Stosh

Transactions and Strokes Transactions are the flow of communication, and more specifically the unspoken psychological flow of communication that runs in parallel. Transactions occur simultaneously at both explicit and psychological levels. Example: sweet caring voice with sarcastic intent. To read the real communication requires both surface and non-verbal reading. Strokes are the recognition, attention or responsiveness that one person gives another. Strokes can be positive (nicknamed "warm fuzzies"[9]) or negative ("cold pricklies"). A key idea is that people hunger for recognition, and that lacking positive strokes, will seek whatever kind they can, even if it is recognition of a negative kind. We test out as children what strategies and behaviours seem to get us strokes, of whatever kind we can get. People often create pressure in (or experience pressure from) others to communicate in a way that matches their style, so that a boss who talks to his staff as a controlling parent will often engender self-abasement or other childlike responses. Those employees who resist may get removed or labeled as "trouble". Transactions can be experienced as positive or negative depending on the nature of the strokes within them. However, a negative transaction is preferred to no transaction at all, because of a fundamental hunger for strokes. The nature of transactions is important to understanding communication. There you go , cause and cure for apathy Next question..

If you never wanted to discuss these matters , you could always opt to ,, not to. But it appears you want to deride western influence and blame person B for the acts of person A Why would anyone want to do that ? Its because they dont have anything bad to say about person B, and they want to find something. I expect a great many posts that you will write have the same slant, Ill have to check and see.

Yeah its a tough call, but Id be willing to point out everybody elses flaws without hesitation.

Ok ya got the cougar, and ya got your sparrows pegged, Who is the spirit guide next up for Mh Fess up

That's fine , I can leave off comfortably right there.

Still not a declarative answer, still shuckin and jivin

this is but one of the vague statements you have made which seem to indicate that you believe in a god. If you don't then you can just clean all that up with a simple declaration rather than dance around it. Once done ,you can go ahead and explain what anchors your ideas of universal morality. This thing where you toss out five word sentences or dictionary definitions isn't doing anything to define or explain anything seriously.

No body and spirit are not one and the same.and you indicate that , imply that they aren't or your sentence would have to read something else But lets say that was just an artifact of linguistic expression, what does your corrected sentence look like?

The hitchcock movies? Why would they mention cougars?

They appear to be enthusiastic but evasive.

I was under the impression that spirit guides were temporary teachers of wisdoms which we were lacking .Which seems to make better sense than having a guide for what we already know. I can see you being cougarlike, so your spirit guide should be the sparrow. Oh no, did I just get myself a peck of troubles!

This stage can be rough and tumble..a proving ground Or it could be a soapbox to sing out platitudes Best it would be for the author of a thread to guide it. Some have learned to do that well , and they set a standard. It isn't easy to have the self control and clarity of purpose to do so. Others just want to drop in here and there, and make a comment or two Sometimes about tangential issues, sometimes in outright contention. There are always competing motivations for free expression and control of it. Tolerance patience equinanimity flexibility etc are all good things to cultivate. And such a venue as it is here represents opportunity for that development. Some 'would be' teacher who hasn't yet mastered these things in himself , should still be considered,, but isn't really established in credentials.

Still the deity is not proven nor provable nor disprovable. I personally cosider it a conjured up paradigmmjust as I figure you consider pagan religions false.If there is some god outside this three dimensional universe , he is not interested in screwing up or blessing your life in particular, the laws of physics are maintained not defied not varying , so not only is he not provable, he is also irrelevant.

Interesting reading , although I don't know the people and contexts independently from the texts provided.So I should hesitate at grasping at them myself. But yes it would appear the stigma about the meat thing is actually a later development. Wwroa could still argue that the fall occured either before or after that time period.

Its great if you think the proofis in the pudding But before you decide that it means your god is real , you should examine compare to cultures that don't suffer from the "righteous god" stuff. Like I pointed out earlier this thread isn't inherently about the health effects of arbitrary dietary concerns. If you want to go over that stuff rather than discuss the spiritual stuff , I don't really want to participate since it is a different subject entangling the bigger issue. ( but I consider you to have been misled about that as well , for the same reason)

Well 'my' philosophy of that is more graft than seedling. I am not sure we mean the term the same way. A person can have opinions of what constitute right or wrong, they are just not backed up by any god. Cannibals have no problem with killing and eating their enemies, somtimes they eat loved ones who have already passed on. You and I may think it wrong. What makes you think that your Idea of wrong has superiority to theirs? If not the backing of some imaginary deity.

The stage and play

Why don't native americans ever seem to mention cougars?

When I was a little kid , I wanted to know what was greater-a lion or a tiger I found out tigers often get larger And I thought I knew something One day someone pointed out that male lions were born brawlers The mane helped protect as well as intimidate so the lion was greater I thought I knew something One day someone told me A lion is a lion and a tiger is a tiger Then I knew something true

It is odd ifyou expect the synonyms to jive well , but like the other one it is just an abstraction,, and as such the meaning is just related to usage. Recall, civil war ?

I like crows, they seem like the only birds smart enough to goof around Watch them on a windy day , they swoop and swirl like surfers at the beach Jonathan livingston seagull should have been a crow.

I believe I am very much in agreent with you on all of that, and it was gracefully said.

Could it be that only now you are starting to grok Tao! The answers to those last questions have been getting presented to you a long time ruminate on them and learn who you have been so often ..not hearing.

we are in basic agreement about the rise and fall thing, but rising and falling more accurately is a vertical change relative to something. Since we are playing dictionary here today as if one another was stupid or not english speaking Compassion is a sentiment. It is not good or bad unless you define it to be good or bad and it is still just your dualistic opinion The natural world gets along just fine without it.

You are misunderstanding the dictionary yes saying human can be substituted by some with the word humane but that is just opinion.It doesn't mean that the two words are equivalent. Humans can do things either humane inhumane os have nothing to do with benevolence. A lion kills a zebra and no one decries it as inhumane. A bird brings food to a nest and noone says the bird was acting humane. Yet both lions and birds may kill their food and give it to offspring. You are making a sef fulfilling circular argument to say that one is defined by humane behavior and at the same time you are expecting that behavior only by one who is human, besides , only a human can be called inhumane , it is the same logic in reverse.