Confidence in a chart?
Edmond Wollmann
> On Sun, 29 Nov 1998 01:43:23 GMT, bo...@vornet.com (Bob Officer) wrote:
> >On Sat, 28 Nov 1998 20:07:51 GMT, CFA wrote:
> >>On Sat, 28 Nov 1998 14:33:23 -0500, "LadyNi" <fake...@home.organ>
> >>stunned us with...
>
> >>>Would someone please make some comments about the
> >>>positive aspects in Ed's chart. Surely a chart can't have all
> >>>negative aspects?
> >>Incredible staying power... (there's a thread further down about Pluto
> >>in 1). The ability to command a wide audience and affect a lot of
> >>people- Leo rising.
This can just as well be a Taurean characteristic-and a moon in
Capricorn-AND Pluto in one. Delineation friends, delineation. Separating
up parts of a chart into these fragments and attributing BLENDED
characteristics to one oe two placements is the sign of astrological
incompetancy.
> >>I consider Ed a genius. His writing (the underlying facts, not
> >>necessarily how it's explained)
If the arrogant would spend more time asking questions about the aspects
they don't understand rather than calling names and participating in
fallacious nonsense-it is CLEARLY explained as well.
>> is a pretty clear synthesis of ancient
> >>teachings (like the various schools of eastern thought and maybe some
> >>Native American) and western psychological "traditions". It's powerful
> >>material for self-awareness.
Yes, because in understanding that ALL of it fits perfectly together, we
allow ourselves a much broader awareness of the "truths" that are
everywhere.
> >Scratch the Native American aspects, Ken. IMHO, ed is dabbler without
> >the stomach for a true journey.
:-)))
> Could be... I was just talking about the ideas. Putting them in
> practice is the fun part.
Putting them in practice is what I explain in my book as the KEY-action
is the conviction of belief. The universe and reality respond to INTENT
and TRUST. So if you believe that a mediocre existence is the "most
likely" thing to be "the way it is" in "reality", then the universe-in
its unbiased fulfillment of your INPUT-will give you an ABUNDANCE of
opportunities to be mediocre.
> >As far as other traditions he has tried to fuse everything
> >astrological into a "grand unified astrology theory", and as in
> >physics <Archie Plutonium, albian, singtech>, most of these are from
> >crackpots.
There is no "one truth" if there were there would only be ONE PERSON.
Look around you and discover-who is the crackpot?
Here's some more of your "crackpot" theory;
"In short, the world is not a collection of separate but coupled THINGS;
rather it is a network of relations." David Bohm
"The common division of the world into subject and object, inner world
and outer world, body and soul is no longer adequate." Werner
Heisenberg
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1998 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
SDSU http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~wollmann/
Edmond Wollmann
> HB <moo...@smellmail.com> wrote:
> > Ken...you know full and well that it's how one's mercury(thought processes
> > and their development) is aspected.....Ed's mercury is in Gemini and
> > relatively un aspected.....most true geniuses have a well aspected
> > mercury....the more aspects to it show a highly developed mind...for
> > instance I have several friends with mercury and Uranus connections
:-)))) Mercury, dear boy/girl, is the LOWER mind. Gemini best expresses
and reflects this necessary diversity and objectivity for dealing with
the physical world-but genius is a Uranian/Jupiter HIGHER mind issue.
If the data presented is truly yours, Mercury in Virgo in a grand Earth
trine, is a person who is afraid of losing pragmatic control and gives
power to the physical world. This would be a defensive pattern to defend
against the mistrust of spontaneity and creativity-which IS a necessary
element of genius-which occurs from FLOW, not contriction.
>with
> > Pluto thrown in for good measure...truly gifted minds....since I don't have
> > peoples DOB here...I'd go so far to say that a good portion of the flamers
> > in here have extremely high IQ's they just prefer to use them by
> > flaming.....LOL
Then they are not integrated-which requires secure understanding of the
self which petty flamers who waste their so-called intellect engaging
in-are deficient in. Self development, insight and introspection are
important factors in "intelligence"-which is the APPLICATION of the
intellect.
> I'm always curious about unaspected planets. Would an unaspected Mercury
> in Gemini explain Wollmann's "long" style of writing?
DEPTH, explains my long style of writing.
"Rules and models destroy genius and art" William Hazlitt
Edmond Wollmann
>
> In article <eKCQl9vG#GA.323@upnetnews03>, HB <moo...@smellmail.com>
> writes
>
> >I think people with conjunctions are initiators in
> >life and go far....so I'm not pissed at you by any means...besides...there
> >is no right or wrong...only opinion..
>
> Ok, mine own thoughts...
>
> Well balanced people tend to have few oppositions,
This is utter subjective value judging. Oppositions ARE the sign of
awareness-whether they are balanced or not is a discernment based on
synthesis and interview of the client. No one can tell without those two
factors OTHER than there is awareness tension between the planets
opposed.
>and a 'few'
> conjunctions.
Same here.
> Too many conjunctions seem to make a person rather one-
> sided in nature. This would be due to only one set of archetypal
No, they REFLECT focus on a particular archetype, but that archetype can
be broken up through dispositors etc. Whats "wrong" with emphasizing an
archtype? Mick Jagger has been quite successful and fulfilled
emphasising Leo-who are you to say his life expression is "too one
sided"? Maybe thats the side he prefers?
> expressions being expressed. Also, transits of the planets will affect a
> larger proportion of this persons personality/self than people with less
> conjunctions.
??
> If more than half of the individuals aspects are of a good nature (ie.
> trines and sextiles), then this person will find life rather too easy.
Trines and sextiles are INTEGRATIVE-not necessarily "good"-another
subjective judgment bias.
> This person will tend to land on his/her feet and be able to carry on.
Define "land on their feet"? Developmental aspects-many of them make for
the most resourcefull persons because they CHOSE that-for that.
> The problems that are encountered in life will have to be worked through
> rather than worked around.
In any case, with anyone-at anytime. And they try to say *I* say
nothing.
> Few (traditionally) 'good' aspects will result in a person with a
> decreased lack of confidence in ability. This probably stems from
Not necessarily, if the client in question fulfills developmental
aspects they can be quite a bit more resourcefull than a trine person
who reacts from instinct-which may or may not be accurate.
> experience of life, which has shown that this person will have to work
> harder in life to get where others have got to with ease. This person
This is total nonesense. Why would the "All That Is" "give" persons
inequitable lots? If things are created to be difficult by anyone it is
because there is something in that idea that they wish to explore,
create and examine. They are resisting their own growth or natural
excitement and bliss-which is easy. It is only "hard" when defined that
way. Hard like how, like a gladiator used to have to be to get into the
arena? Or hard like a shopper having a hard time finding the "right"
makeup? WHO"S definitions of hard?
> has the best chances of being a very experienced person in life. Could
> become a counsellor of some sort.
> Oppositions can show some kind of phobia, instability or erratic
> behaviour.
:-)))))) If unresoolved, yes it COULD manifest this way. I am far more
frightened with reference to mental states and perspectives when I have
a client with NO oppositions than with a few.
It is the BALANCE of aspects-regardless of type that keys us first into
the persons BELIEFS about their ability to "handle" conflict etc..
The universe is precisely balanced between negative and positive energy.
Let me say at the outset that this has absolutely NOTHING to do with
"good and bad". These are subjective value judgements and really tell us
little about the nature of any idea, but much about the observer.
Because the universe is so balanced it is inherently positive. In other
words to be so balanced is positive itself. But the whole of existence
is IN EXISTENCE because this polarization externalizes and manifests the
"All That Is" from nonphysical into physical. Which brings us to
negative aspects. Please understand "affliction" as another word for
dis-ease. A state of being in which contradiction, conflict and the need
for resolution exist UNRESOLVED. This state of being if unresolved
allows organisms to attack because of the belief in powerlessness, but
negative aspects are not inherently in a state of dis-ease. It is the
resistance to growth reflected as a need through the negative aspects,
that all pain and suffering is the effect of.
Squares and oppositions seek resolution and fulfillment towards ease
(trine). This is not inherently "bad". This actually implies awareness
of the paradoxical nature of "things". Tension is required to walk upon
the earth. The resistance of our legs to the constant pull of gravity
allows us to MOVE instead of remaining in an inertial state. Without
developmental tension nothing moves. It is negative energy that drives
the material universe. If these aspects are seen in preponderance in the
chart it reflects a powerful developmental potential. Like the universe
balance is important. It is the judgement of tension that creates
anxiety. It is the welcoming of tension that is felt as excitement.
Tension is essential for growth. Ease is not necessarily "good" and
tension is not necessarily "bad" so there are no good and bad aspects!
The positive aspects of trine and sextile are the areas where tension
FINDS resolution. They allow for the integration of developmental
tension. Self-empowerment is the recognition that you chose this chart
that you have now for a reason, the hallway of your developmental
choice. You are always creating your reality 100%-even when you use 90%
of this ability to create the illusion that you only have the other 10%!
It is the negative aspects that need attention-the trines support the
squares. What awareness or resolution can be gleaned from this square or
opposition? There is no end. There will be levels higher and higher in
regards to that developmental awareness that can be achieved, welcome
it. The positive aspects have nothing to support and ease if
developmental tension is not acted upon. Negative aspects are your
prescription for action chosen before incarnation, and aspect patterns
are the psychological reflection of how these things are dealt with by
the personality. Psychology is simply the understanding of the exchange
of psychic material consciously and unconsciously and the resulting
behavior therefrom. It is an analysis of the individuals beliefs about
their ability to manifest themselves.
Positive and negative aspects tell us the identity's belief in the
ability to manifest, integrate and express the idea that they are.
Please encourage them in their ability to do so. It is belief and
approach that determines effect extracted. It can be an exciting
exploration of consciousness, the waking up to other levels of
knowingness (Uranus) instead of perceived external limitation and threat
(Saturn). The choice of course is yours.
"I suffer nought against my will, I am not obedient to God, I am in
accord with him, and the more so, because I know that everything takes
place in virtue of an immutable law proclaimed from all eternity."
"Sucipe" a prayer St. Ignatius
HB
Edmond Wollmann wrote in message >> I'm always curious about unaspected
planets. Would an unaspected Mercury
>> in Gemini explain Wollmann's "long" style of writing?
>
>DEPTH, explains my long style of writing.
Okay Edamundo....what's the terminology used to describe how your mercury is
positioned....
Edmond Wollmann
> If this is indeed Eds chart, the lack of mutable signs in his chart
> would indicate to me that he has difficulty accepting change and new
> ideas. This would also be favourable in a situation where there are
> clear cut rights and wrongs (NOT astrology :) ).
You'll have to read my book to learn how to assign points to the
Elements.
Last I heard, Mercury and Mars in Gemini is a Mutable representation.
Not "lack".
"A man never discloses his own character so clearly as when he describes
another's." Jean Paul Richter
anonym™
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
SNIP
> Look around you and discover-who is the crackpot?
You.
So why are you not posting from Earthlink, kook?
Your sudden cessation of doing so certainly synchronizes
nicely with Andrew Gierth's report to Earthlink of your
major spam (BI=62+!) attack.
anonym™
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
SNIP
>
> DEPTH, explains my long style of writing.
BZZZT!
No, an intention to obfuscate and a lack of proper schoolong explains
your long style of writing.
>
> "Rules and models destroy genius and art" William Hazlitt
To bad Ed has neither genius or art to boast of.
Ed!
Why not post from Earthlink?
Why set email replies to e...@astrocons.com, instead of arcturian1@earthlink?
Something wrong with the latter account?
anonym™
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> WHO"S definitions of hard?
Well, we know of at least one woman's definition you failed to meet.
Hey, Edmo!
Not long ago you were singing the praises of Earthlink!
So how come you're neither posting using them or setting follow-ups to
your email address there?
Are you not able to post to Usenet from Earthlink any more on your
arcturian1 username?
Are you not able to send or receive email from Earthlink any more on
your arcturian1 username?
Scorp...@yahoo.com
<ano...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>>
>SNIP
>>
>> DEPTH, explains my long style of writing.
>
>BZZZT!
>
>No, an intention to obfuscate and a lack of proper schoolong explains
>your long style of writing.
Damned right! Oh, BTW, the fact that Wollman is also a first class
asshole doesn't help matters.
>> "Rules and models destroy genius and art" William Hazlitt
>
>To bad Ed has neither genius or art to boast of.
Took the words right out of my mouth...
>Ed!
>
>Why not post from Earthlink?
If I suggested that Earthlink told him to take his antics elsewhere,
would the suggestion be considered off base?
>Why set email replies to e...@astrocons.com, instead of arcturian1@earthlink?
>
>Something wrong with the latter account?
Oh, yes indeed, I don't think it exists anymore. What I can't figure
out is why PantyHead keeps up with the alt.dev.null routine. Hasn't
the son of two siblings figured out that everyone is "on to" that
crap?
Cheers,
-- Benevolent Skeptic --
... also with Scorpio rising
Tom Kerr
In article <366392...@astroconsulting.com>, E...@astroconsulting.com wrote:
>ZeroZero Magazine wrote:
>
>> If this is indeed Eds chart, the lack of mutable signs in his chart
>> would indicate to me that he has difficulty accepting change and new
>> ideas. This would also be favourable in a situation where there are
>> clear cut rights and wrongs (NOT astrology :) ).
>
>You'll have to read my book to learn how to assign points to the
>Elements.
>Last I heard, Mercury and Mars in Gemini is a Mutable representation.
>Not "lack".
>
If you read Ed's book, all you'll end up doing is learning how *not* to write
a book.
Hey, Ed, why didn't those 5 proof readings pick up those thousands of
mistakes? I make it well over 6 mistakes a page now. Who was it that was so
incompetent that they didn't even spot the mistakes on the back cover?
I'm not at all surprised that the book was self-published.
Ed, what's the difference between "its" and "it's"?
Don't you think that swapping those two completely different words around in
your book makes it a little difficult to read, or do you just expect people to
pay the money and have to translate your rather bizarre use of the English
language into something readable?
Where are the "Truly Beautiful Paintings"?
dr. digger
> Edmond Wollmann wrote in message
> >> I'm always curious about unaspected planets. Would an unaspected Mercury
> >> in Gemini explain Wollmann's "long" style of writing?
> >
> >DEPTH, explains my long style of writing.
>
> Okay Edamundo....what's the terminology used to describe how your mercury is
> positioned....
The proper terminology is "mercury poisoning", which explains why Ed
is kookier than a hatter.
dr. digger, PMAFA
ZeroZero Magazine
<E...@astroconsulting.com> writes
>ZeroZero Magazine wrote:
>> Ok, mine own thoughts...
>> Well balanced people tend to have few oppositions,
>This is utter subjective value judging. Oppositions ARE the sign of
>awareness-whether they are balanced or not is a discernment based on
>synthesis and interview of the client. No one can tell without those two
>factors OTHER than there is awareness tension between the planets
>opposed.
Well, I didn't pretend it was anything but subjective. I have only seen
so many charts. Those with oppositions dominating seem to have a rather
hard time of it, or rather, they are inherently more 'complex'
characters. (Don't bother asking me to define complex BTW).
>>and a 'few'
>> conjunctions.
>Same here.
(Yes 'few' is subjective.) The point I was trying to make is that too
many conjunctions tend to 'unbalance' the chart. One chart I've looked
at lately of a friend is dominated by 3 conjunctions (within quite a
tight orb), she certainly is rather unbalanced. Clearly, some people may
be completely balanced. It does depend on other factors.
>> Too many conjunctions seem to make a person rather one-
>> sided in nature. This would be due to only one set of archetypal
>> expressions being expressed. Also, transits of the planets will affect a
>> larger proportion of this persons personality/self than people with less
>> conjunctions.
>No, they REFLECT focus on a particular archetype, but that archetype can
>be broken up through dispositors etc. Whats "wrong" with emphasizing an
>archtype? Mick Jagger has been quite successful and fulfilled
>emphasising Leo-who are you to say his life expression is "too one
>sided"? Maybe thats the side he prefers?
There's nothing wrong with it, but there is at the same time nothing
right about it either. It just is.
I don't really know why you argued over this point. We are basically
making the same point. Its always easy to nitpick someone elses writing,
as you well know ;)
>> If more than half of the individuals aspects are of a good nature (ie.
>> trines and sextiles), then this person will find life rather too easy.
>> This person will tend to land on his/her feet and be able to carry on.
I apologise for using the word 'good'. Maybe the word easy or soft?
Maybe I should define the meaning of easy eh?
>Define "land on their feet"?
Don't be a fool Edmond. If you have writen a book, I think you can
understand the meaning of the above.
>> Few (traditionally) 'good' aspects will result in a person with a
>> decreased lack of confidence in ability. This probably stems from
>> experience of life, which has shown that this person will have to work
>> harder in life to get where others have got to with ease. This person
>> has the best chances of being a very experienced person in life. Could
>> become a counsellor of some sort.
OK, not necessarily a decreased lack of confidence... But it would show
a need to overcome more difficulties.
>Not necessarily, if the client in question fulfills developmental
>aspects they can be quite a bit more resourcefull than a trine person
>who reacts from instinct-which may or may not be accurate.
Is this agreement? We may even be on the same track!
>This is total nonesense. Why would the "All That Is" "give" persons
>inequitable lots?
Oh come on. Please. Everyone is are born destined to die. Of course the
"ALL that is" (which means reality) gives unequal 'lots'. Some people
are born with hereditary disease - they will die an earlier, and
probably unpleasant death. Is this not inquitable? The parents will
think its unfair. The individual will probably feel it is unfair, though
they may resign themselves to the fact.
> If things are created to be difficult by anyone it is
>because there is something in that idea that they wish to explore,
>create and examine.
Look. Everyone finds different things difficult. I sometimes find it
difficult to understand myself. I do not find it difficult because I
WANT or WISH to find it difficult. IT JUST IS DIFFICULT.
Definitions of things can make writing too rigid. Even dictionaries
declare that many words have several defenitions. Language is a dynamic
means of communication, I feel we shouldn't make it rigid or fixed.
>> Oppositions can show some kind of phobia, instability or erratic
>> behaviour.
>
>:-)))))) If unresoolved, yes it COULD manifest this way. I am far more
>frightened with reference to mental states and perspectives when I have
>a client with NO oppositions than with a few.
Hehehe, an agreement. My god...
>Let me say at the outset that this has absolutely NOTHING to do with
>"good and bad". These are subjective value judgements and really tell us
>little about the nature of any idea, but much about the observer.
Yeah you are right. However your quote is flawed. WE are human beings.
We see things as good and bad and neutral and everything in between. We
have to be subjective, because emotions ARE subjective.
>
>Because the universe is so balanced it is inherently positive.
Wrong. Because it is balanced it is balanced. If it really is balanced
as you say. I could be pedantic and ask you to PROVE that it is
inherently balanced...
> In other
>words to be so balanced is positive itself.
No, again wrong. Being too balanced means you may not experience what
you can.
The rest of your summary I won't argue with. Aspects can show up as any
variety and (degree) of phenotypes. However, as humans, the results of
them and the options of how to use them can be seen as good and bad. I
don't care wether it is subjective. Unfortunately we are animals. We are
inherently subjective ;)....
Linden
Edmond Wollmann
> In article <366389...@astroconsulting.com>,
> Edmond Wollmann <E...@astroconsulting.com> wrote:
> >A complaint has been lodged
> Don't you mean a powerless complaint?
Nope, like many other abusers here-despite your lying and squirming-I
have kicked you off of;
Earthlink, IDT.net, UU.net and many others-and STILL you persist. Why?
Because you are a religious zealot who fears me-not "having fun" as you
fallaciously, disingenuously and speciously assert.
Now what astrology would you like to discuss paranoic zealot?
Altair in the constellation Aquilae The Eagle
From Al Tair, the Eagle -the wounding. The Bird of Jove. The FLYER.
A bold, confident, valiant, unyeilding, ambitious and liberal nature.
Great and sudden but ehpemeral wealth-a position of command!
With Uranus=Cautious, spiritual sympathetic just and idealistic. Good
friends and minds of the literary or Gemini type.
anonym™
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> Rick wrote:
>
> > In article <366389...@astroconsulting.com>,
> > Edmond Wollmann <E...@astroconsulting.com> wrote:
>
> > >A complaint has been lodged
>
> > Don't you mean a powerless complaint?
>
> Nope, like many other abusers here-
Name them.
> despite your lying and squirming-I
> have kicked you off of;
> Earthlink, IDT.net, UU.net and many others-
Prove it.
How does it serve you to boast of being a censor?
>and STILL you persist. Why?
Why do YOU?
> Because you are a religious zealot who fears me-
Is that YOUR excuse, Edmo?
> not "having fun" as you
> fallaciously, disingenuously and speciously assert.
He seems to be confronting his fear, if that's the case!
>
> Now what astrology would you like to discuss paranoic zealot?
>
Zealot. That's the word! Ol' pantyhead has a new pet word!
Innit cute?
Hey, Ed!
Why aintcha posting from Earthlink?
Got your posting privileges yanked, eh?
Edmond Wollmann
> In article <366391...@astroconsulting.com>, Edmond Wollmann
> <E...@astroconsulting.com> writes
> >ZeroZero Magazine wrote:
> >> Ok, mine own thoughts...
> >> Well balanced people tend to have few oppositions,
> >This is utter subjective value judging. Oppositions ARE the sign of
> >awareness-whether they are balanced or not is a discernment based on
> >synthesis and interview of the client. No one can tell without those two
> >factors OTHER than there is awareness tension between the planets
> >opposed.
> Well, I didn't pretend it was anything but subjective. I have only seen
> so many charts. Those with oppositions dominating seem to have a rather
> hard time of it, or rather, they are inherently more 'complex'
> characters. (Don't bother asking me to define complex BTW).
"Hard" time of it, is a subjective values judgment. developmental
tension is not BAD-it is what allows us to develop. If they resist or
judge the tension as you are doing, it then becomes difficult. Anxiety
and excitement are the same energy with a different approach. Axniety is
excitement that is resisted and judged.
> >>and a 'few'
> >> conjunctions.
> >Same here.
> (Yes 'few' is subjective.) The point I was trying to make is that too
Too many according to who? So you are saying these persons didn't know
what they were doing when they reincarnated or chose the chart when they
were born (or if you prefer GIVEN the chart they have by "All That Is")
and we need the narrow visioned astrologer such as you to TELL us what
"All that Is" did wrong? (or them).
> many conjunctions tend to 'unbalance' the chart. One chart I've looked
> at lately of a friend is dominated by 3 conjunctions (within quite a
> tight orb), she certainly is rather unbalanced. Clearly, some people may
> be completely balanced. It does depend on other factors.
Balanced in what way? Not focused on things YOU think they "should" be?
> >> Too many conjunctions seem to make a person rather one-
> >> sided in nature. This would be due to only one set of archetypal
> >> expressions being expressed. Also, transits of the planets will affect a
> >> larger proportion of this persons personality/self than people with less
> >> conjunctions.
> >No, they REFLECT focus on a particular archetype, but that archetype can
> >be broken up through dispositors etc. Whats "wrong" with emphasizing an
> >archtype? Mick Jagger has been quite successful and fulfilled
> >emphasising Leo-who are you to say his life expression is "too one
> >sided"? Maybe thats the side he prefers?
> There's nothing wrong with it, but there is at the same time nothing
> right about it either. It just is.
Contradiction-Then it can't be unbalanced, which is a "ggod/bad"
judgment.
> I don't really know why you argued over this point. We are basically
> making the same point. Its always easy to nitpick someone elses writing,
> as you well know ;)
There is a keen difference between judging charts through projection and
discerning the belief momentum of another's reality. If you cannot
understand this, I cannot help you.
Just like the difference between believing someone is subject to reality
as opposed to them being an active and powerful creator of it. These
nuance are very important. I have seen astrologers cause more difficulty
than they remove this way. This comes with actual application to clients
and experience.
> >> If more than half of the individuals aspects are of a good nature (ie.
> >> trines and sextiles), then this person will find life rather too easy.
> >> This person will tend to land on his/her feet and be able to carry on.
> I apologise for using the word 'good'. Maybe the word easy or soft?
> Maybe I should define the meaning of easy eh?
> >Define "land on their feet"?
> Don't be a fool Edmond. If you have writen a book, I think you can
> understand the meaning of the above.
Calling me names is an abusive ad hominem fallacious retort. Any
critical thinker knows full well the way we operationalize definitions
is paramount to understanding and clarification. You are just being
defensive rather than logical. "Landing on their feet" implies they have
been thrown off them to begin with. People who reinforce the belief that
things are inherently difficult and "dangerous" that can disrupt our
reality so that we must have some trick to then "land on our feet" from
the disruption, are begging the question that there is a disruption to
begin with.
We are not ON a path and reality is not outside of us-therefore there is
nothing to get thrown off of or disrupted to necessitate landing on ones
feet when we BELIEVE it has. WE JUDGE the events and scenarios as not
fitting in the way we EXPECT THEY SHOULD, but that does not mean they
are inherently disruptive, only that our expectations are invalidating
the path we are at that moment. If you invalidate the path you are at
any moment then you REMOVE and destroy the event as being (positive)
able to SERVE-therefore, it is the "definer" (the person themselves)
that needs adjusting not the reality. These are conscious mind
determinations, because we believe our conscious mind is the REAL mind
and reality and that whatever does not fall in line with those
expectations it has-are "wrong" and we must REcontrol the reality back
to what we think it should be before we are "back on our feet"-when in
"reality" all that is happened is we have invalidated a portion of the
path we are, making it more obscure than it was in its message and
reason for being. We create our realities for a REASON, and all of your
reality has messages for you BY you to serve you. When you invalidate
your reality with these judgments, you invalidate not only the path you
are, but your ability to do anything about it.
See? Probably not, all I will get is more "long winded and obscure" name
calling. So be it.
> >> Few (traditionally) 'good' aspects will result in a person with a
> >> decreased lack of confidence in ability. This probably stems from
> >> experience of life, which has shown that this person will have to work
> >> harder in life to get where others have got to with ease. This person
> >> has the best chances of being a very experienced person in life. Could
> >> become a counsellor of some sort.
> OK, not necessarily a decreased lack of confidence... But it would show
> a need to overcome more difficulties.
You miss the point. The "difficulty" may be only in defining things as
"difficult."
> >Not necessarily, if the client in question fulfills developmental
> >aspects they can be quite a bit more resourcefull than a trine person
> >who reacts from instinct-which may or may not be accurate.
> Is this agreement? We may even be on the same track!
> >This is total nonesense. Why would the "All That Is" "give" persons
> >inequitable lots?
> Oh come on. Please. Everyone is are born destined to die. Of course the
> "ALL that is" (which means reality) gives unequal 'lots'. Some people
> are born with hereditary disease - they will die an earlier, and
Ah, ah! You see, you ASSUME (make an ass out of you not me) that thesae
things you list have buil;t in value-they DO NOT. The person with the
hereditary disease may grow far more than you in insight, knowledge and
loving appreciation-some of the REAL THINGS that we come here for to
learn. Therefore, their lot may be greater than yours. The reality is,
there are no unequal lots, only judgments of the lots.
> probably unpleasant death. Is this not inquitable? The parents will
Define unpleasant death? Who has returned to you and stated which are
pleasurable and which are not?
> think its unfair. The individual will probably feel it is unfair, though
> they may resign themselves to the fact.
Unfair is a subjective value judgment. Unfair to whom? To what
standards? In what world?
> > If things are created to be difficult by anyone it is
> >because there is something in that idea that they wish to explore,
> >create and examine.
> Look. Everyone finds different things difficult. I sometimes find it
> difficult to understand myself. I do not find it difficult because I
You CHOOSE to define things as difficult, they are not inherently so.
> WANT or WISH to find it difficult. IT JUST IS DIFFICULT.
Nope, there is no "thats the way it is"-the way it is -IS the way you
define it to be, and what you put into these nuetral scenarios is what
you extract-true you have been taught rigorously that they are indeed
"difficult" but you can redefine that belief when you choose as well.
> Definitions of things can make writing too rigid. Even dictionaries
> declare that many words have several defenitions. Language is a dynamic
> means of communication, I feel we shouldn't make it rigid or fixed.
Thats why I am pointing out that YOUR definitions are not necessarily
"the way it is".
> >> Oppositions can show some kind of phobia, instability or erratic
> >> behaviour.
> >:-)))))) If unresolved, yes it COULD manifest this way. I am far more
> >frightened with reference to mental states and perspectives when I have
> >a client with NO oppositions than with a few.
> Hehehe, an agreement. My god...
> >Let me say at the outset that this has absolutely NOTHING to do with
> >"good and bad". These are subjective value judgements and really tell us
> >little about the nature of any idea, but much about the observer.
> Yeah you are right. However your quote is flawed. WE are human beings.
Oh I see, so we are inherently flawed rather than perfect?
> We see things as good and bad and neutral and everything in between.
We are TAUGHT to see them this way-they are not MADE that way.
Miracles are not the exception to the rule...
The are the natural, true order of things.
--- Bashar
>We
> have to be subjective, because emotions ARE subjective.
An emotion is a reaction to a belief-no one just "feels" some way
without first having a BELIEF some way-which the e-motion
(energy-motion) of the belief is then "felt" as.
> >Because the universe is so balanced it is inherently positive.
> Wrong. Because it is balanced it is balanced. If it really is balanced
> as you say. I could be pedantic and ask you to PROVE that it is
> inherently balanced...
Why? The fact that it maintains its existence rather than
DIS-integration IS the "proof."
"We know the whole idea of how we feel in that sense, we trust ourselves
as aspects of the infinite-therefore we interact spontaneously-without
necessarily having to "plan" anything, without having to "make sure"
everything will go "as planned," we do not need the "insurance" of
something to "fall back" on should what we go for "fail." All of these
ideas are doubts and mistrusts of the true unconditionalness of our
love." Bashar, "Southern Exposure"
> > In other
> >words to be so balanced is positive itself.
> No, again wrong. Being too balanced means you may not experience what
> you can.
:-))) How can you not experience what you can? If you cannot, you would
not. You may CHOOSE preferences -either consciously or
unconsciously-because of the way you believe or have been taught to
believe.
> The rest of your summary I won't argue with. Aspects can show up as any
> variety and (degree) of phenotypes. However, as humans, the results of
> them and the options of how to use them can be seen as good and bad. I
Not possible-good and bad are concoctions. There is only negative and
positive energy.
A) Positive is simply integrative, unifying, expansive,
inclusive-INTEGRAL.
B) Negative is separative, segregative, limited, conflicted functions in
PARTS.
One funtions as a whole, the other as parts. Generally the parts
experience developmental conflict to become whole-and so end up
integrated anyway-neither of these or either scenario however is "good"
or bad, it reflects the necessary states of being to experience the
physical world in this form we percieve it in duality. We CHOSE to
experience the idea of focus-(Saturn) to view the "parts" and create the
illusion that the parts are actually parts and separate from us as well,
when they cannot be either. It is all one thing happening NOW.
> don't care wether it is subjective. Unfortunately we are animals. We are
> inherently subjective ;)....
You choose to believe.
"Monks and scholars should accept my word not out of respect, but upon
analyzing it as a goldsmith analyzes gold; through cutting melting,
scraping and rubbing it." Buddha
anonym™
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> ZeroZero Magazine wrote:
>
> > In article <366391...@astroconsulting.com>, Edmond Wollmann
> > <E...@astroconsulting.com> writes
> > >ZeroZero Magazine wrote:
>
> > >> Ok, mine own thoughts...
>
> > >> Well balanced people tend to have few oppositions,
>
> > >This is utter subjective value judging. Oppositions ARE the sign of
> > >awareness-whether they are balanced or not is a discernment based on
> > >synthesis and interview of the client. No one can tell without those two
> > >factors OTHER than there is awareness tension between the planets
> > >opposed.
>
> > Well, I didn't pretend it was anything but subjective. I have only seen
> > so many charts. Those with oppositions dominating seem to have a rather
> > hard time of it, or rather, they are inherently more 'complex'
> > characters. (Don't bother asking me to define complex BTW).
>
> "Hard" time of it, is a subjective values judgment.
SHUT the fuck UP already with your "subjective values judgment" BULLSHIT!
You trot that out everytime you disagree with someone!
You haven't just got canned screed, you've got canned banalities!
SNIP!
Now go spam another complaint to Nanau I COMMAND YOU!
BITCH!
ZeroZero Magazine
writes
>> Well, I didn't pretend it was anything but subjective. I have only seen
>> so many charts. Those with oppositions dominating seem to have a rather
>> hard time of it, or rather, they are inherently more 'complex'
>> characters. (Don't bother asking me to define complex BTW).
>
>"Hard" time of it, is a subjective values judgment. developmental
>tension is not BAD-it is what allows us to develop.
Agreed. However, to experience 'developmental tension' the individual
must encounter a situation which stretches them. This in itself may be
an unenjoyable situation.
> If they resist or
>judge the tension as you are doing, it then becomes difficult.
What do you know about any tension I may have? Resisting unecessary
tension is a favourable alternative. Also, how can we possibly know what
is favourable or unfavourable (possible to learn from and impossible to
learn from) in advance. We can speculate only.
> Anxiety
>and excitement are the same energy with a different approach. Axniety is
>excitement that is resisted and judged.
Not necessarily. Anxiety is also anticipation of a situation which
cannot be prepared for, or we have no control over. It doesn't mean
resistance to the excitment stimulus.
>Too many according to who?
To my subjective mind. Who else? Certainly not you, since you are unable
to tackle life with any degree of subjectivity.
>So you are saying these persons didn't know
>what they were doing when they reincarnated or chose the chart when they
>were born (or if you prefer GIVEN the chart they have by "All That Is")
>and we need the narrow visioned astrologer such as you to TELL us what
>"All that Is" did wrong? (or them).
Thats a rather extreme view of astrology. You propose that we chose our
own birth chart. Interesting. I could say prove it for a laugh ;)
>> many conjunctions tend to 'unbalance' the chart. One chart I've looked
>> at lately of a friend is dominated by 3 conjunctions (within quite a
>> tight orb), she certainly is rather unbalanced. Clearly, some people may
>> be completely balanced. It does depend on other factors.
>
>Balanced in what way? Not focused on things YOU think they "should" be?
Someone who gets through life and problems without getting too involved
with them is what I would call balanced. Someone who is unable to get
over even minor difficulties properly is unbalanced. Subjective maybe,
but how can you even pretend to be a councellor when you cannot make
explorative or subjective statements.
>Contradiction-Then it can't be unbalanced, which is a "ggod/bad"
>judgment.
Eh?
>There is a keen difference between judging charts through projection and
>discerning the belief momentum of another's reality. If you cannot
>understand this, I cannot help you.
I can't exactly understand your wording ;). However, all astrologers
view a chart from their own eyes. They are not the eyes of god or
society, or a collective. Because we are individuals we look at the
world from our point of view. An astrologer can try to be less self-
projecting when reading a chart, but it is impossible for him/her to
even pretend that the chart is being read solely in the 'belief momentum
of anothers reality'.
>> >Define "land on their feet"?
>
>> Don't be a fool Edmond. If you have writen a book, I think you can
>> understand the meaning of the above.
>Calling me names is an abusive ad hominem fallacious retort.
I didn't call you a fool Edmond. I suggested that you avoid being one.
> You are just being
>defensive rather than logical.
I am shocked that someone can write a book, become a councellor, and
still want a definition of someone who 'lands on their feet'.
> "Landing on their feet" implies they have
>been thrown off them to begin with.
Of course they have. Life is full of situations which test the balance
of a person. Many times in our lives we are likely to experience
situations which do shock or surprise us, or even are detrimental to out
short or long term lives. Being able to overcome these problems easily
andgetting on with things, and then being successful at it, is 'landing
on your feet'.
>You miss the point. The "difficulty" may be only in defining things as
>"difficult."
Ok fair enough. If I followed your ideas to their full conclusion, you
would have conversation as follows:
Person: "Hi Ed, hows' things"
ED "Life is as it is"
Person 2 "Oh, you having a good time then?"
ED "Good is a subjective statement. Life cannot be good or
bad. I am alive..."
>> Oh come on. Please. Everyone is are born destined to die. Of course the
>> "ALL that is" (which means reality) gives unequal 'lots'. Some people
>> are born with hereditary disease - they will die an earlier, and
>
>Ah, ah! You see, you ASSUME (make an ass out of you not me) that thesae
>things you list have buil;t in value-they DO NOT.
I can see you got excited when replying to this bit. Makes me think you
press the reply button before reading the entire message...
> The person with the
>hereditary disease may grow far more than you in insight, knowledge and
>loving appreciation-some of the REAL THINGS that we come here for to
>learn. Therefore, their lot may be greater than yours. The reality is,
>there are no unequal lots, only judgments of the lots.
Surprisingly I agree with you here, but only because you replied to only
a portion of my paragraph.
>> probably unpleasant death. Is this not inquitable? The parents will
>
>Define unpleasant death? Who has returned to you and stated which are
>pleasurable and which are not?
You have not died yet (in this lifetime at least). How can you pretend
that you even think you know what death is like. Who has returned TO
YOU?
>> think its unfair. The individual will probably feel it is unfair, though
>> they may resign themselves to the fact.
>
>Unfair is a subjective value judgment. Unfair to whom? To what
>standards? In what world?
Oh come on. Please. What sort of a councellor are you?
>Nope, there is no "thats the way it is"-the way it is -IS the way you
>define it to be, and what you put into these nuetral scenarios is what
>you extract-true you have been taught rigorously that they are indeed
>"difficult" but you can redefine that belief when you choose as well.
Bullshit. Everyone finds different things difficult. You fail to
understand that even the most concerted effort may not sort these
difficulties out.
>> Definitions of things can make writing too rigid. Even dictionaries
>> declare that many words have several defenitions. Language is a dynamic
>> means of communication, I feel we shouldn't make it rigid or fixed.
>
>Thats why I am pointing out that YOUR definitions are not necessarily
>"the way it is".
I'm not the one asking for defenitions all the time though.
>> Yeah you are right. However your quote is flawed. WE are human beings.
>Oh I see, so we are inherently flawed rather than perfect?
ROTFL. I can't continue replying. This is too weird. Maybe you think you
have been born perfect. I certainly don't.
Linden
Edmond Wollmann
I will answer a few even though you cut out my arguments and only
respond to what you think is possible to answer.
> In article <366629...@sdsu.edu>, Edmond Wollmann <woll...@sdsu.edu>
> writes
> >> Well, I didn't pretend it was anything but subjective. I have only seen
> >> so many charts. Those with oppositions dominating seem to have a rather
> >> hard time of it, or rather, they are inherently more 'complex'
> >> characters. (Don't bother asking me to define complex BTW).
> >"Hard" time of it, is a subjective values judgment. developmental
> >tension is not BAD-it is what allows us to develop.
> Agreed. However, to experience 'developmental tension' the individual
> must encounter a situation which stretches them. This in itself may be
> an unenjoyable situation.
WHY is it automatically anxiety rather than excitement? "It in itself"
has no built in unenjoyability.
> > If they resist or
> >judge the tension as you are doing, it then becomes difficult.
> What do you know about any tension I may have? Resisting unecessary
I can see your judgmental attitude, therefore I KNOW you would create
anxiety.
> tension is a favourable alternative. Also, how can we possibly know what
> is favourable or unfavourable (possible to learn from and impossible to
> learn from) in advance. We can speculate only.
Nothing is impossible to learn from. You statements make no sense.
> > Anxiety
> >and excitement are the same energy with a different approach. Axniety is
> >excitement that is resisted and judged.
> Not necessarily. Anxiety is also anticipation of a situation which
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
CONTAINS EXPECTATIONS-which are beliefs and judgments of the future.
> cannot be prepared for, or we have no control over. It doesn't mean
Why must we "prepare" for them in order to be having control over them?
These are Saturnian powerlessness perspectives. You create your reality
100% even though you create the illusion that you only have 10% control
over it, you are still using 100% to create that illusion.
> resistance to the excitment stimulus.
If its felt as anxiety-it IS reistance and judgment of the excitement or
bliss that CAN be extracted from developmental tension.
> >Too many according to who?
> To my subjective mind. Who else? Certainly not you, since you are unable
> to tackle life with any degree of subjectivity.
"Tackle life"? Why would I need to "tackle" life when it happens
effortlessly and joyfuully through me not to me? Also why would I need
to TRY to be subjective?
> >So you are saying these persons didn't know
> >what they were doing when they reincarnated or chose the chart when they
> >were born (or if you prefer GIVEN the chart they have by "All That Is")
> >and we need the narrow visioned astrologer such as you to TELL us what
> >"All that Is" did wrong? (or them).
> Thats a rather extreme view of astrology. You propose that we chose
Then what are the mechanics for the chart you were born with? Random
chance I suppose? THIS would be a strange and extreme view considering
you see astrology as viable to begin with. HOW do we "get" the chart and
timing we have? Astrology demonstrates that things happen for a reason
and yet you believe the timing of your birth has none? Contradiction.
our
> own birth chart. Interesting. I could say prove it for a laugh ;)
I am already laughing while I write this-thanks anyway. I could say
prove you exist-and you could not. I can even say prove astrology and
you cannot.
> >> many conjunctions tend to 'unbalance' the chart. One chart I've looked
> >> at lately of a friend is dominated by 3 conjunctions (within quite a
> >> tight orb), she certainly is rather unbalanced. Clearly, some people may
> >> be completely balanced. It does depend on other factors.
> >Balanced in what way? Not focused on things YOU think they "should" be?
> Someone who gets through life and problems without getting too
"Gets through life"? More powerless Saturnian perspectives.
>involved
> with them is what I would call balanced. Someone who is unable to get
> over even minor difficulties properly is unbalanced. Subjective maybe,
What do you mean by "get over them"? Ignore them? Not learn from them?
Forget them? If someone learns from their developmental tension they
INCORPORATE it not forget it.
> but how can you even pretend to be a councellor when you cannot make
> explorative or subjective statements.
I don't "pretend to be a counselor-I AM one-and a very good one as my
replies to your posts demonstrate. I have allowed you to see many
negative beliefs-if you choose to see them.
> >Contradiction-Then it can't be unbalanced, which is a "good/bad"
> >judgment.
> Eh?
Got lost on your own argument? You said one sign archetypal references
were "unbalanced". When I said whats wrong with emphasising one
archetype like Mick Jagger emphasises Leo, You said;
> There's nothing wrong with it, but there is at the same time nothing
> right about it either. It just is.
To which I replied;
Contradiction-Then it can't be unbalanced, which is a "good/bad"
judgment.
Comprende? I do not lose track easily.
> >There is a keen difference between judging charts through projection and
> >discerning the belief momentum of another's reality. If you cannot
> >understand this, I cannot help you.
> I can't exactly understand your wording ;). However, all astrologers
There is a difference between projection and discernment-you have
trouble discerning that?
"The recognition and taking to heart of the subjective determination of
knowledge in general, and of psychological knowledge in particular, are
basic conditions for the scientific and impartial evaluation of a psyche
different from that of the observing subject. These conditions are
fulfilled only when the observer is sufficiently informed about the
nature and scope of his own personality. He can, however, be
sufficiently informed only when he has in large measure freed himself
from the levelling influence of collective opinions and thereby arrived
at a clear conception of his own individuality . . . "The collective
attitude hinders the recognition and evaluation of a psychology
different from the subject's, because the mind that is collectively
oriented is quite incapable of thinking and feeling in any other way
than by projection."
CG Jung
> view a chart from their own eyes. They are not the eyes of god or
> society, or a collective. Because we are individuals we look at the
> world from our point of view. An astrologer can try to be less self-
> projecting when reading a chart, but it is impossible for him/her to
> even pretend that the chart is being read solely in the 'belief momentum
> of anothers reality'.
You believe.
> >> >Define "land on their feet"?
> >> Don't be a fool Edmond. If you have writen a book, I think you can
> >> understand the meaning of the above.
> >Calling me names is an abusive ad hominem fallacious retort.
> I didn't call you a fool Edmond. I suggested that you avoid being one.
If I am not one and you imply I am this is an ad hominem abusive fallacy
combined with begging the question;
"Begging the question" occurs when an arguer uses some form of
phraseology that tends to conceal the questionably true character of a
key premise. If the reader or the listener is deceived into thinking
that a key premise is true, he or she will accept the argument as sound,
when in fact, it may not be." Hurley 1991, 4th edition, Logic.
The argument against the person occurs in three forms: the ad
hominem abusive, ad hominem circumstantial, and the tu quoque.
In the ad hominem abusive, the second person responds to the first
person's argument by abusing the first person.
Now what part of those logic rules do you not understand? I will explain
them if you wish.
> > You are just being
> >defensive rather than logical.
> I am shocked that someone can write a book, become a councellor, and
> still want a definition of someone who 'lands on their feet'.
I am still shocked that someone who believes we "must be subjective" to
explore cannot see that subjectivity in the statement "land on their
feet" and what it might mean or imply to different people.
> > "Landing on their feet" implies they have
> >been thrown off them to begin with.
> Of course they have. Life is full of situations which test the balance
> of a person. Many times in our lives we are likely to experience
Who SAYS? These are your definitions and if you carry this negative and
powerless projecting to "advise" your clients you are causing damage,
not serving.
> situations which do shock or surprise us, or even are detrimental to out
We experience them this way because we are unaware of these beliefs that
created the scenarios that are unconscious. We then awaken to them by
their manifeastation in our lives. We have still created them and they
still serve. just because you were "surprised and discovered" something
(Uranus) does NOT inherently mean this is "bad" or disrupting, or
negative.
> short or long term lives. Being able to overcome these problems easily
> andgetting on with things, and then being successful at it, is 'landing
> on your feet'.
"A problem is an opportunity in workclothes." Henry Kaiser
"In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity." Albert Einstein
Therefore there "really" are no "problems to overcome."
> >You miss the point. The "difficulty" may be only in defining things as
> >"difficult."
> Ok fair enough. If I followed your ideas to their full conclusion, you
> would have conversation as follows:
> Person: "Hi Ed, hows' things"
> ED "Life is as it is"
> Person 2 "Oh, you having a good time then?"
> ED "Good is a subjective statement. Life cannot be good or
> bad. I am alive..."
Nope, more like;
Person: "Hi Ed, hows' things"
ED "Perfect!"
Person 2 "Oh, you you think you are perfect then?"
ED "Yes, I am perfectly reflecting the idea that I am
being at any given moment, and know that everything is there for a
reason, therefore, although I may not fully comprehend how everything
fits in an instructive and positive way in my life at this time-I still
know it MUST be, even if it fits into the life I have yet to live. This
is not a value judgment of a "completion" state, but a discernment that
for the moment everthing is "perfectly" the way it needs to be for me to
continue my positive exploration.
Of course if we weren't taught so many negative beliefs-and you were not
so brainwashed, I could simply say "perfect" and you would know what I
meant. Therefore my "long winded" replies to anyone or everyone is
always dependent upon the "unlearning I have to move through of the crap
they have been taught.
> >> Oh come on. Please. Everyone is are born destined to die. Of course the
> >> "ALL that is" (which means reality) gives unequal 'lots'. Some people
> >> are born with hereditary disease - they will die an earlier, and
> >Ah, ah! You see, you ASSUME (make an ass out of you not me) that thesae
> >things you list have built in value-they DO NOT.
> I can see you got excited when replying to this bit.
Do you always read so much into a post with typos from someone who had a
very busy day positng at 12-1 am?
> Makes me think you
> press the reply button before reading the entire message...
"Makes" you? Perhaps I don't need to strain at gnats because I am not
losing track and having my arguments exposed as fallaciouness as you
are? Therefore I don't really concern myself with those minutia and wish
to move on exchanging views?
> > The person with the
> >hereditary disease may grow far more than you in insight, knowledge and
> >loving appreciation-some of the REAL THINGS that we come here for to
> >learn. Therefore, their lot may be greater than yours. The reality is,
> >there are no unequal lots, only judgments of the lots.
> Surprisingly I agree with you here, but only because you replied to only
> a portion of my paragraph.
POT/KETTLE/BLACK
> >> probably unpleasant death. Is this not inquitable? The parents will
> >Define unpleasant death? Who has returned to you and stated which are
> >pleasurable and which are not?
> You have not died yet (in this lifetime at least). How can you pretend
> that you even think you know what death is like. Who has returned TO
> YOU?
I did not assert I knew-you did by implying it was automatically
"unpleasant". Do you always forget your last statements?
> >> think its unfair. The individual will probably feel it is unfair, though
> >> they may resign themselves to the fact.
> >Unfair is a subjective value judgment. Unfair to whom? To what
> >standards? In what world?
> Oh come on. Please. What sort of a councellor are you?
Astrological/psychological, who allows those so willing, to change their
negative defintions should they so choose.
> >Nope, there is no "thats the way it is"-the way it is -IS the way you
> >define it to be, and what you put into these nuetral scenarios is what
> >you extract-true you have been taught rigorously that they are indeed
> >"difficult" but you can redefine that belief when you choose as well.
> Bullshit. Everyone finds different things difficult. You fail to
They don't "find them," that way, they create them to be that way. They
have no built-in difficulty to them.
> understand that even the most concerted effort may not sort these
> difficulties out.
Oh, you believe that do you? Then for you it will require concerted
effort and you still will not sort them out.
> >> Definitions of things can make writing too rigid. Even dictionaries
> >> declare that many words have several defenitions. Language is a dynamic
> >> means of communication, I feel we shouldn't make it rigid or fixed.
> >Thats why I am pointing out that YOUR definitions are not necessarily
> >"the way it is".
> I'm not the one asking for defenitions all the time though.
Thats because you are unaware of the power those defintions have. This
is learned from years of counsel.
> >> Yeah you are right. However your quote is flawed. WE are human beings.
> >Oh I see, so we are inherently flawed rather than perfect?
> ROTFL. I can't continue replying. This is too weird. Maybe you think you
> have been born perfect. I certainly don't.
Everyone has. Therefore, you create the idea that you are not. This
would then allow you to experience things as "difficult."
You must introspect about the idea of perfection, it is not a
"completion" necessarily, it can be that although things are incomplete,
they will be perfect for now.
"Allow us to refresh ourselves on the idea and the concept of,
perfection. We have discussed many times with you, the idea that in your
lives very often you are taught, that even when you create the idea and
the notion in your lives of what you call, a spiritual path. That the
reason for this is for the a-ttainment and the a-chievement of
perfection. But recognize once again as we have shared many times our
perspective is that you will never a-chieve perfection, because you are
already perfect. The idea does not mean that you will not grow, not
expand, not change, not transform, not learn something new. But it is
simply an allowance, a recognition of allowance in your lives, that at
any given moment, the idea you are being, the reality you are
expressing, the events you are experiencing, are for their own reasons
perfect in themselves. This relaxation, this attitude, this backing off
from yourself in that way rather than applying so much pressure to the
idea to BE MORE PERFECT, is what allows you to know that you can always
become a different type of perfection at any given moment, perhaps a
more expanded type. But you will always be, at any given moment, the
absolute perfect manifestation of whatever idea you are being at that
moment. Your willingness to allow that moment to be perfect in and of
itself, is what paradoxically allows you to create the next and
different perfect moment. Because unless you are willing to allow
whatever moment you are experiencing to be complete in and of itself on
all levels, then you are not allowing yourself to view and perceive all
facets of that experience, because if you do not think it is perfect as
it is, if you invalidate it and judge it in that way, in a negative
point of view, then you yourself may be shutting off aspects of that
event, of that moment that you need to see, need to be aware of, to
incorporate them into the totality of yourself so that you can get on
with the next step. Every moment is a stepping stone to the next moment,
and if you invalidate any stepping stone then you yourself remove from
the path you are, the ability to get to the next stepping stone. Always
allow each and every moment of your lives to be perfectly valid as they
are. This does not mean that you must accept that the things that are
occurring in your life are what you "should" accept or prefer. You can
always prefer your life to be the way you desire it to be. But the way
to allow yourself to create it to be the way that you desire it to be,
is to accept that the way it is now SERVES A PURPOSE and is a PART of
the path you have created yourself to be, and that what you are learning
is there for a reason, your reason! That there is something within the
scenario you want to see, you want to reflect on, you want to learn
from. And in accepting and acknowledging the way your life does unfold,
that is what gives you the recognition of the empowerment you have, to
create your life to unfold in the direction and in the manner you most
desire it to be.
So simply do allow yourself to reflect at any given moment, that no
matter what your choices, every scenario, for what it is, is a perfect
manifestation of that scenario. You can prefer perfect harmony and
perfect ecstasy, or you can prefer perfect misery. But both are perfect
expressions of the idea you are reflecting at that moment. And when you
allow it to be there for a reason, then you can extract from that
scenario, what will most assist you in reforming the idea, redirecting
yourself and creating what it is you desire to experience most in your
reality.
Many individuals will pressure themselves in many different ways to
strive, to struggle, to try, to be more perfect. Will set themselves
goals and ideals in that way, that continually denies the validity they
possess, at that moment. In that way you deny yourself all that you
truly desire as well. For if you do not believe yourself complete in
that moment, then you, by your own definition, insist that you do not
have the capability of creating what it is you say you desire to attract
into your lives. Knowing that you are complete, perhaps focused not in a
way you prefer to be, but knowing you are complete, gives you the
opportunity to know that at any given moment you have the ability to
refocus yourself in any direction you desire-you lack nothing! You have
all the tools and all the abilities you require at any given moment to
be anything you are willing and bold enough to believe you can define
yourself to be!"
Bashar, Perfection, 2/21/87
anonym™
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> ZeroZero Magazine wrote:
>
> I will answer a few even though you cut out my arguments and only
> respond to what you think is possible to answer.
You fucking hypocrite. That is what UOU do, more than anyone else, and
Zero Zero chided you
for it already.
>
> > In article <366629...@sdsu.edu>, Edmond Wollmann <woll...@sdsu.edu>
> > writes
>
> > >> Well, I didn't pretend it was anything but subjective. I have only seen
> > >> so many charts. Those with oppositions dominating seem to have a rather
> > >> hard time of it, or rather, they are inherently more 'complex'
> > >> characters. (Don't bother asking me to define complex BTW).
>
> > >"Hard" time of it, is a subjective values judgment. developmental
> > >tension is not BAD-it is what allows us to develop.
>
> > Agreed. However, to experience 'developmental tension' the individual
> > must encounter a situation which stretches them. This in itself may be
> > an unenjoyable situation.
>
> WHY is it automatically anxiety rather than excitement?
WHO said anything about anxiety, dickwad?
> "It in itself"
> has no built in unenjoyability.
"You in yourself" have no built-in ethics.
>
> > > If they resist or
> > >judge the tension as you are doing, it then becomes difficult.
>
> > What do you know about any tension I may have? Resisting unecessary
>
> I can see your judgmental attitude, therefore I KNOW you would create
> anxiety.
WHY is it automatically anxiety rather than excitement?
>
> > tension is a favourable alternative. Also, how can we possibly know what
> > is favourable or unfavourable (possible to learn from and impossible to
> > learn from) in advance. We can speculate only.
>
> Nothing is impossible to learn from.
That's right!
Even Ed the retard has learned how to spell three words correctly
because I taught him against his will.
Now we're gonna work on commas, aren't we, Ed?
> You statements make no sense.
"You statements make no sense."? Your statement makes no sense.
>
> > > Anxiety
> > >and excitement are the same energy with a different approach. Axniety is
> > >excitement that is resisted and judged.
>
> > Not necessarily. Anxiety is also anticipation of a situation which
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> CONTAINS EXPECTATIONS-which are beliefs and judgments of the future.
So fucking WHAT, you stupid dumbshit?
>
> > cannot be prepared for, or we have no control over. It doesn't mean
>
> Why must we "prepare" for them in order to be having control over them?
So we don't fail, as you have.
> These are Saturnian powerlessness perspectives.
Subjective value judgement.
> You create your reality
> 100% even though you create the illusion that you only have 10% control
> over it, you are still using 100% to create that illusion.
Fantasy bullshit spewage mode engagement.
Rest snipped, because Ed is a criminal ASSHOLE.
Edmond Wollmann
Please ask that this client cease abusing this group.
Thanks
anonym™ wrote:
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > ZeroZero Magazine wrote:
> > I will answer a few even though you cut out my arguments and only
> > respond to what you think is possible to answer.
> You fucking hypocrite. That is what UOU do, more than anyone else, and
> Zero Zero chided you
> for it already.
No I don't.
> > > In article <366629...@sdsu.edu>, Edmond Wollmann <woll...@sdsu.edu>
> > > writes
> > > >> Well, I didn't pretend it was anything but subjective. I have only seen
> > > >> so many charts. Those with oppositions dominating seem to have a rather
> > > >> hard time of it, or rather, they are inherently more 'complex'
> > > >> characters. (Don't bother asking me to define complex BTW).
> > > >"Hard" time of it, is a subjective values judgment. developmental
> > > >tension is not BAD-it is what allows us to develop.
> > > Agreed. However, to experience 'developmental tension' the individual
> > > must encounter a situation which stretches them. This in itself may be
> > > an unenjoyable situation.
> > WHY is it automatically anxiety rather than excitement?
> WHO said anything about anxiety, dickwad?
You are lost give it up.
> That's right!
> "You statements make no sense."? Your statement makes no sense.
> So fucking WHAT, you stupid dumbshit?
> So we don't fail, as you have.
> Subjective value judgement.
> Fantasy bullshit spewage mode engagement.
>
> Rest snipped, because Ed is a criminal ASSHOLE.
My my, Mr. Intellect.
ZeroZero Magazine
<Pleia...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>ZeroZero Magazine wrote:
>> Agreed. However, to experience 'developmental tension' the individual
>> must encounter a situation which stretches them. This in itself may be
>> an unenjoyable situation.
>
>WHY is it automatically anxiety rather than excitement? "It in itself"
>has no built in unenjoyability.
It does not have to be anxiety or excitement. You want to stop defining
things so strictly. Sometimes emotions are too complicated to write down
or even explain.
>> What do you know about any tension I may have? Resisting unecessary
>I can see your judgmental attitude, therefore I KNOW you would create
>anxiety.
Hehehe. You tell me you know my judgemental attitude - that tells me
that you are a liar or a hypocrite.
>> tension is a favourable alternative. Also, how can we possibly know what
>> is favourable or unfavourable (possible to learn from and impossible to
>> learn from) in advance. We can speculate only.
>
>Nothing is impossible to learn from. You statements make no sense.
Of course some things are impossible to learn from. Many mundane and
crap things that happen in life you cannot learn from.
>> Not necessarily. Anxiety is also anticipation of a situation which
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>CONTAINS EXPECTATIONS-which are beliefs and judgments of the future.
Are you telling me that you do not think about the future at all?
>Why must we "prepare" for them in order to be having control over them?
>These are Saturnian powerlessness perspectives. You create your reality
>100% even though you create the illusion that you only have 10% control
>over it, you are still using 100% to create that illusion.
A subjective statement no less. You are numerogically illustrating a
point you cannot statistically back up.
>> To my subjective mind. Who else? Certainly not you, since you are unable
>> to tackle life with any degree of subjectivity.
>"Tackle life"? Why would I need to "tackle" life when it happens
>effortlessly and joyfuully through me not to me? Also why would I need
>to TRY to be subjective?
Life is a challenge. I find it one at least ;). Everything new is
something that you may potentially need to be prepared for. Living
effortlessly and joyfully is something that can be done on holiday, but
is not part of everyday life for me. Working for a firm is not
necessarily joyfull. Being hungry before dinner is not enjoyable. I'm
glad to feel that your life is being lived out to the full - full of
enjoyment, happiness and content. I'm pretty sure that most of us do not
<lf>
>> Thats a rather extreme view of astrology. You propose that we chose
>Then what are the mechanics for the chart you were born with? Random
>chance I suppose? THIS would be a strange and extreme view considering
>you see astrology as viable to begin with. HOW do we "get" the chart and
>timing we have? Astrology demonstrates that things happen for a reason
>and yet you believe the timing of your birth has none? Contradiction.
>ourown birth chart. Interesting. I could say prove it for a laugh ;)
<ed>
>I am already laughing while I write this-thanks anyway. I could say
>prove you exist-and you could not. I can even say prove astrology and
>you cannot.
What is most disturbing about this 'discusion', is that all these things
you say I cannot do or conceive, you cannot do or conceive either. How
can you prove I exist?
I could be some schizophrenic pigment of your jeckyl and hyde mind.
Astrology may all be part of a complex dream you have every night. We
are just different parts of your personality that you meet every night
in your dreamworld.
Maybe you only really live in the night. Day is probably a dream ;).
>>involved
>> with them is what I would call balanced. Someone who is unable to get
>> over even minor difficulties properly is unbalanced. Subjective maybe,
>What do you mean by "get over them"? Ignore them? Not learn from them?
>Forget them? If someone learns from their developmental tension they
>INCORPORATE it not forget it.
Getting over something is allowing it to drop. It stops being a primary
issue of thought. It allows to you learn from the experience, integrate
it with other lessons and carry on without remorse, regret or
depression.
>I don't "pretend to be a counselor-I AM one-and a very good one as my
>replies to your posts demonstrate.
A highly subjective view. If I were to call you a hypocrite here would
you agree with me?
>> >Contradiction-Then it can't be unbalanced, which is a "good/bad"
>> >judgment.
>> Eh?
>Got lost on your own argument? You said one sign archetypal references
>were "unbalanced". When I said whats wrong with emphasising one
>archetype like Mick Jagger emphasises Leo, You said;
>> There's nothing wrong with it, but there is at the same time nothing
>> right about it either. It just is.
>To which I replied;
>Contradiction-Then it can't be unbalanced, which is a "good/bad"
>judgment.
>Comprende? I do not lose track easily.
I almost lost track. That 'contradiction' word just seems out of place
to me.
'It just is' contains no reference to 'good' or 'bad'.
Having a large proportion of a chart in one sign would show a
predominance of one archetypal adjective (,that being the sign).
Clearly, this would result in less bodies in the other signs. This is
not bad or good necessarily. It is how we use our energy that counts.
Youmight prefer the wording of positive and negative uses of energy.
However, using your example of a Leo, I would say that having 8 or more
planets in the house of leo would create the possibility of a rather
extreme person. The same would go for any sign. Most charts I have
looked at have a predominance of one, two or three signs. There's
nothing necessarily bad or good about being extreme. However, the person
may have to expend more time, effort and energy to balance out his
personality if he feels that is what is required.
I'm sure I haven't clarified my views on this enough yet. Language is
starting to get strained trying to get my point across. I don't expect
you to agree. Just acknowledge.
The strange thing about this conversation is the fact that I am prepared
to admit that my wording may have been 'incorrect' or 'unclear' before.
I have also admitted that I may have been wrong on certain points.
You however have barely even acknowledged that I have a different
viewpoint. You simply treat it as an inferior and incorrect view of
reality.
Please reply in english if we are to continue this part of the
discussion.
>There is a difference between projection and discernment-you have
>trouble discerning that?
Oh course they are different. I can 'discern' that you are being
presumptious, for example ;)
The reason you can follow these discussions so well is because you don't
actually look for anything in what you are replying to.
Because everyone else can write normally, you have the advantage of
being able to reply in a rather incomprehendible way and at the same
time look for nothing but faults.
I have no problem with my understanding of English. You have a problem
with projecting English.
>
> "The recognition and taking to heart of the subjective determination of
>knowledge in general, and of psychological knowledge in particular, are
>basic conditions for the scientific and impartial evaluation of a psyche
>different from that of the observing subject. These conditions are
>fulfilled only when the observer is sufficiently informed about the
>nature and scope of his own personality. He can, however, be
>sufficiently informed only when he has in large measure freed himself
>from the levelling influence of collective opinions and thereby arrived
>at a clear conception of his own individuality . . . "The collective
>attitude hinders the recognition and evaluation of a psychology
>different from the subject's, because the mind that is collectively
>oriented is quite incapable of thinking and feeling in any other way
>than by projection."
>CG Jung
A very good quote, but personally I see that it has very little
significance with this correspondance.
>> view a chart from their own eyes. They are not the eyes of god or
>> society, or a collective. Because we are individuals we look at the
>> world from our point of view. An astrologer can try to be less self-
>> projecting when reading a chart, but it is impossible for him/her to
>> even pretend that the chart is being read solely in the 'belief momentum
>> of anothers reality'.
>
>You believe.
So when you read a chart, you are reading it as a collective?
Either you have extraordinary powers or you are delusional.
>> >> >Define "land on their feet"?
>> >> Don't be a fool Edmond. If you have writen a book, I think you can
>> >> understand the meaning of the above.
>> >Calling me names is an abusive ad hominem fallacious retort.
>> I didn't call you a fool Edmond. I suggested that you avoid being one.
>If I am not one and you imply I am this is an ad hominem abusive fallacy
>combined with begging the question;
I'm surprised you persued this because the above clearly proves you to
be paranoid.
How can you prove that you are not a fool?
Sorry I'm getting personal - subjective in fact! I will cry.
> If the reader or the listener is deceived into thinking
>that a key premise is true, he or she will accept the argument as sound,
>when in fact, it may not be." Hurley 1991, 4th edition, Logic.
You said it Edmond. Three cheers for ed. (You are reading the above
now...)
>
>The argument against the person occurs in three forms: the ad
>hominem abusive, ad hominem circumstantial, and the tu quoque.
>In the ad hominem abusive, the second person responds to the first
>person's argument by abusing the first person.
Look mate, I will be abusive. If I saw you in the street I would box you
up.
I did not insult you. However much everyone else slags you off, I have
tried to persue a discussion. You continue to add extra newsgroups to
this discussion. You continue to be paranoid. You continue to be
patronising.
>> I am shocked that someone can write a book, become a councellor, and
>> still want a definition of someone who 'lands on their feet'.
>
>I am still shocked that someone who believes we "must be subjective" to
>explore cannot see that subjectivity in the statement "land on their
>feet" and what it might mean or imply to different people.
In that case you could say that all language means (completely)
different things to different people. I'm sure that most people who can
be bothered to read this crap will understand the above.
>> > "Landing on their feet" implies they have
>> >been thrown off them to begin with.
>
>> Of course they have. Life is full of situations which test the balance
>> of a person. Many times in our lives we are likely to experience
>
>Who SAYS? These are your definitions and if you carry this negative and
>powerless projecting to "advise" your clients you are causing damage,
>not serving.
I don' pretend to be a councellor. I am simply explaining my definition
of 'landing on you feet'. Simple really. Its all very good to look at
the good side of things, but you have to face things that you do not
enjoy in life.
>> situations which do shock or surprise us, or even are detrimental to out
>
>We experience them this way because we are unaware of these beliefs that
>created the scenarios that are unconscious. We then awaken to them by
>their manifeastation in our lives. We have still created them and they
>still serve. just because you were "surprised and discovered" something
>(Uranus) does NOT inherently mean this is "bad" or disrupting, or
>negative.
You are too much of a genius Edmond. You have turned a simple
explanation into something incomprehendible.
>> short or long term lives. Being able to overcome these problems easily
>> andgetting on with things, and then being successful at it, is 'landing
>> on your feet'.
>
>"A problem is an opportunity in workclothes." Henry Kaiser
>
>"In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity." Albert Einstein
Good quotes indeed.
I feel confident in saying that these two persons would declare that
'landing on your feet' is an integral part and parcel of the content of
their statements.
>Therefore there "really" are no "problems to overcome."
Of course there are. For example, I feel that you need to overcome the
inability to write english in a comprehendible way. I'm sure that you
feel I have problems to overcome.
>> Ok fair enough. If I followed your ideas to their full conclusion, you
>> would have conversation as follows:
>> Person: "Hi Ed, hows' things"
>> ED "Life is as it is"
>> Person 2 "Oh, you having a good time then?"
>> ED "Good is a subjective statement. Life cannot be good or
>Nope, more like;
> Person: "Hi Ed, hows' things"
> ED "Perfect!"
> Person 2 "Oh, you you think you are perfect then?"
> ED "Yes, I am perfectly reflecting the idea that I am
>being at any given moment, and know that everything is there for a
>reason, therefore, although I may not fully comprehend how everything
>fits in an instructive and positive way in my life at this time-I still
>know it MUST be, even if it fits into the life I have yet to live. This
>is not a value judgment of a "completion" state, but a discernment that
>for the moment everthing is "perfectly" the way it needs to be for me to
>continue my positive exploration.
And then Person 3 replied: "Edmond I am going to kick your head in!
This is because you are a bigoted tosser
with a but plug up your arse".
No seriously, no insult intended.
I was being personal. I apologise.
I truly am glad that you feel perfect or can attain perfection. Whether
or not I understand why you feel perfect is completely beside the point.
Personally I do not feel perfect. I know that perfection is an ideal,
not a realistic goal.
People I know probably feel the same. Either I am degenerate, or the
social group I am part of is degenerate. Of course, this is not
inherently bad, since bad is a subjective statement.
>Of course if we weren't taught so many negative beliefs-and you were not
>so brainwashed, I could simply say "perfect" and you would know what I
>meant. Therefore my "long winded" replies to anyone or everyone is
>always dependent upon the "unlearning I have to move through of the crap
>they have been taught.
What I believe is 'crap'? Seriously Ed, if I were you I would have a
field day on this!
Learning is dynamic.You are constantly learning new things. You have
said some things which I have probably added to my personal knowledge.
However, you fail to add anything new to your knowledge, considering
anything new as 'crap' or 'incorrect'. You need to open your mind.
>> >> Oh come on. Please. Everyone is are born destined to die. Of course the
>> >> "ALL that is" (which means reality) gives unequal 'lots'. Some people
>> >> are born with hereditary disease - they will die an earlier, and
>
>> >Ah, ah! You see, you ASSUME (make an ass out of you not me) that thesae
>> >things you list have built in value-they DO NOT.
>
>> I can see you got excited when replying to this bit.
>
>Do you always read so much into a post with typos from someone who had a
>very busy day positng at 12-1 am?
Hehehe. You're the councellor not me. Maybe I'm failing at being an
amatuer psychologist?
I am now typing this at 2.16am, after a large amount of alcohol consumed
with friends. (Sorry about any mistakes ;) )
I will get up for work tommorrow at 8.30am, and then stay out all night
at a rave. I don' think you are qualified to assess the level of
'busyness' in other people's lives.
>> Makes me think you
>> press the reply button before reading the entire message...
>
>"Makes" you? Perhaps I don't need to strain at gnats because I am not
>losing track and having my arguments exposed as fallaciouness as you
>are? Therefore I don't really concern myself with those minutia and wish
>to move on exchanging views?
I'm glad to see that you see this as a challenge.
>> Surprisingly I agree with you here, but only because you replied to only
>> a portion of my paragraph.
>
>POT/KETTLE/BLACK
That's weird ed. Do you want to expand?
>> You have not died yet (in this lifetime at least). How can you pretend
>> that you even think you know what death is like. Who has returned TO
>> YOU?
>I did not assert I knew-you did by implying it was automatically
>"unpleasant". Do you always forget your last statements?
Sorry ed. I'm going to call you either a hypocrite or a fool here.
>> >Nope, there is no "thats the way it is"-the way it is -IS the way you
>> >define it to be, and what you put into these nuetral scenarios is what
>> >you extract-true you have been taught rigorously that they are indeed
>> >"difficult" but you can redefine that belief when you choose as well.
>
>> Bullshit. Everyone finds different things difficult. You fail to
>
>They don't "find them," that way, they create them to be that way. They
>have no built-in difficulty to them.
Of course we all have different difficulties. You MUST know this, being
a qualified consellor eh?
>> understand that even the most concerted effort may not sort these
>> difficulties out.
>
>Oh, you believe that do you? Then for you it will require concerted
>effort and you still will not sort them out.
I know that. I will never be a different person. I will age. I will
become more experience and knowledgeable. Hopefully I will become wiser.
I will however still be Linden, and this means that some things may
never be sorted out.
If you have no difficulties, then you obviously cannot understand what
it can be like to have them.
>Thats because you are unaware of the power those defintions have. This
>is learned from years of counsel.
I can't argue with that. You are probably 3 times my age at least.
>> >> Yeah you are right. However your quote is flawed. WE are human beings.
>> >Oh I see, so we are inherently flawed rather than perfect?
>> ROTFL. I can't continue replying. This is too weird. Maybe you think you
>> have been born perfect. I certainly don't.
>
>Everyone has. Therefore, you create the idea that you are not. This
>would then allow you to experience things as "difficult."
>You must introspect about the idea of perfection, it is not a
>"completion" necessarily, it can be that although things are incomplete,
>they will be perfect for now.
However, because everyone views people subjectively (emotionally), your
assertion that we are born perfect and make our own lives is invalid.
If someone is born to be very ugly indeed, other pepole would view the
person as just that - an imperfection. The individual may or may not
feel the same way. However, because other people are being subjective
and personal in viewing this person, the ideal of perfection is
impossible.
Perfection doens't mean I feel I can be perfect. Perfection means
EVERYTHING is perfect - how people see you, how you see yourself, and
how you live in the world. Being perfect would make people jealous of
you, so this would be an imperfection.
>Bashar, Perfection, 2/21/87
Sorry, I didn' have time to read all of that. Have to go to bed.
Seeyalater all.
Linden
Lucianarchy
>Sorry, I didn' have time to read all of that. Have to go to bed.
>
>Seeyalater all.
>
>Linden
" Y'know, I think I recognise your face,
..........but I've never seen you before."
Errr, 'Linden'? Call me psychic, but I think we have shared some things in common or was that
Hyde Park? ;>.......
SB Picnic ;>
http://www.angelfire.com/me/lucianarchy/index.html
ZeroZero Magazine
<robbin...@dial.pipex.com> writes
>ZeroZero Magazine wrote in message ...
>
>>
>>Seeyalater all.
>>
>>Linden
>
>
>..........but I've never seen you before."
>
>Errr, 'Linden'? Call me psychic, but I think we have shared some things in
>common or was that
>Hyde Park? ;>.......
>SB Picnic ;>
>http://www.angelfire.com/me/lucianarchy/index.html
Err, I thought you were being a bit dodgy for a second...then I
thoughSB.
Can barely remember the last time I was at hyde park. It was a little
bit heavy to say the least ;)
Linden
Lucianarchy
>In article <748qti$n9k$1...@plug.news.pipex.net>, Lucianarchy
><robbin...@dial.pipex.com> writes
>>ZeroZero Magazine wrote in message ...
>>
>>>
>>>Seeyalater all.
>>>
>>>Linden
>>
>>
>>..........but I've never seen you before."
>>
>>Errr, 'Linden'? Call me psychic, but I think we have shared some things in
>>common or was that
>>Hyde Park? ;>.......
>>SB Picnic ;>
>>http://www.angelfire.com/me/lucianarchy/index.html
>
>Err, I thought you were being a bit dodgy for a second...then I
>thoughSB.
>
>Can barely remember the last time I was at hyde park. It was a little
>bit heavy to say the least ;)
Yeah, I know. Bobbie Officer said to be, "What are you going to do with your buddies". I
said, "Since it's
a bit cold I'll chillum. "
CIA ( in the UK ) matey :> C.C.News an' all that.....
You need to go here.... it's the last straw (sic).
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/public/interact/index.html
See, told you I was psychic.
Peace.
Luci. ;>
>
>Linden
anonym™
Lucianarchy wrote:
>
> ZeroZero Magazine wrote in message ...
>
> >Sorry, I didn' have time to read all of that. Have to go to bed.
> >
> >Seeyalater all.
> >
> >Linden
>
> " Y'know, I think I recognise your face,
> ..........but I've never seen you before."
>
> Errr, 'Linden'? Call me psychic, but I think we have shared some things in common or was that
> Hyde Park? ;>.......
> SB Picnic ;>
anonym™
Lucianarchy wrote:
>
> ZeroZero Magazine wrote in message ...
> >In article <748qti$n9k$1...@plug.news.pipex.net>, Lucianarchy
> ><robbin...@dial.pipex.com> writes
> >>ZeroZero Magazine wrote in message ...
> >>
> >>>Sorry, I didn' have time to read all of that. Have to go to bed.
> >>>
> >>>Seeyalater all.
> >>>
> >>>Linden
> >>
> >>
> >>" Y'know, I think I recognise your face,
> >>..........but I've never seen you before."
> >>
> >>Errr, 'Linden'? Call me psychic, but I think we have shared some things in
> >>common or was that
> >>Hyde Park? ;>.......
> >>SB Picnic ;>
> >>http://www.angelfire.com/me/lucianarchy/index.html
> >
> >Err, I thought you were being a bit dodgy for a second...then I
> >thoughSB.
> >
> >Can barely remember the last time I was at hyde park. It was a little
> >bit heavy to say the least ;)
>
> Yeah, I know. Bobbie Officer said to be, "What are you going to do with your buddies". I
> said, "Since it's
> a bit cold I'll chillum. "
>
> CIA ( in the UK ) matey :> C.C.News an' all that.....
>
> You need to go here.... it's the last straw (sic).
> http://www.number-10.gov.uk/public/interact/index.html
>
> See, told you I was psychic.
>
> Peace.
>
> Luci. ;>
>
> >
> >Linden
Hmm, no URL for your website.
Did you take it down because of the virus problem you were having?
Edmond Wollmann
> In article <3666D5...@worldnet.att.net>, Edmond Wollmann
> <Pleia...@worldnet.att.net> writes
> >ZeroZero Magazine wrote:
> >> Agreed. However, to experience 'developmental tension' the individual
> >> must encounter a situation which stretches them. This in itself may be
> >> an unenjoyable situation.
> >WHY is it automatically anxiety rather than excitement? "It in itself"
> >has no built in unenjoyability.
> It does not have to be anxiety or excitement. You want to stop defining
> things so strictly. Sometimes emotions are too complicated to write down
> or even explain.
Sure it does and no I don't.
> >> What do you know about any tension I may have? Resisting unecessary
> >I can see your judgmental attitude, therefore I KNOW you would create
> >anxiety.
> Hehehe. You tell me you know my judgemental attitude - that tells me
> that you are a liar or a hypocrite.
Nope, tells us I can discern.
> >> tension is a favourable alternative. Also, how can we possibly know what
> >> is favourable or unfavourable (possible to learn from and impossible to
> >> learn from) in advance. We can speculate only.
> >Nothing is impossible to learn from. You statements make no sense.
> Of course some things are impossible to learn from. Many mundane and
> crap things that happen in life you cannot learn from.
Not possible.
> >> Not necessarily. Anxiety is also anticipation of a situation which
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >CONTAINS EXPECTATIONS-which are beliefs and judgments of the future.
> Are you telling me that you do not think about the future at all?
Please show where that was even slightly implied?
> >Why must we "prepare" for them in order to be having control over them?
> >These are Saturnian powerlessness perspectives. You create your reality
> >100% even though you create the illusion that you only have 10% control
> >over it, you are still using 100% to create that illusion.
> A subjective statement no less. You are numerogically illustrating a
> point you cannot statistically back up.
:-)))
> >> To my subjective mind. Who else? Certainly not you, since you are unable
> >> to tackle life with any degree of subjectivity.
> >"Tackle life"? Why would I need to "tackle" life when it happens
> >effortlessly and joyfuully through me not to me? Also why would I need
> >to TRY to be subjective?
> Life is a challenge. I find it one at least ;). Everything new is
> something that you may potentially need to be prepared for. Living
> effortlessly and joyfully is something that can be done on holiday, but
> is not part of everyday life for me.
Oh, I see, well I have faith that you can change your religiously
dognmatic adherance to negativity no matter how miserable you insist on
being.
"Zephyr in the sky at night I wonder/Do my tears of mourning/Sink
beneath the Sun?/She's got herself a universe/Gone quickly/For the call
of thunder/
THREATENS everyone!?
And I feel!/Like I just got home/And I feel/FASTER
THAN THE SPEEDING LIGHT!!!!" Quicker than a ray of Light! And I feel
And I feel
And I feel
And I feel
Quicker than a ray of Light!" Madonna "Ray Of Light"
anonym™
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> ZeroZero Magazine wrote:
>
> > In article <3666D5...@worldnet.att.net>, Edmond Wollmann
> > <Pleia...@worldnet.att.net> writes
> > >ZeroZero Magazine wrote:
>
> > >> Agreed. However, to experience 'developmental tension' the individual
> > >> must encounter a situation which stretches them. This in itself may be
> > >> an unenjoyable situation.
>
> > >WHY is it automatically anxiety rather than excitement? "It in itself"
> > >has no built in unenjoyability.
>
> > It does not have to be anxiety or excitement. You want to stop defining
> > things so strictly. Sometimes emotions are too complicated to write down
> > or even explain.
>
> Sure it does
No, it doesn't.
> and no I don't.
Oh, yes you do.
But since you like to define hings so strictly, why not use the
dictionaries everyone else is familiar with instead of making up fantasy
definitions for words that only you use?
>
> > >> What do you know about any tension I may have? Resisting unecessary
>
> > >I can see your judgmental attitude, therefore I KNOW you would create
> > >anxiety.
>
> > Hehehe. You tell me you know my judgemental attitude - that tells me
> > that you are a liar or a hypocrite.
>
> Nope, tells us I can discern.
No, tells us you're a liar and an asshole and a hypocrite and that you
have no clue.
>
> > >> tension is a favourable alternative. Also, how can we possibly know what
> > >> is favourable or unfavourable (possible to learn from and impossible to
> > >> learn from) in advance. We can speculate only.
>
> > >Nothing is impossible to learn from. You statements make no sense.
>
> > Of course some things are impossible to learn from. Many mundane and
> > crap things that happen in life you cannot learn from.
>
> Not possible.
It doesn't seem possible that you are able to learn what spamming is.
>
> > >> Not necessarily. Anxiety is also anticipation of a situation which
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >CONTAINS EXPECTATIONS-which are beliefs and judgments of the future.
>
> > Are you telling me that you do not think about the future at all?
>
> Please show where that was even slightly implied?
Yes or no would do it. Did you mean to say having beliefs and judgements
of the future is okay?
>
> > >Why must we "prepare" for them in order to be having control over them?
> > >These are Saturnian powerlessness perspectives. You create your reality
> > >100% even though you create the illusion that you only have 10% control
> > >over it, you are still using 100% to create that illusion.
>
> > A subjective statement no less. You are numerogically illustrating a
> > point you cannot statistically back up.
>
> :-)))
Translation: He agrees that he cannot back it up.
>
> > >> To my subjective mind. Who else? Certainly not you, since you are unable
> > >> to tackle life with any degree of subjectivity.
>
> > >"Tackle life"? Why would I need to "tackle" life when it happens
> > >effortlessly and joyfuully through me not to me? Also why would I need
> > >to TRY to be subjective?
>
> > Life is a challenge. I find it one at least ;). Everything new is
> > something that you may potentially need to be prepared for. Living
> > effortlessly and joyfully is something that can be done on holiday, but
> > is not part of everyday life for me.
>
> Oh, I see, well I have faith that you can change your religiously
> dognmatic adherance to negativity no matter how miserable you insist on
> being.
Eddie, you are being a negative religious zealot cocksucking bigot.
Please refrain.
And quit quoting Madonna. That fucking cunt is such a whore.
ZeroZero Magazine
<robbin...@dial.pipex.com> writes
>>Can barely remember the last time I was at hyde park. It was a little
>>bit heavy to say the least ;)
>
>Yeah, I know. Bobbie Officer said to be, "What are you going to do with your
>buddies". I
>said, "Since it's
>a bit cold I'll chillum. "
You know that. In this cold weather you know you need something
hardcore. (my hands can barely type its so cold)...
>
>CIA ( in the UK ) matey :> C.C.News an' all that.....
>
>You need to go here.... it's the last straw (sic).
>http://www.number-10.gov.uk/public/interact/index.html
I hope you've been there ;). I'll probably get arrested by the old bit
of straw before long...
>
>See, told you I was psychic.
I believe you now!
Test your psychic powers now...what am I making at the moment ;) <g>
Linden
Lucianarchy
><robbin...@dial.pipex.com> writes
>
>>>Can barely remember the last time I was at hyde park. It was a little
>>>bit heavy to say the least ;)
>>
>>Yeah, I know. Bobbie Officer said to be, "What are you going to do with your
>>buddies". I
>>said, "Since it's
>>a bit cold I'll chillum. "
>
>You know that. In this cold weather you know you need something
>hardcore. (my hands can barely type its so cold)...
>
>
>>
>>CIA ( in the UK ) matey :> C.C.News an' all that.....
>>
>>You need to go here.... it's the last straw (sic).
>>http://www.number-10.gov.uk/public/interact/index.html
>
>I hope you've been there ;). I'll probably get arrested by the old bit
>of straw before long...
been, there, seen that, done it!
>>See, told you I was psychic.
>
>I believe you now!
>
>Test your psychic powers now...what am I making at the moment ;) <g>
>
>Linden
.... eeeerm <mind-meld-mode lock-on>.... a rather beautiful reconstruction of the Northern
Lights?
..or is that something you're trying to make out of (yeeuch!!) soap<f.b.g>
Luci.
ZeroZero Magazine
<robbin...@dial.pipex.com> writes
>>I hope you've been there ;). I'll probably get arrested by the old bit
>>of straw before long...
>
>been, there, seen that, done it!
Fortunately the gods have been on my side when old bill have turned up
while billing up. Don't know how long that luck will last!
>
>>>See, told you I was psychic.
>>
>>I believe you now!
>>
>>Test your psychic powers now...what am I making at the moment ;) <g>
>>
>>Linden
>
>.... eeeerm <mind-meld-mode lock-on>.... a rather beautiful reconstruction of
>the Northern
>Lights?
>..or is that something you're trying to make out of (yeeuch!!) soap<f.b.g>
It was something rather smelly I'm afraid ;). It was beautiful, I got
mashed.
Linden
Stella
ZeroZero Magazine wrote:
>
>
> It was something rather smelly I'm afraid ;). It was beautiful, I got
> mashed.
Was it black and pliable?
Waiting to exhale... (V.B.G!!)
>
>
> Linden
--
Stella Hill
Sceptic astrologer and Official Cahooter
"Many a night I saw the Pleiads, rising through the mellow shade,
Glitter like a swarm of fire-flies tangled in a silver braid."
-Tennyson
<to email me: remove NOSPAM.>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ZeroZero Magazine
<ma...@pop.net.ntl.com> writes
>
>
>ZeroZero Magazine wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> It was something rather smelly I'm afraid ;). It was beautiful, I got
>> mashed.
>
>Was it black and pliable?
>
>Waiting to exhale... (V.B.G!!)
No actually it looked rather orangy!
Lots of orange hairs were the prevailing features...
Passing it on...<g>