[Angela]

Originally Posted by MrsCogan

If that were true, it would be discoverable, too, by comparing notes. In fact it's not true. When one scientist describes a leg and moves on, the next scientist finds the same leg and produces a description similar to that of the first scientist. The 2nd scientist confirms the shape the 1st scientist discovered.

When something is touched, particularly something organic, the physical shape is changed, if only slightly. It doesn't take a scientist to see that, it's observable by a layperson. And if the touched entity has nerve endings, the shape of its feelings is also changed by being touched. (Maybe even if it doesn't have nerve endings -- there may be "feelings" I can't conceive of!)

you need to provide an example. I don't know what you are talking about.

There you go with your mandates again. I feel that you really do have a Bossy Boots style of communication, Mrs.Cogan! I was referring to your claim that your use of "You have to ____" was "obviously a metaphor". A metaphor is a figure of speech in which one reference is used as a symbolic designation of something else. For instance, the elephant story is a metaphor, because the elephant represents "reality". So if you are using "You have to ____" as a metaphor, what is that a symbolic designation of? Whatever it is, it's not obvious to me.

all of us--including you--believe we are right. I believe we do not create our own reality. Our minds interpret reality differently, but that's not the same as making it up as you go along. I'm not sure how you can make a statement you believe is true and then explain it to people who disagree and have that not be freedom. Everyone is free to support their ideas with evidence. To pretend they are not capable of that isn't very loving or respectful. I'm pushing people to think about what they believe. I don't mind in the least if people try to push me to do the same thing--in fact I welcome it.

Of course you and I believe what you and I believe, and of course there is no freedom lost when expressing those beliefs. But what you have done since you've arrived is to express your beliefs and announce that anyone who believes otherwise is wrong and you are right. That is an approach that I feel lacks love and respect. You are free to do that, naturally, but since this is a forum in which love, respect and freedom or highly valued, I felt free to express my invitation to try another approach. You seem to have a completely different idea of what constitutes freedom and love in a conversation and that's the way it goes. That's all I'll say about it; you go on about your business of being right and making others wrong if you wish. I was merely offering an invitation and you appear to be rsvp'ing your regrets. Again, that's the way it goes!

Clearly you are made uncomfortable by the conflict of ideas and I'm sorry about that. But conversations like these spark learning and growth for all involved, even the lurkers, and I think they are valuable.

I agree with you that conversations like these are valuable for everyone. However, you are being quite presumptuous with the statement that I'm clearly made uncomfortable by the conflict of ideas. I would strongly prefer that you approach conversations here without clinging to your presumptions, but again, you're free to presume all you want (until you egregiously break the forum rules, of course.)

I escape from the loop by respectfully studying reality as it is (and loving reality as it is) and by avoiding wishful thinking and self-deception as much as I can.

It looks to me like you are still caught in the loop of a win/lose conversational style, and that you don't know you don't it.