| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 183.1 | I'm Not Knocking Experiences | INK::KALLIS | | Mon Aug 04 1986 12:57 | 67 |
| Hmm...
In some ways, this is an extension of Note 176.3.
Diana, your approach is a legitimate one for some folk, some time.
There seems, however, some aversion on your part to have anything
to do with what you call "intellectualism," as if it somehow were
antithetical with what you define as a single state and then call
"psychic."
That needn't be the case.
You mentioned in the base note that anyone can rationalize away
anything; that's perfectly true -- however, they can also rationalize
anything, too. And that can be dangerous.
In one (now deleted) note, a conference member told of meeting a
person whom on retrospect he found to be evil and something akin
to a psychic vampire. Now the person he met, (let's call him good
old "X") was one who had dabbled in various areas of the occult
and who may himself have been the victim of something like possession.
Whether X was a perpretrator or a soort of "pass-on" victim, his
effect on the conference member was apparently charismatic and
subliminal.
Other conference members have reported cases of psychic vampirism,
hauntings, and (inferentially) possession. Some of these items
were the results of acting without thinking: not all, by any means,
but the idea is that one should always keep one's wits about one.
On "book learning," or whatever, where one uses one's mind: when
a person learns, say, to drive, he or she reads manuals, rules of
the road [inapplicable in Massachusetts ;-)] and the like, and takes
a written test. The actual _handling of the car_ is done at a
different level, but ought to build on the knowledge acquired.
The same is true of learning to sail a boat, fgly an aircraft, or
any other _skill_.
Among the greatest occultists were Agrippa, Paracelsus, and Alburtis,
all of whom wrote copiously. And not for intellectual
self-stimulation, but to impart (sometimes dubious) wisdom.
I believe you're confusing "intellectualim" with "closed-mindedness."
Suppose a Qabballist said, "the first step to the solution of your
problem is to attune yourself to the sephirot of Chockmah." Without
understanding the Qabballistic Tree and its relationships, attempting
to do that would be a meaningless exercise (like trying to wiggle
your pateel).
Part of discipline is establishing a firm foundation; ignoring that
can produce results you might not be happy with _in the long run_.
A _good_ teacher might obviate the need for consulting "intellectual"
sources, but one had better be damned sure the teacher is a good
one.
Steve Kallis, Jr.
P.S., and relating indirectly to another note: a hophead will tell
you that the drug he or she is taking provides you with the most
nearly perfect union with the sublime (or the Universe, or God,
or whatever). Without looking at what she or he says critically,
and from an outside perspective or foundation, the listener could
get into a lot of unnecessary trouble.
-SK
|
| 183.2 | Definition AGAIN | BRAT::WALLIS | | Mon Aug 04 1986 13:30 | 11 |
|
Are we really in a conversation about occultism and
psychism and the definitions thereof? Perhaps we can
address this (as it does need to be addressed) from
a NON-POLARIZED point of view....sometimes some of us,
me included, sometimes tend to fall into that rattrap.
Lora
|
| 183.5 | More light on more water | NEXUS::MORGAN | The Brainwashed never wonder. | Tue Aug 05 1986 02:34 | 62 |
| Diana,
I fully agree with your statements. I felt the same way when Topher
and I got into a discussion of A.S.C. many notes back. Intellectualism
does get in the way of successful exploration of psi abilities.
Still, humans are multifaceted things and we like to stay where we feel
most comfortable, sometimes to the exclusion of what you have
experienced.
It takes a very brave person to swim in the waters of the unknown. Most
people just aren't that brave. I have a good feel for what you have
gone through because of some experiences I have had. Critical thought
about those experiences would have gotten in the way and I would have
lost the "goodies" till sometime later.
May I suggest to the participants of this conference that a relearning
of disgarded thought processes (that we disgarded as children) may help
bring us to a better place of understanding of psi abilities. We are
taught to think in a sequencial mannor. We are capable of thinking in a
parallel fashion too. This, I think, is the beginning of the Great
Adventure. Learning to coordinate the various senses and even more
importantly giving them the freedom to feel and sense is vital.
I would say that trusting in your own power and in yourself is the
crux. The two may not be the same. I sense the ability to steer my
course as if it were guided by unseen hands. Seth calls this the
entity. The old philosophers might have called it the daemon. Jane
Roberts refers to it as a benefit of Aspect Psychology, (ie, bring out
the quorum of past life experiences). With that I also trust myself to
be able to extract myself from tough situations or find someone to help
me do so. Faith in yourself is vital.
Steve,
I don't think Diana is confusing intellectualism with
closed-mindedness. I think she is saying that by freeing the mind of
obsticles we can learn new ways of sensing, thinking and being. What
we may be confusing here is that of disciplined and undisciplined
abilities. I'm not sure which is best. I do know that I have done
more in the undisciplined fashion that I have done in the disciplined
fashion. In most cases technique gets in the way. Emotional desire
always gets tons more response for me that any technique ever did.
Technique has its place but should not be placed over free association
(ie, letting it happen and figuring it out later) in importance.
I view it like this: When a person gets to a point of being able to
use whatever abilities present themselves, knowledge, even tons of it,
is of no real value. Everything seems to change at that point and the
personal _filters_ really come into play. What is of value is trust.
Trusting myself to be able to work with the filters (or around them)
is a dynamic and exciting experience.
Reply to .3 (Ed?)
It may indeed be a pendulum swing type phenomenon. I like to think of
it as another color in the rainbow. Another color brought about by
more light in more water vapor. Meant for both sides of that statement
too.
Mikie.
|
| 183.7 | Balance | BRAT::WALLIS | | Tue Aug 05 1986 14:24 | 66 |
|
We seem to be skirting around an issue which I believe needs airing.
The discussion, on the surface is about 'intellects' vs. 'intuitives'.
That's what I see, I also see a lot of folks not really arguing
with either. Both are valuable, for balance and to assist those
on this path with some guidance, promote intelligent decisions, knowledge
etc. - all goodness....
Where I take issue, and I believe it's a hidden agenda here, is
the HOW the balance is achieved. Support is the framework of
succeeding - as a reference point, a structure to fall back on,
and a whole mess of things I'd like to see us spell out -
There are some folks in this conference who come across, whether
they mean to or not as critical, negative and non-supportive.
Opposites are essential to existence - how they're presented
can determine if they squash ideas, feelings, concepts, processes etc.
or encourage, direct, guide and lead in a constructive manner.
No one own's the conference and we need to decide how we're going
to use it; confrontive or supportive. That's not to say their
shouldn't be both, however, there appears to be a perception and I
share it that some respondents are authoritative and may need to have
the last word. I'm not sure that's accurate but that may be the picture
being painted. If it isn't accurate, then communication is essential,
not only stating one's position (which I believe has been done) but
getting feedback to insure what's ment is conveyed - not ass..u..me.d.
RESPECT is the basis for a whole mess of real nice things....we're
not taught, as a society, to respect others....but to take responsibility
for them. I personally cannot tolerate someone making decisions for me,
which involve me and my choices - especially if I haven't been consulted -
or contract to do so. I want to be open to other's ideas, but I don't like
it when they are presented in a negative, directive manner (I get mixed
messages and fall into the trap of making assumptions). The energy around
some of the responses is 'we shouldn't go further with this' folks
don't/won't understand it and could get into trouble'. That's
protectionism - and we need to agree if that's ok or not. There are many
of us who are in this conference who bring much wisdom, experience and
knowledge .....many who have learned the hard way and I don't
think anyone wants to see the unsuspecting led down a path they "can't
handle", or to do 'something dumb ourselves', but "who are we to determine
what others can and cannot handle?".
Perhaps that does speak to a private conference - I don't know. The other
school of thought speaks to "people get what they can handle"...."we need
to allow others to fall down before they walk"......
In any event, I support stopping the negativism. For example, I like
fantasy, I understand certain principles and if it's real for me, who
cares, maybe someone else can have some fun playing in this realm for
a while. And who the h... cares if Atlantis was real or not? The
Plato data is informative, I learned something, but I want to believe
in Atlantis right now.....may change my mind later, but so bloody what?
Let's talk!!!! PLAY, HAVE FUN, LEARN AND SUPPORT EACH OTHER....we seem
to need to tweak things here a little to allow everyone to be as open
and comfortable as possible, or at least know why they're not!
Lora
|
| 183.8 | The Ancient Chinese Approach | VAXUUM::DYER | Define `Quality' | Tue Aug 05 1986 17:45 | 6 |
| The approach of the ancient Chinese was something like this:
In childhood, one developed the intellect. This was along the
lines of the philosophy of Confucious. Later, one developed the
intuitive and/or spiritual mind. This was along the lines of
the philosophy of Lao Tzu.
<_Jym_>
|
| 183.9 | mmmmmmmm..... | BRAT::WALLIS | | Tue Aug 05 1986 17:58 | 14 |
|
re .8
God, even the ancient Chinese seperated them!!!!
IT AIN'T EITHER/OR IT'S HOW THE TWO MOVE TO THE
COMMON END....INTELLIGENCE AND UNDERSTANDING!
Here's to respectful co-existance of all......
Bless us all :)
Lora
|
| 183.13 | Moved from 185.0 | HUDSON::STANLEY | Operator | Wed Aug 06 1986 09:40 | 117 |
| <<< KRYSTL::DAA0:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DEJAVU.NOTE;1 >>>
-< Psychic Phenomena >-
================================================================================
Note 185.0 Psychic Development continued!? 1 reply
PSGMKG::MCCAY 109 lines 4-AUG-1986 18:11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: 183.1 to Steve Kallis
> Diana, your approach is a legitimate one for some folk, some time.
There seems, however, some aversion on your part to have anything
to do with what you call intellectualism, as if it somehow were
antithetical with what you define as single state and then call
"psychic".
I work with a network of real full-time working psychics that would
tell the same legitimate story, not just some folk, some time. I'm
talking about the practice of BEING a psychic and the steps/stages
as part of a process of what is occurring in body, mind and brain
during psychic experiences which are not at all single state. I
am not a digit, I am a human and I don't know where you got the
idea that psychic experience is like a switch being thrown. For
instance, there are many levels that I am working on when doing a reading
on a lost person for a client. I am at one level picking up pictoral
details on an object (psychometry) while keeping in tune with the
vibration of the lost person's name (clairvoiance) . Another part of
me is assessing what can be gleaned from the client during this
session to relate to other pertinent data (telepathy) or amplifying
the tuning in to this lost person (partly dowsing). Also I don't want
the client to have a heart attack watching me, nor do I tell the gory
details if that client cannot withstand the whole truth (empathy).
I may get input from a spirit guide (mediumship) at any time during
the session to clarify details or add a symbol to strengthen the
images. In short, I am using many different "tools" (which I loosely
labeled within the parentheses above for the purpose of making a
long story shorter not to indescriminately use a bunch of terms)
to do the job of sorting out the data on many mental/physical/psychic
levels.
As to my aversion to intellectualism, let us say that in the
words of Dr. Freud, I do not have an anal fixation about being an
intellectual when doing psychic work because it can be a trap door
shuting off the psychic levels of perception. I began many years ago
as a confused young person who didn't know why I felt, saw and heard
these phenomena things that had no label. I read an INCREDIBLE AMOUNT
OF BOOKS!!!!!!!!! That is how I came to know I was psychic and many
ways in which to use and develop my talents. I firmly believe in
the power of books, especially in light of the high fees charged for
seminars (which ranges from $10-$1000 per session) by many of todays
good teachers! Ha! Ha! I still trying to read a more incredible amount
of books (I am on too many book publishers catalogs lists) to try
and keep up with new developments in the field of psychic research from
various disciplines. I have a B.S. in psychology with Literature
and Business minors and graduated Magna Cum Laude. I am not an anti-
intellectual.
I have noticed that whenever you want to refute the "heart"
type ideas when preferencing the "intellectual" type ideas, you
use some book reference to vampirism, druggies or other boogie-man
dark stuff which you read in books that can happen to unsuspecting
folks (who don't read the same books?). Vampirism and other
negativisms cannot be cured by books alone. One can learn about
putting white light protection on oneself, prayers, affirmations,
chants, spells and other methods, but the book does not do the work
of protection. Neither will nit-picking to the exact definition of
the meaning of a psychic vampire, save you from one. If you are
knowledgeable as hell you can draw the dark side to you by just
being afraid of it. It takes more than knowledge to work against
negative energy or (evil as it is sometimes called). Have YOU, STEVE
ever had real psychic experiences or confronted evil? I have done
both and I'm calling your bluff. Using scary tales as a defense
mechanism to support the reliance on intellectual books alone won't
cut it as valid evidence of anything. Which also brings me to your
comment > A good teacher might obviate the need for consulting
intellectual sources but one had better be damn sure the teacher
was a good one. It sounds like you are afraid of learning from a
human teacher v.s. a book, prefering them as more a reliable source.
I have read many books on ESP, Telepathy, Clairvoiance, and many
metaphysical subjects that, strangely enough, were written by human
teachers. These books were anywhere from beginners levels to advanced,
from incompetent crap to great guides. In the book, "Joy's Way, A
Map for the Transformational Journey, by W. Brugh Joy, M.D., he
stated that at one point he realized how a teacher can (in a book or
orally) teach something to one student, that would be an incorrect
teaching on the level of another student. Both teachings are correct
for the level of development of that particular student.
>Part of the discipline is establishing a firm foundation.
How true! But it takes more than a foundation to build a house unless
you want to live in the dark! One has to open oneself up to more
experiences than just reading books to truly understand what a psychic
process means. One can get a set of directions for Johnny/Sally's
toy and be unable to completely put the toy together, until one
takes the unaccounted for pieces and try them out in various positions
(and mutter a little, perhaps) and then discover that those directions
were missing two sentences or something that would have made those
pieces fit. Following Directions and trying them out are BOTH the
perspectives necessary to best accomplish the goal! I am saying that
intellect is iperative both before and after the psychic experience.
It cannot be done DURING psychic experience. Until one opens oneself up to
ALLOWING the psychic experience to flow, without questioning, defining,
debating or degrading it, one will remain a bookworm always!
Love and Light,
DIana
P.S. I am not a hophead either! Ha! Ha!
|
| 183.14 | Moved from 185.1 | HUDSON::STANLEY | Operator | Wed Aug 06 1986 09:41 | 30 |
| <<< KRYSTL::DAA0:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DEJAVU.NOTE;1 >>>
-< Psychic Phenomena >-
================================================================================
Note 185.1 Psychic Development continued!? 1 of 1
CGHUB::CONNELLY "Eye Dr3 - Regnad Kcin" 21 lines 5-AUG-1986 13:04
-< re: personal challenges >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: 185.0
> negative energy or (evil as it is sometimes called). Have YOU, STEVE
> ever had real psychic experiences or confronted evil? I have done
> both and I'm calling your bluff. Using scary tales as a defense
Why are we getting personal? It seems to me anyone here can claim to
have a "real psychic experience" and no one else can do much to dispute
them. So then what, are we going to get into pissing contests about
"mine is realer than yours"? And if someone is unwilling to make the
claim but is interested in or knowledgeable about some aspects of this
topic, are we supposed to ignore what that person has to say?
From the sound of your previous note, the conference is getting too
intellectual and "bookish" for you. Well, that's probably just a
phase, but the best way to combat it would be to describe your own
experiences. Nothing impresses like testimony from an eyewitness,
example is the best teacher, etc. I don't recall aspersions being
cast on anyone who's come forward here with first-hand experiences as
far as their honesty or the veracity of their recollection goes.
That's my two cents, anyhow...
|
| 183.15 | Moved from 186.0 | HUDSON::STANLEY | Operator | Wed Aug 06 1986 09:44 | 44 |
| <<< KRYSTL::DAA0:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DEJAVU.NOTE;1 >>>
-< Psychic Phenomena >-
================================================================================
Note 186.0 Trends in the Notes..... No replies
PSGMKG::MCCAY 36 lines 5-AUG-1986 15:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: 185.1 (and Steve Kallis),
> Why are we getting personal? "So then what, are we going to get
into pissing contests about "mine is realer than yours"?
Let me address both questions. When I am relating personal psychic
experiences and someone authoritatively tells me that my problem is
an aversion to intellectualism and books and ... I am confusing
intellectualism with closemindedness etc, etc, then I FEEL defensive.
If you will review notes # 176.5, 176.7, 176.9 and particularly
183.7 you will see there is an undercurrent relating the harmful
effects of this kind of non-supportive trend. It has caused me to FEEL
personally refuted. Pardon me for putting on wolf's clothing and
acting like the wolf, so to speak, rather than becoming a stampeding
sheep. I am certainly willing and interested in hearing about other
points of view/opinions. I hope my other notes/responses to notes
will bear that fact out. Perhaps you should review Steve's responses
to others' notes and ask yourself if his responses bear that tone.
(Also, most assuredly, I do not have the necessary equipment to start
any pissing contests. Ha! Ha!)
I appologize to Steve for calling him negative, calling his
bluff and putting him on the spot. As Topher put it, it's just my
opinion that should be more delicately stated. Perhaps I should make my
list of books with authors, that describe the "intuitive experience"
so that he will understand what I am saying in an a way in which
he can relate comfortably. This reminds me of the classic story, in
my psychology text, of the man with the surgically split brain that
was asked to pick up a specific object, which one side of the brain
could recognize, but the other could not. He began fighting with himself
literally one hand, struggling against the other. It was so comical
to watch! I am definitely laughing at myself now!
Love and Light,
DIana
|
| 183.16 | Wow! | INK::KALLIS | | Wed Aug 06 1986 10:46 | 44 |
| Re last several:
I was doing va job away from my terminal yesterday and so had no
chance to respond to what has been apparently a hot and heavy debate
that concerns, among other items, apparently my opinions.
Let me attempt, at any rate, to shed a bit more light than heat:
Consider the Yin and the Yang: conceptually, both encompass the
whole; neither "really exists" without the other. The same, _in
my opinion_ is true of mind and feeling, and I employ both in what
I do.
I have expressed concern for relying on one over the other because
_either_, taken in excess, could be dangerous to the well-being
of the person using the approach. If I were intolerant (and I've
received VAXmails from people who are) I'd say "This is all a bunch
of B.S. and you shouldn't even _discuss_ it."
I'm all for seeking truth. I covered some of what I'm about to
say elsewhere, but I'll retierate a little here:
Sometimes, whatever works for you works; however, it might not work
as well for the next guy. On a nonoccult subject, it's perfectly
possible to pretend the Earth is the center of the universe _and
make it work for you_ if you're doing celestian navigation at sea:
but don't try it if you're going to sent a spacecraft to Mars!
Truth may be variable, but _absolute_ truth (which may never be
achieved) probably can't be.
If I may seem too cautionary for some, it's because I'm concerned
for them. If they wish to take risks (I'm not being negative: _any_
adventure worthy of its name has attendant risks), then knowing
there are pitfalls _may help people avoid them_.
I hope this puts things into a bit more perspective.
Best to all,
Steve Kallis, Jr.
it's easy to fool oneself to
|
| 183.17 | Typo or Automism? | INK::KALLIS | | Wed Aug 06 1986 10:50 | 13 |
| Re .16:
the last line, "it's easy to fool oneself to," was a spurious point
from an edit, not a postscript, but it actually holds, if if you
change the last "to" to a "too."
I try to guard myself from "fooling myself," as others do in other
ways.
Light and love,
Steve Kallis, Jr.
|
| 183.18 | glad we're sharing | BRAT::WALLIS | | Wed Aug 06 1986 11:55 | 28 |
|
re 16
Thanks Steve, your imput helps clarify. At least we can talk to
you now instead of talking 'about' you! (you being a focus for the
Rightist - that's with tongue-in-cheek- intellectuals).
Please remember us sensitive types pick up the energy with the words
(perhaps more intensely than others) and may be reacting to something
other than the written word. Without communication, misinterpretation
or judgements may result.
This kind of thing is all a part of growing, individually and together.
Personally I think it's terrific and am pleased to be a part of it.
QUSTION:
Do we as a group want to decide the depth of sharing we
all feel is appropriate for a public forum - since there
has been some content question in past notes and concern,
on everyone's part, about potentially difficult psychic/
spiritual/occult experiences). Seems this is the area
of contention we may want to agree on or agree to disagree.
Lora
|
| 183.19 | Love To Share | INK::KALLIS | | Wed Aug 06 1986 12:38 | 37 |
| re .18:
On the question of sharing experiences, it's a good one. Should
we set down formal rules and abide by them? Some thoughts:
<N.B.: This is _not_ meant to be off-putting>
The biggest single flap to hit the noting community was the "Sexcetera"
incident. It is covered in copious detail elsewhere HUMAN::DIGITAL
NOTE 111, I recall), but the thing that _keyed_ it was that someone
misused a note in the conference and brought sufficient attention
to the "not-work-related" Conferences that there was a serious
discussion that they might all be abolished. The result of that
has been a certain cautionary tone about note content, primarily
to ensure that in the future, nothing somebody might have said could
hurt the file.
Conservative approach: Be paranoid -- presume that there's a bunch
out there that actively seeks to see this conference eliminated.
Speak accordingly.
Free-Spirit approach: Let it all hang out -- there's no harm in
what we're doing, so it can't hurt to talk about _everything_.
There are shades between these two approaches.
My own perspective (hardlyy the last word in this business) is that
detailed discussion of practicing such items as wtichcraft, magic,
or voodoo from the standpoint of personal experiences might make
us a target for the "holier than thou" types who would use such
as the basis for a witch-hunt, as practices involving sexual operations
might be used.
Other opinions?
Steve Kallis, Jr.
|
| 183.20 | Two More Cents? | NATASH::BUTCHART | | Wed Aug 06 1986 12:40 | 50 |
| I've read the latest discussions with intense interest, especially
since I used to (long ago, in a galaxy far, far away) tend to feel
that intellect and intuition were divided. Personally, I tend to
subscribe to having both parts of my head/heart operate simultaneously
and find my whole experience enriched thereby. It was being a dancer
in an improvisational dance style that first taught me this, then
having gone to Interpersonal & Organizational Effectiveness.
Here are principles that, when I earnestly concentrate on applying,
enrich my experience by making me use both halves simultaneously
and also help me interpret potential negative communications positively.
1) As Within, So Without. Astrology buffs may notice the
similarity to As Above, So Below. This is my personal reminder
to me that I can pick up on energy from another person, but how
I _react_ is a function of me. If a person raises my hackles,
I now question not only what energy I am receiving from the person
but also what it is in me and my experiences that causes the
reaction. Evaluation (both intellectual and instinctive) of
both components helps me decide how to respond to the stimulus
and reaction. As a result I get insulted, wounded and aggravated
a _lot_ less than I used to.
2) Disagreement Does Not Equal Enmity. Boy, did it take me a long
time to learn to practice this one! My best teacher was my spouse,
a loving and supportive man with whom I have spirited disagreements
on a regular basis. He just loves to debate. Just like I learned
how to play rough with my giant dog as a child and not feel that
I was being attacked, I have also learned to enjoy the vigorous
interchanges. And being placed in a position of defending my
views has led me to some very necessary and healthy questioning.
I am now much more sure of what I truly believe, and also why
I believe it, as a result.
3) Say Ouch & It'll Be All Over. That's what my childhood doctor
used to say when he drew blood. It worked, in that the procedure
hurt a lot less. With that giant dog of mine, I found that if
I curled up in a ball and whimpered, he would stop roughhousing
and start licking me. When my spouse says something that hurts
me I say so now, immediately, and try to tell him why. (Sometimes
I just don't feel strong enough for the battlefield.) Pretending
invulnerability may have been a good strategy in grade school,
when kids used to see what they had to do to make me cry, and
I was determined not to show them they could get to me. What
a relief to be a grownup, and find that a cry of hurt will draw
a sympathetic response instead of jeers.
For what it's worth,
Marcia
|
| 183.21 | Same drummer | BRAT::WALLIS | | Wed Aug 06 1986 17:54 | 44 |
|
re .19
Steve, your comments about the "sexcertera" flap put a whole lot
into perspective. Thanks. It's easy to see why those who have
'found' dejavu and finally connected with 'birds of feather' are
anxious to get into some of the heavy stuff - may be out of shear
enthusiasm, relief to find others who understand the language etc...
AND why there's been a misinterpretation of folks comments around
caution - personally I haven't understood the energy associated
with the 'cautions' and interpreted them as roadblocks and yes to
be honest closed mindedness - so I'm relieved to get to the bottom
of it all and support more prudent thinking now that it's put in proper
perspective. It's hard to get to the correct answer when you don't
know what the question is.
It seems it would be easy to start focusing our comments; the
knowledge, experience and wisdom we have to work related situations
and satisfy everyone, if that 's what was desired - after all, my guess
is we all study thi stuff in order to make sense out of why we're here
and help us identify what we're supposed to be doing. It's all related
to work since work is part of life.
As for those of us who are anxious to share more complex, potentially
controversial subjects/experiences etc. we may want to consider
a closed note file. What do folks think.
re 183.20
I agree with the comments here and now that the history of the notes
files has be brought up again, I'm not sure there is any disagreement.
I've yet to hear anyone say head/heart and operate in a balanced
way seperately.
Final comment: Thanks Diana for providing the oppty to bring this
stuff to the surface so we can all understand what we're dealing
with and to Steve for the history with brings some continuity and
sense to whole thing - unresolved energy like this drives me NUTS!
So thanks.
Lora
|
| 183.23 | Like A Baby Gorilla | VAXUUM::DYER | Define `Quality' | Thu Aug 07 1986 16:07 | 4 |
| > Hi. Can I play too?
You've got my invitation.
<_Jym_>
|
| 183.24 | Clarity is Wonderful! | PSGMKG::MCCAY | | Thu Aug 07 1986 17:03 | 16 |
| 183.26 | Pointer | INK::KALLIS | | Fri Aug 08 1986 17:52 | 7 |
| Re .25:
This was discussed a number of notes ago in "Shall We Restrict This
Conference?" Worth a look there, too.
Steve Kallis, Jr.
|