|
|
Post by preciocho on Aug 21, 2016 23:11:07 GMT -5
No, but that's because they're well-known and have continual interactions with lots of people who are coming to them to find answers. Many less-well-known sages have visited this site in the past, and some of them still have interactions here. People, including sages, find it fun being around people who share their interests, and if they are not already a part of an existing group, they often go wherever such a group can be found. In this meaning and use of the word, isn't the "sage" created by acknowledgement? Personally, I welcome the acknowelegement of sages and don't have much interest in openly contradicting that acknowledgement, even when I might not share the same opinion. I also don't have any issue with the opposite of a negative acknowledgement. But shouldn't we expect the dynamic on a lightly moderated public forum to be, at the very least, unpredictable with respect to that acknowledgment? Personally, I see a place for and potential value in this other, less-than-reverential dynamic. I also agree with your assessment that there's some good potential lessons to be learned from the way that dynamic has gone sideways on this forum. But while it might be slipping inexorably toward chaos, it seems to me that the rest of the web is far, far ahead of us on that count. And I just straight-up disagree on the question of cuteness. When THIS manifests emotionally, it's not always unconsciously. Not all of us heard THIS for the first time from the dry, clear and calm voice of a sage. Some of us first heard THIS in the voice of a musician, a storyteller a poet or a comedian. Not all of us were called to attention by scripture. Some of us first saw THIS on the lines of a skyline or a work of art or felt THIS on the curves of a lovers body. Well on sages, and considering I've been a bit lacking on the substantive end around here, I wanted to give a note about Mooji. I became interested in the idea of self reflective telemetry and the spirit world. What's exactly is going on in the sleep state? Well anyway, Mooji came to me in a vision a couple weeks ago. I was in somewhat of a bind, and he gave me an indicator of an open avenue for value adding expression.
In the vision, he told me I have two angels with me, one of which was a little girl in the barrio, although perhaps it might point closer to say a light energy behind her. He specifically said, 'You're going to talk to her'.
I woke up, and said, well that ain't gonna happen cuz I ain't talking to her. Another wacky vision. But in the meantime started writing on collective engine stuff and before I know it a couple weeks pass and I find myself in this girls house. I only ended up there because Yadira fled in the interim, and was sleeping there.
Nevertheless, I found myself in the middle of a conversation with the little girl about Yadira and I, and at that exact moment saw the open avenue. Then just today I watched a Mooji vid, and saw either the "Ohm" or whatever that squiggly line is next to a picture of Maharshi, and in my room there is a giant painting of the planets and a circular object in the middle with the same symbol (someone else put the painting here, not me).
Anyway, it was at that point when a channel opened to talk about what exactly an angel is, and how the light of consciousness reflects back to itself through pockets of darkness. The Self took form as Mooji in a dream. You'd probably like the tech analysis but I think angels and demons are really interesting stuff, and that ultimately speaking there was a subconscious logical sequence where my mind was already two steps ahead of itself but couldn't get 'there' (which ironically is always 'here') without first working through some emotional blockages. Then we can contextualize a universal mind and the potential for networking through creatures.
|
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Aug 22, 2016 3:09:01 GMT -5
Have you ever begged God for mercy? I mean got down on your knees and BEGGED and PLEADED because there is nothing else you can do? Yep. Twice. On one i got a response that was important to my 'Know Thyself' journey. On the other, no response, and from that decided to get off the Christian path, which turned out to be another important part of my journey. Have you ever been an utterly broken man? I'm not just talking about a few tears and some heart ache, I'm talking about being absolutely broken in heart, mind and spirit. Yep. Thrice. Painful as all hell, but working through them, obtaining profound positives. Have you exer experienced a loneliness so excruciatingly intense that you can't even believe that it's humanly or humanely possible to experience such a thing? Ahh, no. Have you ever been SO terrified that it LITERALLY paralyzes your body? Yep, and a really odd sensation to be physically frozen while observing the metal effort of instructing the bod to move and nothing happens. Have you experienced suffering to such a degree that you just have to scream because there is nothing else to do? Yep, a few times at various ages. Have you ever blubbered for 24 hours straight, pretty much without stopping? Not non stop, but a 2 week stint of only being able to utter one phrase related to pondering one question. Have you ever wanted to end your life, seriously end it? Yep, several times. Have you ever experienced ecstasy that blows away any orgasm that you've ever had? Yep, i called it the 'love realm'...lasting a few months Have you ever experienced a love so intense that you just HAVE to hug and hold total strangers? Yep, during the 'love realm' experience. Have you ever experienced a divine joy SO intensely exquisite that it makes every bit of suffering worth it? Hells yeah. To this day i still punch a fist into the air when i contemplate the harsh experiences i went through and the resultant positive attributes i uncovered and developed from them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2016 3:26:19 GMT -5
I agree that's one dynamic, maybe even the dominant one. Pretty much a no-brainer as applied to internet forums. Why would I characterize such a comment in the way you describe? You imply that characterization regarding one-upmanship has been made a sickening number of times. Are you sure? She is right, but falls into the trap of being made to be upset by your unrelenting pursuit to come out on top of any and all debate you engage in. Double-bind |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Aug 22, 2016 5:09:17 GMT -5
Ok , I must've misread. Thanks for clarifying. I come to STF with a guard up. I'm absolutely convinced everyone is positioned as a teacher or a student at the outset, and people generally want the wise teacher position; not the ignorant student one. Then what people say comes across as preaching presented as The Answer, rather than a conversation. It's kinda like that Ruthless Truth place, but without the steroids. When I turn it all about and I adopt the same forms of language that hold this charade together, well, I look stupid right, it sounds kinda inane... looks ridiculous... it's laughable. For some reason it seems to go unnoticed as acceptable as normal until the wrong person starts to do it. If I banged on at Enigma about his insanity and delusions and his over-investments and what have you, persistently rendered Satch into student shoes, called 'Efigma' for a month or two, prattled on about and and giggled at them like a little b1tch pretty much incessantly... not to metion the unknown PM's ad reports to admin all used in the big coercion... and so on... and like, suddenly, BIG SURPRISE, there is an eruption, and someone tells me where to get off. To me though, it is not a surprise, because I know the game as a whole and it goes round and around in a predictable cycle. This is my last mention of the social dynamics at STF, because of two reasons, I;ve already said everything, and secondly, it's now just becoming a part of the cycle itself. Oh yea, I'm done using the strategies ad turning them back, too. They are here to stay and required to persuade people into their places. 1) Yes, well, the plethora of unflattering opinions we all share of one another are, at their best, opportunities for self-reflection. This is regardless of whether they're ever corroborated or whether they're expressed publicly or privately. 2) On the receiving side, it should be easy to see that there's never any reason to buy into the ones voiced about us, and if it's not easy, well, then the opportunity is all the more acute. The flip side to this though, is that if it's clear that someone's having trouble with this, then deferring to their difficulty is the kind course of action. On the giving side, negative opinions of others or their ideas are never necessary. Although if the theme of a venue is frank adult honesty about existential ideas and structures of belief, then it's bound to occur. 3) The potential for the cycle to turn toxic is heightened by participation by those who are vulnerable to internalizing the negative personal opinions, are very vocal with their own, and who don't recognize kindness when it's extended to them. 1) I like that. 2) What happens is extistential 'discussions' are presented as Truth (under the notion of a pointer) and that is the production of 'knowledge' which is the power of influence, ad as power is exerted, it is resisted, so tension builds. We the fid that the 'knowers' fortify their position by claims such as the other person is in a tizz because their egoic self is threatened, ad this is where the person themselves becomes a subject of the knower's knowledge, hence a topic of discourse, and the projected location of lack, thereby further concentrating the excesses of power on the 'king' as his subject is articulated as the inverse form. If it was just a conversation, there would be no knowledge base to it, and people would be concerned with understanding what people mean by what they say rather than constructing right and wrong positions. 3) See how it starts whit 'self reflection, but ends in the subjugation of 'them'. Perhaps the interaction is not actually so unidirectional, but wrapped up in dynamics that go between, but people aren't perfect ad they might have a lot going on in life, ad who knows what's driving a person. When we talk about 'understanding'. and connoting that as some higher knowing of a spiritual kind, we have already lost the empathy which makes things mutual or shared, and instead, invoked a disparity between subject positions. In short, if the knowledge is dropped we can just say what we think, but that would dissolve the 'teacher' along with the 'student' and completely destroy the status quo. It'd probably be the end of STF discussion forums altogether! Maybe best to just go along with pointy teacher thingy, in that case. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Aug 22, 2016 5:41:35 GMT -5
You seem pleased with you victory. It's interesting that you need to create this polarity. Teacher/student, victory/defeat, win/lose, respect/abuse. Let your guard down. Most here just want to exchange views. It's safe. Any kind of abuse here cannot be compared with real abuse in the workplace or in a domestic relationship let's say which are serious issues that need to be dealt with. No one has to really confront anyone, they can walk away. The nature of such a beast as a spiritual forum is that it will test ones beliefs and investment in those beliefs and that can precipitate strong personal views and displays of vulnerability on occasion. To frame these exchanges within the context of a power struggle where one is being forced to defer to another is a dynamic that is continually alternating here so overall there seems to be a balance. I suppose what I'm saying is, don't be too serious about what's said here. True, most just exchange views, so I try to keep in that area, away from pointy sticks and personification. If you make allusions about lolly's issues or become the preacher teacher, I either refute and refuse it, or just keep clear. There's several ways in which this forum becomes unsafe: insults, verbal abuse, allusions amounting to psychological abuse, talking about people in a belittling fashion in public space, not to mention underlying insiuations which are more likely to take to heart, and debasement is passed off as 'zenstick', which really just a as a victim blaming devise. I tend to be pretty wary in this neck of the woods, myself. There is a strong power dynamic in the discourse, and you'd have to blind not to see it. I just assume people generally aren't tuned in at a level where they understand what words do, so they aren't particularly sensitive to the dynamics, not in terms of what is said, but in terms of what is happening. Spiritual life stems from the deep Metta and expresses in kindness and consideration, and these demonstrations of ruthlessness being paraded as 'honesty' are, conversely, deceptive. You see, you have no idea what my needs are, and I understand the reason for opening with a portrayal of lolly - I understand what it says, but furthermore, I know 'what it does'. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Aug 22, 2016 5:46:55 GMT -5
I do realise that I Am You. Inverting the images seen in the mirror is all about emotional exploration, and the biggest loser in that process is the human heart. In my life, as best I can, I remain in touch with what's going on with me, but sometimes I lose the plot, and slip off ito an obscure unconsciousness, and lose self awareness in terms of by body senses and the reactions of mind, and it doesn't take a lot to lose balance ad become compelled by reactive tendencies, as opposed to being conscious of these and responding more mindfully. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2016 5:49:25 GMT -5
1) Yes, well, the plethora of unflattering opinions we all share of one another are, at their best, opportunities for self-reflection. This is regardless of whether they're ever corroborated or whether they're expressed publicly or privately. 2) On the receiving side, it should be easy to see that there's never any reason to buy into the ones voiced about us, and if it's not easy, well, then the opportunity is all the more acute. The flip side to this though, is that if it's clear that someone's having trouble with this, then deferring to their difficulty is the kind course of action. On the giving side, negative opinions of others or their ideas are never necessary. Although if the theme of a venue is frank adult honesty about existential ideas and structures of belief, then it's bound to occur. 3) The potential for the cycle to turn toxic is heightened by participation by those who are vulnerable to internalizing the negative personal opinions, are very vocal with their own, and who don't recognize kindness when it's extended to them. 1) I like that. 2) What happens is extistential 'discussions' are presented as Truth (under the notion of a pointer) and that is the production of 'knowledge' which is the power of influence, ad as power is exerted, it is resisted, so tension builds. We the fid that the 'knowers' fortify their position by claims such as the other person is in a tizz because their egoic self is threatened, ad this is where the person themselves becomes a subject of the knower's knowledge, hence a topic of discourse, and the projected location of lack, thereby further concentrating the excesses of power on the 'king' as his subject is articulated as the inverse form. If it was just a conversation, there would be no knowledge base to it, and people would be concerned with understanding what people mean by what they say rather than constructing right and wrong positions. 3) See how it starts whit 'self reflection, but ends in the subjugation of 'them'. Perhaps the interaction is not actually so unidirectional, but wrapped up in dynamics that go between, but people aren't perfect ad they might have a lot going on in life, ad who knows what's driving a person. When we talk about 'understanding'. and connoting that as some higher knowing of a spiritual kind, we have already lost the empathy which makes things mutual or shared, and instead, invoked a disparity between subject positions. In short, if the knowledge is dropped we can just say what we think, but that would dissolve the 'teacher' along with the 'student' and completely destroy the status quo. It'd probably be the end of STF discussion forums altogether! Maybe best to just go along with pointy teacher thingy, in that case. Oh please. All you are saying is, hey it's difficult being a human being communicating with another human being, so instead of just making the best of it and recognising there is no such thing as perfect communication without the unavoidable complexity of a persona who also feels, with all that entails, I'll just pull the whole thing down. That's what you come to the table with and it's very boring. Once would have been okay. "Maybe best to just get along" seems like a good plan. |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 22, 2016 5:59:43 GMT -5
1) I like that. 2) What happens is extistential 'discussions' are presented as Truth (under the notion of a pointer) and that is the production of 'knowledge' which is the power of influence, ad as power is exerted, it is resisted, so tension builds. We the fid that the 'knowers' fortify their position by claims such as the other person is in a tizz because their egoic self is threatened, ad this is where the person themselves becomes a subject of the knower's knowledge, hence a topic of discourse, and the projected location of lack, thereby further concentrating the excesses of power on the 'king' as his subject is articulated as the inverse form. If it was just a conversation, there would be no knowledge base to it, and people would be concerned with understanding what people mean by what they say rather than constructing right and wrong positions. 3) See how it starts whit 'self reflection, but ends in the subjugation of 'them'. Perhaps the interaction is not actually so unidirectional, but wrapped up in dynamics that go between, but people aren't perfect ad they might have a lot going on in life, ad who knows what's driving a person. When we talk about 'understanding'. and connoting that as some higher knowing of a spiritual kind, we have already lost the empathy which makes things mutual or shared, and instead, invoked a disparity between subject positions. In short, if the knowledge is dropped we can just say what we think, but that would dissolve the 'teacher' along with the 'student' and completely destroy the status quo. It'd probably be the end of STF discussion forums altogether! Maybe best to just go along with pointy teacher thingy, in that case. Oh please. All you are saying is, hey it's difficult being a human being communicating with another human being, so instead of just making the best of it and recognising there is no such thing as perfect communication without the unavoidable complexity of a persona who also feels, with all that entails, I'll just pull the whole thing down. That's what you come to the table with and it's very boring. Once would have been okay. "Maybe best to just get along" seems like a good plan.Getting along with whom and/or what exactly? Edit: If I would see my neigbour throwing her garbage out of her window instead of putting it into the garbage-can, I would certainly say something to her to remind her where the gargabe-can is. I think that's a common sense approach most decent people I know would also engage in. Just sayin'... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2016 6:05:35 GMT -5
It's interesting that you need to create this polarity. Teacher/student, victory/defeat, win/lose, respect/abuse. Let your guard down. Most here just want to exchange views. It's safe. Any kind of abuse here cannot be compared with real abuse in the workplace or in a domestic relationship let's say which are serious issues that need to be dealt with. No one has to really confront anyone, they can walk away. The nature of such a beast as a spiritual forum is that it will test ones beliefs and investment in those beliefs and that can precipitate strong personal views and displays of vulnerability on occasion. To frame these exchanges within the context of a power struggle where one is being forced to defer to another is a dynamic that is continually alternating here so overall there seems to be a balance. I suppose what I'm saying is, don't be too serious about what's said here. True, most just exchange views, so I try to keep in that area, away from pointy sticks and personification. If you make allusions about lolly's issues or become the preacher teacher, I either refute and refuse it, or just keep clear. There's several ways in which this forum becomes unsafe: insults, verbal abuse, allusions amounting to psychological abuse, talking about people in a belittling fashion in public space, not to mention underlying insiuations which are more likely to take to heart, and debasement is passed off as 'zenstick', which really just a as a victim blaming devise. I tend to be pretty wary in this neck of the woods, myself. There is a strong power dynamic in the discourse, and you'd have to blind not to see it. I just assume people generally aren't tuned in at a level where they understand what words do, so they aren't particularly sensitive to the dynamics, not in terms of what is said, but in terms of what is happening. Spiritual life stems from the deep Metta and expresses in kindness and consideration, and these demonstrations of ruthlessness being paraded as 'honesty' are, conversely, deceptive. You see, you have no idea what my needs are, and I understand the reason for opening with a portrayal of lolly - I understand what it says, but furthermore, I know 'what it does'. Here's a visualisation exercise for you. When you read posts that seem to demean what someone has said or they come back with a healthy dose of sarcasm or do the dreaded teacher thing, do you imagine a face behind the keyboard that looks threatening, malicious, out to get you? Well try thinking of the sender of such a post typing out his or her post with a smile on their face, even though it may be a mischievous one. Dissolve that perceived threat because I'm sure the face I describe is nearer the truth. Heck I don't even feel like reaching for a pitchfork when I read the frog's posts! I hope I don't sound too much like a teacher telling you this. |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 22, 2016 6:08:02 GMT -5
True, most just exchange views, so I try to keep in that area, away from pointy sticks and personification. If you make allusions about lolly's issues or become the preacher teacher, I either refute and refuse it, or just keep clear. There's several ways in which this forum becomes unsafe: insults, verbal abuse, allusions amounting to psychological abuse, talking about people in a belittling fashion in public space, not to mention underlying insiuations which are more likely to take to heart, and debasement is passed off as 'zenstick', which really just a as a victim blaming devise. I tend to be pretty wary in this neck of the woods, myself. There is a strong power dynamic in the discourse, and you'd have to blind not to see it. I just assume people generally aren't tuned in at a level where they understand what words do, so they aren't particularly sensitive to the dynamics, not in terms of what is said, but in terms of what is happening. Spiritual life stems from the deep Metta and expresses in kindness and consideration, and these demonstrations of ruthlessness being paraded as 'honesty' are, conversely, deceptive. You see, you have no idea what my needs are, and I understand the reason for opening with a portrayal of lolly - I understand what it says, but furthermore, I know 'what it does'. Here's a visualisation exercise for you. When you read posts that seem to demean what someone has said or they come back with a healthy dose of sarcasm or do the dreaded teacher thing, do you imagine a face behind the keyboard that looks threatening, malicious, out to get you? Well try thinking of the sender of such a post typing out his or her post with a smile on their face, even though it may be a mischievous one. Dissolve that perceived threat because I'm sure the face I describe is nearer the truth. Heck I don't even feel like reaching for a pitchfork when I read the frog's posts! I hope I don't sound too much like a teacher telling you this. Not everybody comes to a forum like this as strong and self-confident like you and me are, Satch...mo. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2016 6:08:20 GMT -5
Oh please. All you are saying is, hey it's difficult being a human being communicating with another human being, so instead of just making the best of it and recognising there is no such thing as perfect communication without the unavoidable complexity of a persona who also feels, with all that entails, I'll just pull the whole thing down. That's what you come to the table with and it's very boring. Once would have been okay. "Maybe best to just get along" seems like a good plan.Getting along with whom and/or what exactly? Edit: If I would see my neigbour throwing her garbage out of her window instead of putting it into the garbage-can, I would certainly say something to her to remind her where the gargabe-can is. I think that's a common sense approach most decent people I know would also engage in. Just sayin'... You're scaring him now. You should know better. Garbage collection and disposal is very efficient in Deutschland. |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 22, 2016 6:11:42 GMT -5
Getting along with whom and/or what exactly?Edit: If I would see my neigbour throwing her garbage out of her window instead of putting it into the garbage-can, I would certainly say something to her to remind her where the gargabe-can is. I think that's a common sense approach most decent people I know would also engage in. Just sayin'... You're scaring him now. You should know better. Garbage collection and disposal is very efficient in Deutschland. That's right. But what about my bolded question? Are you saying, indirectly...well....I guess you know wadday mean. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2016 6:19:26 GMT -5
You're scaring him now. You should know better. Garbage collection and disposal is very efficient in Deutschland. That's right. But what about my bolded question? Are you saying, indirectly...well....I guess you know wadday mean. Whaddya mean get along with whom? Get along with others in the forum of course. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Aug 22, 2016 6:24:09 GMT -5
I don't think you're splitting hairs but I think you've grown cynical. (Hopefully, just about this forum) (Or just about me) (Or maybe Lolly is beginning to infect the whole forum)(siriusly) There can be two reasons why several people might agree on a social dynamic. One is that they're unconsciously absorbing a meme floating around the forum without question. The other is that it's true. I don't know about cynical, but I am very tired of hearing that everyone who agrees that the dynamic here is about one-upmanship is blindly running in with a torch and pitchfork. Lolly makes some interesting points. He delivers them through the lens of student-teacher. I have a different lens, but basically agree. I see it more as a conscious/unconscious dynamic. The ones who see themselves as conscious can deliver scathing critiques of the unconscious as an act of service (in waking up) but god-forbid the unconscious deliver anything even close to a critique of the conscious. Have you seen this critique over the years? It's had other names: d!ck-measuring, battle, a hammer looking for nails - all sorts of lenses basically talking about the same thing. Conscious and unconscious alike are doing the ST-Dance, so what's the difference between them? So here I am in battle-mode. It's uncomfortable for me and most of the time I'm apt to let something like this go after a few rounds. The fact that I'm not is probably why you're seeing 'becoming cynical'. The post above is disarming. There is no attack and there's a sense of questions rather than answers (although you suggest a few answers LOL). I appreciate that. Well the 'pitchfork thing is repeated as a sort of affirmation and used strategically i the discourse, so we can imagine the language flowing like a river and exerting a force, which is simply an unavoidable facet of discourse. These allisios such as 'youve grown cynical' are all part of the game. It's disempowering the voice of the accused, and thats the reason it's said. It doesn't 'converse' like the flow of the river going to endless seas, and it sets up the attack and the defensive position. I think it's pretty obvious that is what it does. People often call me cynical, but I refute it, and I know these projections are common and that other readers 'get an impression' from it. Mud sticks, as they say. Lolly is presented as some sort of disease, and not of the physical type. It's a psychological aspersion that I have something infectious to spread and instills fear that others around will contract it and be rendered nonsencical. The implication is that lolly infected whoever it is whom is said to have 'become cynical'. It's clear that lolly is the center of blame ad cause and locale ot 'the problem'. There is a lot being done in those few lines. It's by no means kind, and I'd describe it as 'an underhand insinuation'. Now I question, is this an assertion that sort of slides by, but impresses minds with self-imagery portrayed in derogatory light? These depictions don't actually represent lolly or Quinn; they're more like toilet graffiti charactures; but the assertions do serve a particular purpose, or at least, have a certain effect, and effect implies power. You notice Satch opened his two previous posts to me with you... something something something, so as to diminish the image of lolly and take the dominant position . Thats 'what it does'. I know these uses of language, and I can't communicate on such terms. |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 22, 2016 6:26:49 GMT -5
That's right. But what about my bolded question? Are you saying, indirectly...well....I guess you know wadday mean. Whaddya mean get along with whom? Get along with others in the forum of course. With everyone, no matter what? |
|
