A revolution in thought - Page 1190

LadyShea · #**29726** 07-19-2013, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Simply because the entelechy of A and B develops into the consciousness of
C, which permits the recognition of individuality, does not negate the
substance from which C is derived

So A and B are gametes, right? And C is the child? Why did Lessans use the philosophical term entelechy, rather than a concrete scientific term? There are several definitions of entelechy, which was Lessans using? What is the "substance" from which C is derived? You have never given a consistent definition of germinal substance before, can you do so now?

Quote:

Even if all the individual characteristics lie potential in the germinal substance, this still has nothing to do with consciousness which is not an individual
characteristic like your face.

How is that the case? Consciousness is an individual characteristic if you accept that it arises from a living brain and each brain is individual. How can the individual brain produce a non individual characteristic?

Quote:

The word ‘I’ or ‘you’ not only reveals this individual difference between yourself and others, but your consciousness of this.

The words I and you simply replace proper nouns in the English language. They don't reveal anything. They are just words, not reality (to use one of Lessans phrases). Without a referent they are meaningless words.

Quote:

There is no actual difference between the potential YOU who died one month after birth, the YOU who will die in a relatively short period of time, or the YOU who lived for many years.

Of course there are actual differences if these YOUs refer to different individual people, which they must because the same individual cannot have three different lifespans.

Quote:

If you had died a hundred thousand times in the uterus of
somebody, eventually YOU, which is a word describing the
consciousness of differences about yourself after your parents create
you, would have been born..

No, the word You does not describe the consciousness of differences...the word You refers to the particular person being spoken to in the English language.

Again, it's your attitude that is preventing you from understanding any part of this chapter. You have already dismissed it as nonsense, and therefore it will be nonsense to you. Your mind is already made up, which is why it's virtually impossible for me to get this concept across.

Translation: You can't respond intelligently so attack my attitude (tone) instead.

My attitude shouldn't have anything to do with demonstrating the information, right? You are not stupid, you just said so. Can you respond to my valid points, or will they stand unopposed?

Vivisectus · #**29727** 07-19-2013, 01:07 PM

[quote=LadyShea;1142360]

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why can't you even acknowledge that there are physicists who don't believe in a spacetime dimension.

Did you read your own link?

Quote:

the researchers’ view suggests that it’s more correct to imagine spacetime as four dimensions of space.

Really?

“The idea of time being the fourth dimension of space did not bring much progress in physics and is in contradiction with the formalism of special relativity,” he said. “We are now developing a formalism of 3D quantum space based on Planck work. It seems that the universe is 3D from the macro to the micro level to the Planck volume, which per formalism is 3D. In this 3D space there is no ‘length contraction,’ there is no ‘time dilation.’ What really exists is that the velocity of material change is ‘relative’ in the Einstein sense.”

Read more at: Scientists suggest spacetime has no time dimension

The article is saying that rather than 3 dimensions of space plus one dimension of time, that there are 4 dimensions of spacetime. They are positing time as not a separate physical thing but how we measure change. Exactly what I said to you some pages back.

Quote:

“Minkowski space is not 3D + T, it is 4D,” the scientists write in their most recent paper. “The point of view which considers time to be a physical entity in which material changes occur is here replaced with a more convenient view of time being merely the numerical order of material change.

Read more at: Scientists suggest spacetime has no time dimension

To clarify - these people do not agree with you that time is absolute and that there is no such thing as relative time, PG. They merely suggest a different way of thinking about it.

LadyShea · #**29728** 07-19-2013, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

I'm not projecting.

Of course you are. You have your and your father's live's work tied to a specific view of time being correct. Nobody else here has a worldview based on it.

David does for sure. I don't know about everyone else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What makes you think that? His livelihood is not based on the nature of time, nor does he have any kind of time-based religion he follows.

This has nothing to do with his livelihood. It has to do with his deeply held beliefs, and it upsets him terribly to think that his worldview (which has given him comfort obviously) could be mistaken.

Quote:

It is true that his worldview is very threatened by the idea that time may not be a 4th dimension.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nope, davidm's life would not be affected if the nature of time turns out to be something other than dimensional.

Quote:

Why are you suddenly speaking for David? Did the cat get his tongue? :eek:

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Doesn't matter if it's davidm or Spacemoneky or me, you projectile vomit this same accusation out p. frequently.

But you are speaking for him. Why are you doing this? David has never addressed this legitimate refutation.

Why are you? Telling another person what their worldview is and what their deeply held beliefs are is speaking for them, too.

Conjecture about someone else's mental state is a "legitimate refutation"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nobody besides you is emotionally attached to, or mentally dependent upon, any of the theories they speak about. Everyone here, besides you, will happily follow the evidence wherever it leads-even if that is in the opposite direction than they expected- without trauma.

I cannot help that I am emotionally attached to Lessans (he was my father after all), but this has no bearing on the validity of what he is offering, so stop using it. You projectile vomit this same accusation out LS frequently.

This is why I accuse you of projecting whenever you accuse people of having emotionally charged worldviews dependent on individual scientific ideas. Right now it's time as a dimension, before davidm's worldview that could be crushed and shattered was based on Relativity and delayed time seeing.

Your whole life has been dedicated not to Lessans as a person, which is understandable, but to his ideas being correct. You have time and money into his ideas. If his ideas are wrong, both you and he will have wasted decades and thousands of dollars. Nobody else here has this kind of investment in any one idea of science.

Vivisectus · #**29729** 07-19-2013, 01:20 PM

I would still like to know what distinguishes an "I" that has no commonalities with, but is nevertheless considered to have been the previous "I" from a brand new "I" that has never existed before.

ChristinaM · #**29730** 07-19-2013, 01:57 PM

She's obviously going to ignore my question about who wrote the phoney conversations and laudatory claptrap so can anyone else tell me? I've been assuming all along that Lessans wrote it all. Am I incorrect?

LadyShea · #**29731** 07-19-2013, 02:07 PM

She admitted at some point that she wrote the silly dialogs ("Oh look, here comes a Rabbi" remains my fave line in the whole book). In fact, there was a list of things that when challenged, she stopped maintaining it was Lessans and admitted she had added (Trillions upon trillions of babies being born, fewer homosexuals when blame is removed from the environment). I told her she should list herself as co-author!

What is unknown is whether she actually wrote them, or if she merely took responsibility for some of the sillier parts to protect Lessans.

ChristinaM · #**29732** 07-19-2013, 02:12 PM

Well, then she at least has to list herself as an editor although I would think that such significant edits and additions would be more appropriately called a co-authoring. I want to say that I can't believe that she would do such a horrible thing to any book but unfortunately I can.

She could have at least come up with a joke about a rabbi, priest and Lessens coming into a bar.

ChristinaM · #**29733** 07-19-2013, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not that I'm being physically stopped, but I am being psychologically stopped ...

Help help I'm being repressed!

thedoc · #**29734** 07-19-2013, 02:16 PM

Peacegirl has also stated that the current book was compiled from 7 earlier books. Another thing we don't know is did Peacegirl have any notes or sketches that she might have incorporated into the final work. Given the mish-mash nature of the current book there is no reason for Peacegirl not to edit the book into a shorter, more compact and readable form, as it is it seems to reflect Peacegirls muddled way of thinking.

thedoc · #**29735** 07-19-2013, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not that I'm being physically stopped, but I am being psychologically stopped ...

Help help I'm being repressed!

STOP THAT ! Or I'll be forced to type big and in all caps and drown you out.

Vivisectus · #**29736** 07-19-2013, 02:27 PM

ChristinaM · #**29737** 07-19-2013, 02:33 PM

I almost posted the video clip but some forums that shall rename nameless think that it's a crime against nature to reference Monty Python and I didn't want to outrage anyone.

Vivisectus · #**29738** 07-19-2013, 02:57 PM

peacegirl · #**29739** 07-19-2013, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Simply because the entelechy of A and B develops into the consciousness of
C, which permits the recognition of individuality, does not negate the
substance from which C is derived

So A and B are gametes, right? And C is the child? Why did Lessans use the philosophical term entelechy, rather than a concrete scientific term? There are several definitions of entelechy, which was Lessans using? What is the "substance" from which C is derived? You have never given a consistent definition of germinal substance before, can you do so now?

Quote:

Even if all the individual characteristics lie potential in the germinal substance, this still has nothing to do with consciousness which is not an individual
characteristic like your face.

How is that the case? Consciousness is an individual characteristic if you accept that it arises from a living brain and each brain is individual. How can the individual brain produce a non individual characteristic?

Quote:

The word ‘I’ or ‘you’ not only reveals this individual difference between yourself and others, but your consciousness of this.

The words I and you simply replace proper nouns in the English language. They don't reveal anything. They are just words, not reality (to use one of Lessans phrases). Without a referent they are meaningless words.

Quote:

There is no actual difference between the potential YOU who died one month after birth, the YOU who will die in a relatively short period of time, or the YOU who lived for many years.

Of course there are actual differences if these YOUs refer to different individual people, which they must because the same individual cannot have three different lifespans.

Quote:

If you had died a hundred thousand times in the uterus of
somebody, eventually YOU, which is a word describing the
consciousness of differences about yourself after your parents create
you, would have been born..

No, the word You does not describe the consciousness of differences...the word You refers to the particular person being spoken to in the English language.

Again, it's your attitude that is preventing you from understanding any part of this chapter. You have already dismissed it as nonsense, and therefore it will be nonsense to you. Your mind is already made up, which is why it's virtually impossible for me to get this concept across.

Translation: You can't respond intelligently so attack my attitude (tone) instead.

My attitude shouldn't have anything to do with demonstrating the information, right? You are not stupid, you just said so. Can you respond to my valid points, or will they stand unopposed?

Only if you stop looking like the final word. You are far from the final word LadyShea. Why can't you accept that you don't have all the answers, or questions for that matter?

LadyShea · #**29740** 07-19-2013, 03:05 PM

Monty Python is a-okay with me

Big fan over here.

LadyShea · #**29741** 07-19-2013, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Simply because the entelechy of A and B develops into the consciousness of
C, which permits the recognition of individuality, does not negate the
substance from which C is derived

So A and B are gametes, right? And C is the child? Why did Lessans use the philosophical term entelechy, rather than a concrete scientific term? There are several definitions of entelechy, which was Lessans using? What is the "substance" from which C is derived? You have never given a consistent definition of germinal substance before, can you do so now?

Quote:

Even if all the individual characteristics lie potential in the germinal substance, this still has nothing to do with consciousness which is not an individual
characteristic like your face.

How is that the case? Consciousness is an individual characteristic if you accept that it arises from a living brain and each brain is individual. How can the individual brain produce a non individual characteristic?

Quote:

The word ‘I’ or ‘you’ not only reveals this individual difference between yourself and others, but your consciousness of this.

The words I and you simply replace proper nouns in the English language. They don't reveal anything. They are just words, not reality (to use one of Lessans phrases). Without a referent they are meaningless words.

Quote:

There is no actual difference between the potential YOU who died one month after birth, the YOU who will die in a relatively short period of time, or the YOU who lived for many years.

Of course there are actual differences if these YOUs refer to different individual people, which they must because the same individual cannot have three different lifespans.

Quote:

If you had died a hundred thousand times in the uterus of
somebody, eventually YOU, which is a word describing the
consciousness of differences about yourself after your parents create
you, would have been born..

No, the word You does not describe the consciousness of differences...the word You refers to the particular person being spoken to in the English language.

Again, it's your attitude that is preventing you from understanding any part of this chapter. You have already dismissed it as nonsense, and therefore it will be nonsense to you. Your mind is already made up, which is why it's virtually impossible for me to get this concept across.

Translation: You can't respond intelligently so attack my attitude (tone) instead.

My attitude shouldn't have anything to do with demonstrating the information, right? You are not stupid, you just said so. Can you respond to my valid points, or will they stand unopposed?

Only if you stop looking like the final word. You are far from the final word LadyShea. Why can't you accept that you don't have all the answers, or questions for that matter?

The only way for LadyShea to "look like" the final word is if peacegirl cannot respond coherently without weaseling.

peacegirl · #**29742** 07-19-2013, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You aren't in my shoes Christina, and you don't know what it feels like to be picked on day after day when you know you have a genuine discovery to share with the world.

Who is forcing you to be here, where you are "picked on day after day"? Who is preventing you sharing the discovery elsewhere in the big world?

Are you a martyr or a masochist? You choose to be here, so complaining about it makes you seem unhinged.

If it was that easy I would have moved on long ago. Did you not see what happened at ProjectReason? These people who are supposed to be rationalists, are anything but. In fact, they are like little children arguing over their toys. They have huge egos which is ruining it for everyone. As much as I would like to contact Sam Harris, I would never ever go back to the forums he promotes. I do learn from my mistakes.

peacegirl · #**29743** 07-19-2013, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Simply because the entelechy of A and B develops into the consciousness of
C, which permits the recognition of individuality, does not negate the
substance from which C is derived

So A and B are gametes, right? And C is the child? Why did Lessans use the philosophical term entelechy, rather than a concrete scientific term? There are several definitions of entelechy, which was Lessans using? What is the "substance" from which C is derived? You have never given a consistent definition of germinal substance before, can you do so now?

Quote:

Even if all the individual characteristics lie potential in the germinal substance, this still has nothing to do with consciousness which is not an individual
characteristic like your face.

How is that the case? Consciousness is an individual characteristic if you accept that it arises from a living brain and each brain is individual. How can the individual brain produce a non individual characteristic?

Quote:

The word ‘I’ or ‘you’ not only reveals this individual difference between yourself and others, but your consciousness of this.

The words I and you simply replace proper nouns in the English language. They don't reveal anything. They are just words, not reality (to use one of Lessans phrases). Without a referent they are meaningless words.

Quote:

There is no actual difference between the potential YOU who died one month after birth, the YOU who will die in a relatively short period of time, or the YOU who lived for many years.

Of course there are actual differences if these YOUs refer to different individual people, which they must because the same individual cannot have three different lifespans.

Quote:

If you had died a hundred thousand times in the uterus of
somebody, eventually YOU, which is a word describing the
consciousness of differences about yourself after your parents create
you, would have been born..

No, the word You does not describe the consciousness of differences...the word You refers to the particular person being spoken to in the English language.

Again, it's your attitude that is preventing you from understanding any part of this chapter. You have already dismissed it as nonsense, and therefore it will be nonsense to you. Your mind is already made up, which is why it's virtually impossible for me to get this concept across.

Translation: You can't respond intelligently so attack my attitude (tone) instead.

My attitude shouldn't have anything to do with demonstrating the information, right? You are not stupid, you just said so. Can you respond to my valid points, or will they stand unopposed?

Only if you stop looking like the final word. You are far from the final word LadyShea. Why can't you accept that you don't have all the answers, or questions for that matter?

The only way for LadyShea to "look like" the final word is if peacegirl cannot respond coherently without weaseling.

I just got here and I need a break...

LadyShea · #**29744** 07-19-2013, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If it was that easy I would have moved on long ago. Did you not see what happened in ProjectReason? These people who are supposed to be rationalists, are anything but. They have huge egos which is ruining it for everyone. As much as I would like to contact Sam Harris, I would never ever go back to the forums he promotes. I do learn from my mistakes.

If it's any consolation I highly doubt Sam Harris reads those forum discussions, or has anything to do with the day to day administration. But I do wonder, how long would you have stayed had you not been banned or had there not been moderator interventions?

I am also curious as to why it is not "that easy" for you to move on from a place you don't like and people you think are mean bullies?

Vivisectus · #**29745** 07-19-2013, 03:50 PM

I do not understand - on one hand you claim that no-one really investigates your ideas, but when they do and ask critical questions you claim that this constitutes some sort of persecution. It seems the only thing you can tolerate is uncritical admiration of your ideas.

peacegirl · #**29746** 07-19-2013, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Simply because the entelechy of A and B develops into the consciousness of
C, which permits the recognition of individuality, does not negate the
substance from which C is derived

So A and B are gametes, right? And C is the child? Why did Lessans use the philosophical term entelechy, rather than a concrete scientific term? There are several definitions of entelechy, which was Lessans using? What is the "substance" from which C is derived? You have never given a consistent definition of germinal substance before, can you do so now?

Quote:

Even if all the individual characteristics lie potential in the germinal substance, this still has nothing to do with consciousness which is not an individual
characteristic like your face.

How is that the case? Consciousness is an individual characteristic if you accept that it arises from a living brain and each brain is individual. How can the individual brain produce a non individual characteristic?

Quote:

The word ‘I’ or ‘you’ not only reveals this individual difference between yourself and others, but your consciousness of this.

The words I and you simply replace proper nouns in the English language. They don't reveal anything. They are just words, not reality (to use one of Lessans phrases). Without a referent they are meaningless words.

Quote:

There is no actual difference between the potential YOU who died one month after birth, the YOU who will die in a relatively short period of time, or the YOU who lived for many years.

Of course there are actual differences if these YOUs refer to different individual people, which they must because the same individual cannot have three different lifespans.

Quote:

If you had died a hundred thousand times in the uterus of
somebody, eventually YOU, which is a word describing the
consciousness of differences about yourself after your parents create
you, would have been born..

No, the word You does not describe the consciousness of differences...the word You refers to the particular person being spoken to in the English language.

Again, it's your attitude that is preventing you from understanding any part of this chapter. You have already dismissed it as nonsense, and therefore it will be nonsense to you. Your mind is already made up, which is why it's virtually impossible for me to get this concept across.

Translation: You can't respond intelligently so attack my attitude (tone) instead.

My attitude shouldn't have anything to do with demonstrating the information, right? You are not stupid, you just said so. Can you respond to my valid points, or will they stand unopposed?

I believe it is your mindset that is preventing you from entertaining the possibility that he could be right. You are not asking sincere questions, you are challenging me at every turn. Your motive is not pure, it is adulterated. It's impossible for me to get through to you, and I do believe this originates with his claim regarding the eyes. I will never win in here, and I am well aware of that.

peacegirl · #**29747** 07-19-2013, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing wrong with his analysis just because he uses pronouns.

The problem is not that he uses pronouns, most people do. The problem is that the argument he makes from pronouns is entirely specious.

As Lady Shea has pointed out, there are languages that don't use personal pronouns. What happens to those people when they die? Is their consciousness not born again and again because they have never said "I"?

This is also a response.

The fact that he uses pronouns does not negate the validity of his observations. I don't know who decided that he can't use pronouns, but it's completely fallacious. He was so clear in what YOU means that I feel like people are responding in a knee-jerk fashion for no other reason than they don't want him to be right. I don't see what's so hard about this one paragraph. It's amazing to me how people can literally twist the meaning of every sentence he wrote to mean something entirely different.

p. 498 Simply
because the entelechy of A and B develops into the consciousness of
C, which permits the recognition of individuality, does not negate the
substance from which C is derived. Even if all the individual
characteristics lie potential in the germinal substance, this still has
nothing to do with consciousness which is not an individual
characteristic like your face. The word ‘I’ or ‘you’ not only reveals this
individual difference between yourself and others, but your
consciousness of this. There is no actual difference between the
potential YOU who died one month after birth, the YOU who will die
in a relatively short period of time, or the YOU who lived for many
years. If you had died a hundred thousand times in the uterus of
somebody, eventually YOU, which is a word describing the
consciousness of differences about yourself after your parents create
you, would have been born.

Replace all pronouns with proper nouns (stick with A, B, and C or give names like Alison, Bob, and Cary) and see if it works to convey the same thing.

Don't you see, it won't work because using proper names would indicate Alison is now Cary, or what have you. It would not be YOU, it would be someone else, which is the opposite of what he is trying to get across. He used the appropriate language, trust me on this.

Then I was correct and his whole "discovery" is about pronouns...it is a word game and nothing more. That is what I have been trying to tell you, if it's about pronouns, it is completely meaningless.

The word YOU must be replaceable with a proper noun, the name of the person being referred to, or it has no meaning. Is Alison You? Is Cary You? Is peacegirl You? Who the fuck is YOU, exactly?

I'm not discussing this chapter anymore. It was a mistake to have even started. You have not studied his observations carefully; you read a few excerpts and now you think you're in the position to criticize it. You are not, so don't act like you can intelligently debate it because you can't. Your questions are not sincere for if they were I wouldn't feel this defensive.

You feel defensive because you can't explain it without using pronouns, which means you can't respond to my charge that his whole arument is dependent on word play, and word play specifically in English.

And I can't study it carefully because you've never offered me the chapter. I can only analyze what you post.

And I'm not going to offer you the whole chapter. What you should have done is said I am not in the position to determine whether he is right or not because I don't have enough information, but instead you try to discredit this knowledge based on very little information. Is that the sign of someone who really wants to learn, or someone who wants to win at all costs?

peacegirl · #**29748** 07-19-2013, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Simply because the entelechy of A and B develops into the consciousness of
C, which permits the recognition of individuality, does not negate the
substance from which C is derived

So A and B are gametes, right? And C is the child? Why did Lessans use the philosophical term entelechy, rather than a concrete scientific term? There are several definitions of entelechy, which was Lessans using? What is the "substance" from which C is derived? You have never given a consistent definition of germinal substance before, can you do so now?

Quote:

Even if all the individual characteristics lie potential in the germinal substance, this still has nothing to do with consciousness which is not an individual
characteristic like your face.

How is that the case? Consciousness is an individual characteristic if you accept that it arises from a living brain and each brain is individual. How can the individual brain produce a non individual characteristic?

Quote:

The word ‘I’ or ‘you’ not only reveals this individual difference between yourself and others, but your consciousness of this.

The words I and you simply replace proper nouns in the English language. They don't reveal anything. They are just words, not reality (to use one of Lessans phrases). Without a referent they are meaningless words.

Quote:

There is no actual difference between the potential YOU who died one month after birth, the YOU who will die in a relatively short period of time, or the YOU who lived for many years.

Of course there are actual differences if these YOUs refer to different individual people, which they must because the same individual cannot have three different lifespans.

Quote:

If you had died a hundred thousand times in the uterus of
somebody, eventually YOU, which is a word describing the
consciousness of differences about yourself after your parents create
you, would have been born..

No, the word You does not describe the consciousness of differences...the word You refers to the particular person being spoken to in the English language.

No LadyShea, it is exactly as Lessans stated. You are looking more and more foolish by the minute.

The consciousness of your individuality without understanding that you
are not only C, which represents the hereditary differences that die,
but the germinal substance A and B which never die because they are
carried along from generation to generation and when united develop
into your existence, makes you perceive an improper relation. Simply
because the entelechy of A and B develops into the consciousness of
C, which permits the recognition of individuality, does not negate the
substance from which C is derived. Even if all the individual
characteristics lie potential in the germinal substance, this still has
nothing to do with consciousness which is not an individual
characteristic like your face. The word ‘I’ or ‘you’ not only reveals this
individual difference between yourself and others, but your
consciousness of this. There is no actual difference between the
potential YOU who died one month after birth, the YOU who will die
in a relatively short period of time, or the YOU who lived for many
years. If you had died a hundred thousand times in the uterus of
somebody, eventually YOU, which is a word describing the
consciousness of differences about yourself after your parents create
you, would have been born.

peacegirl · #**29749** 07-19-2013, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You aren't in my shoes Christina, and you don't know what it feels like to be picked on day after day when you know you have a genuine discovery to share with the world.

Who is forcing you to be here, where you are "picked on day after day"? Who is preventing you sharing the discovery elsewhere in the big world?

Are you a martyr or a masochist? You choose to be here, so complaining about it makes you seem unhinged.

I would love to find somewhere else to go, but I can't start over again in another forum, and I'm not marketing the book yet, so I'm stuck. Believe me, being here is not my first choice.

ChristinaM · #**29750** 07-19-2013, 05:37 PM

This show is really entertaining but I feel that I must point out that there is a third option. You could always stop talking and get to work.