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

[Consept]

5 minutes ago, DrewNows said:

Before censorship this year, YouTube used to be a pretty good example. Free speech within guidelines is important in my opinion

A forum on consciousness work could be less occupied by judgement 

Specifically a forum though, as a video sharing site is so wide in scope its not really the same thing 

[Forestluv]

40 minutes ago, DrewNows said:

Perception dictates level of consciousness, not the content. Let’s say there’s a thread leo views to be a distraction, and he makes the judgment to assume it’s a distraction for anyone on his forum, does this come off as a very “high conscious” attitude and openness? Surely not, whether I agree with his assessment or not, it’s tyrannical 

From my POV, the forum has a much stronger emphasis on structure than content. The emphasis is developing meta views. 

People holding different worldviews will disagree with what "high conscious" is. Of course, each individual will think their view is "higher consciousness".

If the goal of a forum is to learn Spanish, isn't it a distraction if someone constantly posts Chinese video games? I think we would all agree this would be a distraction. The key is that we agree what "Spanish" is. If someone thought "Spanish" was about video gaming in various languages, they would perceive themself has being "censored" or "canceled" after they posted valuable "Spanish" examples of Chinese video games. 

Anyone cannot create their own relative definition of what "High Consciousness" is. There is a component of groundless relativity. Yet there is also a component of grounding. Without some sense of grounding, there is no purpose or forum. As a simple example, someone who believed that each person is either 100% good or 100% bad would have a simplistic view. A higher evolved view would see that a person could be on a spectrum of good and bad (murder is worse than stealing an apple) and a person can have both good and bad qualities. Further, what is "good" and "bad" is relative. . . Someone may believe "My view that a person is either 100% bad or 100% good is the highest conscious view" and argue with others. That is a fundamental feature in nearly all models of consciousness evolution. A strict binary view won't cut it on any consciousness forum since a strict binary view is within a more expansive view (that includes binary, spectral and relative). Similarly, Xbox is more evolved than Atari. Yet Atari lovers may say that Atari is more evolved and feel like they are being censored on a forum about game design. 

This of course assumes aspects of a hierarchy and stages of development. We could modify such a model or create a totally different one. 

[Carl-Richard]

43 minutes ago, DrewNows said:

I mean nobody goes to a bodybuilding forum to attack bodybuilders unless they are seeking some kind of revenge.

That's an assumption.

 

43 minutes ago, DrewNows said:

if they aren’t there to attack then they’d probably create a forum open to their views to express, dissect and expose the dangers or views they deem bullshit in relation to bodybuilding. A high conscious bodybuilding forum would allow the pros and cons to be discussed 

You could probably have a sincere discussion about whether or not bodybuilding is worth somebody's time, but at the end of the day, you're not going to change the main goal of the forum, and you're the one wasting your time. You don't go to the pope in the middle of a sermon and try to debate him about the pitfalls of Catholicism.

 

43 minutes ago, DrewNows said:

Perception dictates level of consciousness, not the content. Let’s say there’s a thread leo views to be a distraction, and he makes the judgment to assume it’s a distraction for anyone on his forum, does this come off as a very “high conscious” attitude and openness? Surely not, whether I agree with his assessment or not, it’s tyrannical 

You seem to conflate high consciousness with passivity and anemia. Higher consciousness leads to a finer level of discernment, a sharpening of the tools, which means that you would be more concerned about details and the quality of content. You don't go into a holy temple blasting heavy metal. If you want to call it closemindedness, sure, but aren't you then being closeminded about the value of discernment?

Edited September 14, 2020 by Carl-Richard

[DrewNows]

7 minutes ago, Consept said:

Specifically a forum though, as a video sharing site is so wide in scope its not really the same thing 

It is though because it has guidelines just like a forum. I don’t see a bunch of porn on the YT not that I’ve tried to find it   Do you see my point? When low conscious energy is met with the same kind of energy there is no room for collective growth (IMO), perhaps Leo is struggling to accept his past identities that would have found certain topics useful 

@Forestluv It’s funny because there are a lot of what I would consider “high conscious threads” relating to depth of awareness that get little to no attention on the forum. Perhaps they are beyond the awareness of the majority or maybe too individualized and perfect in of themselves.

Why do we need to be concerned with what is perceived as distraction? Perhaps those who are susceptible to distraction need such before they cannot yet move forward or beyond such it. Like the Facebook rants...some need to fall into those low conscious “traps” to evolve and see the insignificance in partaking. 

It is obvious to me why Leo’s content would attract such a wide range in degrees of consciousness (awareness) despite the direction he’s moving in. He has a huge audience appealing to many 

I would argue that everyone creates their own definition of what high consciousness entails and Leo’s no exception, forcing his beliefs on his followers or supporters is the concern I hold. It’s like he thinks he is safe to abandon his old views and beliefs showing up in the ideas explored by others here 

[Raphael]

@Forestluv

I know that it's unrelated to the subject, but I just want to say that I admire your maturity and awareness in your posts. You're an amazing moderator and an inspiration.

[Consept]

4 minutes ago, DrewNows said:

It is though because it has guidelines just like a forum. I don’t see a bunch of porn on the YT not that I’ve tried to find it   Do you see my point? When low conscious energy is met with the same kind of energy there is no room for collective growth (IMO), perhaps Leo is struggling to accept his past identities that would have found certain topics useful 

Well what I mean is that youtube is so wide and varied but each channel is almost like a forum in of itself. For example if I went to a pro trump channel on YouTube and criticised him, I would be insulted and could get blocked from that channel. So there isn't absolute freedom of speech on YouTube. You can post most things yourself on your channel but you're not free to just say what you want on other channels as that's up to whoever owns the channel. 

So I would ask again, and it's a very important question because you maybe asking for something that is not really possible. Can you give me any examples of a forum where you can say whatever you want without being at risk of being kicked out or at least dismissed? 

[Neuroknot]

17 hours 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.

In my opinion, it mostly relies on how you express your opinion. Is not the same to say "THERE IS NO GOD" than saying "I DONT THINK GOD EXIST BECAUSE OF THIS..." The second statement shows an open mind willing to change or at least to consider changing. 

In the case of "feminism is important “or "we have to fight racism" in this forum you'll find more often people asking "WHY you hold those views" than not. 

If you show open mindedness and dont try to hold tight into your views, you won't come out as a troll regardless of the topic.

 

[Roy]

Absolutely fantastic news. I was contemplating leaving recently out of despair over how much low consciousness, garage, bad faith posters were able to go about with impunity, and of course never having the awareness instilled in them to change to their actions through negative feedback.

This place should be treated a lot more preciously. There simply isn't a lot of options to go to if you're serious about this work and are looking for like minded people. Most of the world just isn't open to this material and that's ok, it's just frustrating and exhausting to have to spin your tires endlessly to get any traction in a conversation with someone who isn't open enough to it.

Good on you @Leo Gura!

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, DrewNows said:

 

@Forestluv It’s funny because there are a lot of what I would consider “high conscious threads” relating to depth of awareness that get little to no attention on the forum. Perhaps they are beyond the awareness of the majority or maybe too individualized and perfect in of themselves.

That is the relativity I am pointing to. Each of us can create our own idea of what "high consciousness" is and we all want our views to be considered "highest conscious". This is human nature. 

I agree with you in that it's very easy to overdo it. A leader of a forum could say "this specific set of ideas is the highest consciousness and no other idea will be tolerated". At an extreme, it becomes a fundamentalist, dogmatic religion or cult. Yet the other extreme of "anything goes" doesn't work either. If a forum is a formless blob of whatever, then there is no forum. Imagine going to a class or an event. The class or event has to be about something. It's got to have some type of structure and goal. If everyone does whatever, it's not a class.

Where to draw lines can be difficult. 

1 hour ago, DrewNows said:

Why do we need to be concerned with what is perceived as distraction? Perhaps those who are susceptible to distraction need such before they cannot yet move forward or beyond such it. Like the Facebook rants...some need to fall into those low conscious “traps” to evolve and see the insignificance in partaking. 

I would say there needs to be space for that, yet there comes a time in which there needs to be standards. When I was learning Spanish, I really wanted to be with the advanced students, yet I wasn't quite ready yet and got moved to an intermediate class. I'd also say attitude is important. If someone has a good attitude and wants to learn Spanish, that's different than someone who thinks Spanish is harmful and has an anti-Spanish agenda. 

@Raphael ? 

[Roy]

2 hours ago, DrewNows said:

My opinion is these restrictions are nothing but a subtle coping mechanism used to avoid “lower conscious” shadow aspects, aka judgments, and all they appease is comfort/safety and perhaps the idea of progression 

This is a fantastic point @DrewNows, but you also have to realize there is only so much time in life, and if one wants to get far places or accomplish great things only so much time can be spent acknowledging "low consciousness" things.

You are right in principle it's probably not great to deny parts of reality, at some point though you have to cut your losses and be focusing on what's important (relatively).

 

[Proserpina]

As well though, we want to be careful. I managed two mystical experiences through this forum. We need a balance between not losing students who will be most open to transmission and also allowing capacities for posters with eccentricies (and disabilities) to grow. Too many restrictions will hinder openings.

'Remember' had the strongest capacity for transmission on this forum and she was banned for poor post quality.  We do not want to be too quick to judge who is a quality user and who is not. 

Edited September 14, 2020 by Proserpina

[Gesundheit]

@Carl-Richard Congratulations! You win the top Leo supporters award.

[Gesundheit]

57 minutes ago, Roy said:

This is a fantastic point @DrewNows, but you also have to realize there is only so much time in life, and if one wants to get far places or accomplish great things only so much time can be spent acknowledging "low consciousness" things.

You are right in principle it's probably not great to deny parts of reality, at some point though you have to cut your losses and be focusing on what's important (relatively).

Shadow work is essential in spiritual awakening. But Leo rarely talks about it, and his attitude towards it seems anti-shadow instead of integral. Leo's attitude is always more progressive than integral. This is something that should be made aware of.

@DrewNows Thanks for pointing this out.

[DrewNows]

47 minutes ago, Consept said:

Well what I mean is that youtube is so wide and varied but each channel is almost like a forum in of itself. For example if I went to a pro trump channel on YouTube and criticised him, I would be insulted and could get blocked from that channel. So there isn't absolute freedom of speech on YouTube. You can post most things yourself on your channel but you're not free to just say what you want on other channels as that's up to whoever owns the channel. 

sort of like creating threads on here right? respect goes a long way, if people don't know what to expect they will surely learn  

48 minutes ago, Consept said:

So I would ask again, and it's a very important question because you maybe asking for something that is not really possible. Can you give me any examples of a forum where you can say whatever you want without being at risk of being kicked out or at least dismissed? 

im not against guidelines, just not a fan of "leo's way or the highway" mentality. To me it's about taking responsibility for our own actions, not being overly concerned with the attention of others. Maybe a new private forum or sub-forum with a stricter focus/guidelines would be of value.  

@Forestluv If high and low consciousness has nothing to do with presented ideas, only how they are perceived/received, then it makes little sense to control the consciousness level based off ideals. Attitude/openness is the intention and energy behind an idea, related to the quality or level of consciousness. Being too quick to judge is meeting perceived low quality with it's own energy, not serving

36 minutes ago, Roy said:

This is a fantastic point @DrewNows, but you also have to realize there is only so much time in life, and if one wants to get far places or accomplish great things only so much time can be spent acknowledging "low consciousness" things.

You are right in principle it's probably not great to deny parts of reality, at some point though you have to cut your losses and be focusing on what's important (relatively).

 

Yes but we can still take responsibility for our own attention and actions. We don't share all the same values. For example, some wish to rely only on evidence/peer reviewed based (modern) science for their health, but i'd rather explore alternative methods, sciences, and views that aren't generally accepted. 

30 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

This is good point about drawing standards. With low standards, the serious members and moderators will leave. I've gotten several PMs from members asking for higher standards and moderation or they will leave to find a higher quality forum. 

This is what happened with Steve Pavlina's forum. He had an awesome personal development forum. Yet, due to under-moderation and decreasing standards, the serious mods and members left. They didn't want to weed through low quality crap and deal with trolls. The forum ended up devolving, splintering and then collapsing. 

It does seem like a good/valid point but 'what if' it's due to attachment and expectations, and/or an unwillingness to trust oneself (themselves)?

 

 

[Gesundheit]

9 hours ago, lmfao said:

@Gesundheit You're not wrong to feel there's "something strange" with how disagreements or discussion works. You're right that Mods usually agree with Leo.

For me, whatever angle you go about this stuff it will come back to topics like love, god and psychedelics (with ralston being a symbolic figure and good example in discussion). 

 

Here's the discussion I see being replayed. A: "You can become conscious of God"

B: "God is a word and concept, don't get attached".

I get a bit annoyed when one of those perspectives are called right and the other wrong.  Nobody making the points they should make. 

Some of the people who say B aren't and haven't been "conscious of God". And think its just a meaningless story. They just haven't seen that facet of things. 

However. Some of the people saying B are "conscious of God" but they know that this work is a continous process of discarding labels and entering not knowing. And they way you do that is to stop with the labels. 

But I see people advocating A failing or not mentioning the distinction between those two sorts of people in B. If that distinction was made there would be a lot less nonsense.

Some of the people in A know what is required for not knowing (even if they don't state this distinction) , but some people in A who don't understand this distinction will be stuck and stagnated. And they need to B to stop being stagnated. 

But instead of B being seen as an antidote that some people need, it's ignored and seen as delusional. And when that happens, you're in a belief system and couldn't be further from truth. 

I wish I could be able to break things down like you did. I swear I could correct many misconceptions if I had similar capabilities. But what can I do? I simply suck.

Anyway, back to your post. I agree, I guess that's similar to the pre/trans fallacy. The funny thing is that some people in A use the pre/trans fallacy narrative against B without even trying to see what they're saying. They don't seem open to the possibility that there is more. Like you said, some people in A they fail to make that subtle distinction between the two types of B.

And even though that's not all of what makes this thing feel strange for me, it's very good to point it out. I don't have enough clarity at this point so I will try to contemplate more until I am able to understand that feeling.

Thanks.

[Carl-Richard]

21 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

@Carl-Richard Congratulations! You win the top Leo supporters award.

Nobody asked.

[Forestluv]

33 minutes ago, DrewNows said:

 

@Forestluv If high and low consciousness has nothing to do with presented ideas, only how they are perceived/received, then it makes little sense to control the consciousness level based off ideals. Attitude/openness is the intention and energy behind an idea, related to the quality or level of consciousness. Being too quick to judge is meeting perceived low quality with it's own energy, not serving

I agree that attitude, openness and intention are important factors. To me, that is what the guidelines are getting at: does the user have an attitude of openness and intention to learn and grow - or is the the user closed-minded with the intention to be dogmatic, argue and advance an agenda? Yet of course a closed-minded, dogmatic person will think "I'm open-minded and sharing my valuable views, I'm being censored!". When called out, closed-minded, dogmatic people do not self-reflect and ask themself "How am I being closed-minded? Is there something I'm missing?".

Even though intention is important, impact is also a factor. Quite often the mind tries to shield itself with saying "It wasn't my intention", or "I was just joking" to evade responsibility. If a user name calls with racist slurs and has a disruptive impact, they don't get to absolve themself of all responsibility by saying "It wasn't my intention to be offensive. It's your responsibility for how you received it". Intention and impact are both factors. 

33 minutes ago, DrewNows said:

It does seem like a good/valid point but 'what if' it's due to attachment and expectations, and/or an unwillingness to trust oneself (themselves)?

Steve wrote long in-depth essays about his forum dynamics and why it collapsed. He wrote that it was due to under-moderation, entitlement, low quality users using "freedom of speech", higher quality users and moderators leaving and splintering of the community.

I was not part of Steve's forum. To me, he seems to have a very mature view of the dynamics on his forum and how it collapsed. In general, serious people working toward a goal are not going to put up with low quality crap. One can debate what counts as "low quality crap", yet there needs to be some standards. If someone is serious about learning Spanish and half the class is arguing over video games, the serous students will leave and find a Spanish school that is serious. 

All the mods on the forum work voluntarily and some of us receive some nasty harassment. Without moderation, the forum would degrade into a cesspool. 

[Gesundheit]

11 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

In general, serious people working toward a goal are not going to put up with low quality crap. One can debate what counts as "low quality crap", yet there needs to be some standards. If someone is serious about learning Spanish and everyone in class is arguing over video games, the person is going to leave and find a Spanish school that is serious. 

This is such a bizarre way to frame it.

What if they're actually discussing video games that teach Spanish?

[Vercingetorix]

much needed Leo, Thanks.

[Forestluv]

5 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

This is such a bizarre way to frame it.

What if they're actually discussing video games that teach Spanish?

That is exactly NOT what I said.