Lies, damn lies, & Holy Scripture (part 2?)

[Hesper]

Hope the author can find a way to start again from a firmer foundation.

Mac

I doubt that will be possible. Many issues came up during his break-down including evidence of a very covert meanness and selfishness at his foundation. In other words, at the root of such things is generally self-ish-ness - a strong compulsion to serve the self with anything and everything. Even monks who make great sacrifices generally do it to "get salvation."

I offer my condolences. It must have been disturbing for all of you to see this happen (devil in the details, or so I'm assuming). There's a tragic irony in his refusal of a positive breakdown and the breakdown that resulted.

 

[Chu]

Personally, I always had trouble reading his articles. They were too verbose, and a lot of times, I KNEW he had taken somebody else's idea (either because I had heard that someone else say it before to him, or because later a source - not quoted by him- showed up which had said the exact same thing) and made it "his own", without acknowledging it later. It was bizarre. Not always, but then, the rest I just found to be "abstract", not in touch with reality when the person who had written those words visibly didn't manifest any of that in his own life. That was just a hint at the time, until the strong flavor of schizodia came out.

 

[Joe]

Ah Laura I am so sorry to hear this about the author--he seemed a gentle soul.

Best thing to do is take it as a lesson and something to always keep in mind: that appearances can be (and most often are) deceptive.

 

[shellycheval]

Perceval

Quote from: shellycheval on Yesterday at 03:32:43 PM

Ah Laura I am so sorry to hear this about the author--he seemed a gentle soul.

Best thing to do is take it as a lesson and something to always keep in mind: that appearances can be (and most often are) deceptive.

Too true--Thanks Perceval. This is another lesson in discernment for me. He did "snap" at me once about a comment I made, that I thought was innocent, but he said it was "none of my business." This gave me a pause and a negative feeling about him, but, (and this is where I have gotten in to trouble before) I over-road that perception, telling myself that considering his present company and what he does for a career, he must be OK--it probably was none of my business. Certainly this response was generated by my "be nice" and "always think well of others" programming.

Then, I compound my error here by recalling the good impressions I had of him, feeling sorry for him, and omitting the one bit of negative insight I was given and chose to ignore. When it comes to world situations and humanity at large I have become quite a cynic and usually am accurate with a negative assessment of things, but when I am one-on-one with someone I am afraid that I still give them too much of the benefit of the doubt and I need to develop more of a detached, analytical view of people I meet before I let my guard down.
shellycheval

 

[Laura]

People should remember that just because someone is associated with us here, or have spent time with us here, it does not automatically make that person some sort of wise and advanced individual. The fact is, very often, people come here because they are trying to escape from life and they think we won't figure it out. Or they are trying to worm their way into a position of dominance and think I was born yesterday. And still other situations involve people we feel are sincere but who are having a great difficulty of some sort and they come to spend time working on themselves. Others come because they really ARE pretty wise and we just simply enjoy their company. And some come simply because they are working on a project that we are supporting, though we know in advance that they are not, and never will be, able to do "The Work." But their expertise or services are needed.

So, it's not a good idea to make assumptions. Each and every one of you should evaluate your own interactions with such individuals and if you get a red flag, you should tell us about it.

 

[shellycheval]

Posted by: Laura
« on: Today at 04:23:43 PM »

People should remember that just because someone is associated with us here, or have spent time with us here, it does not automatically make that person some sort of wise and advanced individual. The fact is, very often, people come here because they are trying to escape from life and they think we won't figure it out. Or they are trying to worm their way into a position of dominance and think I was born yesterday. And still other situations involve people we feel are sincere but who are having a great difficulty of some sort and they come to spend time working on themselves. Others come because they really ARE pretty wise and we just simply enjoy their company. And some come simply because they are working on a project that we are supporting, though we know in advance that they are not, and never will be, able to do "The Work." But their expertise or services are needed.

So, it's not a good idea to make assumptions. Each and every one of you should evaluate your own interactions with such individuals and if you get a red flag, you should tell us about it.

Yes Ma'am.

 

[anart]

People should remember that just because someone is associated with us here, or have spent time with us here, it does not automatically make that person some sort of wise and advanced individual. The fact is, very often, people come here because they are trying to escape from life and they think we won't figure it out. Or they are trying to worm their way into a position of dominance and think I was born yesterday. And still other situations involve people we feel are sincere but who are having a great difficulty of some sort and they come to spend time working on themselves. Others come because they really ARE pretty wise and we just simply enjoy their company. And some come simply because they are working on a project that we are supporting, though we know in advance that they are not, and never will be, able to do "The Work." But their expertise or services are needed.

So, it's not a good idea to make assumptions. Each and every one of you should evaluate your own interactions with such individuals and if you get a red flag, you should tell us about it.

I think this post should be a 'sticky' of its own. It is SO important because people make a lot of assumptions about the people who 'have been at the Chateau' and then their guards are down and all sorts of 'blind leading the blind' goes on. Always, and in everything, pay attention to what is actually going on - actions versus words - and hone your discernment. When in doubt, network!! If everyone did that, the danger of 'snakes in the garden' would all but disappear, I think.

 

[Lilou]

So, it's not a good idea to make assumptions. Each and every one of you should evaluate your own interactions with such individuals and if you get a red flag, you should tell us about it.

I did also have a moment of pause, when BS told me that they had dated for an entire year before he told her what he did for living! That is pretty deceptive, IMO. She must have been 'troubled' by this, or she wouldn't have brought it up. He, only smiled and acknowledged that it was true.

Never the less, I'm saddened by the loss of a forum member.

 

[Jacques]

People should remember that just because someone is associated with us here, or have spent time with us here, it does not automatically make that person some sort of wise and advanced individual. The fact is, very often, people come here because they are trying to escape from life and they think we won't figure it out. Or they are trying to worm their way into a position of dominance and think I was born yesterday. And still other situations involve people we feel are sincere but who are having a great difficulty of some sort and they come to spend time working on themselves. Others come because they really ARE pretty wise and we just simply enjoy their company. And some come simply because they are working on a project that we are supporting, though we know in advance that they are not, and never will be, able to do "The Work." But their expertise or services are needed.

So, it's not a good idea to make assumptions. Each and every one of you should evaluate your own interactions with such individuals and if you get a red flag, you should tell us about it.

I think this post should be a 'sticky' of its own. It is SO important because people make a lot of assumptions about the people who 'have been at the Chateau' and then their guards are down and all sorts of 'blind leading the blind' goes on. Always, and in everything, pay attention to what is actually going on - actions versus words - and hone your discernment. When in doubt, network!! If everyone did that, the danger of 'snakes in the garden' would all but disappear, I think.

Agree and done.

You can find it here

 

[Chu]

So, it's not a good idea to make assumptions. Each and every one of you should evaluate your own interactions with such individuals and if you get a red flag, you should tell us about it.

I did also have a moment of pause, when BS told me that they had dated for an entire year before he told her what he did for living! That is pretty deceptive, IMO. She must have been 'troubled' by this, or she wouldn't have brought it up. He, only smiled and acknowledged that it was true.

This is a good example of what Laura and Anart just wrote, IMO. It would have been good if you had shared this earlier. It was one of those "details" that he didn't share with us. A lesson for everyone!

 

[Gimpy]

Personally, I always had trouble reading his articles. They were too verbose, and a lot of times, I KNEW he had taken somebody else's idea (either because I had heard that someone else say it before to him, or because later a source - not quoted by him- showed up which had said the exact same thing) and made it "his own", without acknowledging it later. It was bizarre. Not always, but then, the rest I just found to be "abstract", not in touch with reality when the person who had written those words visibly didn't manifest any of that in his own life. That was just a hint at the time, until the strong flavor of schizodia came out.

This reminds me of a childhood girlfriend who, when it dawned on her that I did not believe in the same version of 'God' that she did, she almost had a psychotic break right in front of me. (There's a post about that somewhere, but I don't remember where it is. )

The author of the article struck me as the same way mentally: so invested in the 'way daddy taught me' that moving past it wasn't going to happen. Reading his work reminded me a lot of watching a clay pot crack in the sun as it dried.

In college, I even wrote a paper about it...that there are key moments in people's lives in which they are able to break out of the programming of their parents, and some people break it and forge their own way, others go only so far as to scare themselves back to what is comfortable. Internal and external morality falls in with that, but its one of those life decisions that's too individual to be able to discern it by surface observations.

External consideration can go only so far, or it only goes so far for me, because I just don't have the energy to spare for a lot of interpersonal dramas. I don't think its mean or hard hearted to either slowly fade out of someones life, or end a friendship when its clear that, for no other reason, being around that person will literally drive them into making themselves crazy. Its happened with many of my friends I thought I knew well over the years, not just the one....experience taught me that its better to walk away, even if it has to be done with grit teeth, hearing the guilty voices chorus in my head.

 

[Gonzo]

Interesting, reading Lilou's post makes me realize the value of two tools we need to continue to develop: insight, which is a form of awareness derived from inputs in real time and hindsight, which is an awareness derived from either connecting dots after the fact (usually because a piece of the puzzle was missing, preventing insight at the time) or from recognizing that we ignored our insight.

Either way, hindsight is a great teacher to help develop better insight.

I can see how easy it is to ignore our insight, especially when we are concerned about the ramifications such an awareness can bring. I can also see ignoring insight could result from doubting the validity of our insights.

But, it seems now, that ignoring insight can be a form of putting one's head in the sand, either creating our own illusions or supporting someone else's.

I guess another thing to consider is that some people just don't have insight, or have very little, and when information comes to them that should add to their awareness, it just fizzles and evaporates into the ethers.

The lessons just keep coming. May they never end.

Lilou, I'm curious to know, if you are willing to probe and share, why you didn't act in some way on this information. I realize this might make you feel vulnerable, but your discomfort would surely benefit others if there is something to learn from this.

I am sure that there are several other members who have come across information and failed to act upon it. For example, I had a friend, a fellow band mate, who seemed to get involved in flirtatious behaviour whenever we had gigs in bars. He was married and my wife and family and his were quite close.

I agonized over this knowledge, and finally shared it with my wife, but we both chose to keep it to ourselves, although I let him know how unfair and unjust his behaviour was. But I never told his wife, for fear of hurting her or having her get defensive and angry with me.

He eventually had a serious affair and left his wife, who was completely unprepared and was horribly hurt. The woman he was having an affair with, was married to another member of our band, which destroyed the trust and led to the band breaking up as well. I regret not telling her and would definitely handle things differently now.

Gonzo

 

[Mrs.Tigersoap]

I think this post should be a 'sticky' of its own. It is SO important because people make a lot of assumptions about the people who 'have been at the Chateau' and then their guards are down and all sorts of 'blind leading the blind' goes on. Always, and in everything, pay attention to what is actually going on - actions versus words - and hone your discernment. When in doubt, network!! If everyone did that, the danger of 'snakes in the garden' would all but disappear, I think.

This is true and yet so difficult to do: I know that I have the 'don't be a snitch' program, for example. Apart if s.o. was clearly crossing a boundary (sending feeding PM's, that kind of stuff), I would have a hard time talking about a 'feeling' I get about s.o. First of all, I might be wrong and do a lot of damage. Second of all, after reading the cognitive science books, it's difficult to trust these feelings. I actually often have hunches and feelings about people who turn out to be correct but sometimes it is just me projecting my own stuff...

The fact that s.o. goes regularly to the château might feel as a seal of approval to me because my line of thinking is:' that forum member (who is supposed to do the Work after all, no?) has been in 'total immersion' with the forum's elders (people who pretty much eat, live and breathe the Work, many (all?) being pretty sharp people to boot), a group which is used to all sorts of con men, crazies and whatnots but I, Mrs. Tigersoap, would be able to see something that they, as a network, couldn't?' How deluded would I be for thinking that? Same goes for the mods. I know that all the mods together as a network see stuff that I don't. And when I see s.o. who is in my opinion not OK, I just won't say anything because I assume that you guys know it already and if nothing happens right away, you probably have a good reason because this has actually proven to be the case so many times.

 

[Lilou]

Lilou, I'm curious to know, if you are willing to probe and share, why you didn't act in some way on this information. I realize this might make you feel vulnerable, but your discomfort would surely benefit others if there is something to learn from this.

At the time, I was a fairly new forum member and it never occurred to me that this was an important piece of information - until reading this thread. A small detail, but in retrospect, quite telling.

 

[Alana]

I think this post should be a 'sticky' of its own. It is SO important because people make a lot of assumptions about the people who 'have been at the Chateau' and then their guards are down and all sorts of 'blind leading the blind' goes on. Always, and in everything, pay attention to what is actually going on - actions versus words - and hone your discernment. When in doubt, network!! If everyone did that, the danger of 'snakes in the garden' would all but disappear, I think.

This is true and yet so difficult to do: I know that I have the 'don't be a snitch' program, for example. Apart if s.o. was clearly crossing a boundary (sending feeding PM's, that kind of stuff), I would have a hard time talking about a 'feeling' I get about s.o. First of all, I might be wrong and do a lot of damage.

Mrs T., I understand your program, I have it too. But that's just all it is, however. Consider for example what a big leap is to believe that sharing a feeling about someone, based on their actions and/or words, would cause them damage. What will most likely happen is that your observation/feeling will be filed or discussed and give others the opportunity to share their observations of said someone, and perhaps the person will be observed more closely. That's it. Nobody here condemns anyone based on a feeling or an observation. We are all odd in our own ways, some with more programs than others, so the forum would be very small member-wise if we did so ;)

Second of all, after reading the cognitive science books, it's difficult to trust these feelings. I actually often have hunches and feelings about people who turn out to be correct but sometimes it is just me projecting my own stuff...

Same here. But how are we to calibrate our hunches-meter and understand and deal with our projections if we never network with others who we can trust that they have our backs? And more eyes, ears, noses ;D and brains together are more likely to see a case or a person more objectively, don't you agree?

The fact that s.o. goes regularly to the château might feel as a seal of approval to me because my line of thinking is:' that forum member (who is supposed to do the Work after all, no?) has been in 'total immersion' with the forum's elders (people who pretty much eat, live and breathe the Work, many (all?) being pretty sharp people to boot), a group which is used to all sorts of con men, crazies and whatnots but I, Mrs. Tigersoap, would be able to see something that they, as a network, couldn't?' How deluded would I be for thinking that?

What if this someone is more on guard while around the elders, showing a different face in their presence than when he/she interacts with you? Then wouldn't your observation be useful to the rest of the group? It was said many times on this forum that it is very hard to tell a person who is struggling through their wounds and programs and one who is lacking in the emotional substratum, because both can be exhibiting pathological behavior. It is through loooong observation of the person that we can know in the end, this "looong" might be years. Every bit of information from all eyes can be useful. Usually tragedy happens when people don't network, not when they do, because things are left as they are until something very unfortunate happens. We have seen this time and again. Also note above all the reasons Laura mentions for why people spend time at the chateau.

Same goes for the mods. I know that all the mods together as a network see stuff that I don't. And when I see s.o. who is in my opinion not OK, I just won't say anything because I assume that you guys know it already and if nothing happens right away, you probably have a good reason because this has actually proven to be the case so many times.

All the mods together as a network see stuff that I don't individually either. That's the point: Together as a network. I too have programs and project my stuff on others so I don't rely on my observations alone, but I share them with the rest of the mods and we take information in from all you guys in the forum about every subject, and everyone. Even with private PMs and personal off-forum contacts we wouldn't know who's doing what unless the other person said something. And this is very important for the safety of both persons involved and the forum community at large.

Anart summed it very well when she said:

Always, and in everything, pay attention to what is actually going on - actions versus words - and hone your discernment. When in doubt, network!! If everyone did that, the danger of 'snakes in the garden' would all but disappear, I think.

And networking here can also mean sending a note to a mod or an administrator with your concern.

That's how I see it now, at least...