Good Website for Free Books

[Azur]

oh no ,i followed the link and started reading ISOTM.... but i will stop now and wait for the book to come to me in another way....if i am meant to read it , it will some day ,i'm sure.
i'm somewhat broke atm (buhoo self pity) :P , likely a sign i'm not ready for the Work just yet ...so its back to cleaning the machine some more and finding a way to become a good obyatel(sic) so i can afford it when i find it.
Thanks for pointing out the copyright issue ,that was a close call
RRR

No, no, no. Absolutely read ISOTM as it came to you. But remember the debt, and know when to pay back. What seems like happenstance is usually something willed to you with strings that must be understood within your sphere, hence responsibility.

You'll need to figure out what that responsibility is, as you read the material.

 

[Laura]

In an ideal world, where people honored the energy output of others in whatever form it comes, copyright laws would not be necessary. Work would be available, people would partake of it and naturally compensate the producer in whatever way they could. Remembering the story of the widow's mite from the bible, sometimes a small amount represents all a person has, and a large amount can mean nothing to the payer/giver.

My personal view about it is that I am happy for people to read my work for free - that's why we have so much on our website. Having said that, I also know that it has hurt us to make it available in ebook form and that amounts to "killing the goose that lays the golden eggs." If everyone who read free books on the net would invest whatever energy they could in either writing reviews, making donations according to their ability to do so, or in making energetic changes in their lives that lead ultimately to being able help others and pass the energy on, things would balance out in the end.

I understand psychegram's perspective, and I hope s/he will understand mine and the perspective of all those who labor to gather knowledge and distill it and share it. As the Cs once said:

It should be noted that the STS system can only be penetrated by becoming "wise as serpents and gentle as doves." There is nothing negative about networking. Details of a network include the necessity for those who are involved to invest "energy" in the exchange. If the individual comes upon the life work of another and expects to benefit and gain by that work, they will naturally wish to have their own position balanced by putting forth a commensurate amount of energy. Otherwise there will be an imbalance of energy. This then leads to an STS pyramid. An example of this principle in reverse is a teacher who demands payment for no real work on their own part.

The fact that both of you have devoted yourselves to this work for not just a short time, but literally your entire lives, and have not asked for the support that this intensive labor earns has, in effect, created an imbalance for those who are benefiting. Many of those who are experiencing blocks in their own lives would find those blockages dissolved by the action of opening the flow of energy in the exchange. In your world, money equals energy!!!

 

[Miss Isness]

Great thread! How true that there would be no need for copyright laws if people were functioning with awakened consciences. It all boils down to victim mentality and a sense of entitlement - "Woe is me, life is so hard. I deserve better. I'll take whatever I can get, and sacrifice as little as possible." That's exactly how corporate publishers/record companies think, which is why writers and artists end up with so little in the first place.

There are so many people who take without offering so much as compliment in return, and also lots of people who never give anything without some kind of guarantee that they'll get as much or more back. Fortunately, there's no escaping one's karma, and we will all pay back exactly what we owe, and receive exactly what we give - even if it takes lifetimes.

 

[Tigersoap]

In an ideal world, where people honored the energy output of others in whatever form it comes, copyright laws would not be necessary. Work would be available, people would partake of it and naturally compensate the producer in whatever way they could.

I wanted to post these same thoughts as well but Laura did it before i did.

I wish that every work of art,books and so on would be free, for everyone but sadly that's not the case and artists have to defend their rights from people who will abuse them.

[quote author=Pepperfrtiz]
If you were a working writer, whose livelihood depended on being adequately compensated for your work, you would not be so supportive of "free books for all". You would see the issue as professional writers do -- as an criminal act of theft that directly affects their ability to earn a living via the practice of their craft and the sale of their product in the marketplace.
If you earned your living making clothing, and people just came along and took the clothing being offered for sale in your store, insisting that "clothing should be free to all!" and "no one should be able to OWN clothing!", you would not stay in business for very long, would you? And if writers have to stop writing because people insist on taking their work free of charge, then they cannot continue writing.
Clearly you do not place the same "value" on intellectual property that you do on any other kinds of "property". That would not be the case if it was YOUR "property" that was being stolen.[/quote]

Hi Pepperfritz,

I don't know but it seems you are quite reacting strongly to "stealing".
I think the issue is more complex than just black and white thinking.

Here, we talk about digital medias, which have changed the rules usually applying to concrete things in our hands (for lack of better words).

The comparaison you make really makes me think of this advertising where they show someone stealing a car equating it with movie download, this is imho, a good citizen program that's pushed by the corporate industries so they can put you on same level as a criminal and then enforce the laws that will make you pay for it.

From an insider's knowledge about music copyright, I learned that they absolutely don't care about the downloads unless it hurts the major companies.
If you're in the In-group, they'll fight for your rights (the companies, not the artist themselves) and if you're not, too bad, get a daily job.

Many bands and writers have understood the changes that have been brought by peer to peer downloading, they know it won't be stopped (until big brother wants it) so they changed their tactics and use the net as their advertising platform.
The sales will come from other sources (concerts, paid services, merchandising...) or from their base fans.

It bears to repeat that one download does not equals one sale.

Personaly, as a financially struggling artist myself, as long as people don't make a financial profit or "steal" my identity and works, I am ok with it. It really depends on the situation and context as usual.

My two cents on the matter.

 

[PepperFritz]

I wish that every work of art,books and so on would be free, for everyone but sadly that's not the case and artists have to defend their rights from people who will abuse them.

And I wish that food, clothing, electricity, heat, furniture, etc. were all "free for everyone", and in an ideal world they would be. But that's not the world we live in. And it seems obvious to me that to single out "works of art" as the only "product" that individuals do not have the inherent right to protect and be compensated for (in all mediums) is directly related to the degree to which one can "get away with it". Those who download such works from the internet without the creators' permission and without compensation do not do so because of some well-thought-out "principle" about cutting out the middleman and undercutting "big companies". They do it it because they can. Otherwise, they would also routinely "download" books, CDs, etc. from stores, and risk arrest all in the cause of their "principle".

If an artist decides to give his work away free of charge, then that is his/her right to do so. If a musician decides to cut out the middleman and allow free downloading of his music from the internet, and make his money instead from concerts, etc., then that is his right to do so. But the artist must make the decision, and the "users" of that artist's work do not have the right to violate their free will by making that decision for them. Just as a farmer has the right to give away free food to one person if he wishes to, and to charge another if he wishes to. Yes, in an ideal world, everyone should have access to free food. But, again, we are not living in an ideal world. So the question is why do we single out artists as those who "we" have decided should donate their product for the good of society? If you think it is not related to the fact that they one of the most defenceless, least-valued groups in our society, you are deluding yourself.

I am familiar with these issues from the front lines. I have spend most of my career fighting for the rights of writers to protect and gain compensation for their intellectual products, just as anyone else in society has the right to protect and gain compensation for their product. I know first-hand the devastating effects that copyright infringement (both by big companies and individual users) has for professional working writers, and the culture that they contribute to.

 

[Mrs.Tigersoap]

Hi Pepperfritz,

I totally understand what you mean, my husband is an artist, so I know about the importance of copyright. But I just wanted to add my two cents for what it's worth.
I've worked for the music industry, more particularly for the equivalent of the RIIA in my country. They primarly dealt with anti-piracy activities. Their main source of revenue was lawsuits and fines for piracy. Of all the money they were making through these activities, not a cent was going to the artist, because to them this was different from royalties. Piracy was a big business for them and actually kept their company going. When the executives of all the majors were meeting, their main concern was always: how can we get more out of this piracy business? Not once was it discussed how to stop it. Piracy was also the easy excuse used to not extend struggling artists' contracts or to fire masses of people when sales were not as good. Nevermind the gigantic salaries of the executives and their anything-goes-expense accounts: that, very interestingly, never changed despite plummeting sales...

 

[webglider]

If the individual comes upon the life work of another and expects to benefit and gain by that work, they will naturally wish to have their own position balanced by putting forth a commensurate amount of energy. Otherwise there will be an imbalance of energy. This then leads to an STS pyramid. An example of this principle in reverse is a teacher who demands payment for no real work on their own part.

The fact that both of you have devoted yourselves to this work for not just a short time, but literally your entire lives, and have not asked for the support that this intensive labor earns has, in effect, created an imbalance for those who are benefiting. Many of those who are experiencing blocks in their own lives would find those blockages dissolved by the action of opening the flow of energy in the exchange. In your world, money equals energy!!!

Hi Dhane, do you know for certain that this website does not violate copyright on any of these books? If the copyrights are violated, we do not allow the link to be posted on the forum. It's really not fair to authors to just take their work without some sort of energetic or monetary compensation.

So while copyrighted works may be posted there (hey, it happens on Youtube), Iit looks to be on the up-and-up.

It's about the very real fact that if you take and benefit from the life's work of another without adequate compensation to that person, you create an energetic imbalance. This imbalance will be a detriment to YOU. This is a very real thing.

Aside from that energetic aspect, it's just rather a tacky and inconsiderate thing to do, especially when one is in a position to spend $15 or $20, or $100 even, to just buy the book and support the author's efforts.

I think that what is at issue here is that taking without giving is a violation of the Law Of Creation, (The Law Of Three), which is a fundamental spiritual law. It seems to me that this law is one of the 48 laws that the earth is subject to which emanates from the Absolute.

In Gnosis Mouravieff advises his readers that:

It is important to look for and find many examples of the action of the Law of Three This should not only be done to convince ourselves of its validity, but also to accelerate re-education of our intelligence on an esoteric basis

What is the Law Of Three? According again to Mouravieff, The Law of Three governs creation.

The First of these laws, The Law of Threeconditions the existence of everything that fills the Cosmos, whether it be beings, objects, or events.

This law has three elements: passive, active and neutralizing. An example given by Mouravieff on page 76 has especial relevance to the issues raised on this thread.

Let us take the case of a purchase: the offered merchandise constitutes the passive force; the need or desire of the purchaser intervenes as active force, and payment as the neutralizing force.
That the passive force is a force, as as such possesses an active character, is demonstrated quite clearly, particularly on the psychological plane...Where the third or neutralizing force is concerned, it often escapes our observation - either due to the bipolar character of our minds, or because of its own nature - which can in many cases leave it unobserved

When I was participating in Native American ceremonies I learned this law indirectly. There was no official charge for participation, but each participant was expected to give something according to his/her desire or means. The emphasis is on maintaining the balance of energy which is very different from the capitalistic imperative of making a profit.

And that is, I think, is The Law of Three's application to this discussion because it addresses the situation in terms spiritual evolution rather than those of monetary compensation Money is just the neutralizing element in this case. In actuality, this is not about money at all, but about observing
Spiritual Law.

 

[Tigersoap]

Those who download such works from the internet without the creators' permission and without compensation do not do so because of some well-thought-out "principle" about cutting out the middleman and undercutting "big companies". They do it it because they can. Otherwise, they would also routinely "download" books, CDs, etc. from stores, and risk arrest all in the cause of their "principle".

I don't think we can know with certainty ALL the reasons why people are downloading things off the internet.
It is the same to me as saying that all unemployed people do it because they are too lazy to get a job.
I know it's not the same thing but to make broad generalization like that is incorrect.

I don't think that every artists are not getting their money because of the downloads, that's propaganda.
It's the apparent scapegoat, the boogeyman that destroys creativity which is used to achieve a certain outcome, tougher internet laws (Just watch France with their new law HADOPI.).

Still maybe we should not compare the music, movie and programs industry which generate more money than e-books ?
I Most often hear about the first three areas, not the other ones but I could be wrong.

If an artist decides to give his work away free of charge, then that is his/her right to do so. If a musician decides to cut out the middleman and allow free downloading of his music from the internet, and make his money instead from concerts, etc., then that is his right to do so. But the artist must make the decision, and the "users" of that artist's work do not have the right to violate their free will by making that decision for them.

I agree with you on that point.

So the question is why do we single out artists as those who "we" have decided should donate their product for the good of society? If you think it is not related to the fact that they one of the most defenceless, least-valued groups in our society, you are deluding yourself.

Err...Like I don't know that ?!

But, I think it's up to the artist to reclaim that power back, not stare at their navel and say I am poor and defenceless.
Well, I believed that as well but it's all part of the deprogramation osit.
There are alternatives to the system but they're not especially what you hear about, it takes a lot of DIY attitude (The success of Etsy.com and Fugazi (Band) in the nineties is there to attest it.).
No everyone needs major lables or middle men unless it's on your terms (or it is your thing.).

I am familiar with these issues from the front lines. I have spend most of my career fighting for the rights of writers to protect and gain compensation for their intellectual products, just as anyone else in society has the right to protect and gain compensation for their product. I know first-hand the devastating effects that copyright infringement (both by big companies and individual users) has for professional working writers, and the culture that they contribute to.

Ok, I totally respect your experience but I think it's different when you enter the digital medias in the equation.
It's remote, detached, right click and save.
I don't think it was made without purpose osit.

And yes I suppose that in a certain context, downloading things is hurting the people who worked hard.

I could be totally wrong tough, I admit that.

 

[PepperFritz]

But the artist must make the decision, and the "users" of that artist's work do not have the right to violate their free will by making that decision for them.

I agree with you on that point.

I'm glad we share that common ground. :)

I think it's up to the artist to reclaim that power back, not stare at their navel and say I am poor and defenceless.... There are alternatives to the system but they're not especially what you hear about, it takes a lot of DIY attitude....

I could not agree more. I am a great admirer of the Canadian artist Loreena McKennitt, who has built an enormously successful international music career by producing her own work on her own label, and controlling her creative product 100%. Not easily done, agreed. But do-able, for those who are really motivated and smart about it. The internet has been a great boon to artists in that respect, by giving them a means to "bypass the middleman" and control the production, promotion, and distribution of their work themselves. However, it is important to remember that not all "middlemen" are out to exploit and cheat artists. There are a number of smaller music labels and book publishers out there who are very committed to their artists for reasons other than just personal profit, and they are necessary and important to those artists who may not have the means or inclination to "do it all" themselves.

I think it's different when you enter the digital medias in the equation.

When you look back on the history and development of copyright, the introduction of ANY new technology has ALWAYS been met with the argument of "This is different and those rules no longer apply". And the artist has always had to FIGHT to get his copyright recognized within that new medium. It happened when movies were invented. Movie producers felt that once a story was published in book form, it was then "free" to be used in any other format without compensating the author. After a number of ground-breaking court cases, that changed. Now everyone just accepts the fact that the author must grant his permission and be compensated when his book is adapted and produced as a movie, play, tape, CD, etc. "Digital" is just another in a long history of "new formats"; the fact that it is a "new" technology does not change the principle involved.

 

[vinny]

maybe it is worth adding a little reminder to this discussion, from 'First Initiation' by By Jeanne de Salzmann:

You will see that in life you receive exactly what you give. Your life is the mirror of what you are. It is in your image. You are passive, blind, demanding. You take all, you accept all, without feeling any obligation. Your attitude toward the world and toward life is the attitude of one who has the right to make demands and to take, who has no need to pay or to earn. You believe that all things are your due, simply because it is you! All your blindness is there! None of this strikes your attention. And yet this is what keeps one world separate from another world.

You have no measure with which to measure yourselves. You live exclusively according to “I like” or “I don’t like,” you have no appreciation except for yourself. You recognize nothing above you—theoretically, logically, perhaps, but actually no. That is why you are demanding and continue to believe that everything is cheap and that you have enough in your pocket to buy everything you like. You recognize nothing above you, either outside yourself or inside. That is why, I repeat, you have no measure and live passively according to your likes and dislikes.

Yes, your “appreciation of yourself” blinds you. It is the biggest obstacle to a new life. You must be able to get over this obstacle, this threshold, before going further. This test divides men into two kinds: the “wheat” and the “chaff.”

 

[PepperFritz]

Thank you for your excellent post, webglider, and all of the important references you provide.

The fact that both of you have devoted yourselves to this work for not just a short time, but literally your entire lives, and have not asked for the support that this intensive labor earns has, in effect, created an imbalance for those who are benefiting. Many of those who are experiencing blocks in their own lives would find those blockages dissolved by the action of opening the flow of energy in the exchange. In your world, money equals energy!!!

When I was participating in Native American ceremonies I learned this law indirectly. There was no official charge for participation, but each participant was expected to give something according to his/her desire or means. The emphasis is on maintaining the balance of energy which is very different from the capitalistic imperative of making a profit.

As the C's point out, in our current society "money equals energy"; money is established and accepted as the proper energy to be used in the exchange of goods and services. This does not stop individuals and groups from agreeing amongst themselves to use other kinds of "energies" in their exchanges. For instance, Tom and Mary may agree that Tom's repair of Mary's car is a fair exchange for Mary's editing of Tom's newsletter. But because such a energy exchange differs from the common understanding of the society in which they live, both parties must mutually agree on the "substitution" in order for it to be valid. One party cannot unilaterally decide on an "alternative" exchange. That's the problem I have with those who argue that its OK to download something free of charge without the artist's permission, since they have satisfied THEMSELVES that they have "paid" the artist (or "the universe") in some way other than direct monetary compensation. To me, that's just manipulative self-justification, not a balanced "energy exchange" that respects the free will of both parties.

And that is, I think, is The Law of Three's application to this discussion because it addresses the situation in terms spiritual evolution rather than those of monetary compensation. Money is just the neutralizing element in this case. In actuality, this is not about money at all, but about observing Spiritual Law.

 

[psychegram]

anart, I considered responding to you, but I've decided that would be a waste of both our time as nothing productive would come of it. I've evidently gotten on your bad side for some reason - that or you just like to play 'pick on the newb' - and I say that, not because of what you say, precisely, but because of the tone you take, like you're looking for a fight. Criticism is fine, but keep it civil.

The idea that the person/group one receives from must be the same that is given back to I actually find to be very STS; in sharp contrast to the gift circle, whereby what one receives from one direction, one gives back with interest in another.

Interesting. You feel you have the right to "take" property that does not belong to you, and not directly compensate the person/group that produces that property, as long as you "give back with interest in another [direction]." Could you provide some examples of the "giving back with interest" that you have done "in another direction" that you feel is adequate compensation for "taking" a copyrighted book from the internet free of charge?

I'd also be interested in knowing how often you "take" books from bookstore shelves without directly paying the bookstore, as per this "alternative" compensation scheme of yours? And how about food? Do you financially compensate the man who sells cheese in your local farmer's market, or do you just take his cheese and promise to "give it back with interest in another direction"?

Of course, I already know the answer to that question. You only "take" products that you can get away with "taking", not those products whose producers who would call the police and have you arrested for such "taking". And therein lies your hypocrisy and dishonesty: You do not risk any kind of negative consequences to yourself in your practice of this "alternative" payment method you so strongly believe in. No, you're just like any other run-of-the-mill petty thief -- you "take" what you can get away with "taking", and otherwise obediently follow the rules of society.

There is nothing even remotely "STO" about your "alternative compensation" practice. It is just a lofty-sounding after-the-fact" justification for STS behaviour. One of the many lies you tell yourself on a daily basis.

Pepperfritz, given your background I can see how you'd feel this way.

It's difficult for me to limit this discussion to books, as I've read very few books online (and those that I have, all freely available on the authors' own website. Well, until scribd, but it's new and I haven't used it very much at all, to tell the truth.) But the discussion is essentially the same for music, movies, computer games, no? It's all media. So, regarding other media, I'll emphasize what another commenter said: a download does not equal a sale. A lot of people have a lot of music on their hard-drives that they never listen to, because they downloaded it on a whim and quickly discovered they didn't care for it. They also have a collection of CDs, ticket stubs, and band shirts that they bought to support the artists that they really do like. I don't see this as any different from thirty years ago, when you'd hear a song on the radio, and either think 'meh, not for me' (in which case the artist would never get a cent of your money no matter how often you heard the song), or you thought, 'wow, these guys are amazing!' In which case you bought their LP, went to see their show, etc.

Of course, it's an artist's choice whether or not to allow their works to be freely traded on the networks. It's their choice whether to allow it on the radio, too. For that matter, it's their free will choice whether or not to perform in the first place. Of course, if it's exposure you're after, there's good choices and there's bad choices....

In my view, connecting file-sharing with theft has been one of the great deceptions of the 21st century. It has not been undertaken out of any concern for the rights of artists, but is an equation repeated by those who seek to extend their control of culture. Napster's rise came on the heels of Clear Channel's consolidation of the American radio market; that's not an accident, and Napster's subsequent dismemberment was an example of damage control for reasons that had nothing to do with Britney Spears losing money.

Arguing that file-sharing has been bad for artists just doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Well, it does, if you're talking about the major-label megastars, whose market share is far less than it used to be (and whose current offerings I don't listen to at all). Independent artists, however, have leveraged the free distribution available on the internet so that a much larger fraction of them are able to support themselves - comfortably, not extravagantly - by cultivating a local and online fan base and touring. That's the kind of music I generally listen to, these days.

Regarding all the comments about money=energy in our society, the need for balance ... I agree, wholeheartedly. But, well, society is changing, no? Everything else is, and it's heading in an STO direction. The transition won't be an entirely discrete one, even if sharp in places, but continuous, and until that transition is complete there's going to be a lot of friction between the new ways and the old. So, while the STO networks are getting set up in an STS world, used almost overwhelmingly by people that operate out of an STS mindset, it's to be expected that you'd see something as contradictory as a file-sharing network (which is fundamentally a gift economy that breaks down if every participant doesn't contribute at least as much as he takes, a very STO architecture) for STS purposes (sharing the media of artists who don't want their stuff shared for free.) Of course, as time goes on, the number of artists who object to this decreases, while those who encourage it correspondingly increase, because they realize that - ultimately - free media benefits not just the whole world, but them, too.

Where do authors fit into this? I don't know, yet. Bit of a headscratcher, to tell the truth, and I say that as an aspiring science fiction writer myself (though the muse hasn't called much, of late, and perhaps this has to do with the fact that, using filesharing networks in the way I used them throughout university and after, I had an energy imbalance? It's certainly an interesting hypothesis.) On the one hand, what's saved musicians is performance, but writers don't perform; on the other hand, reading a whole book on a computer screen just sucks (and scribd doesn't change that in any way), which so far has meant that most readers prefer to get a paper copy.

I'd like to just make one last comment: this seems to have been a very polarizing topic, and while it wasn't my intention to do that, I do accept the responsibility for it. People seem to be very passionate about it, with some pretty highly charged emotional terms being thrown around and even a bit of name-calling going on. To me, that looks like an opportunity for a bit of self-observation: why are you reacting that way? Is it even really you? Where is it really coming from? You know the drill (and yes, I'm asking myself the same questions.)

 

[anart]

anart, I considered responding to you, but I've decided that would be a waste of both our time as nothing productive would come of it.

By 'productive' do you mean 'proving yourself correct'?

I've evidently gotten on your bad side for some reason

Not at all.  I am just upholding the standards of this forum.  It is your self importance that sees it differently. 

- that or you just like to play 'pick on the newb'

Self pity is the flip side of self importance.

- and I say that, not because of what you say, precisely, but because of the tone you take, like you're looking for a fight.

For the record, I've never in my life 'looked for a fight' - how you read my words depends on your reading mechanism - your response says much more about you than it does about anything else in the world. 

Criticism is fine, but keep it civil.

Not one letter in one word of anything I've written to you has been anything other than civil.  While I find your 'mandate' to be telling, and rather amusing - I would be remiss to not point out the fact that, yet again, your self importance is showing.  This forum is not here to please you psychegram - it is here to give you an opportunity to learn.  If you are not interested in such endeavors (which appears to be evident), then this forum is not for you and it is time for you to move along.

Oh, and as an aside...

But, well, society is changing, no? Everything else is, and it's heading in an STO direction.

What in the world would make you come to such a conclusion on this planet at this point in time?  Seriously - do you read the SotT page?  Do you actually lift your head up and look at the world around you at all?  What  - in the world - would cause you to make such a bizarre statement, or are you truly just that sound asleep?

Based on observation and research, it is apparent that humanity has now reached a great historical crossroads. We have come to the end of a two thousand year history of intolerance, cruelty and stupidity, which has created our present state of global, collective madness. Humanity, as a collective whole, is arriving at a state of collective Spiritual Bankruptcy, or “death.” And yet, we cannot assume that this is meaningless. Those who understand the principles of electricity will comprehend when I say that this present global estate is the way nature works and is the establishing of sufficient Contact Potential Difference for the inflow of energy of Cosmic Light. But just as it is in the case of the individual, when that point is reached - that Dark Night of the Soul - there is a “choice” that becomes apparent: the soul is offered the way “up” or the way “down.” In order for this coming inflow of energy to act in positive ways, to create a new reality of Free Will and Balance, there must be a point of contact that can conduct the energy. There must be human “micro-chips” or “circuits” sufficient to sustain this energy or all of humanity will perish. This means that only the development of human beings of a certain sort - with a certain “wiring,” so to say - will result in the global capacity to confront the energies of the Crossroads.

To put it succinctly - 'we ain't there yet'  - things have not yet gotten as dark as they will be before that influx of 'Cosmic Light' - in other words, the Contact Potential Difference is still building...

 

[PepperFritz]

Psychegram: I'm curious as to why have you not answered any of the questions I posed to you in this thread, and instead simply continued with long-winded rationalizations and justifications for your behaviour that have little bearing on the issues under discussion?

But, well, society is changing, no? Everything else is, and it's heading in an STO direction.

This statement really makes me wonder if you have read very much of the material on SOTT and this forum, and whether you have any idea whatsoever as to what they are about. Do you honestly think that the above statement is an accurate reflection of the "perspective" of Laura's work, SOTT, and this forum? Because it is in fact pretty much the polar opposite.

This is the second time that I have attempted to correct this simplistic misconception of yours, which is seriously clouding your reading. I note that you have chosen to ignore and not reply to the points and issues I raised in the STO Economy? thread. Is it your intention to simply ignore and close your eyes to anything that does not agree with your pre-conceived ideas about this forum and the world at large?

Also, for what it is worth, I have not observed Anart's posts to you to be anything less than "civil". Frank and direct, yes. But uncivil? No. Have you considered whether your "I have to be right" program is causing you to view her posts in an extremely subjective way? The moderators on this forum are very well trained and know what they're doing. It's not a good idea to ignore and/or dismiss what they have to say to you. Not if you are here to learn, and not just follow your own mandate.

One of the main purposes of this forum is to encourage and foster the ability of members to see things less subjectively, and more objectively; and to identify the emotional "programs" and mechanical behaviour that may be interfering with their ability to do so. Have you familiarized yourself with the work of Gurdjieff yet, and "the Work" that this forum is based on? One of the advantages to working on ourselves within the context of a group like this, is to have access to the objective perspective (or "mirror") of others, in order to see ourselves more accurately. While this can sometimes feel like an "attack", it is not. It is your self-importance and "predator's mind" that causes you to see it that way.

 

[Gawan]

Hi psychegram!

I also thought alot of times the mods are somehow rude, they seemed not to be fair, but well, the crux has been:

That I projected MY feelings on them, which has not been there.

Simply to rationalise, to deny my self what is going on in myself. To just grab for anything possible what is in my arms reach, that keep/kept my reality alive. And the best way to do it, is to blame the others: "they are wrong"

Anart and Pepperfritz explained it in the last two posts very fair and clear for example:

This forum is not here to please you psychegram

This it what it's all about: "the work" is work.