The naked truth of chronic negativity...

[kiauma]

Easy, easy RG, let's not be judgemental - and it is an easy thing to do.  We are conditioned to react with certain behaviours to certain behaviours.  We need to recognize this to break the loope of aggression and defensiveness.

Yes, I know how many of my posts look needling and offensive - and It is easy to say they are.  My aim, however, is to expose the origin of the negativity.  I am not perfect, but that is my aim.

In an earlier post, I linked the ego and negativity, and I am the first to tell I have an immense ego!  []  The difference here, is that I know I do, and I am aware of it's controlling influence.

You seem like a very aware and intelligent person RG, but if I had any advice for you it would be to always be mindful of the effects we create, and to ask ourselves if it is leading where we want.

It IS a fine line we travel here, which too often does crowd the personal boundaries we all set - but it is my firm belief that many of our problems are contained, not defended by, those boundaries, so they must be explored - carefully, with understanding, patience, and ideally, love.

[Mick]

quote:Originally posted by kiauma

Sweden, try eugenics and also environmental concerns later both adopted by the Nazis. Switzerland on the other hand do a good line in clocks and banking of Nazi money (some of it of Jewish and other concentration camp inmate ownership)

If memory serves, that was all in the last 50 years - correct me if I am wrong.

Yes, WW2 has been over for more than that and what is your point anyway other than to demonstrate that you cannot engage in a straight forward conversation. It was a simple perhaps ironic comment not a declaration of yet more verbal wars.

quote:
For many the whole of AP fits this category, this is just one branch of this irrationality

Another baseless accusation.  Why is my statement (I assume that is what you are referring to, as you do not say) an irrationality?  Yes, there have been pockets of conflict that fit what I and others have described, such as the DBZ and the demon war debacles, but you imply this is the norm when the vast majority of threads are not that way at all - why?

For many people in the world the paranormal is irrational so again what is your point other than to demonstrate that you cannot engage in a straight forward conversation without having an argument. How about some love and light.
edited out hasty personal comment

quote:
I stand by the insular view for various reasons, my reference to Nay is for stirring the pot at the wrong moment.

What 'various reasons'?  NOW is the time to state them.  How is Nay, by introducing a perspective through which peace is readily available to a group of people who are admittedly here to find help for a serious problem, stirring the pot at the wrong moment?

For me the idea of insulating one self from outside influences is to be insular. For me this may or may not be a sound proposition in the longer term simply because it may isolate us for those parts of our environment that we should know more about. I have said this before but am restating for your benefit.
Again the reason I raised the issue with respect to the posting by Nay is timing wise that just when things looked like they were settling this post kicked it all off again. From a moderator point of view I believe that it would have been prudent to delay in particular comments about members colluding and so on during a sensitive time. You obviously disagree and here we are again wasting yet more bandwidth saying nothing new.

quote:
You, like others here, are putting the cart before the horse.  People come here for help, so we post what we hope is helpful, telling them they ARE empowered - and they cry "No!  You must not tell us that!  You hurt us by telling us that!" - what you miss is the very nature of the problem, which is that they are in a doublebind between their perceptions and their self-image.

You are answering your assumptions of what I am saying, I do not believe that anyone has denied the power of personal empowerment, they and I have simply added that those that have gotten into difficulty might need assistance to get to a position where they can then empower themselves and in the interim need to the freedom to discuss such.

quote:
...
Or does he?  Perhaps you can give me a good reason the man must not live an 'insular' existance?  []

I have not said the he must not, I simply add that people have choices. If I follow your example correctly you are presenting that outside of the insular existance is bad (and already understood by your example person) and therefore generally to be avoided. Others including myself do not agree that all is bad out there and are interested it getting to know it even if it means stepping over some not so pleasant bits on occasions.
I suppose the analogy is the choice to live in gated communities, just pretend the rest of society for better or worse disappears when the gates are locked.
I think I am beginning to agree with Dark...

[kiauma]

WW2 has been over for more than that and what is your point anyway other than to demonstrate that you cannot engage in a straight forward conversation.

So you agree with me but you don't agree with me?  How am I not engaging in a stragiht forward conversation?  Help me out here Mick, I can't read your mind.

For many people in the world the paranormal is irrational so again what is your point other than to demonstrate that you cannot engage in a straight forward conversation without having an argument. How about some love and light.

Ah, friend Mick, again you make conclusions and accusations with no supporting reasoning.  Yes, to many (most?) the paranormal is irrational, however I think it is no assumption that you 'believe' in the reality of the paranormal, based on statements you have made, thus my references.  As to your accusation that I cannot engage in a straghtforward conversation, I again ask for your straghtforward reasoning for that.

Why didn't you say you wanted love and light?  Not a problem.  []

For me the idea of insulating one self from outside influences is to be insular.

Please show me where I am doing that.  For me, I hold my longstanding participation in the discussion of this issue as proof of not insulating myself.

For me this may or may not be a sound proposition in the longer term simply because it may isolate us for those parts of our environment that we should know more about.

Please explain to me where my analogy of the island fails to take this into consideration.

From a moderator point of view I believe that it would have been prudent to delay in particular comments about members colluding and so on during a sensitive time.

Ah.  Well, nobodies perfect.  []

I do not believe that anyone has denied the power of personal empowerment,

Nor do I.

...they and I have simply added that those that have gotten into difficulty might need assistance to get to a position where they can then empower themselves and in the interim need to the freedom to discuss such.

...By reinforcing the notion that they are a slave to other's perceptions of themselves?  Please explain to me how this is beneficial.

I have not said the he must not, I simply add that people have choices.

...Also stated explicitly in my analogy.

If I follow your example correctly you are presenting that outside of the insular existance is bad (and already understood by your example person) and therefore generally to be avoided.

No, not good or bad.  Unhealthy.

Others including myself do not agree that all is bad out there and are interested it getting to know it even if it means stepping over some not so pleasant bits on occasions.

Where did I say it was all bad out there?  I can see where you would get the idea that my analogy made it a choice between pleasant and unpleasant, however the REAL issue is growth and decay, which says nothing about pleasant and unpleasant, and only a relative healthy or unhealthy, growthful or decaying, strengthening or weakening.

I am well aware that the most growth inducing periods of my life were the most painful - however, after having already stepped into that volcano, I now know better - and there is your benefit, as explicityly stated in my analogy.

Please reread my analogy again, this time giving full benefit to all implications.

I suppose the analogy is the choice to live in gated communities, just pretend the rest of society for better or worse disappears when the gates are locked.

At no time in my analogy did a cut one side of the island off from the other, this is a feature you are reading into it.

I do not agree with your analogy.

I think I am beginning to agree with Dark...

You always defended DK's view Mick, and you still are, that is why you are making these accusations and asking these questions, and I am answering.  []

[Mick]

quote:Originally posted by kiauma

Help me out here Mick, I can't read your mind.

There is no need, it is in the text.
You said in the last 50 years and asked if you were wrong. I said 'yes' and justified it. Mind reading not required.

quote:Ah, friend Mick, again you make conclusions and accusations with no supporting reasoning.  Yes, to many (most?) the paranormal is irrational, however I think it is no assumption that you 'believe' in the reality of the paranormal, based on statements you have made

It was a comment on the use of the term irrational in a paranormal context as it related to the earlier comment and nothing to do with my beliefs and experience. Again you missed the context and irony, but somehow saw conclusions and accusations.

quote:
Why didn't you say you wanted love and light?  Not a problem.  []

In your postings

quote:For me the idea of insulating one self from outside influences is to be insular.

Please show me where I am doing that.  For me, I hold my long standing participation in the discussion of this issue as proof of not insulating myself.

You asked me to explain myself and what 'insular' means for me when I used the word and that is 'insular' in the context of experiencing the non physical. That is what I did

quote:...By reinforcing the notion that they are a slave to other's perceptions of themselves?  Please explain to me how this is beneficial.

I don't make that connection so cannot answer it.

Pass on the analogy as time does not permit as we are obviouslyhaving problems with the simpler ideas.

quote:
You always defended DK's view Mick, and you still are, that is why you are making these accusations and asking these questions, and I am answering.  []

I speak for my own views, not DKs. There are many examples of sugestions by me across the spectrum and not all I believe favourable to DKs viewpoint. And if I was why would that be an issue?
It is after all just another viewpoint that should be open for discussion and debate. Again with the accusations claim! you raised questions of me and I gave my answers.

Amazing how this has gone from Mick speaks sense to Mick speaks accusations in the space of a couple of messages. So with that I am done with this message.

[kiauma]

You said in the last 50 years and asked if you were wrong. I said 'yes' and justified it. Mind reading not required

All right Mick, Uncle!  Uncle!  looking more closely, I see you got me there - it was in the last 60 years.

Please forgive my brazen oversight - at least I am assuming that is what you are talking about, you still imply that your meaning is perfectly obvious.  Again you will have to forgive me Mick, for I am not omniscient and therefore am fallible.  Is that what you meant?

It was a comment on the use of the term irrational in a paranormal context as it related to the earlier comment and nothing to do with my beliefs and experience. Again you missed the context and irony, but somehow saw conclusions and accusations.

Ah but Mick, being obviously a person of great knowledge and discernment, I am sure you are aware of how context and assumtion is at the basis of all language - language is, after all, ALL representation, all merely abstraction.  Thus, I assume to know what you mean when you use the term 'irrational' in a 'paranormal' context as it refers to other's perspectives, in your perspective.

Again, I beg you to bear with me, and please explain yourself a little clearer.  As I have already mentioned, I am not omniscient, thus I can be mistaken in your meanings, and I need you to help me to understand.

Please, please explain the context and the irony to me, and cure me of my illconceived assumptions and conclusions.  I would be entirely in your debt for taking the time to forward our mutual cooperation and understanding.

In your postings

Talk of the pot calling the kettle black... []

You asked me to explain myself and what 'insular' means for me when I used the word and that is 'insular' in the context of experiencing the non physical. That is what I did

Yes, you did, and I am still waiting for you to show me where I am doing that.

I don't make that connection so cannot answer it.

Let me help you. []  This goes back to your previous statement;

...they and I have simply added that those that have gotten into difficulty might need assistance to get to a position where they can then empower themselves and in the interim need to the freedom to discuss such.

Disentangling the jumbled syntax as best I am able, I took this to refer back to my comment:

quote:People come here for help, so we post what we hope is helpful, telling them they ARE empowered...

Now, if you are not arguing against the point of our suggestion that they ARE empowered, and unfortunatley, indirectly responsible for their own experience, what are you arguing against?   Again, I look to your wisdom and guidance to straighten me out.

Pass on the analogy as time does not permit as we are obviouslyhaving problems with the simpler ideas.

In other words, you do not know at this time how to properly answer the island analogy.  I see.  Well, maybe later.  []

I speak for my own views, not DKs.

I never said you spoke for DK, I said you defended her views, and if you can not see that then it is a good thing I mentioned it!

There are many examples of sugestions by me across the spectrum and not all I believe favourable to DKs viewpoint.

Like what (on both counts)?  I would love to hear them - that is what this discussion is for, after all.

It is after all just another viewpoint that should be open for discussion and debate.

[]

Again with the accusations claim! you raised questions of me and I gave my answers.

Are you accusing me of accusing you?  LOL.  Oddly, that otherwise concludes EXACTLY like the conclusion of my last post.  []

Amazing how this has gone from Mick speaks sense to Mick speaks accusations in the space of a couple of messages.

Is english your second language?  DO you know what an accusation is?

Lemme help you again.  From dictionary.com:

ACCUSATION
1.  An act of accusing or the state of being accused.
2.  A charge of wrongdoing that is made against a person or other party.

Now, let's look at that previous post of yours again and see if we can find any 'accusations'...

1.   you cannot engage in a straight forward conversation
2.   you cannot engage in a straight forward conversation without having an argument.
3.   You obviously disagree and here we are again wasting yet more bandwidth saying nothing new.

The less obvious ones I answered as points of argument.  []

A clue to look for is the pro-noun 'you' - anywhere that you use the word 'you' you are saying something about someone else (a reference in second person verb tense).  If you watch out for that, you will avoid many unnecessary conflicts.

As for the indirect aspersions, those can be a bit more tricky - but for my part I will try to just stick to the issue.

[McArthur]

quote:Originally posted by kiauma

And yes, you are so right it sparks defensiveness! - and the correlation of those who jump on the defensive and those who feel attacked by 'Negs' is %100!!!  Coincidence?  Think about it.

It isn't really about being "defensive" its about being shocked at some peoples insensitiveness, because of their lack of understanding and/or fear, of what it is really like to suffer neg problems.

The posts that got the "defensive" reactions were the ones that were basically saying "you dont know your own experiences, but i do, and its all because you wont listen to my empowering advice that you are being so negative." This kind of attitude towards those suffering neg problems does not help. If you want to help then change your attitude and be more loving and empathic rather than deriding the experiences of others because you believe you know better than those actually experiencing them.

And i see nowhere where anyone has commented on my comments of the latest article posted in this thread where i felt i made valid points of why the author does not know what she is talking about.

And I dont know DK that well yet but i support her (not necessarily all her views) because there seems to be so much antagonism towards her from various people. She is obviously hurting and you're all like a pack of wolves around a wounded animal (sorry DK didnt mean to compare you to an animal but hope you get my drift [] ).

quote:
 I have, and I am thinking of starting a new topic about ego and negativity.

Great, do just that, but remember that it has nothing to do with Psychic Self-Defense so hopefully you will post it in the proper Forum.

And as for your analogy, what if the Volcano erupts, do you have control over that?

[Dark Knight]

I'm not as wounded as I used to be MacArthur, but thank you anyway. I can deal with being disliked for a while if necessary.

I am concerned more for people that come here for help and get "this" instead. I'm concerned that any asking for help is considered weakness. This isn't helpful or practical or realistic.

You're right about one thing, MacArthur, you've been gone way too long.

[shedt]

Who is complaining that they are not being helped here ?

[kiauma]

It isn't really about being "defensive" its about being shocked at some peoples insensitiveness, because of their lack of understanding and/or fear, of what it is really like to suffer neg problems.

Are you talking about me McA?  I suggest we would all feel much better if we got it out in the open.  []

Again, again, again, if you have issues with anything posted, and especially anything I have posted, PLEASE tell me what it is in a direct and understandable manner.  Do you think I have shown insensitivity?  Then please, tell me what it was and why it was insensitive.  Do you think I have acted out of fear?  Please, please tell me what it is I have said to lead you to that conclusion.  

I am here to learn as much as the next AP patron, and I need your help.

The posts that got the "defensive" reactions were the ones that were basically saying "you dont know your own experiences, but i do, and its all because you wont listen to my empowering advice that you are being so negative.

Please point to where I say you do not know your own experiences (again assuming you are talking to me.  IF you are not, tell me that too).  Secondly, I would love to see your counter-evidence for my points.   I would think that would be imperative, but there seems to be a strange reluctance on this forum to do so, instead the preferred method for convincing is to use guilt and other irrational authority.

This kind of attitude towards those suffering neg problems does not help. If you want to help then change your attitude and be more loving and empathic

My dear McA, How would you suggest I be more empathic and loving?   Perhaps you could give an example to help me grow?

...rather than deriding the experiences of others because you believe you know better than those actually experiencing them.

Again you have me at a loss.  Please point to where I 'deride' the experiences of others?  And what do you mean I know better than those actually experiencing them?  Where do I say that?  Frankly, no one has denied anybodies 'experience' that I've seen - everyone I have seen post has taken the experiences quite seriously.  That has never been in question.  The issue has been, and always has been, and continues to be, how to change those experiences for the better - please correct me if I am wrong.

And i see nowhere where anyone has commented on my comments of the latest article posted in this thread where i felt i made valid points of why the author does not know what she is talking about.

You mean your 'valid' point of accusing me of causing an argument?  LOL - I thought my non-answer of that said it all - e.g. no argument from me.  []

But if you want an argument, lemme know, I may have some spare time today.  []

And I dont know DK that well yet but i support her (not necessarily all her views) because there seems to be so much antagonism towards her from various people. She is obviously hurting and you're all like a pack of wolves around a wounded animal (sorry DK didnt mean to compare you to an animal but hope you get my drift).

Very comendable McA - she needs a champion - in fact, she seems to have gone through a long line of them!  Not that I hold anything against her, however she does seem to think that if she can't dominate a forum, no one else should be allowed to post - just wondered if you caught that...   I did, and having spoken out I now am answering to her 'champion'.

You do as you wish, as does DK - and I just get crap for pointing that out - but that's okay, makes for an interesting sunday.  []

I would love to discuss issues other than the protection of fragile egos though.

[McArthur]

quote:Originally posted by kiauma

Are you talking about me McA?  

Please see my very first post in this thread for your answer.

quote:
And i see nowhere where anyone has commented on my comments of the latest article posted in this thread where i felt i made valid points of why the author does not know what she is talking about.

You mean your 'valid' point of accusing me of causing an argument?  LOL - I thought my non-answer of that said it all - e.g. no argument from me.  []

No, read what i said again. Was it you who wrote the article i was responding to?

And i'll say it again, your one liner was offering nothing to the discussion but a mocking, sarcastic attitude.

Ah isn't it great this "ego accusation" rule eh? When you have nothing you can think of to say, and all else fails, just mention "ego problems" and it somehow makes your points valid doesnt it? []

Please do post your thread about ego and let us know which forum it is in because i am now highly interested to read what wise words you may have on the subject.

(snips more rubbish not worth responding to)

[kiauma]

Please see my very first post in this thread for your answer.

Why are you sending me to search through an 8 page topic to find an answer you obviously know?  Are you some kind of sadistic control freak - honestly?

No McA, I will not search for your answer because I do not have so much free time or interest that I can scrabble around at your bidding.   I have tiome to consider thoughtful and penetrating answers, but I have no time for games.   I assume that if you want me to know something, and you truly are empathic and caring as you make out to be then you will simply tell me.  If not, then it isn't worth my time.

No, read what i said again. Was it you who wrote the article i was responding to?

I do not know, that is why I asked the question.  All my questions are honest questions.  I ask because I want to know.

There were several people who had posted, and enough trouble is caused by making assumptions.  My apologies, but asking for clarification is the only way I know to proceed with clarity.

If you truly want to be helpful, as you say you do, then please give the help that I explicitly asked for.  Otherwise, it will be hard to take you seriously.

Ah isn't it great this "ego accusation" rule eh? When you have nothing you can think of to say, and all else fails, just mention "ego problems" and it somehow makes your points valid doesnt it?

What are you talking about here?   McA, I use quotes the best I am able to answer point by point as best I am able, for clear communication.  You jump here from an answer to your question to I know not what from I know not where.  Please, please, please strive for clarity in communication, it is the only way this discussion will be productive.

Please do post your thread about ego and let us know which forum it is in because i am now highly interested to read what wise words you may have on the subject.

I would still like to do that very much, but will not until I have worked out the details of what I am trying to convey - and I very much look forward to your input on this as well.  []

[McArthur]

Its easy to find my first post, its the 6th one in the entire thread in response to the article that was posted. But for you, because im in a good mood, the answer is no.

And my comment about the ego thing was in response to the last sentence in your post;

quote:I would love to discuss issues other than the protection of fragile egos though.

Anyway, its certainly been an interesting thread and i do admit that my posting style can be a bit ascerbic at times but at other times i can be a purring pussy cat. [)]

[kiauma]

...my comment about the ego thing was in response to the last sentence in your post.

Oh!  That.  

Let me clarify what I meant.

It seems there is quite a bit of confusion about just what the PSD forum is about.  Is it about emotionally supporting those who come seeking help?  Or is it a technical reference, just supplying relevant info to those who ask?  

I think the common sense answer would be both - but what of those who expect it to be only one or the other?   If someone expects it to be a refuge - or just a library?

In either case, anyone who expects it to be just one of those will be sorely disappointed.

[James S]

Kiauma & McArthur,
Sorry for having a go at you two earlier for your methods of discussing a topic. I see your point Kiauma, when you dig into a subject you can see the context that lies beneath the surface.

Be mindful though that as you dig to the heart of a topic line by line, that you don't miss the main point of the topic. This is where I'm coming from in my request to see things presented more as a complete flow of thought rather than fragmented responses.

What I've seen happening here in the last several months is the slow degredation of a forum because of the dissection of topics leading to more and more personal dissagreements rather than discussions on the topics themselves.

In the 8 pages of this topic, how much of the discussion has gone into opinions about the subject matter itsself, and how much has gone into personal dissagreements?

Part of what I see as happening in these dissections is great assumptions being made - leaps to conclusions. These assumptions do tend upset, and not because of ego. If someone's gone to the effort of posting their thoughts and feelings, and it is misread, either because for whatever reason they have not explained themselves clearly enough, or the person reading it has not understood the intention, then assumptions get made. Once these assumptions are made, it becomes very hard to get out of that mindset and into an acceptance that maybe the assumption made is not correct.

I've been making the assumption that Spectral has been finger pointing because he's being overly defensive, whereas from his perspective he could simply be seeing the exact same behaviour from me that he's been accused of. From that viewpoint I've been perpetuating arguments the way I've accused him of doing.

With that in mind, Spectral, I apologise for what I've said. I'll try now to take a step further away from the issues and try to look at them more objectively.

DK, I don't want to see this forum closed down. Thing is, it's happened to other forums because of such degredations of discussions, and the subsequent spreading of personal rivalries to other forums.
It's becoming a cancer in the AP site, and unless it can be treated, it will have to be cut out alltogether.

The problems with this forum from the way I see it is in how people are reacting to the topics and discussions. Unless that's changed, moving those discussions to a new location won't solve the problem.

Regards,
James.

P.S.
Kiauma, I just read you're last post that you submitted while I was typing up mine. You have made an excellent and valid point.

[SpectralDragon]

quote:Originally posted by James S

Kiauma & McArthur,
Sorry for having a go at you two earlier for your methods of discussing a topic. I see your point Kiauma, when you dig into a subject you can see the context that lies beneath the surface.

Be mindful though that as you dig to the heart of a topic line by line, that you don't miss the main point of the topic. This is where I'm coming from in my request to see things presented more as a complete flow of thought rather than fragmented responses.

What I've seen happening here in the last several months is the slow degredation of a forum because of the dissection of topics leading to more and more personal dissagreements rather than discussions on the topics themselves.

In the 8 pages of this topic, how much of the discussion has gone into opinions about the subject matter itsself, and how much has gone into personal dissagreements?

Part of what I see as happening in these dissections is great assumptions being made - leaps to conclusions. These assumptions do tend upset, and not because of ego. If someone's gone to the effort of posting their thoughts and feelings, and it is misread, either because for whatever reason they have not explained themselves clearly enough, or the person reading it has not understood the intention, then assumptions get made. Once these assumptions are made, it becomes very hard to get out of that mindset and into an acceptance that maybe the assumption made is not correct.

I've been making the assumption that Spectral has been finger pointing because he's being overly defensive, whereas from his perspective he could simply be seeing the exact same behaviour from me that he's been accused of. From that viewpoint I've been perpetuating arguments the way I've accused him of doing.

With that in mind, Spectral, I apologise for what I've said. I'll try now to take a step further away from the issues and try to look at them more objectively.

DK, I don't want to see this forum closed down. Thing is, it's happened to other forums because of such degredations of discussions, and the subsequent spreading of personal rivalries to other forums.
It's becoming a cancer in the AP site, and unless it can be treated, it will have to be cut out alltogether.

The problems with this forum from the way I see it is in how people are reacting to the topics and discussions. Unless that's changed, moving those discussions to a new location won't solve the problem.

Regards,
James.

P.S.
Kiauma, I just read you're last post that you submitted while I was typing up mine. You have made an excellent and valid point.

I take back my statement I said earlier of not saying anything earlier. Now we are all making progress it seems. Let's work out our diferences peacefully in a single thread then work on making this forum like it should be [] would say more but have to go to work.

[Mick]

quote:Originally posted by kiauma

You said in the last 50 years and asked if you were wrong. I said 'yes' and justified it. Mind reading not required

All right Mick, Uncle!  Uncle!  looking more closely, I see you got me there - it was in the last 60 years.

Please forgive my brazen oversight - at least I am assuming that is what you are talking about, you still imply that your meaning is perfectly obvious.  Again you will have to forgive me Mick, for I am not omniscient and therefore am fallible.  Is that what you meant?

Sticking to one point at a time as this must be somewhat tedious for others.
point 1. You mentioned Sweden and 500 years of peace giving us the Cuckoo clock. It is usually Switzerland that is associated with Cuckoo clocks.
point 2. Although Switzerland has had a long periond of peace, some of its institutions as have other countries have done very nicely out of wars fought elsewhere.
I drew a web between the two countries, both of whom have this neutrality status to suggest that there is another side to the peaceful status. Sweden is as are other countries a big arms supplier, one of their most famous sons Noble used his fortune from explosives manufacture to fund the Nobel Peace prize. I find that a little ironic [] and potentially humourous and perhaps a handy occasional tonic for a forum which in my opinion it attempts to deal with a serious subject.

I believe that you read too much into a casual conversation which may of course simply be a result of the pressures hereabouts. I am not for labelling people fallible, nor do I think having had time to acquire knowledge makes me omniscient but should I keep it to myself? If yes, I can do that. As I have said so many times I like to investigate, share, corroborate and most important test in order to share and to also keep my own feet on the ground. Open discussion seems something that is hard to do hereabouts.

[kiauma]

All right Mick, I concede the whole point - whatever that was.  

Good luck with your future 'open discussions'.  []

[Nay]

I was lucky enough to read these words of wisdom and felt they needed to be shared.

The naked truth of chronic negativity.
Copyright © 2004 Linda M. Francis (quinte)


If you are negatively inclined by nature, then brace yourself - for what is written here is the last thing you would have expected!!
Be prepared!!

We are not going to beat about the bush in our exposing of the realistic facts - seek not for sympathy to your aches and pains - for this sympathy, no matter how well meant,  is not going to help you at all - on the contrary, it will merely feed your ongoing situation of self imposed negativity, and will, in the long run be of more destructive value to you.  If I want to be of any constructive help to you at all, it is going to have to happen by attempting to bring a certain realisation to you, of what you actually are experiencing


Whenever something flourishes and becomes abundant, it is merely because sufficient, consistent and ongoing  nourishment has been given to it.  Thus too is the case with negative thoughts. We all know that we have a choice to be of either negative stance or positive stance.  So what is keeping you in the darkness of your own negativity?
Do you really enjoy being there, and thus do not seek to do something about it?  Perhaps you do not know how to go about improving your situation?  Or are you one of those people who relish the thought of gaining sympathy over and over again from those in supportive and loving proximity?

The thing about negative thought and thus also negative emotion is that only you can do something about it - that is, if you are willing to change your situation. Using your own negative thought to seek the attention of others by bemoaning your misfortunes over and over again is a form of vampirism. Did you know that?  For you are leeching upon the good intent and the compassion of another, and misleading them into believing that you have an acute problem, which seeks immediate attention.  Such users of another's compassion can easily be identified by their habit of constantly, endlessly, over and over again,  complaining over this ailment or that - this misfortune or the next . It becomes an ongoing saga of spreading your own unhappiness outward, and drawing others towards your net of negativity.

The problem however is not that simple, for you have eventually come to believe your own negative state,  whereby you yourself already have managed to convince yourself of how many ailments you have and how unhappy you are.  You have made yourself that way, remember?
You have trapped yourself in your own web of negativity.

The choice of being negative is yours - keep it if you will. But if you do, keep it to yourself, for it is of your deliberate making. It is not a fair practise to expect others to constantly give of themselves towards a situation, which you yourself do not seek to remedy.

But let us now have a look at the other side of the coin, the side where you realise that you are trapped, and do desire to free yourself from the grip of your own negativity.

There are several things you can do - but you will only succeed if you are willing to persevere, and hold within you a deep and sincere desire to give of yourself, instead of taking for yourself. Being thus negative as you have been, places you in a constant position of taking from others - for you draw upon their positive energies by seeking their ongoing attention and sympathy.  Understand that whilst thus in a negative mood, your energy levels have become unbalanced to the point where you subconsciously reach out in seek of another source of energy in order to balance yourself again.  This is merely a temporary measure towards you feeling a little better about yourself - it however does not help your  overall situation at all.

In order for you to become a more positive person, and thus a more fulfilled and happy person with less physical ailments, requires that you alter your own energy levels. The greatest tool we have towards the balancing of our own energies is our mind.  One thought is already sufficient to bring about a change in your energy level.  Imagine now that whilst you constantly harbour negative thoughts, you continuously feed your own energy levels with negative and low vibrational energy.

The solution to this is to stop negative thought.  
And this is where you step in with one hundred and one excuses of why you are unable to do that. These excuses in themselves are of negative origin - so get rid of them!  Remember that whilst you invent one excuse after the other, you merely entrap yourself a little deeper into your own web.
You have the power to change the way you think!  All it takes is for you to want to!  Be convinced that you are able to do this - by golly, you once upon a time managed to convince yourself of how negative you could be!  And just look at the result!  

Terminate your practise of advertising your own negativity over and over again. By throwing your negative thoughts (and thus your negative energies) out via your daily expressions merely strengthens your bond with this negativity. You are constantly affirming your state of negativity, and thus fuelling it into prolonged and continued existence.  What if you were now to deliberately express yourself in positive ways, to such an extent that gradually this positive vibration will eradicate and replace those negative sentiments?  It will be hard at first, I agree - primarily because you have done such a good job in anchoring your negative thoughts. But keep going at being positive, and soon enough you won't even need to consciously try anymore.  
Make of your positive thinking a habit - you can do it, for you have thus far succeeded in doing that with your negative thoughts.
So, don't come and tell me that you do not know how to go about it. You have become a master in doing that with your negative thought - so now, turn the tables, and become a master where it concerns your positive thoughts.

The key to success is to stop thinking negatively. It really is that simple!

What however may be more difficult is that you yourself must be prepared to work on this issue. And once that decision has been made, to stick by your guns and to persevere.

You can change your world by changing the way your think!

Do you want to do it?

Copyright © 2004 Linda M. Francis Author's websites: www.path-ways.com

Nay []