Foundation in itself isn't flawed . It is only flawed if the foundation isn't sound to begin with .

All of what you say about your experiences had and what you refer to as a reality and what abuse is and feels like is down to a foundation you have that reflects yourself and what you believe that to be .

As said a thousand times, you can't even resonate with Jung if you don't have a foundation in place that allows resonation .

The reason why our conversations of late go as they do is because on one hand you renounce your foundational beliefs and in the other you string out a load of statements that are factual . It simply doesn't work . You either believe in your foundation or you don't .

In fact to even mention that foundations are flawed based upon what you experienced in your childhood reflects a foundation that you have about foundations .

it's clear as it is day, but for some reason you can't see that a foundation is required, even if the foundation is that I AM is ego or the world is a dream .


x daz x

With respect Dazza, I'm not going down this road with you again. I've tried to explain but you're simply not interested in listening past your own beliefs and frankly I find it frustrating. We're coming down to it being about beliefs and I'm not banging my head against that brick wall again.

Well I have only pointed out what foundations are and what beliefs are, but you don't want to recognise them as that . You renounce them but yet you stand firm by what you say at the same time . These mixed signals create the confusion and the frustration because if they were not your foundations and they were not your beliefs then you wouldn't behave as you do .

It's like people protesting about something that they don't believe in and have no foundation of ..

It makes no sense to me in all respect .

I don't particularly want to go down this rabbit hole with you again either :biggrin:


x dazzle x

Quite the opposite Dazza, you haven't pointed out foundations, what they are nor how they are created. Similarly with beliefs. And no, it wouldn't make sense to you because what I've been trying to explain is incompatible with your existing beliefs, your cognitive dissonance kicks in and your ego 'filters' it. How I behave is relative your your own perceptions, and your perceptions are relative to your beliefs. This is why you perceive I'm giving you mixed signals, because your focal point is your beliefs and I don't operate according to them.

Erm, well I have . I even stated that your foundations about foundations is a foundation lol .

You have to have a foundation of self . That's why when you spoke about your abuse as a child, that was your foundation that gave you the foundation about foundations in this respect .

I have spoken about your foundation had of what ego is and refers too in reflection of your resonation of what Jung says about it .

You have to have one mate but you're either blinded by it or not interested or in denial . I am totally flabbergasted in this respect .

You marrying Mrs G is a classic foundation but you never once answered my questions about it .

You need to have a foundation of self that is reflected in the marrying of the misses . Tell me how you can't ...

You are giving out mixed signals mate because one minute you don't know who you are, the next minute you know what the ego is or isn't or what self is or isn't and yet that's not possible because you have supposedly no foundation of yourself .

Again, you can't get married to the wifey and not have a foundational self reference for yourself .

It's impossible and I have said it time and time again to no avail .

All of the above is encompassed in your belief system, but you renounce having one .

You spoke about your therapy sessions but again in the way that you spoke about them you have to encompass a self identified foundation that reflects you being someone that needs therapy . This is just common sense and is obvious but you don't seem to compute with this for some reason or other .

This is why I am just not making head or tail of what you say and what you actually do .

This is why it doesn't make sense mate, it's just not possible to marry the wife and have no foundational belief had of what you are .

You haven't said anything to counter this that makes any sense at all . :confused:


x dazzle x

And again to point out the obvious, I could say the same about you here in this respect but you renounce your beliefs had .. so in your eyes what you say applies to everyone else but not you and this is why it doesn't work mate or add up .

This is what happens often to me . You get peeps that are adamant about something or other in order to poo poo what I say but in doing that they contradict the very thing that they are trying to say and point out :D

This is why people with strong beliefs end up being blinded by their agendas .

We have both seen this in regards to others that have been unkind and disrespectful to us on the forums .

They try and be all spiritual and above where we are both coming from but end up showing their true colours and it's never pretty or honourable .

What you are doing is distancing yourself from the very same thing you say I am doing, but you are doing it also . :biggrin:

I can't be encompassed within a belief system and you not when you're doing the same thing mate .

I could turn around and renounce and deny everything you are but it wouldn't be true or make sense at all . :icon_frown:


x daz x

maybe the reason it isn't as clear as you think, is, you are both using different definitions for the same words. And you refuse to acknowledge that such a thing can actually happen.

It is absolutely clear that in order to have strong opinions about the self, the ego and the universe one requires a foundation to support that . A foundation that has to encompass and reflect a belief in themselves to be this or that and to support a self ego . This is just common sense .

I am welcome to anyone's counter proposals for how a foundational belief system isn't required in these instances .



x dazzle x

It's the difference between Jung's definition and the interpretation of what Spiritual people seem to mean, and for me what's important is the underlying reasons for Jung's definition rather than Chinese Whispers.

Well in regards to self, I used the dictionary definition, no need for Chinese whispers or spiritual whatnots .

This is why there has to be a self ego expression but you have divided up the ego in a way that is estranged from the self where you believe it is the ego that's talking . That is why I said the ego cannot talk or do anything for it isn't an entity unto itself. Then you speak about I AM is the ego when I AM cannot be divided or estranged from the self .

This is a total confuddle muddle and you not entertaining a foundational belief system to support all your notions just adds more fuddle to the confuddle . :tongue:



x Dazza x