Quote
foodguypdx
So, to say it again, the Forum is like going to a restaurant...if you like what happened then it could be called a good experience, if you did not like what happened then it could be called a bad experience. It is up to YOU to decide for yourself. Because, what you call bad and what the next person calls bad could very well be 2 entirely different things. There is no interpretation here, it is simply up to you to decide for yourself what is good and bad for you! That is why you can make choices and decissions.

While I think there is an element of truth to Foodguy's statement, I don't think making decisions is this black and white. Certainly, two people can eat the exact same meal at a restaurant and one person will love it, while another will hate it. This is the subjective experience. But I think there is also an objective aspect to every experience. Say, for instance I go to a restaurant with friends and have a great experience, but some of my friends get food poisoning (and I don't know of too many people who would call this good, although I guess there could be someone out there who would). I also notice while eating that the place does not meet my standards of cleanliness. Thus, while I might have had a basicly positive experience, I might decide not to go to that restaurant again, based on my observations that my friends got food poisoning and the place was not clean. Plus, my the positive aspects of my experience will be overshadowed by my friends getting sick.

I also think that some life experiences are inherently more nurturing and life affirming than others. And no amount of mental manipulation can make an inherently bad experience (e.g., abusive relationships, loss of a loved one) into a good experience. We can learn and grow from all experiences, good or bad, but this is not the same as denying that something bad has happened. We get through these difficult experiences not by pretending that they are good, but through being vulnerable and allowing ourselves to be supported and comforted when the going gets tough.

Landmark seems to strongly polarize experiences into good/bad without allowing for the fact that life is seldom so black and white, or clear cut.

QE

Quote
QuestionEverything

Quote
foodguypdx
So, to say it again, the Forum is like going to a restaurant...if you like what happened then it could be called a good experience, if you did not like what happened then it could be called a bad experience. It is up to YOU to decide for yourself. Because, what you call bad and what the next person calls bad could very well be 2 entirely different things. There is no interpretation here, it is simply up to you to decide for yourself what is good and bad for you! That is why you can make choices and decissions.

While I think there is an element of truth to Foodguy's statement, I don't think making decisions is this black and white. Certainly, two people can eat the exact same meal at a restaurant and one person will love it, while another will hate it. This is the subjective experience. But I think there is also an objective aspect to every experience. Say, for instance I go to a restaurant with friends and have a great experience, but some of my friends get food poisoning (and I don't know of too many people who would call this good, although I guess there could be someone out there who would). I also notice while eating that the place does not meet my standards of cleanliness. Thus, while I might have had a basicly positive experience, I might decide not to go to that restaurant again, based on my observations that my friends got food poisoning and the place was not clean. Plus, my the positive aspects of my experience will be overshadowed by my friends getting sick.

I also think that some life experiences are inherently more nurturing and life affirming than others. And no amount of mental manipulation can make an inherently bad experience (e.g., abusive relationships, loss of a loved one) into a good experience. We can learn and grow from all experiences, good or bad, but this is not the same as denying that something bad has happened. We get through these difficult experiences not by pretending that they are good, but through being vulnerable and allowing ourselves to be supported and comforted when the going gets tough.

Landmark seems to strongly polarize experiences into good/bad without allowing for the fact that life is seldom so black and white, or clear cut.

QE

I think the LGAT people either are not telling the whole truth or they simply are clueless to the extent that their "we create our own reality" is based on a Scientology principle that takes for granted such things as Higher=Self awareness, omnipotence and reincarnation.

LGAT's also inappropriately, in this context, confuse New Age theory of RELATIVE awareness versus ABSOLUTE awareness:

Relative consciousness is materialistic and dualistic. Pain hurts and pleasure feels good. If we have no way to transcend the five physical senses then that's the end of the argument. For someone to say otherwise is either a liar, drugged or deluded.

Absolute awareness, on the other hand, would theoretically see the big picture, would transcend such material-existence dualities and perhaps not experience and interpret pain/pleasure and other dualities in the same way if at all. Furthermore it would not be limited to the five senses, have access to the whole picture and be able to "manifest" another "reality" accordingly. That's the REAL New Age definition of creating your own reality.

I've read counltess posts here and elsewhere written by such LGAT promoters of the "we create our own reality" blame game. There's absolutely no way the LGAT's theory makes sense if everyone is a purely physical being limited to the five senses since the five sense have such a limited range and are so inaccurate and easily distorted. And what' more their perceptions are furher muddled by the psyche of the individual who may grossly misinterpret what they percieve through their cognitive distortions or even physical illnesses.

So the LGAT verson of "we create our own reality" blame game makes no sense either scientifically or from the typical New Age spirituality perspective. And it's really not about ontology anyway, it's about instilling irrational guilt and anxiety in the victim manipulate to buy a "cure" for an artificially created "need."

I hope any New Agers here particularly take note, for such LGAT promoters think most New Agers are easier patsies for their manipulations. They target chiropractors, acupuncturists, Reiki practitioners, yoga instructors and others who often pride themselves on being more tolerant of alternative spiritualities and medicines. While I find that sentiment laudable, please keep in mind that it's not being more "tolerant' or "enlightened" to expose yourself to something without checking it out first. It's not being "negative" to think critically, have an opinion and say no. Prove the LGAT people wrong and show them just how sharp you all can be.


CNFT