Natasha Tori Maru

"You shouldn't publicly criticize or summarize a person's negative behaviour unless you first provide extensive context, qualifications, and positive traits." Does this need to then apply to everyone? Else it becomes rules for thee, not for me... or anyone else we arbitrarily feel we should apply this ruleset to..

@Joseph Maynor I am not sure I am being clear - I don't feel to be disagreeing. Feeling is the first instinct - I just enjoy deconstructing it. Which comes after, for myself. Maybe I am misunderstanding you, or you me. Oh well. It is in good faith nonetheless. In fact, I am steering toward there being no separation between thought, feeling and emotion. No clean one anyway. I am totally undecided on the matter. Thoughts aren't something we can detect with any external tools. Feelings have a body response that can be detected and felt. Are they one and the same? Can they be separate? I go back and forth.

I am sure there is more to deconstruct inside regarding tells you are observing. Sometimes it's quicker and cleaner to feel into how we respond. I go toward my gut, intuition and feeling initially - then I like to try to reverse engineer my feelings by re-reading responses, assessing exactly how I respond to certain phrases, and then recall previous context. Often I cannot put to words how I come to my conclusions. Sometimes the process is confrontational and torturous. But the pain is just in the learning. I try to intellectually understand how I respond. But there is a beauty and intelligence to feeling that the mind cannot grasp, I feel. I practice observing my responses when I am not so charged up as to be overtaken.

I normally steer toward that belief, if there is a systemic series of interactions or replies that take my general comments in the negative. On off comments here or there are not so indicative as a pattern of behaviour is. Everyone has their own perception and understanding of what each of us say. When a user takes all my posts in bad faith, or the majority - it is usually a safe assumption there is dislike or disapproval in some way. Or they dislike my conduct. Often my questions will be perceived as leading them or steering them toward some conclusion *I* want them to make. Like I am trapping them. When, almost all the time, my questions are to try to understand their POV. Sometimes I fall into traps where I am angry and it is coming through in text. I try not to post at all in that case. How about yourself? Are you able to discern when someone is taking you in bad faith? What do you look for?

@LordFall All g all g To be clear I didn't feel accused - I just felt like clarifying my position. I often joke around about being power hungry and loving to dish out discipline - but it is in jest 100%. My jokes about power, taken out of context (and if someone is a bad faith actor wrt me), could easily be twisted to believe whatever that person may wish. I cannot control that, but maybe I can steer the dialogue somewhat. Ultimately I have no control whatsoever. I feel quite bad when having to use corporal punishment via moderation tools or hard words. I like & respect many of the members more than they like me - which I am okay with. But all too often the moderation position is conflated with me as a person. Which is some of the essence of the topic at hand - the conflation around Leo as a person and the teacher position.

I can't speak for Carl but glory and status is the last thing I look for or want. I would prefer to be a mod without the green. I look at my position as a way to give back to Leo in a way that speaks louder than words

@LordFall Do you think the act of moderating and giving their time without pay (volunteers), is an action that might show gratitude, rather than words?

Do you perceive gratitude and criticism as opposites? I think it is a mark of maturity to hold both simultaneously. Refusing to acknowledge flaws because you feel gratitude can become a form of loyalty bias. @Carl-Richard summarised a pattern of behaviour without comment. And if you read the thread - it was coming from a place of concern IE are you okay Leo? Or, raising awareness. I think how we understand this thread is a reflection of our emotional reaction to observation, rather than the observation itself.

@ZenSwift Thanks for sharing interesting read. The output from AI is definitely a statement regarding how it is used and what sort of questions are thrown at it. Could be untrue depending on how the AI is programmed. The prompt is about assumptions so it inherently targets potential blindspots or uninspected beliefs. Just phrased in a non-threatening way. If you have not tailored replies you will get the standard sycophantic pandering. It says a bit more about how it is used than an overall picture, because it can only report on the data fed to it. Your loss

A fun prompt I found that was sort of revelatory, as I didn't expect the reply: "Tell me what assumptions I have repeated so often that you now treat them as fact when talking to me" No obligation to post replies, but below was mine:

Late last year the day before moving house - I miss that circle mirror

Wildly incorrect. I am extremely emotive and angry in expression, often. I show all kinds of emotions and do not suppress. I would like to know what you mean by "normal way" I simply do not direct it AT someone (I genuinely try not to, at least) and try never to attack back. My defence is normally stonewalling. I give others nothing back to further energise their anger when it is directed at me. Most people who are in a highly energised attack state want that energy bounced back to feed them. You've mischaracterised me a few times now. And again - it comes down to what you yourself consistently reinforce; you have little idea what I am like, expressively, in real life. Totally different to the impressions I probably make here 🫠 @Thought Art banter and calling the chippies and trades names is par the course - especially on Australia. I've only had to face really hard aggressive anger when it's someone I do not have rapport with. But when I know someone, I can tell them to fuck off and they understand there is no actual personal ill wishing on my behalf of there wellfare. Context matters 100% I am never one to suppress. I get called unprofessional due to my emptying, more than anything else. But I do not, or try not, to direct my emotions at someone. Or weaponised them. I throw things at the office frequently. I abuse inanimate objects a lot when angry Like you raised it's a big challenge in stocism. It's not about repressing. But holding space for you own emotions, as well as anothers.

I've had contractors standing in front of my face, spittle from the mouth, calling me a little cu**. I've been called a dumb bitch by dudes. To my face. Had guys on site walk up to me and get right on my personal space with antagonistic, aggressive body language. Somehow I didn't attack back or respond. They had reasons to be angry. Just because you can explain someone's bad behaviour, does not make it okay. You choose to let your temper fly.

Just watch who asks the leading questions... Telling And the strawmaning of @zurew's position.

Overreaching here. Projecting. I'm not saying all your points are bull, but there is a some bullshit served up in there along with what got could call accurate inference. But it's not a guarantee to mean what you think. These are your personal moral judgements about what you personally define as what appears to be a feminine virtue - not a universal truth.

These conclusions are assumptions. Not guaranteed facts. These are feelings not facts.

Gratitude 🙏🏻❤️

Post reply or lies 😈

It's the argument tactics chosen, not the argument or criticism itself. Both obviously can have issue. But the way one argues belies their assumptions and whether it is, indeed, a good faith discussion.

@Basman The hardware onflow effect is a good point. 2 years ago I built a new PC. To build the EQUIVALENT now is slightly more $$$

It's when moral and ethics are compromised that the disgust for marketing seeps into it. It's so tantalising to face the concept of being able to make bank in questionable ways (exploitation) and potentially get away with it. Risk free. You don't know the depths you will go to unless faced with the opportunity. Small steps. One little thing. How bad can it be? How far can I push it? Ethics and morals are your untested assumptions about yourself. Marketing isn't necessarily the issue - human corruption is. But marketing sits close to persuasion, desire, status, fear, and money. The very pressures that test a person's character.

ROFL Why is the image of baguette so dry and clay-y in head? Like sticking to my mouth, need to wash it down I feel like we need some hot butter and a sliver of camembert, slice tomato and basil to really get this party started

Leo does, intentionally or not, insert himself into the work by being the sole authority. Without an external metric (that isn't subjective) to measure against, he positions himself as the ultimate authority. Because he operates largely outside an established tradition, and presents highly personal metaphysical conclusions, there is often no agreed-upon external standard by which to evaluate claims such as the nature of consciousness, God-realization, or the structure of reality. Usually you get 'direct experience' touted as justifying radically different conclusions. But this can vary wildly depending on who reports it. You could argue that the work he does is inherently first person and experiential. That external validation is impossible with certain types of consciousness work. Direct experience being the metric to judge. I see the self sealing nature of this as: Leo reports and insight > Leo interprets the insight > Leo explains why critics don't understand the insight > Leo remains the primary authority on what is correct I think this is where it becomes mixed up. It creates a system where teaching a method and teaching ones personal metaphysics gets blended up. In fairness though, many spiritual teachers through history have done this. The different is they were embedded in wider foundations in solid traditions. Competing interpretations exist. Leo occupies a very large portion of his work because it is so individualised. I don't think this really answers anything about cult or not. That's not my intention with this comment. But I do see where @zurew makes some solid points.

@Wilhelm44 profiling the vulnerability and suggestibility of the members ... 😇

This can be explained by egoic attachment to the teacher role, narcissism. Inflated ego. Could be many motivations behind it. It could be a mechanism to funnel out those who would not follow, and keep narcissistic supply close via adoration from students. Just some possibilities - I don't have a dog in this fight.