Given the 'personality' packaging of these kinds of 'virtual' sites (JSH, myspace, facebook), the 'projecting', from an 'ego', and manipulative 'marketing package' perspective, might certainly be an angle from which to tackle this question: 'pure cosmetics'.

But from what I know of 'Jess', and the follow-up questions of this post, the question might point more to notions of awareness, followed by taking responsibility of how we 'occur' to others, such that a 'purpose' is either 'forwarded' or 'inhibited'.

The trick in the question being, if WE are TRYING to project, it can only be vain, fake, and interested.
If we are sincere, on the other hand, we are not trying to project anything, we ar just 'engaged' in some purposeful exchange, authentically and sincerely.

But that doesn't mean that 'something' is not 'projected' onto others!!!

And that is the interesting part.

If we are sincere and real in our journey, we are not present to our personal preoccupations, which would include 'how we come across to others', or what we project. And yet, how we come across onto others plays an essential function in our capacity to relate significantly with others.

It is 'others', and not the 'projector' himself, that has the essential and useful 'read' of one's projection 'in the moment'.

Asking others how we occur to them is, IMO, how one gets a picture of what one projects.

In the end, one trying to project, only projects a 'trying' picture, a 'fake' attempt at being.

Trying to be, is the most effective poison to being!!!


A lot. Have often been surprised at the degree of authenticity and transparency that has come through in some posts, from a few people.

Have also tried to tone down my 'repulsion' of the delusional attitudes, or comments of some others posters. Have not always been successful at the toning down though.

This one is a brain twister for me. One doesn't 'exist' to himself, without is his 'self-conscious' dimension. That's ego in a nutshell.

So anyone pretending to be intervening consciously in anything without 'ego', is doing just that, pretending.

We can't seperate ego from separating our 'I' from the rest, and yet, can't access the rest without disengaging 'ego'. That's the brain twister.

I don't know the answer, but I am fascinated with this practice of keeping the 'ego' in check, and being present to something other than 'ego', which surprises always. 'Listening for' something beyond, or behind what is said (the words), to hear 'whom' one really is in his/her essence.


All the time!!!

The gift isn't to get everyone to agree with you, or 'like' you. The gift is coming out of an exchange with the authentic sentiment that you were true to yourself and 'straight' and 'fair' to others.

In that, life takes care of revealing to you, those whom already share the same fundamental values. They recognize in you, what already lives in them. Those, IMO, are the quintessential meetings of life. Have been privileged to make such meetings here, at JSH.

Goodness Cloudy, I wondered why you weren't popping in as much. That explains why the fun level in some forum's went down a bit.

Oh so true. The ego is an ‘illusion’ but that doesn’t mean that we can make it go away.

Time is also an ‘illusion’, yet realizing this does not stop the perception of it.

These things are like an image in a mirror, or a shadow in the light.

We can recognize that their essence is illusion, but that doesn’t make them go away.

No one can make their ego go away anymore than they can lose their shadow.

But we can recognize its essence, and in doing so, come to the realization that things are not as we had first imagined them to be.

Lose the ego, find the true self, and then realize that the true self will always have an ego.

But the importance of the ego, and its dominance, will no longer be the central theme of thy self.

~~~

Also, like a mirror,… when someone is submersed in ego they tend to cause others to reflect that same perspective even when the other person may not have the inclination to go there.

Everyone has ‘ego buttons’ that anyone can push.

The key in life is to recognize our buttons and not let others push them for us.

I tell you this because I have learned these things ‘intellectually’, but this does not mean that I have mastered their control ‘emotionally’.

Knowing truth, and living it, are two entirely differnet things.

It takes a constant effort, a constant continuous effort. And that effort can wear people thin.

A person can only turn the other cheek for so long before they finally erupt with a crushing blow aimed at decapitating their agitator.

There needs to be a balance between interacting with humans and smashing the skulls of lifeless jack-O-lanterns for the sole purpose of wallowing in the pure seductive pleasure of it.

Maybe we should all grow pumpkins in our backyards?

I confess that I am guilty of not trying hard enough to master the control of my own buttons. This is an area that I know how to work on, but I am guilty of sloth and procrastination when it comes to actually implementing this wisdom.

As Voil so correctly points out,…



It’s hard to soar like an eagle when it sometimes appears that you’re amidst a flock of turkeys.

We all need to learn how to soar above and beyond the gobblings of lesser fowl.

And this is true no matter which ‘side’ we think we are on.

There are no ‘sides’ there are only turkeys and eagles.

And as Voil so correctly points out,…



If we could all truly master this sentiment there would be no egos clashing.

I certainly confess that I have neither mastered it, nor do I work toward mastering it with the diligence that I should devote to it. But I am trying hard to work in that direction.

Again, knowing truth, and living it, are not one in the same. But at least knowing truth can help one work toward trying to live it.

I would like to answer my own OP...and perhaps explain my motivation for it, in a little more depth.

I sit here, and read, many of the posters comments in different topics, here, in religion, and in other forums here.... and I wonder...

Am I 'seeing' a pattern of behaviour? Am I judging, the beliefs of another? When the person is consistently comfortable, with the 'stance' they take...is this ok, for me to undertake an understanding of them, a facet of their desire nature?

Who am I to others here? Do they 'see' me?
Knowing that the person, or personality, that reflects in these pages, is a quintessential portion of the Who of me, limited by this medium, am I 'projected' authentically?

I am attempting, to view myself, as well as other posters,
through unattached eyes....to be almost bland, and non-emotional in allowing the other's post, as well as my own, to wash over me, and not be re-active... to give the space for the essence of the poster's thoughts to wash over me, without judgement.

Impartiality....a constant internal battle.... to step away from the 'I', in posts.... to allow again, the message to arise, without attachment, or judgement... to try to step away from how 'I' view and absorb another's posts.

With fairly regular, and historical posting, we develop a 'sense' of others.... an understanding, if you wish.... as to the Who of someone..... I ask myself, am I seeing the Who, or the What?

If I am narrowing my perspective of the person down to a set of labels, i am seeing the What.

If I allow, and with no attachment, the opportunity, to go further than the words...I can sense, the person behind the screen, the 'flavour' of the person... the collective awareness, that we are only attacking and judging ourselves, when attacking, and judging another...

And I don't wish to be like that.

I don't want to separate us further, I want to let go of the attachment to the projection of who I might be, and be the Who of me...as I want to be capable of doing with others.

I always project myself here.
Ego is the biggest problem that not allow these forums to be the peaceful place that they are meant to be.
Sometimes people likes to attack the Who instead of the what the who is saying.
When this happens it all becomes messed up.

I'm happy that i've been pushed out of these forums for the life's circumstances. I was feeling so overwhelmed by some people's egoes.

hhhhmmmm.......

It may be a difficult assignment that I do indeed give myself, but it's got my attention none the less.

To imagine the artfully passionate and reckless abandonment of sexual inhibitions that any one woman in here may possess and display through her words that can be assumed to take on an erotic creativity when in the presence and companionship of her desires and choosing.

Breathtaking propensities cleverly embellished with subtlety and grace.

quietly screaming for attendance and wanton delirium leading only to absorption of time and circumstance filled with an endless embrace of mutual pleasure and contentment feeding the fires of romance with coals of distinction and flames of consumption.

That's all it is.















what?

I'm just me.

Mirrors mirrors everywhere

... it is like being in the funhouse really .... some reflections I like ... .and some just make me look fat

like I say....



Welcome to the funhouse, hun...

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We need really tall curvy slides and wax paper!!!!

whoooo-shhhh yiiieeeeeeeeeee thump

Ahhhhhh, great fun!

Obviously we all love each other or we wouldn't keep coming back for more.

I am...but me....
I presume to be no other....
I am ...what I am.....
who I am......
and I will always be......
only .......
me

There is no point to communication if the point is not to ‘react’. With a little effort, though, I think everyone can be more attuned to being a ‘critical’ reader rather than allowing preconceptions to interfere with the material at hand.

Being a critical reader, requires that one take the time to think, what do I really know about this topic, do I have questions the writer needs to clarify, do I want to prove a point in return, do I want to point out error, or do I just want to state my reason for an opposing view? Or maybe I just want to show my agreement by being supportive. NOTICE that the critical is not based as much on the writer as on the reader to analyze and determine a course of action.



We are in a community where ideas, opinions and theories are bantered about. That makes it an ‘interaction’, that requires us to ‘react’ to the writing and we often do that by making connection with the writer, though preconceived bias or partiality.

Yet, it is a connection, none-the-less. It may not be the connection that provides some deeper ‘oneness’ or essence to essence, but it is a connection between individuals. It is these connections, no matter how you define them, label them or perceive them, that keep us from becoming “totally separated”.

In the end if we can be more critical of our own thoughts, if we accept that people are exposed, minute by minute, to experiences that can change them then we have to be ready to read a familiar poster as someone ‘new’ with each post. We must be able to view it from a the new person that it originated from, not the one or our preconception.

Communication is the means by which we connect, the experiences of those communications change us, that is an involuntary ‘reaction’ stemming from our perceptions of those communications. To expect more from ourselves than nature itself has endowed us with, it to pay homage to that ego ,“I”, that we are all attempting to detach from.

Do not over analize what is natural.

Yes to the post i do find it hard. people dont realize as a Christian that i actually care about people. The fact that Athiests, Agnostics people come on here and specifically Bash me for being Christian is rather interestings. Athiest and Agnostics are "God" peroid not against Christianity. So in a sence i have a reason to be on the forms, do these men have such rights as to come on these forms posting irrelevant information such as quotes from people who are dead, Straw man, and other lack of logic questions? Whats the point for people to waste thier time with name calling? In my opinion if you really cared you come to learn not to prove a point.

I think we all perceive things through our own perspective.

You see atheists and agnostic as ‘bashing’ you because you are a Christian.

But from their perspective they see you as ‘bashing’ them for not being Christians.

It’s a two-way street my friend.



Well, I don’t know about you, but from my perspective that vast majority of the threads that are currently active seem to be Christians trying to ‘prove’ Christianity is correct and all other views are wrong.

In all honestly my friend, I don’t believe that any of this is indented to be on a personal level.

In all honestly my friend, I believe that the problem lies with the Christian religion itself.

How can I be so arrogant to say such a thing?

Well, because it is the very nature of Christianity to proselytize and attempt to convince, and convert all other philosophies and religions to its point of view.

Most of the atheists and agnostics couldn’t care less what you believe!

But if you’re going to come on here and join the proselytizing parade to defend Christianity against all other philosophical positions then you most certainly shouldn’t feel like anyone is bashing you since in reality you are here to bash anything that’s non-Christian.

Even if you may not view it that way, this is how you are going to come across to everyone. You have chosen your foxhole in the front lines and now you complain that the war is unjust.

It’s about Christianity against the world! And I feel justified in saying that because it is Christianity that insists on proselytizing their view onto everyone else!

The rest of the world isn’t out to attack Christianity, they are out to defend against the proselytizing nature of Christianity that is being pushed onto them.

Now you may say, “Wait hold on! That’s not true! There are threads that directly attack Christianity!”

Yes this is true! But that’s just the offensive segment of the defense against the proselytizing nature of Christianity.

Christianity brings this upon itself for the very simple and blatant reason that it is indeed a proselytizing religion that is fundamentally out to convert the world to its way of thinking.

You can’t be a member of a proselytizing religion and play the ‘innocent’ card.

It's going to be superceded by the card of legitimate defense against proselytizing every time.

So think twice about who is ‘attacking’ whom. This isn’t anyone’s personal war. It’s all about a religion that has decided that it holds the only truth concerning God and it is hell bent on proselytizing it’s views onto everyone else.

You don’t see other religions fighting among themselves here. It’s always Christianity against the world! And not because the world is attacking Christianity (expect perhaps in defense), but because Christianity is attacking the world with their proselytizing.

So if you are going to side with a proselytizing religion, at least wake-up to the front lines you’ve chosen to join. You, my friend, have chosen to be on the attack by your very choice of religion. Whether you’ve made this choice as an individual or not, is irrelevant, it automatically comes with the proselytizing religion you’ve chosen.

So don’t play the “innocent” card. That just makes you look naïve. It makes it appear that you have no clue what your religion, as an organized intuition, is actually all about!

....<
..<
<===================
..<
....<

drifting off into nobody

in nowheres ville

but it is irrelevant

(((( Robin ))))
You are you
and yes it makes a difference
Muahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

yes

but oh well

we shall see

You look good in neutral gray Robin.

Like a clean slate.

Maybe we should all start over with a clean slate.