1. Unfortunately The Project Meditation Community Forum is no longer active. Although registration and the creation of new posts not possible, you can still read and search the forum...

    If you are unable to find what you are looking for within the Project Meditation Community please check out our new Blog and/or our Facebook page.

Hard to reconcile

Discussion in 'The Law Of Attraction' started by enlighteneduk, Apr 21, 2009.

  1. sliccy

    sliccy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    This is great!

    I have heard this before that you are not your mind, and the real "you" is in control of what you think. When I read it this time I was stunned for about 2 minutes just thinking about it's simplicity, it totally put everything into perspective. Thank you!


    I think I know what you mean, "seeing" with both sides. I think, but I am not certain this has happened to me occassionally ever since I started reading New Age material.

    But regarding the tree, are you saying even though there might be no brain, mind, or whatever it is simply some sort of different intelligence...something alternative? Or perhaps it's even all three, intellectual, emotional, and presence? I am not sure I fully understand.
     
  2. Edwin

    Edwin Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,858
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Exactly !

    Or do you ?

    ( Oh you are going to hate me for this answer )
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2009
  3. GilesC

    GilesC Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,856
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    *nod*
    Sometimes it's so simple it's difficult to understand.

    I like to look at it simply as follows:

    Who am "I"?
    • The cells in my body have died and been replaced many times since I was born, but "I" have always existed and observed this happening.
    • My emotions come and go, but "I" observe this happening and "I" am still the same "I" that existed before the emotion arose as "I" am after.
    • My memories are simply experiences from the past and "I" can observe any memory "I" choose.
    • "I" can observe my thoughts coming and going, yet "I" am still the same "I" that existed before the thought as "I" am after.
    Therefore "I" cannot be the physical body, "I" cannot be the emotions, "I" cannot be the memories and "I" cannot be the thoughts. "I" am simply the observer of all these things and "I" never changes. This is my True Self... the unchanging observer.

    Once this is recognised we can choose to let the negative emotions go, let the negative memories go, let the thoughts go, and come to understand who we truly are.

    The mind (our unconscious and conscious thoughts) cannot be our True Self, but ego makes us believe that we are the thoughts (and the emotions and the physical body) and masks the True Self from recognition.

    The ego is our attachment to things in the universe. In vedic teachings, the ego is called Ahankara (or Ahamkara) where Aham is the True Self and Kara is anything in the world. Freeing ourselves of these attachments (there's a buddhist concept for you!) allows us to connect with our True Self. Hence, meditation is a good practice for being free of the thoughts and the control of the mind and that occasional glimpse we get (sometimes scary at first) of being out of our body and a part of the whole universe, completely at peace, completely blissful, or however you want to describe it, is the recognition of BEing our True Self.

    E=mc^2 (Einstein's equation for energy and mass)

    What that basically tells us is that Mass and Energy are directly related, or in simple terms, all mass is energy.

    We know that the energy binds together to form the physical universe we see, and quantum physics has shown that sub-atomic particles have something called quantum entanglement, where a particle in one place of the universe is connected to another particle in another place of the universe (local experiments have proven this over a distance of several miles). This clearly shows that all energy is connected and we are not just bound into single entities.

    As such, the energy of our physical bodies, our memories, our thoughts (for they are all energy)... everything is connected with the energy of everything else in the Universe.

    This can be labelled how we like... "At One", "One Consciousness", "One Intelligence"... even "God" if you like. We are all part of the other... We are all One.

    So is it something "alternative"? How can you have an alternative to something that is everything; something that is All. ;)

    At least that's the way I look at it.

    :)

    Hugs

    Giles

    p.s. Sorry if all that was a bit heavy. :D
     
  4. Edwin

    Edwin Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,858
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    That is a very excellent explanation Giles !

    What struck me after about a year of "easing into" this concept, is that all religions talk about this same thing, about what Giles explained, and that this has been a knowledge after reaching a certain degree of enlightenment for thousands of years...

    And only now is science starting to prove it.
    Mind you, we would not have gotten here if it weren't for the enlightenment of a person with a talent for mathematics, Albert Einstein. He was able to show his knowledge of enlightenment with a mathematical equasion.
    Based on his work came the experiments that made quantum physics what it is today.

    It takes a lot of getting into this concept, because the mind will try to tell you that this is all impossible. All I can say is, try to feel it rather than rationalise it. Albert Einstein could, why not you ?
     
  5. sliccy

    sliccy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Giles, thank you once again for your insightful explainations.

    Now that this question is answered for me, I think I have another one.

    It's regarding the Law of Attraction and Science. Now, I have heard many of the gurus saying that LOA is scientifcally proven, Bob Proctor being one of the main ones. But I have stumbled across criticism on varies occasions. The most recent one, I was just Googleing some LOA material and I wanted to see what wiki had on it. There was a section specifically on the criticism LOA has received. Most of it directed towards The Secret.

    Law of Attraction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Here is the link to the Wikipedia.

    I do realize that this is always been around, some people agree with a certain concept and other don't.

    My question is what do you do when you read something like this that trys to disprove what you on one level or another know to be true. How do you stay "positive". That was a great thing you said Edwin, to try and not rationalize this but try to comprehend it on an emotional level (feel it).

    But what do you guys do when something like this comes up? Do you just ignore it? Or do you try to find another scientific research to disprove theres? I mean, what do you do?
     
  6. Ta-tsu-wa

    Ta-tsu-wa Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    282
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Sliccy

    The problem is that people often use that term "scientifically proven" in a very loose, inaccurate way. When they do, and when those familiar with the process of science call them on it, things can look negative for those who made that claim.

    Science is a process, and it isn't just a vague process it is a very specific, exact process.

    Greatly simplified it would look something like this:

    Observation [leads to] Hypothesis [leads to] Testing of Hypothesis [leads to] Successful or Unsuccessful Predictability [leads to] Replication of Hypothesis Testing By Others] = Valid Theory OR Invalid Theory.

    And if the theory is found to be valid and enough successful testing is performed by others, both duplicating the original testing methodology as well as testing in new and different ways to insure the outcomes are consistently the same, then a Theory gets elevated to the level of a "Law", as in the "Law of Gravity."

    This whole process, followed exactly, step, by step, by step, is called "the scientific method." Any time someone claims a thing has been "scientifically proven" or words to that effect, in order for that to be a true statement this thing they're referring to must have been put through these steps in a very precise way. If it has not been tested using this methodology then it is not "scientifically proven," end of story.

    Any researcher will tell you that the most difficult part of applying this scientific method is in devising ways to test the validity of a hypothesis. Tests must be designed precisely so as to validate what is being tested for and eliminate or exclude all other possible causes.

    For example, remember a year or so ago there was a salmonella outbreak that was blamed on tomatoes? People began contracting salmonella so health officials started looking for patterns of commonality between these people. They noticed something or other about these people having all recently eaten hamburgers or some such thing, which contained tomatoes. I don't recall the exact details but it was something along those lines.

    So they made an observation about salmonella and tomatoes and immediately put a ban on tomatoes and tomato products. As things turned out this was a bad call because it wasn't the tomatoes at all that ended up being the cause of the salmonella. It was something else that was often associated with tomatoes. The health officials were responsible for imposing severe financial consequences on tomato growers because they did not adequately test their hypothesis. They made a quick association with tomatoes and jumped on that as the cause because there were virtually no well designed tests to investigate this tomato hypothesis.

    Most scientific research that is submitted for publication in trade journals gets tossed out without printing because the methodology of hypothesis testing is disputed and therefore any conclusions drawn from that testing are also in dispute.

    So when Bob Proctor says that LOA is "scientifically proven", or words to that effect, the first thing anyone wanting to verify that statement should say is, "OK, show me the studies and testing that have been carried out using the scientific method." If there aren't any, or if the studies have not been well designed, then the claim for "scientific proof" is worthless. Many times what you have is just a marketing claim. Marketers have lists of words they use that are shown to induce people to make purchases more readily, and that term, "scientifically proven" is at the top of their list.

    But if the strict method of science was not used, and used properly, the claim of scientific proof is a mistake at best and a deliberate attempt at deception at worst.

    Having said that, we should all keep in mind that not everything that is true is necessarily provable by science, at least science at our present level of understanding.

    I love my wife. I love her more than any other person on the face of this planet. I know that is true. It is one of the few things about which I can say without reservation, this is an absolute truth without room for dispute or interpretation. But despite my absolute knowledge of this truth, I cannot prove it to anyone scientifically. There is no way the scientific method can be applied to this statement in such a way that it would satisfy everyone that I have accounted for all the facts and eliminated all contrary possibilities. At our present level of development the love I feel for my wife is not scientifically provable. And yet, it is one of the single greatest truths I possess.

    There are many things that might fall into this category. Perhaps LOA is one of them. Perhaps someone knows of such tests that I'm unaware of, but to my knowledge there has been no serious scientific testing of LOA. Certainly nothing that has been reported in a related trade journal. Again, I might be uninformed, but as far as I am aware, Bob Proctor and those who claim LOA has been scienficially proven have no scientific method to back up that claim.

    But lack of scientific testing doesn't make LOA untrue. For thousands of years humans had no concept of gravity or the Law of Gravity and were in no position to test for its existence scientifically. Despite this, gravity was always in effect. It didn't care that no scientific validation supported its existence.

    It has never been "scientifically proved" to me that my mother is my mother and yet I know exactly who she is because I've experienced her. I could take you to a stadium filled with 100,000 people and pick her out of that crowd and introduce her to you. If you have never met my mother and I took you to that stadium it would be difficult for me to help you know her as certainly as I know her without introducing you in person. I could describe her. I could tell you to look for a woman who was 5'2" tall, medium short, sandy brown hair, 105 lbs., blue eyes, and you would tell me that there were a thousand or more women in the stadium who matched that description. I suppose I could submit the results of DNA testing to you (if such a thing were carried out,) and that would constitute scientific proof she was my mother, but even then you wouldn't be able to pick her out of the crowd. But after I introduced you to her and you experienced meeting her for yourself you would always know exactly who she was, with greater precision than any scientific test or description could ever convey to you. I'd look at LOA in a similar way if I were you and see what grows in your own garden.

    In my opinion, the greatest test of all is the test of our own experience. If something works for me I'll keep using it. It doesn't matter that it doesn't work for someone else. It doesn't matter that someone else might be able to assemble facts or arguments that logically demonstrate why a thing can't possibly work. If something works for me, it works for me and I'll use it unless/until it no longer works for me. I'll let the philosophers worry about those questions of "how" and "why". My focus will remain on the successful results.
     
  7. Inedible

    Inedible Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    There is a saying that comes to mind: Don't go borrowing trouble. It won't help them any and it won't help you either. If you are looking for a good distraction from your own process, that's another matter.
     
  8. Still Waters

    Still Waters Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2009
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Great explaination ta-tsu-wa.

    The point about the law of attraction is that applying it is an exciting personal adventure. If it was proven scientifically and formulae were introduced to apply them, the next inevitable stage would be that procedures would be put in place to enforce them. If you were not performing in school you would probably be made to stay behind in detntion, because you had not been applying LOA correctly:D :p

    Also imagine been disciplined at work because you were not achieving results for the company, and your boss said this is because you had not been applying LOA formulae as laid down in the guidlines issued by human resources!:eek:

    Just a silly thought but I can see reasons why it would be better not to have scientic proof but allow it to continue to be a matter of personal faith and exploration. :)
     
  9. GilesC

    GilesC Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,856
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    What is scientific proof?

    (Ta-tsu-wa gives a very good answer in that respect.)

    I find that many people claiming to be followers of science are nothing more than skeptics out for a fight. True science is not about saying, there's no formula for it; there's no proof for it, therefore it can't be valid or true. True science looks at cases of known conditions giving known results.

    In the case of things like the LOA, it is not really a case of known conditions giving indeterminate results, but more a case of indeterminate conditions giving indeterminate results. What I mean is that, whilst people seem to be saying "If I think in this way, I should get these results" and it's showing that they sometimes do get those results and sometimes don't, the problem is not in the Law of Attraction (the process behind getting from the conditions to the results), but in not being full clear about the "thinking in this way" part. Nobody has measured accurately what the known conditions (the thinking) are at the start to be able to show that the results are consistent. This comes back to what I was saying way back up in this thread, where the conscious mind can be thinking one thing (e.g. "I am rich beyond belief and fully healthy") and the unconscious mind is really believing something else (e.g. "I've got no money, I don't know how I'll make any money, and I'm always ill"). Scienctific proof in this area would be trying to measure the conscious thought rather than taking account of all the other factors of the state of the mind of the person thinking them.

    We can only scientifically prove something when we know how to scientifically measure it.

    Science knows that thoughts, intelligence etc. exist, but they have no real means of accurately measuring those things at a single point in time for a particular person, nor do they have the means of controlling the experiment to prevent outside influence on those conditions on their way to achieving the result.

    We then have what others (non-scientists) are determining as "scientific proof". This comes from observational proof. e.g. If we do this thing, we, more often than not, get a result close to what was desired and, more often than not, clearly different from what would have happened had we not done that thing. So why is there not 100% success rate? Again it comes down to the same as the scientists, not fully being able to measure the staring conditions or control the experiment as it progresses, due to there being too many influencing factors.

    Now, the skeptics may say "you have no proof" and "it can't be measured". You could easily retort by pointing out that science has no proof for a lot of it's "theories" yet they still call it science and they still proceed to experiment with it, believing it to be the truth because they have seen "some" evidence to suggest it may be true.

    A classic example is that science believes there is something called an electron. Nobody in science has actually seen an electron, it's never had it's dimensions measured. All they can say is that they can carry out certain conditions which generate these theoretical electrons, and they appear to act consistently to give consistent results in most cases.

    Then, take a look at the double-slit experiment (Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) which fires sub-atomic particles (which can be electrons) through a thin plate containing two slits. If the particles are left to their own devices, they appear on a screen on the other side of the plate making a defraction pattern (caused due to "wave" like properties a bit like waves in water when you drop a stone in). If, however, the particles are observed to try and determine which of the two slits they are passing through, they change from having "wave" properties, to having "particle" properties. This is called particle-wave duality. The particle "acts" differently depending on whether it is being observed or not.

    The power of intention eh! ;)

    So, in my mind (and I'm both scientifically minded as well as spiritually minded in case you hadn't noticed :D ), I know for myself that there is scientific evidence of the power of intention, and thus the law of attraction which follows this intention.

    They are just picking on it because it's one of the most recent and well known.
    I would simply critisize The Secret because it limited itself somewhat and tended to focus on material/financial gain; which is not what the LOA is all about.

    I simply let it go. (although you wouldn't have guess from all my post above hehe!)

    There will always be people who argue against things.
    By experiencing these things for ourselves and understanding them in our own way and knowing for ourselves that they are true and work, that is all that matters.

    I sometimes chuckle at those who try to "disprove" what I've put into practice myself and I know works. I am the one who has practical experience of it working and they are not. Their loss. ;)

    Hugs

    Giles

    p.s. Sorry for another long post, although you gotta admit this really is an interesting thread. :rolleyes:
     
  10. sliccy

    sliccy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Exactly my thoughts!


    I think I don't have anymore questions....

    Thank you Giles (once again), and Ta-tsu-wa for taking your time to type up those answers for me and anyone else who is interested.

    It's really comforting to have a place where I can ask all these questions. Really, thank you everyone very much!
     
  11. Ta-tsu-wa

    Ta-tsu-wa Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    282
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Evidence

    Excellent points. There is a problem with the language used by LOA propnents (and other more esoteric subjects) in that their use of that term "scientific" is frequently loose and sloppy. Scientific proof is the end result of the scientific method. You cannot have the latter in the absence of the former.

    On the other hand, the "scientific" community is equally guilty of using sloppy language which often takes the form of over stated generalizations in support of what should be very tightly focused conclusions. I think in large part this is because the scientific community is a bit clique-ish. Researchers deal mainly with other researchers and largely with researchers in their own particular area of knowledge. They use their own jargon and "geek-speak" which, to them, makes perfectly good sense. It is well understood within the context of their respective areas of expertise.

    But then they use the same language when attempting to discuss their work with non-specialists who do not have the benefit of all that professional context to put things in. Among their own they can use general language to refer to something very specific, and other specialists implicitly understand this and translate those words in their heads so that they accurately reflect what was intended. We non-specialists don't have that luxury. We hear general language and we apply it in broad, general terms and it often makes for very wrong conclusions.

    That's why someone like Carl Sagan is so effective as a communicator to the masses. Whether you agree or disagree with his conclusions, he went to great pains to simplify language and yet retain the required precision so that a non-specialist clearly understood what he intended to communicate.

    Here's an example I personally love. Sasquatch, or for those who may not be familiar with that term (if there is such a person,) Bigfoot. It is common to hear sceptics use phrases such as, "There is absolutely NO scientific evidence for the existence of Sasquatch." Or they might say, "There is absolutely NO hard evidence for the existence of Sasquatch."

    In either case they are tossing a broad generality around which, to the layman, makes the specialist appear to be either deliberately disingenuous or monumentally uninformed. We laymen look at that statement and say to ourselves, "Wait a minute... We've got eye witness reports. We've got a growing number of films of alleged creatures (including the famous Patterson film.) We have countless footprints and plaster castings of footprints. We have recordings of suspected vocalizations. We've got consistent, detailed oral traditions going back hundreds of years from many different Native America tribes scattered all throughout North, Central and South America, which closely match contemporary reports. And this Egghead over here tells us there is NO evidence. Is he that dishonest, or just that uninformed about all this evidence?"

    To the specialist, "hard evidence" or "scientific evidence" is evidence that can be repeatedly reproduced, preferably from several different perspectives so as to check its accuracy. If you can't reproduce it and check it again and again it doesn't meet the standards of being "scientific". It's not that there's no evidence. It isn't even the case that there is no compelling, highly suggestive evidence. It's just that you can't get that Sasquatch to walk by several different people with video cameras on command at different times, in different places, from different angles so that video evidence can be duplicated, compared and evaluated to form firm conclusions.

    A specialist would intuitively understand that is what was meant. But to the rest of us it sounds like the Egghead is denying the fact that there is any tangible evidence at all. And sometimes they are, but usually the people doing that are the debunkers whose only joy in life seems to be arguing and tearing something down regardless of the facts. That's not a true sceptic, that's a professional nay-sayer. A true sceptic is more of an agnostic, unwilling to accept that something does in fact exist as claimed, but very willing to honestly put claims to the test wherever possible and then evaluate the results to draw conclusions.

    The LOA and Sasquatch probably have much in common. Neither has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of scientific standards, but both have a tremendous amount of evidence suggesting they exist. Those who promote LOA, especially if they are engaged in earning their living by championing it, should make an effort to either stop misusing that term "scientifically proved", or else they should start working to come up with acceptable proof. They should be honest and clear and stop using marketing tactics masquerading as scientific evidence.

    And those who are sceptical should also clean up their language and stop applying broad generalizations when in fact very specific, highly focused language should be used. If they are going to speak to non-specialists on the subject they need to be up front and clear that there is evidence but it is simply not amenable at this time to scientific inquiry. Claiming there is "no evidence" for LOA falls flat in the face of millions of people who have either experienced it for themselves or watched it in operation in the lives of others.

    Both camps could do much to clean up unnecessary confusion.
     
  12. enlighteneduk

    enlighteneduk Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6

    Not quite sure what you mean by this, Inedible? The story just stirred compassion for the boy's plight, but also led me to question how it could be a result of him attracting it. No need for a distraction from my own process, just an aside thought!

    Heather
     
  13. Inedible

    Inedible Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Compassion is a good thing, but have it for yourself, too.
     
  14. Edwin

    Edwin Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,858
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Hm, I am not quite sure I understand you correctly Inedible.

    In these remarks I see a potent "clash of ego's" building up. Since I care very much for the atmosphere in this forum, I would advice to stay consious about that in your answers. It will benefit yourself as well as everybody else inhere.

    Inedible, could you please explain what you meant with your comments ?
     
  15. GilesC

    GilesC Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,856
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I have to say I didn't read Inedible's comment as anything derogatory or attacking in nature, but as we all know, writing stuff on forums does lose the intonation and expression of the person writing it and can easily be taken wrongly.

    To me, I read this as saying that it is recognised we all pick up other people's issues and take then in to ourselves as our own, rather than maintaining detached compassion.

    By "looking for a good distraction", I understood this to mean that we, by the very nature that we are typically controlled by our minds (rather than the other way; us being in control of our minds), we often go out of our way to find distractions. For example, people do tend to love watching/listening/reading the latest news, and then hold on to it, take it on board and start getting very emotional about it, discussing it with friends etc. The same with soap operas, or gossipping about other people they know. These issues are not theirs, but they do take them on as if they are (myself included in that).

    If we do take on these issues, this doesn't help ourselves, in fact it can cause us harm, and it certainly won't help the person who's issue it is.

    So I don't think the quote was intended to offend, it was simply an observation of the control our minds have over us.

    ;)

    Hugs

    Giles
     
  16. enlighteneduk

    enlighteneduk Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Well thanks for that explanation Giles! I wasnt quite sure how to take the remark, to be honest, and as I have an extremely full life, the last thing I need is extra distractions, seldom read the papers, or even have time to watch TV!! :D

    But would be curious to know if your excellent and logical interpretation was indeed what Inedible meant? Inedible, are you there...................?

    Heather
     
  17. Edwin

    Edwin Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,858
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    If it is like Giles said, I did understand correctly after all.

    Funny, I was worried that you guys might set each other's ego off, and reading back my remark, intended gentle, it reads back rather offensive by itself. It is as you say Giles,
     
  18. enlighteneduk

    enlighteneduk Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    I know only too well how things can spark off on forums, Edwin! I have a large equestrian forum, and this week, my moderators have had to take action to settle down at least three threads, whereby two real characters have met their match in each other! This is fairly unusual on my forum, which is pretty peaceful by other equestrian forum standards!

    But these two highly intelligent women, both of whom I know outside of the internet, actually bring some very interesting debate, which although at times, is highly charged, really makes others think. But unfortunately, not all others see this as positive, and can flounce off with toys being hurled out of prams!

    I would hate that to happen on a forum such as this, so you will never have to worry about my ego getting in the way of finding the refuge of peace and calm that I seek here- I can find enough distractions on my own forum!!:D:rolleyes:

    Heather
     
  19. Inedible

    Inedible Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    It would be nice if there were a way to look up that kid and his family to see how they are doing. They just don't ever tell enough in the news. They never seem to go into how people are doing picking up the pieces afterward.

    New research showed that the heart drug (high blood pressure) propranolol interferes with storing new harmful memories. Normally with traumatic events the tendency is to go over them and over them and over them until they sink in deep. Too bad it does the same thing with the really good memories, too.

    Have you been through something really bad and looked back on it and wondered how you got through it?
     
  20. sliccy

    sliccy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Don't ruin this thread, I asked way too many questions! :p
     

Share This Page