Krzysztof Jackowski - Polish Clairvoyant

[BHelmet]

I don't think it is, at least not in certain circumstances and where there is a duty to act.

(re Laissez-faire in a social context) Good point and I agree. I was meaning this in terms of reacting to every trigger or opinion/comment that occurs in a post here and not the need/duty to resist domination or act rightly in situations in general (whatever right action or just action might be according to teh individual). IOW, as per usual, discernment is in order.

EG, do I need to always say "I disagree with your assessment/opinion and seeming obsession with the importance of this or that thing" ...in every case? I don't think so. Or, "Aha! I see your underwear showing!!!" "From your comments I can see you need to evolve more as I have" (Oh, brother/sister...too funny) And yes, there are times when it IS important to speak up. We all have a different sense of duty, a different hierarchy of values and those things are both real and a program, as well.

So, I meant this in a local context.

 

[BHelmet]

There is something else going on here. I would call it a dynamic for lack of a better term. I see it expressed in people's comments...words and I think it is largely unconscious. What is it?

The use of "we" in making assertions, comments, assumptions, whatever. It is quite prevalent. In fact the use of "we" instead of "I" implies that the speaker and a vast majority here are aligned with a similar point of view when that might not really be the case. (Ironically it also underscores the many "I's"!)

This goes hand in hand with saying "for others". The technique of saying "For others" creates a justification that sounds like a service for the greater good versus taking personal responsibility and saying "for me" which, of course sounds much more petty.

You are the only person that can really speak for you and I am the only person that can really speak for me. I think that is an objective fact.

Assuming that you are standing with a group; and are backed by a group is risky business and it deflects personal responsibility while clouding objective self-awareness.

"We think this, or we have that standard, etc" also implies there IS a correct alignment... a series of positions to hold... the appropriate dogmas, if you will.

If you say "we", more often that not, you are certainly not speaking for me in particular. (and that is one of my triggers for speaking up.)

I think it is more empowering, challenging and instructive to stand up for your own genuine beliefs and experiences (with external consideration, of course) rather than to imagine that the world you have partially constructed in your head is really real.

Poison arrow warning!

And if you say you are standing up for this or that ideal, but fail to do so when the kitchen gets too hot, well...

 

[Joe]

Initially, I did not register the subtlety of that statement

I did not fully appreciate the subtlety of this either...

It's the subtle maneuvers that are most difficult, but essential, to spot.

I don't feel Perlou intended it that way, but I can now (at least partly) see what the group was seeing.

I think Perlou very much intended it that way, i.e. to shoot down what Aeneas was saying. There is no other way to interpret her indirect to response to Aeneas via her response to Karol. She was specifically characterizing Aeneas' perfectly reasonable suggestion as "less than positive", i.e. NEGATIVE. It was our duty as moderators to point out, not just to Perlou, @Pat , but to all other members that, AS PER THE ETHOS OF THIS FORUM, Aeneas' comment was NOT "negative", it was POSITIVE.

 

[BHelmet]

But the description you chose still provides food for thought. Such super sweet desserts are usually empty calories. They may be appetizing and inviting, but there is little substance or benefit. Better look beyond the sweetness.

Probably part of you recognized it, and that's why you chose this particular description. Maybe I gave you some more food for thought, yes?

LOL... good gosh, no. I have a poetic artsy mind. PERLOU is French and well, I guess Pastries are flakey too but I certainly didn't mean it that way! But, like all poetry, the interpretation is up to the beholder.

 

[BHelmet]

Last thing:

I see this forum as a kind of newspaper. Don't like sports? Then don't read the sports section. I like sports but I don't find the celebrity page a bore so I tend to ignore it and only read it occasionally to see what is in the general consciousness. (So I can reconfirm the rightness of my own biases about the celebrity section!) There are threads I just bypass. Oh, I will check in occasionally to see what's up, but, if I am inclined to want to sneer "OMG, you think THAT'S funny???!!!" What's the point in that?

Same goes for individuals. Someone plugging you in? Notice what bothers you. See it in yourself. Work on forgiveness and defusing the triggers even if the person seems like a hopeless dork. (or whateverrr) Rinse, repeat.

But hey, just think what all the people who ignore the Jackowski thread are missing now?!

for entertainment purposes only, YMMV

 

[BHelmet]

O.k., BHelmet, the poison arrow came from me. I let myself be triggered by her.

I'd be remiss if I didn't applaud your honesty! Well done!

 

[ziutek]

I think it may be pointless for us to deal with Jackowski for knowledge growth.
On the other hand, the social problem that arose in this thread is a great lesson.

 

[Joe]

On the other hand, the social problem that arose in this thread is a great lesson.

Precisely.

 

[RAFL]

I had a simlar topic with a good fried of mine the last days. It didn't feel good on one side, but on the otherside setp by setp I realise that this was an important lesson. Many thanks to all of you that you are sharing your insides so honestly.

 

[hesperides]

I don't doubt for a moment that Perlou is genuine, but based on my interactions with her over the years during the fotcm daily prayers and the French group meetings I always understood she was in need of help, something she would usually decline from the get go whenever some of us would try to do so and for the most part isn't probably aware of. But since she hasn't ask for help here the details aren't pertinent so far unless Perlou thinks otherwise and wishes to open up at some point.

I really appreciate your sharing Karol, predictions are just predictions, that's obvious...
I thank you for your much appreciated efforts, your translations of this clairvoyant which I find interesting...
So thank you and I hope you won't be put off by a few less-than-positive comments...THANK YOU!

It never occurred to me to compare Mr. Jackowski's predictions with the Cassiopaean sessions...
I understood that you were expressing criticism of Mr. Jackowski and not of Karol, of course...
On this forum, we're old enough (I'm 70) to know that clairvoyants' predictions have no certainty, and they're only predictions with all their uncertainties... Sorry if I upset you, that was not my intention, I just wanted Karol to know that these efforts and translations are appreciated...

Something that may help you in a way, @PERLOU, understand what I'm referring to by my short description above is for example the frequent use of sequence of three dots in your posts, which surprises me knowing how well you express yourself and write in French. See Cambridge dictionary's definition of ellipsis, which meaning and use are equally applied in French:

- A sequence of three dots (…) to show that a word or words have deliberately been omitted from a sentence.

Now if you don't mean and are up to the task of completing each of those sentences above while remaining at the same time absolutely sincere with yourself, by that I mean following the thread of any kind of heavy emotions lurking behind your thoughts instead of minimizing or brushing them off with three manageable dots, you may find a voice within you in need to be heard that can prove to be very much liberating when giving it a voice, even if at first it may be upsetting because of our own judgments interfering with it.

I dearly hope this might clarify a bit more what at first sight might seem to you like an unexpected attack on you is just an effort to help you in the best of our abilities but of course only as far as you'll see and allow it.

 

[Pat]

I don't doubt for a moment that Perlou is genuine, but based on my interactions with her over the years during the fotcm daily prayers and the French group meetings I always understood she was in need of help, something she would usually decline from the get go whenever some of us would try to do so and for the most part isn't probably aware of. But since she hasn't ask for help here the details aren't pertinent so far unless Perlou thinks otherwise and wishes to open up at some point.





Something that may help you in a way, @PERLOU, understand what I'm referring to by my short description above is for example the frequent use of sequence of three dots in your posts, which surprises me knowing how well you express yourself and write in French. See Cambridge dictionary's definition of ellipsis, which meaning and use are equally applied in French:

- A sequence of three dots (…) to show that a word or words have deliberately been omitted from a sentence.

Now if you don't mean and are up to the task of completing each of those sentences above while remaining at the same time absolutely sincere with yourself, by that I mean following the thread of any kind of heavy emotions lurking behind your thoughts instead of minimizing or brushing them off with three manageable dots, you may find a voice within you in need to be heard that can prove to be very much liberating when giving it a voice, even if at first it may be upsetting because of our own judgments interfering with it.

I dearly hope this might clarify a bit more what at first sight might seem to you like an unexpected attack on you is just an effort to help you in the best of our abilities but of course only as far as you'll see and allow it.

@hesI thank you for the explanation of the dots. It's something I use often also for maybe two reasons (that I know of and now a third reason I discovered)
1/ Thoughts are going wild and taking time only to put down the essential hoping the rest will be understood. I also skip subject sometimes (the "I")
2/ laziness in the structure of sentences because "..." means so much more (I understand it as an opening to so many different directions which most of the time I feel I can't structure my thoughts enough to give a long and comprehensive explanation)
---> could it mean lack of consideration for others? I will look into it and correct it (Ouf!! Managed it, that was really hard, so many occasions!)
.
Excellent food for thought!

 

[Nienna]

My question is why this part of the discussion, talking about Perlou and the meaning of her wording has to be public when there is a way, I believe, to send private messages and explain where it is believed she went wrong and not getting everyone to take "side" especially when it was explained that some didnt have all the "accumulated previous " information to have objective opinion ...

If all the "hard truths" were shared privately, how would people, who were not part of the "drama," learn from other people's mistakes or blind spots? There are many valuable lessons in the present discussion and there is an opportunity for growth for everyone.

Exactly!

Have we forgotten about the work and the basic principles of the Forum?

It would seem so. It would be good to remember this from time to time here.

Playing the pity/over sensitive card over and over again really gets you nowhere, and keeps you stuck in an endless loop and can stifle progress.

Indeed. And PERLOU does use the pity ploy a lot. It might be a good exercise for people to become aware of these ploys so that they are better able to see it as they interact with others outside of the forum.

I think Perlou very much intended it that way, i.e. to shoot down what Aeneas was saying.

As do I.

As I said previously, if you have not read Unholy Hungers, you may want to do that. Dealing with the types of people in society nowadays, it is a good thing to understand and help to keep us from being drained emotionally and spiritually.

 

[Alana]

Assuming that you are standing with a group; and are backed by a group is risky business and it deflects personal responsibility while clouding objective self-awareness.

"We think this, or we have that standard, etc" also implies there IS a correct alignment... a series of positions to hold... the appropriate dogmas, if you will.

If you say "we", more often that not, you are certainly not speaking for me in particular. (and that is one of my triggers for speaking up.)

I am not exactly sure what you are referring to here, but in this particular context, "we" as forum members have all agreed to conduct ourselves in certain ways and based on certain values the day we entered this community. See Terms & Rules of Use. It's always a good idea to reread them btw, it's a reminder of what we are here for, and why.

Now, when the president of my country says "we stand with Ukraine, Israel, whatnot", obviously I also feel that he is not talking for me.

So yes, depending on the circumstance, there IS a correct alignment or commonly held standards that are upheld by all. Like when you choose to join a church, a school, a club, or a sports team, or even a political party.