meaning of a sentence

The sentence means that one can love one's self, while still acknowledging that one is flawed, that one is not perfect.

The phrase " . . . perfect, fixed, all together, or any of those other common phrases" refers to various ways that one might suggest that one is without fault, that one is perfect. The author is asserting that these are common phrases. I don't agree, because what we see here are words, not phrases--nevertheless, the author is asserting that there are common phrases by which one claims to be perfect, to be without fault, but that those ideas are not relevant to loving one's self. Once again, one can love one's self without being perfect, and that is what the author seeks to emphasize.

Thank you. I understand what you mean. The paragraph goes like this "I hasten to add that loving oneself doesn't mean that we are perfect, fixed, all together, or any of those other common phrases. It means we are fully alive to our humanness - accepting, compassionate, amused."

So maybe I can paraphrase the sentence as "One can love oneself, but this doesn't mean that he or she is perfect or flawless. We don't love ourselves because we are perfect, but because we can realize the best of us, the good qualities in us, such as generosity, compassion, and optimism."

Is that right?

perfect, fixed, all together is a phrase, Set, as you yourself noted.

That's a good paraphrase, Justin.

The original sentence is not good English, not good style; which of course makes it more difficult to understand.
It may have been written by a foreigner.

Your one track admonition is as dumb as the one that issues frequently from Setanta, McTag. Can't you language gurus come up with something original?

I hasten to add that loving oneself doesn't mean that we are perfect, fixed, all together, or any of those other common phrases.

Excerpted from If the Buddha Dated by Charlotte Kasl. Copyright © 1999 by Charlotte Kasl. Excerpted by permission of Penguin Putnam, Inc.

Charlotte Kasl
Charlotte Kasl, Ph.D., a practicing therapist and nationally recognized workshop leader for more than 20 years, has had lifelong connections to feminism, Buddhism, Quaker practice, and Reiki healing. The author of several books including Finding Joy, she lives in Lolo, Montana

http://www.spiritsite.com/writing/chakas/part11.shtml

McTag was right. A foreigner. Nobody mangles words quite like American psychologists. Especially the ones who write about Buddhism.

Explain the problems with the sentence, Contrex.

[Contrex will now run fast anf far.]

Compare and contrast the camel and the horse.

Easy to see, more difficult to describe.

That's nothing but pure, unadulterated piffle, McTag.

That's pretty simple, actually--a camel is a horse designed by a committee.

I am so wounded. My piffle is as adulterated as anyone else's.

But I think you will find you are wrong in this, as in so many other matters.

You always seem to miss the part where you explain yourself, McTag.

You want an explanation about good style in English?
You are kidding me.

No, not at all, McTag. But it's only fair that you offer something more than the setanta "it's bad writing" meme.

That's one of the main reasons that all these nonsensical prescriptions gained any traction. Because if those jokers had had to offer any measure of proof, they wouldn't have lasted a day.

I hear you, but I come at this general topic from a different direction.
In this particular case, I say if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. Or in this case, a turkey.

I sympathise with these foreigners who come up against the sweepings of adademia in print, and try to make sense of their ramblings and posturings, semi-literate in many cases.

Good style is recognisable to the general and critical reader: bad style likewise. Whether or not the passage is comprehensible is a different matter.