Cole: I do care about your opinions, as I've stated before. I don't really understand why we should let "personality types" be a factor in our ability to get along with each other...
Claudio: Hi Cole. What I was talking about shows in your post. I notice a difference in the focus between you and me, and it may have to do because of personality types and or fear. I do get along with you, this is my point, you may be more sensitive to the friction factor that may make you concentrate less in the objective learning itself. Being different does not mean you can't get along with each other. It is an observation. Some "INTs" take observations, just as observations, objectively and focus on the "object" (e.g. 0x90, SS, me), other types focus more on the "subject" and "possible bad intention" of the "subject" than then tend to ignore the "object", then it goes to a "debate" that some see just as the "debate" instead of the "possible learning".
Cole: As far as that phrase was concerned- I understand what it means. I also understand what you mean... Neither is wrong. That's the problem with looking at things primarily from the perspective of discriminating-mind in the spirit of "debate"- you tend to see dualities where there are non.
Claudio: That's again, my point. I don't focus in the duality. I focus on the learning, to analyze a "belief". Why can't we talk about a "belief" without focusing in the "duality". It is not that I tend to see a duality. I just see something. You consider it more that way that I do, and that's a difference. But there's nothing wrong about being different.
Cole: Here's my opinion: when love has been fully established between two individuals at a truly deep level- there is no reason to say "sorry" because the intent for "apology" as already been communicated at a non-verbal level. Saying "sorry" implies that the person being apologized to doesn't already recognize that you regret your "hurting them" or whatever.
Claudio: You talk in an ideal case, that love brings some apparently perfect telepathic communication. But we and this PMR in general are far from being perfect.
Cole: Obviously it's a good practice in our society to say sorry to people we 'wrong'- because they often need to hear those words as verification of our intent... Even the ones we truly love need to hear it every once in a while-
Claudio: You see only one side of the "sorry" communication. It is not only important for the receiver but may be more important for the sender. If somebody feels to say "I'm sorry" shoud he/she stop because of a belief (phrase in question). You are the same being before you say it but after you say it you may lower your entropy. Didn't you ever have problems with somebody, and then after talking and apologizing you felt better? Not only the one that hears feel better, but the one that says it, releases that entropy that was in the way.
Cole: but I think the point bette was making was that when true unconditional love is shared between two people- saying "sorry" becomes little more than a formality. Doesn't this make sense? In other words- "being apologetic" at a deep level is a given between two individuals are who are practically merged at the being level in love. Easier said than done- but the point is (I think?) clear.
Claudio: Unconditional love means "no conditions". You should say what you feel. If you feel to say "I'm sorry" you should let it flow, not stop it with your intellect. Unconditional love means don't let beliefs or the intellect get in the way. It may be hard for most to understand because we are still in kindergarten regarding unconditional love. The "being apologetic" phrase does not go with unconditional love. Unconditional love means "being" what you are, that's it, natural with whatever you want to say, like in NPMR, your thoughts are your words.
Cole: Also, I totally see your point as well. I don't see the two 'ideas' as being in conflict. Saying "sorry" is really just an expression of loving intent. That expression is lovely, but becomes unnecessary at a certain "level" I think, which is what that quote is about... Not sure this has anything to do with personality types though...
Claudio: The phrase has its reason to exist. It is not "being in conflict" saying what I think, or you saying what you think. If you feel is "conflict", don't focus on it, focus on the learning.
Sorry to bring truth, Cole, and you are a brother, unconditionally, independent on our differences.
I posted phrases regarding love and "perfection". I haven't heard a comment. Does this not show a possible difference? You said you cared about my opinions at the beginning of your post. There is a connection between perfection and love and those phrases I created and the one at the end that I found are also connected with the "sorry" thing and the unconditional love. You did not comment on that, well, you may be busy, that's fine, but it is an observation that some people tend to focus on the "subject" and not in the "meaning" of some "phrases" that are the result of my love experiences and thinking. I've been there, married 11 years, divorced, ... The only perfect love is unconditional love, like Lynda's phrase in her signature: "if there are conditions (beliefs included) it is not love".
"Every moment can be as good as you want it to be."
"Experience is the ultimate teacher."
> http://soprano.com <
Last edited by soprano on Tue Jan 05, 2010 7:01 am, edited 3 times in total.