and such and just speak for and about your self. The over use of the word "you" is often quite offensive and accusatory! Use 'I' more and 'you' less!

Joe Mc For example, someone can be brought up in legalistic environment, both parents are lawyers etc. and this could impinge on how they relate to language in a good or bad way.

Jim: Please offer some examples of good and bad ways to relate to language.

Joe Mc But there is really a pride there isn't there.

Jim: LOL, if you say so!

Joe Mc As for people dropping personal pronouns as if it brought them closer to something we term non duality. Well as has been stated already, it's just downright silly that one.

Jim: I agree.

Joe Mc So yes your post there got me thinking really that you have faith in language to solve arguments which I myself don't.

Jim: Sorry but you've lost me here. Please quote the post that you are referring to. How do you solve arguments?

Joe, I suppose that you're trying to tell me something important about language, pride and "coming to terms" with whatever but I honestly do not get whatever it is/was that you attempted to say there. Perhaps you need to take a deep breath and come back here with a more direct and simple version of what you are trying to say to me here. I recommend that you drop all those mysterious "?" characters, leave out references to Mark Twain, use 'I' more and 'you' less and just stick to what you know and/or have personally experienced to say whatever it is that you've attempted to say here.
So far, all I got from your comment is that you "feel" there is something WRONG with me and/or my communications so why not just come right out and say what you think, feel and believe about things? Just be HONEST!

And now, on to your latest communication to me..............


Perhaps I misquoted you Jim, as i was replying to a post you put up regarding being at a non duality meeting were people there were not using personal pronouns. I have no idea what you are referring to so please quote my words or comments from back there.

This, according to your post, irritated you it seems. Why ?
Why not?
Don't you know language is a vehicle and people mis-use it all of the time ?
Really!
As for grammatical mistakes, no big deal, what's a couple of mis-placed question marks ?
No big deal!

It's bad manners to become an English Teacher all of a sudden when the question in relation to language is to do with non-duality and not English grammar, says alot about you Jim.
It's bad manners to suddenly demonstrate disrespect and contempt by refusing to answer a POLITE question about your use of the "?" in "strange" places and making insulting comments about "becoming an English Teacher". I have not tried to teach you or anyone anything about English Grammar! . I smell CONTEMPT coming from you here and I don't like it! Your obviously hostile and disrespectful attitude says a lot about you, Joe.

The only time I've seen people questioning each others grammar or punctuation is on youtube comments by trolls. So quite a poor show really Jim.
I am not a Troll and have communicated with you in a POLITE and respectful manner so, being rude, offensive and accusitory with me is not going to help us have a reasonable nor friendly exchange! Quite a poor show, Joe!

Language is also highly allusive and metaphorical, some people call that type of language poetry or figurative language, and some people also claim that poetic language is quite closely linked to music and song, I thought you might pick up on that point Jim as you say you are involved in creating music.

Do you sing ? Perhaps you need to walk into the middle of the street and start singing for awhile. This too involves the use of words too ?
Hmmm, pretty mysterious comment here!
LOL, I might have "picked up" on that "point" had you made it clearer!

What does hmmmmm mean i've never seen much written about it ..is it a particle of written language or something ? lol
The Hmmmm.....is just my way to let someone know that I read their comment and did not simply ignore it. If this was a spoken discussion, I'd be saying Hmmm quite often along with a head nod or raised eye-brows, lip movements,etc. I would do thins in a RESPECTFUL manner!
Owing to your sour and offensive attitudes and comments above, which I've made BOLD, I am done with this discussion, good bye, Joe.

[jimrich]

Joe, in the interest of clarity and accuracy, I have gone to the trouble of reconstructing the entire exchange that your current post is referring to since this forum does not include all of the material that was quoted or discussed before.........
Originally Posted by Joe Mc
I get the feeling from what you say Jim, that your reliance on the use of words in a particular format, therefore, observation, analysis, argumentation is part of your conditioning that you haven't come to terms with yet.

Jim: Hmmm.....

Joe Mc Do you sing ? Perhaps you need to walk into the middle of the street and start singing for awhile. This too involves the use of words too ?

Jim: LOL, I do sing but I see no value in singing in the middle of a street and why do you often add the "?" character to sentences that are not questions?

Joe Mc I think you have been conditioned somewhere in your past to over rely on language to get to the bottom of things ?

Jim: LOL, is that a question or a statement? Your writing style is very confusing to me. I honestly do not "over rely" on anything except maybe my ears when playing music. But I can see an over reliance on words in your communication here. I'd recommend that you stop relying on all these unnecessary, complicated words and phrases and just say what you mean as honestly and simply as possible. Oh, and it might help to drop your tendency to accuse others of such and such and just speak for and about your self. The over use of the word "you" is often quite offensive and accusatory! Use 'I' more and 'you' less!

Joe Mc For example, someone can be brought up in legalistic environment, both parents are lawyers etc. and this could impinge on how they relate to language in a good or bad way.

Jim: Please offer some examples of good and bad ways to relate to language.

Joe Mc But there is really a pride there isn't there.

Jim: LOL, if you say so!

Joe Mc As for people dropping personal pronouns as if it brought them closer to something we term non duality. Well as has been stated already, it's just downright silly that one.

Jim: I agree.

Joe Mc So yes your post there got me thinking really that you have faith in language to solve arguments which I myself don't.

Jim: Sorry but you've lost me here. Please quote the post that you are referring to. How do you solve arguments?

Joe, I suppose that you're trying to tell me something important about language, pride and "coming to terms" with whatever but I honestly do not get whatever it is/was that you attempted to say there. Perhaps you need to take a deep breath and come back here with a more direct and simple version of what you are trying to say to me here. I recommend that you drop all those mysterious "?" characters, leave out references to Mark Twain, use 'I' more and 'you' less and just stick to what you know and/or have personally experienced to say whatever it is that you've attempted to say here.
So far, all I got from your comment is that you "feel" there is something WRONG with me and/or my communications so why not just come right out and say what you think, feel and believe about things? Just be HONEST!

And now, on to our latest communication..............

Perhaps I misquoted you Jim, as i was replying to a post you put up regarding being at a non duality meeting were people there were not using personal pronouns.
I have no idea what you are referring to so you should have quoted my comments here for a response.

This, according to your post, irritated you it seems. Why ?
Why not?
Don't you know language is a vehicle and people mis-use it all of the time ?
Really!
As for grammatical mistakes, no big deal, what's a couple of mis-placed question marks ?
No big deal!

It's bad manners to become an English Teacher all of a sudden when the question in relation to language is to do with non-duality and not English grammar, says alot about you Jim.
It's bad manners to suddenly demonstrate disrespect and contempt by refusing to answer a POLITE question about your use of the "?" in "strange" places and making insulting comments about "becoming an English Teacher". I have not tried to teach you or anyone anything about English Grammar! . I smell CONTEMPT coming from you here and I don't like it! Your obviously hostile and disrespectful attitude says a lot about you, Joe.

The only time I've seen people questioning each others grammar or punctuation is on youtube comments by trolls. So quite a poor show really Jim.
I am not a Troll and have communicated with you in a POLITE and respectful manner so, being rude, offensive and accusatory with me is not going to help us have a reasonable nor friendly exchange! Quite a poor show, Joe!

Language is also highly allusive and metaphorical, some people call that type of language poetry or figurative language, and some people also claim that poetic language is quite closely linked to music and song, I thought you might pick up on that point Jim as you say you are involved in creating music.
Hmmm, pretty mysterious comment here!
LOL, I might have "picked up" on that "point" had you made it clearer!


What does hmmmmm mean i've never seen much written about it ..is it a particle of written language or something ? lol

The "Hmmmm" is just my way to let someone know that I read their comment and did not simply ignore it. If this were a spoken discussion, I'd be saying Hmmm quite often along with a head nod, raised eye-brows, lip movements, etc. and I would do it in a RESPECTFUL manner!
Owing to your sour and offensive attitudes and comments above, which I've made BOLD, and the unfortunate differences in our cultural styles of addressing others, I see no point in discussing anything else with you so, good bye, Joe.

[Joe Mc]

Joe, in the interest of clarity and accuracy, I have gone to the trouble of reconstructing the entire exchange that your current post is referring to since this forum does not include all of the material that was quoted or discussed before.........


And now, on to our latest communication..............


I have no idea what you are referring to so you should have quoted my comments here for a response.


Why not?

Really!

No big deal!


It's bad manners to suddenly demonstrate disrespect and contempt by refusing to answer a POLITE question about your use of the "?" in "strange" places and making insulting comments about "becoming an English Teacher". I have not tried to teach you or anyone anything about English Grammar! . I smell CONTEMPT coming from you here and I don't like it! Your obviously hostile and disrespectful attitude says a lot about you, Joe.


I am not a Troll and have communicated with you in a POLITE and respectful manner so, being rude, offensive and accusatory with me is not going to help us have a reasonable nor friendly exchange! Quite a poor show, Joe!


Hmmm, pretty mysterious comment here!
LOL, I might have "picked up" on that "point" had you made it clearer!




The "Hmmmm" is just my way to let someone know that I read their comment and did not simply ignore it. If this were a spoken discussion, I'd be saying Hmmm quite often along with a head nod, raised eye-brows, lip movements, etc. and I would do it in a RESPECTFUL manner!
Owing to your sour and offensive attitudes and comments above, which I've made BOLD, and the unfortunate differences in our cultural styles of addressing others, I see no point in discussing anything else with you so, good bye, Joe.

Looks good Jim ! Reminded me of a script for a play. Perhaps its the synopsis of a novel. :rolleyes: lol.