Joe's bomb

[Joe]

Joe wrote: For me, there is never a time when incorrect action is better than no action.

You can't say the word NEVER unless you know if the action is incorrect. And each scenario has a completley fluid and infinite amount of factors. The worst thing to do is assume.

Maybe Joe implied that, but, having made the mistake many times myself, I thought I would mention it.

Well, you are assuming lots here yourself. My comment was made explicitly in reference to a specific scenario proposed by 'bucketman'. That scenario was not hypothetical but concrete. I have already stated this, and it should be clear to anyone who reads the original thread that this is the case. Basically, you misunderstood, and you want to salvage something from that misunderstanding other than the fact that you misunderstood by insisting that your misunderstanding contains a valid point. Maybe it does, but it has nothing directly to do with the point I made.

Joe

 

[Guest]

Basically, you misunderstood, and you want to salvage something from that misunderstanding other than the fact that you misunderstood by insisting that your misunderstanding contains a valid point. Maybe it does, but it has nothing directly to do with the point I made.

Joe

OR, maybe I am commenting on it as I find the topic a common misconception in almost all attempts to convey experience through the use of written language. It is exceptionally rampant among folk who favor intellectual exercises over the seeking of knowledge through understanding concepts by both execution and contemplation.
I also find it the key method to fragment us here by 4D sts. Those who know cannot necessarily do, and the contrary.
But I suppose I should have put it in another post and invited others to enter into open discussion about it.
Next time I shall...

 

[anart]

Basically, you misunderstood, and you want to salvage something from that misunderstanding other than the fact that you misunderstood by insisting that your misunderstanding contains a valid point. Maybe it does, but it has nothing directly to do with the point I made.

Joe

OR, maybe I am commenting on it as I find the topic a common misconception in almost all attempts to convey experience through the use of written language.

Or, maybe your self-importance cannot allow you to grasp the fact that you misinterpreted, or made a mistake.

It is exceptionally rampant among folk who favor intellectual exercises over the seeking of knowledge through understanding concepts by both execution and contemplation.

Apologies if I have misinterpreted, but it sounds like you are saying that Joe - and others here - favor intellectual exercises over 'understanding' - on what factual basis do you make such an assumption?

I also find it the key method to fragment us here by 4D sts. Those who know cannot necessarily do, and the contrary.
But I suppose I should have put it in another post and invited others to enter into open discussion about it.
Next time I shall...

LOL - do you even have any concept of the definition of 'Do' on this forum and it's related web sites? A person who does not 'Know' cannot 'Do' - however, anyone who thinks they 'know' can 'do' anything and everything they like, satisfying all sorts of impulses, needs, drives and other manifestations of A influences - and in all of that - all the time - believe they are 'Doing' - believe they are the 'living life to it's fullest' - and they are, in their own 'dream state' way.

GreyCat, you have evidenced an impressive amount of self-importance on this forum over the past seven months, but even I must admit that this post pretty much takes the cake.

 

[Peto]

But back to the thought process, the question is, how to prevent incorrect action? I think the answer is to not separate our actions from our understanding aka "being sincere" in our actions and words. And how to make sure that our understanding is correct? The C's said that we can never ever be deceived or lead astray or have "false knowledge" if we are simply openly seeking to acquire knowledge aka truth. As I undersand it, if we seek truth we cannot possibly ever be deceived or led astray simply because being deceived requires making an assumption, requires believing something. But since seeking truth is the direct opposite of making assumptions, as long as we seek truth (as opposed to just telling ourselves that we are without actually doing so), we cannot possibly go astray. And if we cannot be deceived, then whatever knowledge we have will not be false knowledge. It may be incomplete but it won't be false.

And that's kinda tricky because obviously we can never have absolute certainty so we can ALWAYS be "wrong" in terms of our current understanding or assessment of something. But this does not make us "wrong" because we never pretended that our understanding/assessment was absolutely correct. So as long as we never pretend to know more than we objectively do know, and never pretend to be able to do what we cannot do, and act with "sincerity" with ourselves, we really cannot be "wrong", osit. In other words, always acknowledge all areas where our knowledge is missing and never fill those areas in with assumption. So if I say: "I have 4 fingers" while that statement can be wrong, as long as I don't pretend it is RIGHT to any greater degree than the given data allows, I am not wrong. And as long as I don't pretend that my assessment of the data is more objective or accurate than my assessment really is or that I have more data than I really do, etc.

Or maybe this whole thing can be summed up as don't "assume" or "pretend" in any area about anything! Do what you know and intend, and intend and know what you do. For example, do I know and intend what I just wrote, and did I only write that which I know and intended to write? And are there any "pretending" or "assumptions" in my attempt to answer that question for myself?

Thanks for this gem from you, SAO. It is really important in the process of acquiring knowledge that we don't assume anything as the absolute truth but always verify, cross reference with new information and be open to the new information. With this process, any false information that we may have acquired will automatically removed by the arrival and examination of new information. Thus, our knowledge will get closer and closer to the truth. This is how I understand what the C's said. It may be exactly what you said but from a slightly different angle.

My own experience of "truth seeking" is a good example of the above so I'll briefly share it here. I started off with reading about Peak Oil, then wandered onto many "doomsday" forums such as godlikeproduction, abovetopsecret, etc. In fact, I found out about the C's through a link posted on abovetopsecret. And once I got here, I never went back to those forums. In short, it shows how the new information (this site) helped me remove the false information I got back then from my knowledge.

 

[Guest]

Apologies if I have misinterpreted, but it sounds like you are saying that Joe - and others here - favor intellectual exercises over 'understanding' - on what factual basis do you make such an assumption?

LOL - do you even have any concept of the definition of 'Do' on this forum and it's related web sites? A person who does not 'Know' cannot 'Do' - however, anyone who thinks they 'know' can 'do' anything and everything they like, satisfying all sorts of impulses, needs, drives and other manifestations of A influences - and in all of that - all the time - believe they are 'Doing' - believe they are the 'living life to it's fullest' - and they are, in their own 'dream state' way.

GreyCat, you have evidenced an impressive amount of self-importance on this forum over the past seven months, but even I must admit that this post pretty much takes the cake.

Joe I have met personally, along with the rest of the SOTT team. So my assumptions are based my observations, as well as 33 years of knowledge on how people look, act, and carry out thier daily lives.
A point I am confident enough to mention as I have done quite a bit of work on myself as well. It's not bragging, it's stating. We all have a long way to go.
The whole 'one cannot do until one knows' is a paradox. You act by which you know thereby learning more and adjust from there. Thats why mada85 posted that RE-READING information makes it more clear.
Much can be seen by observing ones living envirnoment and how one resides in it.
I haven't survived as long as I have on the fringe without having a clear sense of how the concept I explained in my last post works. This is very difficult to explain in words, especially when one is on the 'defensive' as, sadly, this string is starting to become.

When you've gone on the defensive, you've already decided what you think is real and what is not. It's a hard climb from there.

May I also add that this language we use was DESIGNED to be inadequate to convey true experience. There are, however, clues within it, as Laura is studying.

As for my own self importance.
First of all, I, along with all the other members of this forum are 3D STS. Which means we are ALL living in self importance. I also think it's important to find one's self important. If you didn't, you wouldn't have any reason to exist.
It's under debate weather STO beings find themselves important, as there are not present. But I have a nagging intch that if they were, they would probably admit that they are just as important as everything else.
Which I consider myself to be.
So yes, you are right. I am self-important. In fact, I'm the center of the universe, as is everthing else.
As are you, and Joe, ect.
Thats infinity for you.

 

[Renaissance]

but it sounds like you are saying that Joe - and others here - favor intellectual exercises over 'understanding' - on what factual basis do you make such an assumption?

This seems your response to Anarts question:

Joe I have met personally, along with the rest of the SOTT team. So my assumptions are based my observations, as well as 33 years of knowledge on how people look, act, and carry out thier daily lives.

Anart asked for some factual basis. Instead you talk about yourself. Can you provide some specific examples of 'folks favoring intellectual exercises over understanding' which particularly seemed directed at Joe and the Signs team, instead of talking about yourself?

A point I am confident enough to mention as I have done quite a bit of work on myself as well. It's not bragging, it's stating.

okay, more about you. Now can you provide some substance for your assumptions?

 

[mada85]

mada85 wrote:
Sometimes I can read and read and read the same themes and ideas and suddenly one small thing can trigger a new level of understanding. I think I understand a little better now how this forum functions as a school.

GreyCat wrote:
One phenomena you might want to consider is that time has passed since you read it last. The actions you executed, based on your level of awareness, led to growth which was rewarded with more complete knowledge when you re-read the info a second time. Everything changes, moves, acts.

GreyCat wrote:
Thats why mada85 posted that RE-READING information makes it more clear.

What I meant here is that seeking is often, in my experience, answered by synchronous events/information given by the hands of others. Such was Joe's post about fighting and overcoming the foreign installation. I apologise for not being more clear with my words, although I think it was implied by saying, 'I think I understand a little better now how this forum functions as a school.'

GreyCat, a sense I get from your posts is, 'look at me I'm wonderful', i.e. self-importance. I can say this because I know it in myself. It's hard work to fight this part of the foreign installation. I think you are 'on the defensive' because your self-importance is under scrutiny. One is naked in this forum.

For me, there is never a time when incorrect action is better than no action.

What constitutes 'correct' vs 'incorrect' action? If one is fighting the foreign installation, then correct actions are of a certain type, i.e. those that help one become more conscious; incorrect actions are those that inhibit one from becoming more conscious. Therefore, to me, one correct action is to study and research the predator's mind so that I know what I am fighting.

The whole 'one cannot do until one knows' is a paradox.

Even with my limited knowledge and application thereof, I don't think there's any paradox in this. Only those who KNOW can DO in a truly conscious way, and those who do not know, cannot do since they are asleep at the wheel. In the second case, can a dreamer's actions truly be called DO-ing, or are they simply reactions?

 

[Joe]

Basically, you misunderstood, and you want to salvage something from that misunderstanding other than the fact that you misunderstood by insisting that your misunderstanding contains a valid point. Maybe it does, but it has nothing directly to do with the point I made.

OR, maybe I am commenting on it as I find the topic a common misconception in almost all attempts to convey experience through the use of written language.

It is exceptionally rampant among folk who favor intellectual exercises over the seeking of knowledge through understanding concepts by both execution and contemplation.

I also find it the key method to fragment us here by 4D sts. Those who know cannot necessarily do, and the contrary.
But I suppose I should have put it in another post and invited others to enter into open discussion about it.
Next time I shall...

I am not sure what exactly you are talking about here. You are not being clear. Let me be explicit, one more time.

I responded to a comment by bucketman where he said "There are times when even incorrect action is better than no action at all."

This comment was clearly in reference to his proposed idea of "psychic networking", which, at the point that the comment was made, had been roundly dismissed by other members.

Bucketman's counter argument to these well-made and reasonable arguments of other members that his idea was a bad idea or "incorrect action", was to suggest that even in the case where we decide that something is a bad idea, it may be beneficial to do it anyway.

NOW, the point was not made in a general sense but SPECIFICALLY in reference to this SPECIFIC proposed action of "psychic networking, which, as I said, had been deemed an "incorrect action" by members.

It was in SPECIFIC RESPONSE to this SPECIFIC idea of going ahead and doing something that members had decided was a bad idea that I responded:

"For me, there is never a time when incorrect action is better than no action"

i.e. there is never a time when incorrect action of the type suggested by bucketman to WHICH I WAS RESPONDING i.e. action that one has decided in advance will likely bring NET NEGATIVE RESULTS, is better than no action.

Your subsequent posts in response to this scenario were an exercise in disambiguation and legalistic nitpicking, which usually suggests that someone has some other axe to grind about which you are not being honest. Then again, you did let something slip that exposes the real issue here. You said:

First I have to say I can't say I side with Bucketman's idea either. That we should engage in said dangerous activity and gamble getting an auspicious outcome (Though I have done it, and made out just fine.)

Here you seem to be admitting that you have engaged in said idea of "psychic networking" and "made out just fine", which clearly puts you in disagreement with most others who responded to the thread.

So is that the problem? Yet you can't just admit it and instead try to come at it in a roundabout and manipulative way.

Then, in reponse to Anart's question whether or not you are suggesting that I - and others here - favor intellectual exercises over 'understanding' and if you are suggesting this, on what factual basis you make such an assumption, you state:

Joe I have met personally, along with the rest of the SOTT team. So my assumptions are based my observations, as well as 33 years of knowledge on how people look, act, and carry out thier daily lives.

Indeed you have met us personally, for all of 3 days, during which time you came across as a person loaded with programs, most of them involving your moving center stealing energy from everywhere else, which of course is mirrored in your chosen profession, which has seriously colored the 33 years of "observations" in which you seem content to place so much faith.

A point I am confident enough to mention as I have done quite a bit of work on myself as well. It's not bragging, it's stating. We all have a long way to go.

Your confidence in yourself is your biggest weakness.

The whole 'one cannot do until one knows' is a paradox. You act by which you know thereby learning more and adjust from there.

There you go again, setting up a false argument that was never made just so you can knock it down. No one EVER said "one cannot do until one knows", yet you go so far as to accuse me and others of doing this, an observation based on your 3 days here with us during which time your were running around like a scatter-brained teenager who couldn't see past his own deeply entrenched and firmly in control ego.

Much can be seen by observing ones living environment and how one resides in it.

Indeed, and one can learn much about oneself by considering why one finds oneself in a given environment.

I haven't survived as long as I have on the fringe without having a clear sense of how the concept I explained in my last post works. This is very difficult to explain in words, especially when one is on the 'defensive' as, sadly, this string is starting to become. When you've gone on the defensive, you've already decided what you think is real and what is not. It's a hard climb from there.

This thread has reached this point because of a misunderstanding by you , a misunderstanding which, when explained to you, caused you to go on the defensive, and then the subtle, covertly aggressive attack. Then again, it now looks like it was not so much a misunderstanding as a conscious disagreement.

As for my own self importance.

First of all, I, along with all the other members of this forum are 3D STS. Which means we are ALL living in self importance. I also think it's important to find one's self important. If you didn't, you wouldn't have any reason to exist. It's under debate weather STO beings find themselves important, as there are not present. But I have a nagging intch that if they were, they would probably admit that they are just as important as everything else.

Which I consider myself to be.

Here your lack of understanding of a fundamental premise of the 4th Way Work is apparent. Self-importance is one of the biggest, if not THE biggest obstacle to progress along the path. Self-esteem is not the same as self-importance, and you seem to be attempting to self-calm and not confront your own self-importance by deliberately confusing it with self-esteem.

So yes, you are right. I am self-important. In fact, I'm the center of the universe, as is everthing else.

It would seem that you have been reading way too much new age disinfo. I now understand why you were drawn to bucketman's theory of "we are the darkness from which we flee". "I am the center of the universe, so are you, so is the darkness. Love and light, we are all one etc. etc."

Joe

 

[Laura]

I think I would like to add something to this little discussion.

When Joe wrote:

"For me, there is never a time when incorrect action is better than no action"

... he was making what I consider to be a true statement.

Can anyone argue that there is ever a time when an incorrect action is better than no action?

I don't think so.

However, we can all agree that there are MANY times when we are obliged to select the lesser of two evil actions. That doesn't make either of them BETTER than NO action. It just means we are in a tight spot and we have to do something, even ANYthing.

Then, there are times when we do not KNOW what the correct action is and we make the wrong choice based on lack of data or other factors. We generally learn pretty quickly that it would have been better if we had done nothing at all.

Bottom line is this, even as a stand-alone statement, "For me, there is never a time when incorrect action is better than no action" can be supported, the operative word being "better."

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

As for my own self importance.
First of all, I, along with all the other members of this forum are 3D STS. Which means we are ALL living in self importance. I also think it's important to find one's self important. If you didn't, you wouldn't have any reason to exist.

To me this sounds like a totally empty and frankly "ponerological" rationalization of what "self importance" is and I was shocked to read this and that you were actually serious. It's like saying that there is no difference between us and the psychopaths in power because we are both STS, and so their self importance and our self importance is the same too. This is not so black and white, not all "3D STS" are equally STS. Not all opinions are equally valid just because they are "opinions". Not all roses have the same number of thorns, and the thorns are not the same size, and yet, every rose has its thorn, and they are all still roses.

But self importance can make you not perceive shades of gray, or use a general "common property" and pretend that it makes it okay to ignore the details. Of course it can also do the opposite and make you ignore something that is black and white and pretend it's all just a shade of gray. I think the bottom line is that "self importance" makes you selectively ignore objective reality in favor of a preferred reality because it is more comfortable for self, for ego, and this is the "bad" kind of self impotance. There is a "good" kind that makes you work hard on acquiring knowledge for yourself and taking care of yourself in order to preserve your usefulness to service to others - this is the kind of self importance that never ever prevents you from seeing objective reality because it's not "about the self", it's about truth and the possibility of ALL to have access to it, including self.

And yet we all eat, we all sleep, we all laugh, we all do things that feel good and preserve our selves. This does not mean we are all "the same", the devil is in the details, and to know objective reality you simply cannot ignore those details that make all the difference.

It's under debate weather STO beings find themselves important, as there are not present.

There is no debate, and their presense would not suddenly allow us to know the truth of this question simply by asking them just as you cannot know the truth of anything simply by asking someone what the truth is. We'll have to figure this one out ourselves I think.

Which I consider myself to be.

But if the data says otherwise, of what use is this statement? Just like Bush can say the same thing but of what use would it be what he says when all data points to the opposite? I'm not comparing you to Bush I'm just saying that just because you say so in no way makes it this way, and if you did have self importance, you certainly would not acknowledge it and you would pretend you are humble and consider yourself equal to everyone else because being "humble" is generally considered a "virtue", and someone with self importance will certainly want to think they are virtuous, and will want others to think the same. Just food for thought.

So yes, you are right. I am self-important. In fact, I'm the center of the universe, as is everthing else.
As are you, and Joe, ect.
Thats infinity for you.

And again, this absolutely does not have any meaning for this conversation just like "We are all One", as repeated endlessly by New Agers, means absolutely nothing in our world, which does not stop them from saying it and erronously using it to justify actions and beliefs in a world where that statement has no meaning or use whatsoever and just SAYING IT to rationalize anything in this reality can only come from self importance.

I'm sure you are very well aware that when someone acts like the "center of the universe" from a standpoint of self importance, it only means that others are NOT also the "center of the universe", and that's self importance.

 

[ark]

Can anyone argue that there is ever a time when an incorrect action is better than no action?

I don't think so.

And yet I will argue (and Laura agrees with my argument :) )

Suppose you are driving in car, you are driving fast. You come to the Y-kind of crossroads. Turning right is a correct action. it takes you to the place where your want to go. Turning left takes you to some other place. That would be an incorrect action. Not action at all would mean running into a tree which is at that cross.

Of course this argument applies, Laura says and rightly so, only when you are already "moving" into some danger, not when we are still or on acorrect path.

 

[Joe]

I think I would like to add something to this little discussion.

When Joe wrote:

"For me, there is never a time when incorrect action is better than no action"

... he was making what I consider to be a true statement.

Can anyone argue that there is ever a time when an incorrect action is better than no action?

I don't think so.

However, we can all agree that there are MANY times when we are obliged to select the lesser of two evil actions. That doesn't make either of them BETTER than NO action. It just means we are in a tight spot and we have to do something, even ANYthing.

Then, there are times when we do not KNOW what the correct action is and we make the wrong choice based on lack of data or other factors. We generally learn pretty quickly that it would have been better if we had done nothing at all.

Bottom line is this, even as a stand-alone statement, "For me, there is never a time when incorrect action is better than no action" can be supported, the operative word being "better."

What I understand of Greycat's point is that it is not correct to say that "incorrect action" is always better than no action. For example, all of us have done things that created negative results for us but from which we also learned a great deal. Personally, there are many situations I can think of where I did something that I regretted later on, but that I cannot honestly say I would now change if I could because I did learn something.

So for me to go back and change the past and delete "incorrect actions" would not necessarily be "better" because I would also delete the lessons that I learned.

So we can say that some objectively incorrect actions can be beneficial, but that in those cases we don't realise this until AFTER the fact. That at the time they were not perceived as "incorrect" and we therefore went ahead and engaged in them.

The point of contention here with greycat (other than his obvious self-importance) is that in the SPECIFIC case to which I replied, it was not a good idea to go ahead and engage in the incorrect action of "psychic networking" because, thanks to our 3D network, we were able to decide IN ADVANCE that this was a bad idea.

Basically, the lesson was learned IN ADVANCE, thereby negating the need for learning through painful experience. This in itself is a good example of the fact that the best type of networking is not "psychic" but nuts and bolts 3D discussion on a forum or group like this one.

Joe

 

[Laura]

Okay, yes. I agree. And here is something on that subject as well:

Q: (A) You say knowledge protects. It protects against WHAT?

A: Many things. One example: post transformational trauma
and confusion.

Q: (L) So, knowledge is going to protect us against post
transformational trauma and confusion. You are saying
that this transition to 4th density is going to be
traumatic and confusing. Do you mean transformation from
3rd to 4th density, or 3rd to 5th density, i.e. death?

A: Both.

Q: (L) So, if one does not have the shock and trauma and the
confusion and so forth, one is then able to function
better?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Well, if a person transitions directly from 3rd to 4th
density without cycling through 5th density via dying,
that implies that persons can transition directly from
3rd to 4th density without dying. Is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) How does that feel? How is that experience...

A: Alice through the looking glass.

Q: (A) Okay, they say that knowledge is supposed to protect
from trauma and confusion. On the other hand, all is
lessons, so trauma is a lesson. Why are we supposed to
work to avoid a lesson?

A: You are correct, it is a lesson, but if you have
foreknowledge, you are learning that lesson early, and in
a different way.

Q: (L) So, if you learn the lesson in a different way, does
that mitigate the need or the way or the process of the
way of learning at the time of transition?

A: Yes. Smoother.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Suppose you are driving in car, you are driving fast. You come to the Y-kind of crossroads. Turning right is a correct action. it takes you to the place where your want to go. Turning left takes you to some other place. That would be an incorrect action. Not action at all would mean running into a tree which is at that cross.

Isn't "doing nothing" also a choice, which is also an "action" in a sense? Doing something that moves you farther from where you want to go is worse than doing nothing, I agree, but I'd say that this only applies when there is data that indicates that a certain action is "wrong" and no data that says doing nothing is even "worse". In the example you gave Ark, doing nothing is actually going to put you farther from where you want to go than taking the wrong turn, so "doing nothing" is actually the incorrect action in this example, and taking a wrong turn is although not the best course of action, is not as bad as doing nothing - BECAUSE there is data that shows that doing nothing is worse. In the example of psychic networking there was data that shows that psychic networking is worse than nothing, so that makes it an incorrect action and makes doing nothing although not "correct", not as bad. So I agree with Joe's statement but would add "unless doing nothing, according to the data, is the incorrect action".

But "all there is is lessons" and I noticed that this is sometimes used to justify "incorrect action" because we "might learn something". I think that's erronous logic because the potential to learn valuable lessons equally applies to any potential course of action and therefore cannot, all by itself, be used as justification for one action over another. Only data that specifically points to one action over another can be reasonably used, not a generalized "what if we end up benefitting anyway" conjecture that really applies to anything and everything and cannot be anticipated.

I let the universe give me all the appropriate lessons how and when it sees fit - I try not to anticipate which action is better overall for "learning lessons" and try to focus on practical and useful goals like who I am and what I DO. Because if I didn't then I could say that "well pain teaches so I'm gonna go find lots of pain!". I'd be missing the point, and totally forget that pain is not necessary when the same can be learned without it, and it's only necessary when nothing else will do the trick, osit. Maybe another way to say that is I have faith that the universe will do its part and I just try to focus on my part, something that I have the capacity to choose.

Edit: Didn't mean to copy Laura's point above in the last paragraph, I just took so long writing and rewriting this post that by the time I posted Laura had already posted.

 

[mada85]

What I meant here is that seeking is often, in my experience, answered by synchronous events/information given by the hands of others. Such was Joe's post about fighting and overcoming the foreign installation. I apologise for not being more clear with my words, although I think it was implied by saying, 'I think I understand a little better now how this forum functions as a school.'

And this discussion is a perfect example...thank you Ark, Laura, Joe and all for your contributions.