»A question of presentation«

Psikey said that.

I think that sentence encompasses that whole thread.

How about this intell: Social Darwinists love the idea until they find out how far behind they are on their scale. When they do find out, they leave Darwinism and wear their judgment robes. So, to admit that they would have missed something would be to admit that they are lower on the totem pole of evolution which of course is BS but they don't know that.

So who's the arrogant one in this case, eh?

Good point.

(Why) is this a necessary reflex action on the part of those of you who do it?

having been a victim of many epiphanies myself, i know how life-changing they can be. when a person has one, and tries to discuss it on forums as these, s/he is not in a pyschological position to have the epiphany criticised, ridiculed, dismissed w/single-liners, questioned, or even ignored. because we identify so completely w/our insights, we will of course fight tooth and nail to defend them.

but likewise, the critics themselves have their own epiphanic insights which don't always hold up well against a challenge, so the first response to a new or different idea which may be counter to theirs is to immediately go on the attack: keep the idea away, stomp it into the dirt, get rid of it before it has a chance to infect the purity of their own visions.

that's not to say epiphanies can't send a person down a markedly wrong path that other people would like to correct, but aggressive 'corrections' can be misconstrued as mere bullying for the fun of it, as an attack against their freedom of speech and thought, etc etc., and flame wars ensue.

imho, of course.

Thank you. That is the point of my first question (In blue, for "right to speak" ). It is not necessary to do that.

Now what about the second question as to whether it limits the one doing that?

i paraphrase a critic's comment in one of these forums to a lengthy and interesting (though not Politically Correct) posting:
'who the hell let this jerk on this forum? what a bunch of prejudiced nonsense!'
had the critic gone on to say in what ways the thesis was nonsense, it would have made a much more illuminating discussion for all concerned. instead, it was a statement of rejection, pretty much urging an end to all future discussion of the ideas.
there are words that have a low flashpoint to people's emotions, and it is of no service to anyone if we allow these words to incite that flash at the expense of reasoned discussion or thoughtful withdrawal. dismissing, belittling or demonizing the ideas of others hardens both them and the belittlers into fixed and narrow positions that must then be defended even when the main point becomes lost in recriminations and so's-yer-old-mans.
imho.

ninian1111, quoting captpostmod on the thread about Judaism wrote:

paraphrase a critic's comment in one of these forums to a lengthy and interesting (though not Politically Correct) posting: 'who the hell let this jerk on this forum? what a bunch of prejudiced nonsense!' had the critic gone on to say in what ways the thesis was nonsense, it would have made a much more illuminating discussion for all concerned.

"All concerned" including the one who took offense, right. But once offense was taken, then the shields were raised. And its difficult to reason when this happens isn't it?

But once offense was taken, then the shields were raised. And its difficult to reason when this happens isn't it?

not necessarily, but taking offense is a good method of getting to mobil avenue; the best defense is a good offense.
imho

Interesting to find a review that matches what Gina's critics have said to one of Gina's source materials for her theories--

"I did a review for the second book as well so I'll just add some different stuff here. I am very open minded (and open hearted which I think is more important) and found an underlying theme in the four books I read that did not feel right to me. You can read the material and just sense how it makes you feel. Some of the reviews make it sound like if you don't read it or if you find any issue with the material then you're a limited person. That's not the case at all! Just because something is channelled "from the other side of the veil" doesn't mean it's totally kosher. We exist on the other side of the veil too and we are all surrounded by beings all the time. It's up to us to determine what we want to integrate into this lifetime and what we don't. Trust your intuition with any material you read or listen to, your higher self knows what's what."

You can check out the book here--amazon.com...

does it limit the one being taunted/goaded/cajoled/belittled/mocked/condescended to, etc.,....? Only if you assume that others are capable of providing your "enlightenment". Food for thought? Intellectual masturbation? Possibly. But believing that that promotes you to a higher plane of awareness is facile and ultimately self-defeating, unless your function is to be a toadie....and once the revolution comes, you'll be seated at the right hand...

CaptPostMod wrote:

Interesting to find a review that matches what Gina's critics have said to one of Gina's source materials for her theories-- "I did a review for the second book as well so I'll just add some different stuff here. I am very open minded (and open hearted which I think is more important) and found an underlying theme in the four books I read that did not feel right to me. You can read the material and just sense how it makes you feel. Some of the reviews make it sound like if you don't read it or if you find any issue with the material then you're a limited person. That's not the case at all! Just because something is channelled "from the other side of the veil" doesn't mean it's totally kosher. We exist on the other side of the veil too and we are all surrounded by beings all the time. It's up to us to determine what we want to integrate into this lifetime and what we don't. Trust your intuition with any material you read or listen to, your higher self knows what's what." You can check out the book here--amazon.com...

Again, it would not be wise to take one piece of information and blow it out of proportion.

dancur wrote:

does it limit the one being taunted/goaded/cajoled/belittled/mocked/condescended to, etc.,....? Only if you assume that others are capable of providing your "enlightenment". Food for thought? Intellectual masturbation? Possibly. But believing that that promotes you to a higher plane of awareness is facile and ultimately self-detating, unless your function is to be a toadie....and once the revolution comes, you'll be seated at the right hand...

You used to be known as Lusid or xLusidx didn't you? Well, since I know who you were, I assume you know who I am (some of us are).

Well, things are a bit different 1 year later. For instance, I'll tell you that whether others are capable of providing what you need to enlighten yourself is not an assumption, unless you are going to tell me that no one needs schools, manuals, maps, or anything else. To an extent this is true, but it sure saves alot of time when you can draw from 30 years of experience in something without having to devote that kinda time researching it yourself, right?

More food for thought:

If no one can enlighten you, no one can really belittle/goad/condescend/<insert as many negative verbs as you wish here> you either. But, of course, you know that already

that's where you'd be wrong, and a good lesson in making assumptions is thereby provided

Whatever you say.

yes

I Corinthians 14:27-33, 39-40

"No more than two or three should speak in tongues. They must speak one at a time, and someone must interpret what they say. But if no one is present who can interpret, they must be silent in your church meeting and speak in tongues to God privately.

Let two or three people prophesy, and let the others evaluate what is said. But if someone is prophesying and another person receives a revelation from the Lord, the one who is speaking must stop. In this way, all who prophesy will have a turn to speak, one after the other, so that everyone will learn and be encouraged. Remember that people who prophesy are in control of their spirit and can take turns. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace, as in all the meetings of God’s holy people.

So, my dear brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and don’t forbid speaking in tongues. But be sure that everything is done properly and in order."

I just wanted to add that in the past couple months, I have learned a great deal about human nature. I had been thinking that people basically were curious about things that they didn't know and thus were open to discussing them. In contrast, I have been shown that most people feel that being a "disciple" is somehow an undignified condition that is a gateway to becoming a candidate for Jonestown or something, as if there is no ground in between.

Whatever the case, I'm sensing an unusual (from my own perspective only) amount of hostility to things that require a person to abandon concepts and ideas that may or may not need to be discarded. I, on the other hand, have said many times that I don't care how an idea is presented, "cryptically", "self-righteously", "sweetly", or whatever as long as it is correct. Many others don't seem to care much about being being given a line of BS to their face as long as the person seems nice about it and serves it with a big smile on theirs.

I'm sorry that I can't be like the crowd in this regard. That I can't confuse being open-minded with dropping all scrutiny of what is being presented as truth. That I tend to lend support where I see unjust criticism mounting. But I do not see my assimilation on the horizon.

Richard Bach in Illusions wrote:

"Richard, in being so fierce toward my vampire, you were doing what you wanted to do, even though you thought it was going to hurt somebody else. He even told you he'd be hurt if..." "He was going to suck my blood!" "Which is what we do to anyone when we tell them we'll be hurt if they don't live our way." ... "The thing that puzzles you," he said, "is an accepted saying that happens to be impossible. The phrase is hurt somebody else. We choose, ourselves, to be hurt or not to be hurt, no matter what. Us who decides. Nobody else. My vampire told you he'd be hurt if you didn't let him? That's his decision to be hurt, that's his choice. What you do about it is your decision, your choice: give him blood; ignore him; tie him up; drive a stake through his heart. If he doesn't want the holly stake, he's free to resist, in whatever way he wants. It goes on and on, choices, choices." "When you look at it that way..." "Listen," he said, "it's important. We are all. Free. To do. Whatever. We want. To do."

Richard Bach in Illusions wrote:

Imagine the universe beautiful and just and perfect. Then be sure of one thing: The Is has imagined it quite a bit better than you have. The original sin is to limit the Is. Don't.

pendaco wrote:

You know what I thought while reading these last few pages; This thread (and a lot of others) could be compressed into, lets say 5-6 pages if you remove all the offtopic nonsense

I've checked back in the '04 and '03 threads and posts and come to the same conclusion. The participants change but the focus remains the same, except there was a lot more cussing back then.

The only recent threads that three of the people on the 24th page the 7/7 thread have written that are not outright chit-chat items have been inquiries that seemed to have been posted to save the trouble of using a search engine for a minute or so. And that's when they are actually talking about the films at all. And yet they want to come to a thread made about the purpose of the films and vent as if someone is preventing them from writing their own threads about why they think the films were written.

I remember there was a call in the last few months for a community commentary on all 3 films. Evolusionary is the only one who put forth the effort and did it and the same people initially asking for this didn't even join in. Now if I didn't know the people here better, I would find that strange. That is the perfect opportunity for all concerned to express in their own words what the matrix is. And yet they'd rather express their frustration towards a thread that represents that they haven't been keeping up to date.

psikey... wrote:

There are three possibilities: 1. It's a bad idea. This is the most probable case because good ideas are rare or have quite likely been thought of since 1999. 2. It's a good idea and I'm mad at you because I didn't think of it so I'm going to beat you down for coming up with it. 3. It's too complicated to quickly determine whether it is good or bad but I'll use response #2 anyway. psikey ps - Of course there is number 4, in which case I'm jumping on you for the sheer joy of jumping on somebody.

intell wrote:

I remember there was a call in the last few months for a community commentary on all 3 films. Evolusionary is the only one who put forth the effort and did it and the same people initially asking for this didn't even join in. Now if I didn't know the people here better, I would find that strange. That is the perfect opportunity for all concerned to express in their own words what the matrix is. And yet they'd rather express their frustration towards a thread that represents that they haven't been keeping up to date.

psikey... wrote:

There are three possibilities: 1. It's a bad idea. This is the most probable case because good ideas are rare or have quite likely been thought of since 1999. 2. It's a good idea and I'm mad at you because I didn't think of it so I'm going to beat you down for coming up with it. 3. It's too complicated to quickly determine whether it is good or bad but I'll use response #2 anyway. psikey ps - Of course there is number 4, in which case I'm jumping on you for the sheer joy of jumping on somebody.

Dude, I couldn't have said it better myself. I guess I stopped them from doing that too.

Hehe. I was wrong about how long ago it was. Time flies, as they say.

intell wrote:

Hehe. I was wrong about how long ago it was. Time flies, as they say.

Yeah, but I knew what you meant either way.