|
Post by LCoontz on Mar 27, 2002 14:44:20 GMT -5
Mark - not a problem. I'm still learning to use these boards, and I was attempting to use the "quote" function. I still, to this day, can not guarantee that my attempts will be successful. I like to consider myself technologically adept, but the more I learn the less I know.
|
|
LL
Junior Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by LL on Mar 27, 2002 16:26:25 GMT -5
The quote function is in the "add tags" buttons...second row, has a paper and blue arrow. It will put up 2 quote messages in brackets and then you copy and paste what you want in between the brackets.
|
|
dreamofillusions@yahoo.com
Guest
|
Post by dreamofillusions@yahoo.com on Mar 28, 2002 6:47:37 GMT -5
Max....just a thought but what if the soulmate is someone that you have chosen before coming back to this life in order to help with the learning of the lessons in this life time and not the one person who connects with your soul? That way your idea holds true as does mine - that in one life time we all have the possibilities of being soul mates as well as having one particular mate.
|
|
|
Post by ckcalutius@cs.com on Mar 29, 2002 10:01:12 GMT -5
I've actually heard the theroy that if you have something unfinished with one person in one lifetime, you will finish it up with that person in the next - which I guess could explain the endings of relationships. My own views of soulmates is still a bit shaken up, lately, but I'm coming to the conclusion that maybe it's not quite the thing Plato invisioned - maybe it is just souls that touch briefly, brought together by a lesson they both need to learn.
|
|
Ami
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by Ami on Apr 14, 2002 19:34:33 GMT -5
As someone who is going through the process of divorcing a "former-soulmate" I feel we must consider that, as two individuals grow, they can grow on two very separate paths. This doesn't mean that they were not soulmates, nor that they have failed in any way, it simply means that the two individuals have grown into something else. <br> Personally, I think that we can have many soulmates and that being a soulmate doesn't necessarily mean that the two are romantically destined to be together... Besides, who believes in destiny over free will?? I think this is the main principal I've taken from Richard's books; that we have the right to choose, as individuals, whatever our worlds will hold. Richard and Leslie have made a choice, and if we respect them we must respect that they made the decision for a reason, and that reason is not necessarily anything that we have to understand.
For those who feel somehow cheated because two soulmates divorced, I feel you must look into your own life and realize that if it is so vastly important to you that soulmates stay together as "soul-life-mates" then you will undoubtedly choose to take this path in your own live, and need not be worried or troubled because Richard has chosen a different path.
And as to “going public”, I feel honored that Richard has shared so much of his learning with us. Who are we to complain if he wants/needs time to himself? Should he be at our beck and call?? Would we want to be at someone’s beck and call?? I know I wouldn’t!
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Apr 16, 2002 13:40:12 GMT -5
Divorce, when taken in sufficient quantity, brings about all the apparent effects of heart-break.
|
|
|
Post by ray on May 3, 2002 1:22:00 GMT -5
Ofcourse, it affects you when your role models, an unusual step (unusual as in , a few set norms about the life coz they are being agreed upon as usual) Rbach's divorce was just a good example for us all. that we should not hold them so close to our hearts, that it hurts and questions our identity, when they haywire!!!!!!!!!! know what you want in life, others are as human as you are. We all help each other live, directly or indirectly, but our models are as susceptible to mistakes as we are.(If we think his divorce was a mistake)For me its a mere choice to do whatever you wanna do, coz we can play god of our own sweet world, as much as we play human when we cry, when things go outta our control.
Its a choice to play god, some play as god of their own lives, some have enough to play god of others lives aswell, esp when the others are weak souls and do not know what they want.
We are merely looking for some kinda validation when we read a book, just a silent yes from someone who has crossed a *similar road*, but the road, he took was not the one carved by your circumstances , so beware you might fall into a pit if you follow blindly.
Such unusal steps by our role models, questions our thinking and give us a chance to revive our attitudes.
|
|
|
Post by Lupus on Jun 23, 2002 11:50:04 GMT -5
Hi- just a thought: When I learned that Richard and Lesie choose not to be married anymore, I was stunned. And, yes, I was angry. But that is the way I react, when I do not understand in the first time. I needed a couple of Days to understand (why is learning so damned hard *s*) that everything is ok. And all the things I learned about the books and this kund is not wrong, just because R. and L. splitt. Hope Richard opens his HP again. Would like to see it. Frank
|
|
|
Post by horace on Jun 24, 2002 12:17:59 GMT -5
There is way too much sap in this forum - the undeniable pain involved in cutting off your leg is not real either - i doubt any of us could withstand it however (certainly without a bit of a grimace)! Keep on getting real
|
|
|
Post by atulsabnis on Jun 25, 2002 2:07:13 GMT -5
Dictionary.com defines divorce as "The legal dissolution of a marriage" Very interesting - because I believe that while ppl may stay apart (legally or out of their own choice) they are always together. So a divorce doesnt necessarily separate soulmates - it just keeps two married ppl apart - legally. Doesnt keep soulmates apart. Physical togetherness is least on mind for soulmates.
The other meaning that Dictionary.com has for a divorce is "A complete or radical severance of closely connected things." Now this is something very different. There can be a "radical severence" but the marks remain - and the thoughts always linger. Divorce is an oxymoron in itself.
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Jun 25, 2002 13:20:10 GMT -5
Quite right Atul, divorce is like breaking a tooth or watching your stocks collapse. The spiritual tie of marriage is an ideal while the civil institution is a tool - albeit one designed by great and wise people. Still there is no doubt that divorce is at least as painful as loosing a good plumber %208-%29 and so should be avoided.
|
|
|
Post by flyboy1 on Jul 3, 2002 7:54:18 GMT -5
To Millenia, LL and Horace,
I find interesting to read your posts, but from someone who knew Richard many years ago, I can say that back then, around 1964 to 1970 when he lived on the hill next to town (Ottumwa, Iowa), he was a very humble, unassuming fellow with size 14 flight boots. Richard, even back then, did like to be non-conforming. In fact he left the Iowa National Air Guard because he was asked to trim his moutache a quarter of an inch and he did not wish to do so. So, after a matter of principle, he gave up the opportunity to fly jets on weekends (yes, he did buy a BD-5 personal jet later and a T-33) and was willing to settle on flying his 1929 Detroit-Parks biplane.
I guess I am a happy camper because I knew Richard back in a time when things were a lot simpler and Barnstorming was one of the major interests that he had.
He was already a successful writer with Stranger To The Ground and Biplane published. And it was in Ottumwa that he woke up in the middle of the night with the remainder of Jonathan Livingston Seagull in his mind only to have 18 reject slips arrive in the mail, until he heard from an editor at a major publishing house inquire as to his having an uncommitted manuscript. It was published but didn't take off until about a year later. Perhaps it was his appearances on Johhny Carson's The Tonight Show and The Tommorow Show with Tom Snyder, as well as others, that helped sky rocket JLS to such popularity.
The one thing that I realy appreciated about Richard was that he was very down to earth and had no "airs" or an attitude about him.
|
|
LL
Junior Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by LL on Jul 9, 2002 13:21:53 GMT -5
And if the leg is swollen and infested with infection with no hopes of saving it we should just leave the attachment alone and let it fester, instead of cutting it off so that it does not end up spreading to every other part of our body.
Yeah, my heart broke during my divorce...it broke wide open and allowed me to find love within myself. IMO one must love oneself if they have any hope of ever truly loving another.
Yep, lets avoid it at all costs to our self. Lets avoid it and redefine misery. Divorce is painful to the person who has been told their whole life by others that divorce is painful...It can be an experience that is exhilarating. If two people are growing in different directions and at different paces and one no longer feels the connection that they initially felt toward the other...what you're saying is that one/both should avoid divorce and stick it out? C'mon, if you're one who enjoys holding another back from their potential or the direction that they choose to go well then stick it out and enjoy the torturous misery that will accompany it. The greatest gift that any two people, no longer compatable, could give each other is freedom. Too many are affraid to do this, however, because their image or social standing will be jeopardized. So they stick it out, maybe have a kid or two(yes!, that will rekindle it!) and end up sacrificing their individual self's. I'm not saying that people cannot work out differences, what I'm saying is that if all attempts have proven futile and separation is beneficial, then it should not be avoided, it should be accelerated.
|
|
Ami
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by Ami on Jul 9, 2002 14:00:02 GMT -5
Thank you LL!!
|
|
LL
Junior Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by LL on Jul 9, 2002 17:51:10 GMT -5
Quite welcome ;D
|
|