Was Hitler as bad as some make him out to be?

[Harbal]

Open your eyes wider.

What, and become obsessive about it, like you? I don't think so.

Just inform yourself.

Oh, right... you said you don't like to do that.

Never mind.

Actually, taking note of which of my comments you don't quote, and choose to ignore, is more informative than I think you realise.

[Immanuel Can]

What, and become obsessive about it, like you? I don't think so.

Just inform yourself.

Oh, right... you said you don't like to do that.

Never mind.

Actually, taking note of which of my comments you don't quote, and choose to ignore, is more informative than I think you realise.

If you have something you think was particularly wonderful that you said and I didn't bother to repeat...please, air it again, and I'll address it. If it was there, I certainly didn't see it.

[Harbal]

Just inform yourself.

Oh, right... you said you don't like to do that.

Never mind.

Actually, taking note of which of my comments you don't quote, and choose to ignore, is more informative than I think you realise.

If you have something you think was particularly wonderful that you said and I didn't bother to repeat...please, air it again, and I'll address it. If it was there, I certainly didn't see it.

No, most of what I say is equally wonderful, so I couldn't really single any one thing out.

[iambiguous]

But if the 120 million (at minimum) dead in the last century alone by the red hand of Marxism hasn't impressed you, then I guess you can't be impressed.

Compared to the Christian God, however, Hitler, Stalin and Mao were mere amateurs when it comes to killing folks. Innocent or not. Through Acts of God -- stillbirths and miscarriages and nature run amok -- hundreds and hundreds of millions have died over the centuries.

And, unlike the Christian God, Hitler, Stalin and Mao were not [to the best of my knowledge] either omniscient or omnipotent.

Then all the parts from the Old Testament -- the wrath of God! -- including Him wiping out the human race save for Noah and his family.

On the other hand...

"Is God as Good as some Christians make Him out to be?"
"Is God as Bad as some atheists make Him out to be?"

[Age]

But I had already.

And, unlike you and "gary childress" I actually answered them.

So you're sympathizing with pedophiles again?

Jesus christ dude, it's gotta stop.

LOL Who do you think you are fooling and deceiving here.

[Immanuel Can]

Actually, taking note of which of my comments you don't quote, and choose to ignore, is more informative than I think you realise.

If you have something you think was particularly wonderful that you said and I didn't bother to repeat...please, air it again, and I'll address it. If it was there, I certainly didn't see it.

No, most of what I say is equally wonderful, so I couldn't really single any one thing out.

Fair enough.

[Immanuel Can]

But if the 120 million (at minimum) dead in the last century alone by the red hand of Marxism hasn't impressed you, then I guess you can't be impressed.

Compared to the Christian God, however, Hitler, Stalin and Mao were mere amateurs when it comes to killing folks. Innocent or not.

Actually, the presence of any death at all is due purely to the choices mankind has made. You may not believe that, but that's how it is.

However, some deaths are very easy to ascribe directly to various men and women. That's where characters like Hitler, Stalin and Mao come in.

[Age]

Okay, but, to you, can some people also manage to channel or be ridden by directly nontoxic or subtly nontoxic entities as well?

Yes.

Okay, but 'we' were talking about 'you', before.

Ah, well, I've been talking about me and other people.

Okay. But I was not asking if 'you' get along or not.

When I respond, generally I am also exploring. Not that you are necessarily suggesting the following, but I am not 'looking up' an answer in me, but rather exploring, often, an issue and often related issues and other examples add to my exploring and responding to the questions.

I was asking what parts/portions did the 'self' not get along with?

I would view it as different parts have trouble with each other, and that even the supposes main part may actually just be a tiny part of the whole. So, this 'driver part' let's say, can have trouble with anger. So, it suppresses it. I had that pattern. Oh that's bad, not really me, shouldn't be expressed etc. Well, that's not a great experience for that part (nor for the 'driver' either, but that latter may be harder to notice).

Great.


Right, to put this in my schema, or to use one way one might apply my schema...they probably judged, consciously and/or unconsciously that X was bad.

Who are 'they' here, exactly?

The peopIe you mentioned who say they do not want to be like their parents.

And, I found that if actual examples are provided, then this works far more successfully than just an 'X' does. Unless, of course, in syllogism form.

I gave an example.

Perhaps expressing anger. They had, for example, a parent who was emotionally abusive and hurled a lot of rage at them and/or their other parent. So, they decided - using that term very broadly - that anger was bad and should not be expressed. This meant that one portion of themselves ended up being segregated (for being in essence bad). They might be slightly aware of its presence or not, in certain situations. They might have guilt and or shame connected with that emotion and that sub-personality. Energy is devoted to its suppression. Judgments of self and others are in place and ready to appear in consciousness.

There are a lot of approaches to dealing with that situation: therapies, religious practices, spiritual practices, common sense approaches, etc.

Well the irrefutable Fact that every child, in the days when this is being written, endure abuse, and every adult abuses children, talking about 'others' is not really helpful nor do things move forward and become better.

So, have you abused children as an adult?

Every adult does.

See, not until one helps "them" 'self' to become better could they then actually be able to help, and support, another, properly and Correctly.

Sure, I beIieve we agree here at this level of abstraction.

I think most lead to an impoverished self. On the other everyone should be free to dis-identify, suppress and so on if they want to. That might be the right choice for them and the essence they are. Some of those people think that their version of dis-identification is the universally correct path. Some of those become spiritual leaders or aim in that direction.

As disconnected sub-personalities, no. Better they do not arise in the split off form again. That they are integrated as options in the whole in their no-Íonger distorted form is my goal. That they are no longer split off, held down, judged, distorted or no longer seeping out via passive aggressive or undermining the self or any of a myriad ways these portions of the self, when judged and suppressed can about out, this is my approach.

Might be the same, might not.

See, the 'my' word implies 'an owner', so who, exactly, is 'the owner', or the 'my', of the term or phrase 'my self', and 'the owner' of all of those personalities, or 'selfs', within all human bodies?

I think I have said to you before and given exampIes of how 'my' need not be ownership. I do not consider it to necessarily have that meaning it can mean that. EDIT: not it wasn't own, though it was a similar issue. It had to do with the verb 'have'.

Here: This is my friend - I do not consider them something I own. Others may well say he or she is their friend.
This is my hand - I do not consider my arm my possession or something I own. It is a facet of me.
My parents - though it is possibIe some might feeI they own their parents, the sentence does not necessariIy mean that.
My apologies for the inconvenience. - here the person is expressing feeings and acknowledging responsibility for an act.
My favorite part of the movie was the ending - I don't own that favorite part.
My pleasure to assist you.
My mistake, I misunderstood.
My sincere condolences to your family.
My respects to the late professor.
My love for travel knows no bounds.
My focus right now is on completing this project.

Okay, but who and/or what is the 'my' word in reference to, exactly?

Once this is fully comprehended and understood things become much clearer.

I don't think of owning my parts.

But, or so, whose parts are they, exactly?

That already has split presumed in it and a specific type of split, generally between a human and a thing or set of things. Someone and their car, for example. I do not consider what have been parts to be objects/things. Nor that I own them: Sometimes people have toxic self-relations that this could be an evocative metaphor for. They have an instrumental relations between parts with control on one side.

Sometimes people also have toxic self-relations in other ways. One example is that they are, or have, a body.

Because it is me in a problematic split off form. The problem is that it was abused, split off, judged and often, for example, it can take on the judgments - anger is destructive and outside of love, for example. And so a portion of the self can, when suppressed and denied actually seem to confirm the judgments when it pops out or when you try to integrate it at first.

To me there is, literally, no 'problem' at all here.

Also, why would 'you' even want to integrate what 'you' really do not want anyway?

Because they are a part of me.

And, who and/or what is 'me', exactly?

By the way, when 'you' can answer who am 'I'? exactly, that is; properly and Correctly, then 'you' will also know, for certain who and/or what the 'me' word is referring to, exactly, as well.

Further I concluded that I did not want, for example, anger or fear, or specific kinds of these feelings because of abuse and damage. Or I thought that it was good to get rid of them. (there are many other judgments and types of judgments that can lead to these parts being split off, denied, judged and twisted by all this)

I certainly have prevention goals. But I also have treatment of damage goals. I don't think you and I have the same goal.

If you do not how or why some thing happens or occurs, then you can not prevent it from happening and occurring again.

See, once you have found 'the cause', then you can have 'prevention'.

Which wouId need to incIude heaIing present damage.

Healing came and comes from learning and knowing 'why' things happen/ed. And, from learning and knowing comes 'understanding', itself. From which then True 'forgiveness' just naturally follows , and flows, and thus will and just happens, and occurs, anyway.

If 'you' choose to be a raging insane deranged separate one, and show 'these ones' to others and children, then do not be at all surprised that 'these ones' continue on con others'.

Also, this could sound like 'you' just want to be a "raging lunatic", at times, without judging "your" 'self' for being one.

That's not what I meant or said.

It seems to have sounded that way to you.

Yes, exactly.

I do, I think, understand what you are saying, and doing, but I am not sure that 'doing that' will be conducive to 'the world' that absolutely every one wants, and desires.

Yes, I realized that pretty soon after we met here, that you wouId beIieve that.

Do you continually use that word here on purpose, or accidentally?

You are more on what I wouId caII one of the disidentification paths and it seems you have a lot of judgments of integration paths. You seem to assume to know what happens when one follows them. What the end results are.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2024 8:15 am
Why do you generalize about human beings?

For the exact same fundamental reasons why you and every other human being, does.

I think actually different humans have different motives both from others who generalize and then even between instances of their own generaIizing.

My apologies that sentence of mine was meant to end with 'absolutely every thing what they do'.

My apologies. The words, 'I have not', were meant to be, 'that is'.

Fine, no worries.

[Iwannaplato]

Okay, but who and/or what is the 'my' word in reference to, exactly?

Me

Once this is fully comprehended and understood things become much clearer.

I don't think of owning my parts.

But, or so, whose parts are they, exactly?

Mine. It'd be easier to understand in person.

Sometimes people also have toxic self-relations in other ways. One example is that they are, or have, a body.

Do you beIieve having a body is toxic?

Because it is me in a problematic split off form. The problem is that it was abused, split off, judged and often, for example, it can take on the judgments - anger is destructive and outside of love, for example. And so a portion of the self can, when suppressed and denied actually seem to confirm the judgments when it pops out or when you try to integrate it at first.

To me there is, literally, no 'problem' at all here.

I don't now what IiteraIIy 'no probIem' means. I'm not sure what metaphoricaIIy 'no probIem' wouId mean, so I'm not sure what the 'IiteraIIy' is adding to stating there is 'no probIem' or what the difference is between IiteraIIy 'no probIem' and just 'no problem' and IiteraIIy no probIem without citation marks. Please explain.

Also, why would 'you' even want to integrate what 'you' really do not want anyway?

Because they are a part of me.

And, who and/or what is 'me', exactly?

Best if you were shown in person.

If you do not how or why some thing happens or occurs, then you can not prevent it from happening and occurring again.

I know how and why these things happen and occur.

See, once you have found 'the cause', then you can have 'prevention'.

That comes up when one integrates as I said earIier.

Which wouId need to incIude heaIing present damage.

Healing came and comes from learning and knowing 'why' things happen/ed.

I find the process of integration, which incIudes both expression and experiencing/remembering the originaI spIit incIudes now why things happened the way they did.

If 'you' choose to be a raging insane deranged separate one, and show 'these ones' to others and children, then do not be at all surprised that 'these ones' continue on con others'.

Also, this could sound like 'you' just want to be a "raging lunatic", at times, without judging "your" 'self' for being one.

That's not what I meant or said.

It seems to have sounded that way to you.

Yes, exactly.

That's too bad that a misunderstanding formed on your part.

Yes, I realized that pretty soon after we met here, that you wouId beIieve that.

Do you continually use that word here on purpose, or accidentally?

I used those words on purpose.

[Age]

Okay, but who and/or what is the 'my' word in reference to, exactly?

Me

And, who and/or what is 'that', exactly, to 'you'?

Once this is fully comprehended and understood things become much clearer.

I don't think of owning my parts.

But, or so, whose parts are they, exactly?

Mine.

Again, who and/or what is the 'mine' word referring to, exactly?

It'd be easier to understand in person.

Why, and how?

Sometimes people also have toxic self-relations in other ways. One example is that they are, or have, a body.

Do you beIieve having a body is toxic?

I only believe one thing. And, this here is not it.

Because it is me in a problematic split off form. The problem is that it was abused, split off, judged and often, for example, it can take on the judgments - anger is destructive and outside of love, for example. And so a portion of the self can, when suppressed and denied actually seem to confirm the judgments when it pops out or when you try to integrate it at first.

To me there is, literally, no 'problem' at all here.

I don't now what IiteraIIy 'no probIem' means.

Okay.

I'm not sure what metaphoricaIIy 'no probIem' wouId mean, so I'm not sure what the 'IiteraIIy' is adding to stating there is 'no probIem' or what the difference is between IiteraIIy 'no probIem' and just 'no problem' and IiteraIIy no probIem without citation marks. Please explain.

To me a 'problem' is just a question posed for a solution. So, I, literally, do not see any 'problem' at all in what you wrote there.

And, words I put in ' ' marks are just the words that the definition of needs to be discussed and understood and agreed with, first, before actual full comprehension and understanding of what the actual context is, and/or what is actually being meant, in what is being discussed. (This might need to be read a few times before it is better understood. But, this can apply to a lot of writings anyway.)

Also, why would 'you' even want to integrate what 'you' really do not want anyway?

Because they are a part of me.

And, who and/or what is 'me', exactly?

Best if you were shown in person.

What does this even mean?

What, exactly, could you 'show', in so-called 'person', which 'you' cannot show in words alone?

If you do not how or why some thing happens or occurs, then you can not prevent it from happening and occurring again.

I know how and why these things happen and occur.

And what are.the 'these things' words here even referring to exactly?

See, once you have found 'the cause', then you can have 'prevention'.

That comes up when one integrates as I said earIier.

What do you mean by 'integrate' here?

Maybe I have been misunderstanding you here.

Which wouId need to incIude heaIing present damage.

Healing came and comes from learning and knowing 'why' things happen/ed.

I find the process of integration, which incIudes both expression and experiencing/remembering the originaI spIit incIudes now why things happened the way they did.

I meant when one finds out 'why' 'parts of you' came to exist, which 'you' do not want, or the 'damaged/damaging parts/portions, then this is when the 'real hearing' can Truly begin.

If 'you' choose to be a raging insane deranged separate one, and show 'these ones' to others and children, then do not be at all surprised that 'these ones' continue on con others'.

Also, this could sound like 'you' just want to be a "raging lunatic", at times, without judging "your" 'self' for being one.

That's not what I meant or said.

It seems to have sounded that way to you.

Yes, exactly.

That's too bad that a misunderstanding formed on your part.

But, 'misunderstanding' is just a very, very common, and a very natural, occurrence within communication, and especially in and more so regarding what is being talked about and discussed here.

And, especially.so from 'the way' communication is done between you not well known to each other human beings, in the days when this is being written. 'Philosophy forums' seem to 'bring out' and provide perfect examples of this.

Yes, I realized that pretty soon after we met here, that you wouId beIieve that.

Do you continually use that word here on purpose, or accidentally?

I used those words on purpose.

Okay.

[Iwannaplato]

And, who and/or what is 'that', exactly, to 'you'?

Some demonstrations are possible in person and not via words on a screen. This is one of them.

Again, who and/or what is the 'mine' word referring to, exactly?

Some demonstrations are possible in person and not via words on a screen. This is one of them.

It'd be easier to understand in person.

Why, and how?

Some demonstrations are possible in person and not via words on a screen. This is one of them. To answer those two questions is also like the other demonstrations. Best in person.


Because they are a part of me. [/quote]

And, who and/or what is 'me', exactly?

Best if you were shown in person.[/quote]

What does this even mean?

Two or more peopIe in a physical proximity to each other, where the non-verbaI presence is experienced aIso, is the best communication/demonstration scenario.

What, exactly, could you 'show', in so-called 'person', which 'you' cannot show in words alone?

All that is communicated and present outside beyond words. In other words most of the experience of anything, except words. Words are just a fraction of communication compared to in-person communication. And then in-person meetings are more than communication.

If you do not how or why some thing happens or occurs, then you can not prevent it from happening and occurring again.

I know how and why these things happen and occur.

And what are.the 'these things' words here even referring to exactly?

The same things you were referring to.

What do you mean by 'integrate' here?

To bring something back into the whole.

I meant when one finds out 'why' 'parts of you' came to exist, which 'you' do not want, or the 'damaged/damaging parts/portions, then this is when the 'real hearing' can Truly begin.

Yes. And I meant that I have realized that I do want those parts, but, of course, they need to heaI so that they are in their unjudged, untwisted, unsuppressed form.

But, 'misunderstanding' is just a very, very common, and a very natural, occurrence within communication, and especially in and more so regarding what is being talked about and discussed here.

Yes.

And, especially.so from 'the way' communication is done between you not well known to each other human beings, in the days when this is being written. 'Philosophy forums' seem to 'bring out' and provide perfect examples of this.

It certainly does. Of course, words on a screen is an impoverished communication form, so it wiII be even more common. Not that in-person communication wiII be without misunderstandings, but there is so much more present in such an encounter, much more can be communicated and options to improve communication, notice miscommunication, notice aII that a person is communicating and more is possibIe in-person. And to experience the other aIso.

[Alexiev]

Not at all. One can fully admit Hitler was wicked, and
But since Marxism is the most homicidal creed in history, by orders of magnitude, it might be a good idea if you gave it more credit for what it actually can do -- and already has

Actually, based on percentages, God has the most homicidal record in history.

Actually, all death is man's fault. And that includes natural disasters, which are the effect of his fallen environment, which also would not be fallen if he weren't fallen.

But nice try on shifting the blame.

It's my fault that Adsm ate an apple?! That's as bad as the show trials! (Although not as bad as gassing little kids for no reason.)

[Immanuel Can]

It's my fault that Adsm ate an apple?!

Well, Adam's not the only one who ever sinned. He was only the first.

[Age]

And, who and/or what is 'that', exactly, to 'you'?

Some demonstrations are possible in person and not via words on a screen. This is one of them.

So, to 'you' is it the 'only way', the 'best way', or some 'other way' to 'show' another who and/or what the 'me' is 'in person'.

Also, and.by the way, to me, it is an actual impossibility to 'demonstrate' or 'show' what the 'me' is 'in person'. And, it can only be really demonstrated via words, on a screen or elsewhere.

Again, who and/or what is the 'mine' word referring to, exactly?

Some demonstrations are possible in person and not via words on a screen. This is one of them.

To 'you', but not to 'me'.

Which could be 'seen' as rather ironic.

It'd be easier to understand in person.

Why, and how?

Some demonstrations are possible in person and not via words on a screen. This is one of them. To answer those two questions is also like the other demonstrations. Best in person.

But only visibly seen things themselves, it could be said and argued, are best demonstrated, or shown, in person. But, then if what you are saying were true, then what you might call a 'blind person' would never ever come-to-know what you are talking about and referring to, at all, let alone exactly.

Because they are a part of me.

And, who and/or what is 'me', exactly?

Best if you were shown in person.[/quote]

What does this even mean?

Two or more peopIe in a physical proximity to each other, where the non-verbaI presence is experienced aIso, is the best communication/demonstration scenario. [/quote]

Okay, but what does 'best' mean in relation to you just explaining who and/or what the 'me' is, exactly?

If 'you' were just going to point to 'that body' and then say, 'This is me', then surely you can explain this in words, right?

Or, maybe 'you' would do something different, and if you were, then you are capable of explaining what you would do, to 'us', via words here.

you could imagine that 'we' are all physically blind if you like, and 'we' can just 'hear', via these computers, what you would have to just 'tell' 'us', in person, anyway.

What, exactly, could you 'show', in so-called 'person', which 'you' cannot show in words alone?

All that is communicated and present outside beyond words. In other words most of the experience of anything, except words. Words are just a fraction of communication compared to in-person communication. And then in-person meetings are more than communication.

If you say so. But, some might be saying that this is just a 'cop out', by you here.

See, it is very easy to say things and/or make claims, but then to use a multitude of excuses.

If you do not how or why some thing happens or occurs, then you can not prevent it from happening and occurring again.

I know how and why these things happen and occur.

And what are.the 'these things' words here even referring to exactly?

The same things you were referring to.

Which were what, exactly?

I found it is much better to make sure that 'we' are talking about the exact same thing/s 'now', before 'we' progress any further, or even better 'along the way'.

What do you mean by 'integrate' here?

To bring something back into the whole.

Okay, this is more or less what I was thinking or imagined. So, again, why would you want to keep integrating, or bringing back, what 'it' is that you do not like and do not want anyway?

I meant when one finds out 'why' 'parts of you' came to exist, which 'you' do not want, or the 'damaged/damaging parts/portions, then this is when the 'real hearing' can Truly begin.

Yes. And I meant that I have realized that I do want those parts, but, of course, they need to heaI so that they are in their unjudged, untwisted, unsuppressed form.[/quote]

Of course you have recognised/realized them, as it was you who informed 'me/us' about them. But, what I was saying, and meaning, was when you realise/recognize where they came from, exactly, and/or how they came to be exactly, then, and only then, the 'real healing' can Truly begin.

Recognizing/realizing that they are there, is only one tiny step, and only one of the first steps, along and up 'The nine steps to heaven'.

But, 'misunderstanding' is just a very, very common, and a very natural, occurrence within communication, and especially in and more so regarding what is being talked about and discussed here.

Yes.

And, especially.so from 'the way' communication is done between you not well known to each other human beings, in the days when this is being written. 'Philosophy forums' seem to 'bring out' and provide perfect examples of this.

It certainly does. Of course, words on a screen is an impoverished communication form, so it wiII be even more common. Not that in-person communication wiII be without misunderstandings, but there is so much more present in such an encounter, much more can be communicated and options to improve communication, notice miscommunication, notice aII that a person is communicating and more is possibIe in-person. And to experience the other aIso.

[Iwannaplato]

So, to 'you' is it the 'only way', the 'best way', or some 'other way' to 'show' another who and/or what the 'me' is 'in person'.

I can't ruIe out that someone might 'get it' via words in a screen, but given our differences, I wouId only try in-person.

Also, and.by the way, to me, it is an actual impossibility to 'demonstrate' or 'show' what the 'me' is 'in person'. And, it can only be really demonstrated via words, on a screen or elsewhere.

WeII, if you want to do this, I'II read it. UnIess it is a very, Iengthy document. Interesting that a more limited form of communication is the onIy way to demonstrate this. In-person you have words also. Why wouIdn't the same words be effective in-person?

Again, who and/or what is the 'mine' word referring to, exactly?

Some demonstrations are possible in person and not via words on a screen. This is one of them.

To 'you', but not to 'me'.

ReaIIy? There are no demonstrations you could do better in-person? You'd have the option of handing peopIe texts or communicating with words and what is present in an in-person communication situation. The extras couId not improve one of your demonstrations?

But only visibly seen things themselves, it could be said and argued, are best demonstrated, or shown, in person.

That's one sense that increases in range and options in person. But other senses do this also. Other modes of communication are involved.

But, then if what you are saying were true, then what you might call a 'blind person' would never ever come-to-know what you are talking about and referring to, at all, let alone exactly.

That's an incorrect conclusion. Do you think in-person meetings only involve the visual, even after I mentioned how another sense was involved? And the difference is not limited to those two senses either.

Okay, but what does 'best' mean in relation to you just explaining who and/or what the 'me' is, exactly?

Best refers to the possibility of demonstrating and demonstrating clearly and efficiently. It's an evaluation, saying that in-person is better than any other mode.

If 'you' were just going to point to 'that body' and then say, 'This is me', then surely you can explain this in words, right?

That's not what would happen.

Or, maybe 'you' would do something different, and if you were, then you are capable of explaining what you would do, to 'us', via words here

I don't know how many times I need to bring up non-verbal communication, non-verbal senses, presence, other senses, actual direct experiencing, but these are all involved and I cannot show them to you via words in a screen. So, no I cannot describe beyond this in words.

you could imagine that 'we' are all physically blind if you like, and 'we' can just 'hear', via these computers, what you would have to just 'tell' 'us', in person, anyway.

Hello. Non-verbal.

If you say so. But, some might be saying that this is just a 'cop out', by you here.

Well, if this unknown they does say this, that will be that situation. Some might say you can't take responsibility in your communication when you do things like this. That you want to your cake and to eat it too. This is just a silly way to communicate.

See, it is very easy to say things and/or make claims, but then to use a multitude of excuses.

Nice abstract contextless assertion.

Which were what, exactly?

I've been explaining what I mean. I'm not going to help you explain what you mean.

I found it is much better to make sure that 'we' are talking about the exact same thing/s 'now', before 'we' progress any further, or even better 'along the way'.

Actually you often draw conclusions before doing this.

Okay, this is more or less what I was thinking or imagined. So, again, why would you want to keep integrating, or bringing back, what 'it' is that you do not like and do not want anyway?

1) they are a part of me 2) once they are integrated the problematic aspects are not longer problematic. The problems are present because of how they have been treated. I have mentioned this a few times.

Just because one does not want something, after for exampIe trauma, does not mean that the concIusion drawn as a resuIt of trauma is correct.

Of course you have recognised/realized them, as it was you who informed 'me/us' about them. But, what I was saying, and meaning, was when you realise/recognize where they came from, exactly, and/or how they came to be exactly, then, and only then, the 'real healing' can Truly begin.

ActuaIIy I wouId say that they need to be fuIIy experienced first, in a safe way, with love present, and aIIowed to express, then the understanding of where they come from etc. comes. Of course, you have to want this or this path. If you do not want those parts, in some finaI sense there are paths of dis-identification, which can remove them from the person. Or compIeteIy suppress them. Or push them out into other peopIe. Or have them as a type of toxic cIoud around you. There are other outcomes possibIe.

Recognizing/realizing that they are there, is only one tiny step, and only one of the first steps,

Sure.

You can read about trees or you can be in the presence of trees. Doing the former might affect you on a cognitive IeveI but doing the Iatter has been show to reduce stress IeveIs and improve heaIth in a number of ways. Trees have em fieIds and specific sounds they make in wind the smeIIs of trees and the earth around them, the chemicaIs they reIease into the air. AII these are causaI and affecting.

So, it is with humans who aIso have vibes and smeIIs and reIease chemicaIs in the air.

Further when you meet someone you are struck by their presence - perhaps with these parts mentioned above or their combinations.
You might feeI immediate respect or concern or other feelings and reactions, and these wiII affect how demonstrations are taken. They may raise the curiosity level, the openness to what is said or shown.

There are other 'things' that can be picked up in person that aII affect receptivity and for good reasons, aII without words. Then when words are present, they come with a tone of voice, and a certain character and timbre. The other person's breathing is picked up. Hormones are reIeased and affect others.

The whoIe process of communication in a demonstration is happening on many IeveIs. Everything that can be done on screen can be done in person. In person there are a myriad of other things that can be done and will be experienced. Important things. And then there is the presence of that other person itself.

The habits of the mind and the certainty that can be hallucinated onto a screen are not so easy to repeat in person. Of course it can be done. There is no guarantee. People can resist anything, be closed in any situation.

But this is part of why I consider it best.

And with someone who has a belief system they are so certain of every facet of that they refuse to even refer to it as a belief system...if there is any hope at all of even stimulating tiny openness, it would be in person.

Furrther, I don't think you are I want the same things.