Attention All! -- New, Stricter Quality Guidelines Now In Effect

[thehitman]

I might be wrong but it seems, that my (first) post about Jungs Archeypal Analysis has dissapeared. Not knowing what was the issue and therefore not being able to correct the mistake I don't think I will encouraged to use the forum ;). 

[meow_meow]

7 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

I don't see a valid reason for shutting down the thread though. This is the place for discussing these things after all. Otherwise, why does the forum even exist?

And again, its probably absolutely fine to discuss it here, but reason for locking that topic is not about the discussion itself, its about teaching bullscrap to others.
It's about how the topic starter delivered his ideas in a teaching type of way, which how ,I already mentioned, is probably false. And that is not discussing.

Edit:

7 minutes ago, thehitman said:

I might be wrong but it seems, that my (first) post about Jungs Archeypal Analysis has dissapeared. Not knowing what was the issue and therefore not being able to correct the mistake I don't think I will encouraged to use the forum ;). 

Here it is.

Edited September 13, 2020 by meow_meow

[Forestluv]

20 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

I don't see a valid reason for shutting down the thread though. This is the place for discussing these things after all. Otherwise, why does the forum even exist?

Yes, this is a place for =>discussing<= not a place for dogmatically pushing one’s agenda. 

If someone learns downward facing dog in Yoga, that is awesome. And it’s great to discuss how downward facing dog is important and integral to the practice of yoga. Once someone learns downward dog, what new opportunities of expansion open for them? There are also of new things to learn at this point.

This is a very different orientation than a mindset of “I just learned downward dog and know all of Yoga. In fact downward dog shows that Yoga is bullshit and there isn’t even yoga”. In a yoga class, that is problematic. It’s not the content of the downward dog posture, it is the mind’s relationship with it and how it is presented to others. Deep spiritual insights can be presented as poison. 

When I was learning Spanish, I oftened had breakthroughs that I shared with other students to help them. Yet I understood there was a lot for me to learn and I didn’t act like I was fully fluent and tell Spanish speakers that I’m right they are full of BS. From my POV, this mindset of tens manifests in mental dynamics of wanting to be right, in charge and resistance to a perceived authority. Yet this is relative. A person that has a brain tumor will have no problem seeing a  euro surgeon over a pre- med undergrad student. It’s ego based, survival oriented. 

 

[Consept]

I guess this applies more to the politics sub, the thing is if people are pushing an agenda what is the point in that discussion? Its not coming from a place of intellectual honesty, in that the person would be willing to change their mind if presented with counter evidence. The thing is most people on here can see it a mile away, their goal is to convince us that theyre neutral and theyve come to this conclusion that Trump is fighting evil or whatever but its so obvious what the intention is. Its easy for others to bite including myself as the assumption i that they are just missing something but its absolutely not the case. 

 

[Farnaby]

@Gesundheit definitely agree with you on this one. 

Seems pretty cult like to not accept people expressing different opinions about reality, consciousness, god, love and so on. 

I agree that we can all sometimes be arrogant and talk as if we hold the ultimate truth and that's not the best attitude, but isn't that exactly what banning people with different opinions is? 

I've also seen Leo frequently being condescending (and sometimes downright disrespectful) towards anyone who disagrees with him. 

IMO if you don't want this to turn into a cult you should tolerate different opinions. Of course moderating insults, racism, troll posts and so on is a good idea but banning people because they don't agree that everything is Love... How is that different from cult/mass thinking?

 

[Michal__]

The thing is if you guys were more advanced than Leo there would be no reason to post there/spend time on the forum. Of course many of you are better at certain aspects of life (Leo for example is not very  experienced with the occult/using his mind to affect the external world), but overall he is a great teacher when it comes to self-actualization.

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Gesundheit said:

Sorry, but that does not apply when it comes to spirituality. I could spend 40 years on the path and reach nowhere significant while trying all the techniques, and some other guy who is born naturally talented could realize God and have more clarity even than Sadhguru or Adyashanti. Spirituality is not a science. You don't get insights by adding information, but by removing false information. Awareness is a major component in spirituality, and it's unquantifiable. So I don't know how you're comparing the two.

I didn’t say vertical constructs of learning is all there is or that every person has equal abilities. Not everybody can be Kobe Bryant. Kobe was amazingly gifted AND put in immense effort, work and practice to develop his expertise.

Yet if we are going to create some type of “thing” to be mastered, its silly to say no work is necessary for mastery.

1 hour ago, Gesundheit said:

I don't agree with that. New insights are appreciated more often than not only if they're in agreement with former insights. For example, Leo says reality is love. I say it's not, and that that's just a partial truth. This is a direct disagreement that always ends with the same conclusion. Anyone who does not agree with Leo is "not awake", and Ralston is "probably playing coy". I don't want to start a discussion about this. Just giving one example.

You are correct from one perspective. You can stay within the truth of that perspective or can expand. 
How would me agreeing to the truth within this perspective help you or others to expand? It doesn’t.

Imagine someone has just realized the truth of their left hand, yet cannot see their right hand. How is agreeing that they have a left hand helping them to realize they also have a right hand? To expand, we would need to say “Yes, from within left-handness, the left hand is true. Yet you are missing something. Look away from the left hand for a moment and look here at the right hand”. 
 

The difficulty is that a mind becomes attached and identified to the truth of their left-handness. They will not want to set that down and look in another direction, because they see that as saying their left hand is false and they are wrong. As well, the mind may be skeptical, cynical and fearful. It may think “You are trying to trick me into believing their is a right hand. Show me evidence BEFORE I look away from my left hand and look toward this “right hand. You think you are so smart and special because you can see what you call a right hand. You are so arrogant. You aren’t better than me. I know as much about hands as you do. I should be the one teaching about hands. My left hand view is as mportnat as any other view. Don’t call me a left hand dogmatist! Don’t censor my left hand views!!”

This seems silly when we speak of hands because it has no elements osprey self identify, attachment and survival. Once that is added in, it is much harder for the mind to see. The bore mentality is super common in areas like religion, gender, politics, spiritualuty

 

[Proserpina]

Energetics are off on the forum.  

Things will settle (especially if I stay away from the journaling section and never.pm.Leo) 

 ❤ 

To fully suppress feminine chaos would be a mistake. 

[diamondpenguin]

11 hours ago, Ya know said:

Hey, not that I would do it, but I'm wondering why you would be against people meeting up in the same city? Wouldn't that be kind of cool to meet someone like minded?

We need to all meet in somewhere in the wilderness and build a township there. The most conscious village on earth.

[w4read]

2 hours ago, Consept said:

I guess this applies more to the politics sub, the thing is if people are pushing an agenda what is the point in that discussion? Its not coming from a place of intellectual honesty, in that the person would be willing to change their mind if presented with counter evidence. The thing is most people on here can see it a mile away, their goal is to convince us that theyre neutral and theyve come to this conclusion that Trump is fighting evil or whatever but its so obvious what the intention is. Its easy for others to bite including myself as the assumption i that they are just missing something but its absolutely not the case. 

 

I think its important to be aware of the privilege of having what is considered to be more "evolved views". Or in other words, views that are more "relativistically true". Because if you were to say something like "feminism is important" or "we have to fight racism", you wouldn't really have to ellaborate much on any of those views because they're generally accepted and people would agree on it without nescessarily asking you WHY you hold those views. But if you were to say the opposite you would better have some pretty good arguments to back those claims up without appearing to be a troll. And even then some people would probably view it as trolling. So that can make it extra hard for the people who actually have something that's a bit unconventional to share which adds value to the discussion. Imagine that it was opposite. Everybody could deny racism and endorce Trump and that was sort of the accepted truth, but if you were to say the opposite YOU would have to be the one coming up with the convincing arguments and people would approach your arguments with scepticism.

Also I don't think this "having an agenda" stuff is unique for any side of the discussion. I must say I find people in general to come across as pretty convinced most of the time in their statements. This applies to both sides, it just turns out that the left side of the spectrum tend to be more relativistically correct because they are more developed ( in general) than your typical hardcore Trump-supporter. Both sides have their egos and want to defend their views for whatever the reason is for why they hold them. That's at least my experience. I've also fallen to this trap myself several times.

[Forestluv]

41 minutes ago, w4read said:

I think its important to be aware of the privilege of having what is considered to be more "evolved views". Or in other words, views that are more "relativistically true". Because if you were to say something like "feminism is important" or "we have to fight racism", you wouldn't really have to ellaborate much on any of those views because they're generally accepted and people would agree on it without nescessarily asking you WHY you hold those views. But if you were to say the opposite you would better have some pretty good arguments to back those claims up without appearing to be a troll. And even then some people would probably view it as trolling. So that can make it extra hard for the people who actually have something that's a bit unconventional to share which adds value to the discussion. Imagine that it was opposite. Everybody could deny racism and endorce Trump and that was sort of the accepted truth, but if you were to say the opposite YOU would have to be the one coming up with the convincing arguments and people would approach your arguments with scepticism.

This is the burden progressives, innovative, creative thinkers must carry. Yet there is a distinction between what was innovative in the past and what is innovative in the present.

The idea that the earth is spherical was at one time highly innovative and controversial. The burden was on those who were ahead of their time to blaze a new path for others to follow. Yet today, those who believe the earth is spherical no longer carry that burden. They are under no obligation to prove to flat-earthers that the earth is spherical. It is no longer a new, progressive idea. 

This is part of the problem of people making up any nonsense they want and then demand to be taken seriously and expect to be shown proof they have already dismissed. A modern day example would be coronavirus hoaxers or climate change deniers.

However, those with new, innovative ideas carry a burden of convincing a public - or they can keep it to themselves or a small circle of friends. If someone makes a claim like “everyone is racist”, they will likely face some resistance since it’s a relatively progressive idea. The person would need to explain things like racism being on a spectrum, relativity, subconscious bias etc. Yet if someone made the claim that the institution of slavery is racist - that idea was progressive 200 years ago, we are way past that.

[Consept]

15 minutes ago, w4read said:

I think its important to be aware of the privilege of having what is considered to be more "evolved views". Or in other words, views that are more "relativistically true". Because if you were to say something like "feminism is important" or "we have to fight racism", you wouldn't really have to ellaborate much on any of those views because they're generally accepted and people would agree on it without nescessarily asking you WHY you hold those views.

True but if they didnt have any nuance in their view i wouldnt necessarily consider them to have an 'evolved view', this is seen all the time on social media and although i dont see them in the same way as a trump supporter, i would feel that if i did add a nuanced comment to their view i would be attacked in the same way. No one is really on this forum just saying 'feminism is important' if they were the conversation wouldnt really get far. 

19 minutes ago, w4read said:

But if you were to say the opposite you would better have some pretty good arguments to back those claims up without appearing to be a troll. And even then some people would probably view it as trolling. So that can make it extra hard for the people who actually have something that's a bit unconventional to share which adds value to the discussion.

I take your point but like i said i dont necessarily have  an issue with someone supporting Trump, i will maybe enquire as to why more than i would if someone said 'racism is bad'. But the issue is more the lack of nuance or lack of critical thinking, you can see many threads on the forum where a Trump supporter has popped up and speaks in soundbites that every other Trump supporter uses and then doesnt consider any opposing views. This dynamic is completely pointless as it doesnt lead to anything, its the same as if a fundamentalist Christian popped up and did the same with creationism, at what point do you say this is not going to lead anywhere? 

23 minutes ago, w4read said:

Imagine that it was opposite. Everybody could deny racism and endorce Trump and that was sort of the accepted truth, but if you were to say the opposite YOU would have to be the one coming up with the convincing arguments and people would approach your arguments with scepticism.

I guess this would be the case if i went on a Trump forum, of course it would be frustrating to not be heard if you believe in something. I got into a couple of these over youtube comments, at the start of the pandemic a lot of people were putting out anti-vaxx videos and after looking into it i saw how off base they were, i presented a few arguments and was called an idiot and whatever else, but then i realised belief is very strong, if someone believes something dogmatically there is no changing their mind, not instantly anyway. I feel like this forum is not dogmatic, at the very least you can present your case, someone might agree or disagree. If your point is just a dogmatic belief that will get found out and thats what tends to stop discussion dead not people just shutting you down for thinking the wrong thing. 

30 minutes ago, w4read said:

Also I don't think this "having an agenda" stuff is unique for any side of the discussion. I must say I find people in general to come across as pretty convinced most of the time in their statements. This applies to both sides, it just turns out that the left side of the spectrum tend to be more relativistically correct because they are more developed ( in general) than your typical hardcore Trump-supporter. Both sides have their egos and want to defend their views for whatever the reason is for why they hold them. That's at least my experience. I've also fallen to this trap myself several times.

There was a far left guy who was dogmatic in his beliefs on here and it was the same questioning a far right guy wouldve got. So its not unique to one side, forget the content its the structure of belief thats more the issue 

 

[DrewNows]

People seem to fear not having an “evolved view” on things and this causes the perpetuation of these dynamics.

Im an unconventional thinker, and I can feel resistance to sharing ideas that may receive harsh criticism from those who feel the need for views to be shared in a clear manor. 

Many posters are seemingly not curious enough to delve into perceived irrational territory, but it is a great opportunity, usually, if controversial ideas can be accepted 

[Moon]

8 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

None of you seem to have ever disagreed with anything Leo says. Not even once have I ever seen a moderator having a discussion with Leo with an opposing opinion. You're never in disagreement. And I'm not talking about some toxic pointless kind of back and forth arguing, just a simple civil disagreement. Never. Not even once. Is this a coincidence? Or does Leo's enlightenment somehow come in the same package with the green letters?

lol not true. The minor differences in opinions probably don't catch your attention.

 

[w4read]

15 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

This is the burden progressives, innovative, creative thinkers must carry. Yet there is a distinction between what was innovative in the past and what is innovative in the present.

The idea that the earth is spherical was at one time highly innovative and and controversial. The burden was on those who were ahead of their time to blaze a new path for others to follow. Yet today, those who believe the earth is spherical no longer carry that burden. They are under no obligation to prove to flat-earthers that the earth is spherical. It is no longer a new, progressive idea. 

This is part of the problem of people making up any nonsense they want and then demand to be taken seriously and expect to be shown proof they have already dismissed. A modern day example would be coronavirus or climate change deniers.

However, yet those with new, innovative ideas do carry a burden of convincing a public - or they can keep it to themselves or a small circle of friends. If someone makes a claim like “everyone is racist”, they will likely face some resistance since it’s a relatively progressive idea. The person would need to explain things like racism being on a spectrum, relativity, subconscious bias etc. Yet if someone made they claim that the institution of slavery is racist - that idea was progressive 200 years ago, we are way past that.

I agree. And I'm not nesscesarily critical of it being like that. It's just an interesting dynamic and something I feel it's important to at least be aware of when people are coming up with different views. In a sense the bias serves a very specific purpose in not allowing all kinds of crazy view points ruining the productivity of the discussion which I think is valid.

 

19 minutes ago, Consept said:

forget the content its the structure of belief thats more the issue

I guess you pretty much summed it up here  

[Carl-Richard]

9 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

None of you seem to have ever disagreed with anything Leo says. Not even once have I ever seen a moderator having a discussion with Leo with an opposing opinion.

Then I consider you unlucky, because those are some of the more interesting discussions on here. There are different ways to express a disagreement, and sometimes it's not even necessary to do so. The types of less mature outbursts that take up the most attention on here are usually about much more than just a matter of disagreement.

Edited September 13, 2020 by Carl-Richard

[Someone here]

Well I guess Leo forgot to mention that this applies to everyone except @zeroISinfinity lol 

[Proserpina]

43 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Well I guess Leo forgot to mention that this applies to everyone except @zeroISinfinity lol 

ZeroISinfinity is 'high value'.

[Proserpina]

When low value, perform magic. 

[Gesundheit]

@Forestluv I'm sorry. I took a quick overlook at your latest posts and didn't read them thoroughly. You don't seem to give any examples for the thing I'm asking about. For that reason I don't want to keep engaging with this discussion as you're probably defending some position with a dogmatic attitude. I've asked you twice to show me an example of a moderator disagreeing with Leo, or vice-versa. And I was generous and agreed with you that these kinds of disagreements are "tier 2" level. Yet, you never gave me even one example. For the last time, show me one example of such disagreements so that I may be able to see what I'm missing. Something like Ralston disagreeing on Love, or psychedelics. Otherwise I gotta apologize, and this discussion will be over.