What Rense.com is not talking about
About Godot's post - somehow I'm not surprised that someone would post something like this. I think this thread was coming to closure - it appeared that the finishing touches were being added, and the point was already pretty succinctly made and so it was basically in the process of being wrapped up. Now energy could be focused on other goals. Of course, this may be a wrong impression - but based on the last couple of posts (starting with Laura's on page 25) and continuing to this page, it simply appeared that all that needed to be said was said, and now all that's left is reflection. Or so it seemed.
This post by Godot appears to be doing exactly what he proclaims he's not doing. And that is, it seems like he's just saying "Ok I don't buy it, prove it!". It appears like a challenge, but also a way to have the group reinvest their energies into this thread and to now compile everything Ruth has said that was "off" and "wrong" and present it in a summarized state as evidence of why the members have been saying what they said. But why? It is all already available if you just read Ruth's posts on this and other threads, and plenty of examples have been given in this thread alone I think.
As much as I wanted to impulsively react to this challenge and start collecting Ruth's quotes from previous pages and posts, I decided against it. It seems written more like a lure to turn this into some endless debate than anything else. Here is why I think so:
Godot said:
I have to say I find this thread on the "Ruth question" really amusing-and I'm not saying that just to stir the pot.
Somehow I get the sense that this is exactly "stirring the pot", and nothing more (I may be wrong of course). First suspicious thing (which is only a clue, not proof, but still interesting I think), is the fact that he tries to convince everyone that he's not trying to stir the pot numerous times. Why try to convince everyone how to perceive your post, why not let the group make its own judgement whether this is simply stirring the pot or whether it is a reasonable argument backed up by evidence?
I'm the only person on the forum who has actually met Ruth, rather than communicated with her by email or through Casschat or the forum.
I think meeting someone can definitely help assess them better, but in this case it doesn't seem necessary simply based on the fact that Ruth gives plenty of data in her posts based on the logic and thought process that she uses, which is revealed in her posts. It is not necessary to see/hear her in this particular case, osit. It may help, but again, I think there is plenty of data in her posts alone.
We discussed many things in that time, some of which, in ordinary every day terms were highly abstract. Past lives and the implications thereof, history, her actual mission in life which is only partly related to her career as a nurse, the various "supernatural" phenomena that we'd experienced. Etc.Ruth is down to earth and calls a spade a spade.
I think maybe it's not the concepts themselves but her thinking about the concepts that is limited. For example, many New Agers can repeat "we're all one" ad nauseum - but this is just a phrase, the concept becomes only abstract when abstract thought is applied to it, which can becomes abstract understanding. But if you take such a phrase and apply no thought or mundane thought to it, the concept itself becomes mundane or nonsensical. Anybody can talk about past lives, history, life missions, supernatural phenomena, etc. But the devil is in how you talk about it, your thought process etc. You can talk about any abstract concept in a non-abstract way, osit.
When I first met her there was a sense of instant recognition-she is not a new soul struggling to make sense of a new plane of existence, not at all.
Interesting that you're basing this on "instant recognition" instead of on data and evidence. If we could all do that, nobody here would need to research anything or learn about concepts like psychopathy and how to recognize the signs and evidence and data that may suggest that someone is a psychopath for example - no, we'd just meet someone and presto!
So forgive me if your "instant recognition" about her soul does not convince me.
If she does have trouble communicating-and she is not the only one who has that problem, especially on Cass-then it is because she has essentially lived her entire life in isolation... because she is "different".
But Ruth doesn't have any trouble communicating - she communicates just fine - she has trouble with concepts and with understanding and thinking in a certain way. Because at other times she communicates just fine.
but I rely on my own not inconsiderable experience of dealing with the various species and subspecies of humans, and my powers of observation honed by some very difficult situations.
That is hard to reconcile with "instant recognition" above. What do you need experience for if you have such an amazing power? But it does seem like you're trying to "influence" the group's assessment of your post by stressing your massive experience. Do you think the data you present to support your statements cannot stand on its own? It seems that you have not really presented any data though, you just expect us to trust you because you've met Ruth, you have tons of experience in general, and because you had instant recognition when you met her? This does not seem like data to me, seems like an attempt to "stir the pot", nothing more.
Yes, Ruth is a "freak" (and if she was here she'd probably clout me for saying so) but so am I.
Her " freakness" could in fact be that she is uncategorisable in terms of organised abstract conceptual systems, whether psychiatric or spiritual. She's one of a kind
I don't think she's one of a kind by far. In some sense we're all "one of a kind", in another, we're all the same, and in yet another sense we all share things with a group of others (sometimes large group, sometimes not). In Ruth's case, yes she's one of a kind, but her nature is not, it is shared by many others. And nobody said she's a freak, and I do think Ruth is categorizable just as we all are and everything is categorizable in many ways, osit.
Kinda reminds of that bit in Monty Python's Meaning of Life where Brain tells the multitude in exasperation
"You are all individuals'
The crowd responds
"We are all individuals"
And one solitary voice then says
"I'm not."
It may be that the solidary voice is the only true individual of the group? But either way, it's the same when New Age teacher goes "we're all one" and the group repeats. Abstract concept? Maybe. But group's approach to this concept is anything but abstract, in fact, it barely involves any thought at all.
If Ruth is truly disrupting the flow of this or other threads then I humbly suggest you just ignore her.
Yeah but before you ignore someone, doesn't it help to know why you're ignoring and if ignoring is even a good idea at all? Knowledge protects after all.
I'm sure she'd be happy to slug it out!
Why slug it out? What is productive about slugging it out? That seems to be a pointless waste of time? I think discussing and analyzing is the better alternative.
And this message is not meant as an apologia-Ruth IS responsible for her own actions as are you all .
But doesn't being responsible involve understanding the action and being aware of doing it? If Ruth is neither aware of it nor understands it, how can she be responsible? It doesn't seem like she's in control. So while I agree that we're all responsible for our actions, we cannot really act on that responsibility if we never knew what we did or why in the first place, osit.
Nor is it meant as a disruptive piece of trouble making.
Or so you keep saying :)
I would just like to see a bit of actual objectivity brought to the issue-
And then you go and say something like this with absolutely no data to support it?! How is that anything but disruptive trouble making?
not diagnoses at a disatnce and speculation.
So you're saying that because we're not all talking to Ruth in person, that our diagnosis is faulty automatically? You think it is impossible to accurately analyze someone by what they say in text, but you can do it when they say it verbally? What difference is there when the context and meaning remain the same?
How is "instant recognition" anything but speculation (at best)? You don't think Ruth's posts constitute evidence?
It's rude for one thing. And for another it's inaccurate.
Not as rude as telling someone that they're not objective and then calling them a subjective term like "rude". Then telling them they're speculating after talking about your "instant recognition". Hypocricy really is rude! How is that for speculative subjectivity!
And I stand by what I said above - that this is nothing but "disruptive trouble making" designed to convince everyone that it isn't. My question would be, why? I "speculated" earlier about the possibility that Ruth may be controlled by forces in order to distract and waste energy and confuse. This post seems to support that if such forces exist, they could be acting through a few people in "concert", and so right now, perhaps coincidentally (or maybe not), this poster seems to have given more evidence to that speculation, osit.
Ruth may indeed be here because something in her really does have subconscious recognition of this group. Well, I personally am not sure why an OP - without any such recognition, would waste all this time in this group? My thought is either it is simply acting as a portal and so controlled by something with an agenda, or it has something inside that does resonate to some degree and sees this as opportunity to grow what it may feel it needs.
But, another possibility is that an OP may be attracted to the intellectual aspect of the group - without realising the true nature of it and simply liking the challenge of being involved purely intellectually in interesting discussions. I mean, considering that there may be billions of OP's in the world, and many "groups" that like to discuss current events, philosophy, and other topics - it is not entirely out of the realm of pure probability that this group would also, simply by chance, end up having a few OP's that recognize and are interested in only a certain part of the group, not really understanding other parts.
So right now it seems to me that it's probably one of the 3 scenarios above. Either malicious intent from higher levels, subconscious attraction, or casual interest in some aspects of the group. But maybe it's something else entirely too. But just to clarify for Godot, this *is* speculation on my part, but it doesn't mean that everything that is said in this thread about Ruth is speculation - the devil is in the details, osit.
