Michael Jackson Dies

[anart]

Lara4unow:
I can't help but wonder why you have reacted so emotionally to Anart's post.

I would tend to agree. What's really going on, lara4unow, that would motivate you to write such a bizarre post? It IS objectively true that Michael Jackson spent his entire adult life trying to change his appearance to the point of deformity and that he was robbed of a normal childhood - there is really no subjectivity there at all. So - if you could be so kind as to explain what is really going on here, it would be appreciated.

 

[lara4unow]

Lara4unow:

Michael Jackson led an extremely public life. While there is much that we cannot "know" with certainty (including whether or not the molestation charges against him had any merit), there is much that IS known and can be examined objectively.

It is hardly "subjective" to conclude that someone with such an extreme need to change his physical appearance through expensive, and ultimately destructive and deforming plastic surgery, had some very serious psychological issues, including self-hatred. The circumstances of his life that contributed to those issues are indeed "tragic".

I can't help but wonder why you have reacted so emotionally to Anart's post.

Why I reacted is an easy answer. I am not a Michael Jackson die hard, what so ever. I reacted because these kinds of statements have not been made about others like him on this forum. For you to suggest that it is not "subjective" but objective to conclude that because he changed his physical appearance he had serious psychological issues, is in my opinion, 3d thinking and not at all objective. I request that you document where you got this very public information specifically, about his self-hatred. I agree he has been subjected to a very tortured existence but for anyone to say how he himself felt about it or acted on it, is quite a stretch. And further, yes his surgery was expensive but again, where do you get your information that it was destructive and deforming in his or others beside your opinion? His drug abuse, which lead to his death is well documented. However, does that mean he hated himself or that he was just in a tremendous amount of physical and/or emotional pain?

 

[anart]

Why I reacted is an easy answer. I am not a Michael Jackson die hard, what so ever. I reacted because these kinds of statements have not been made about others like him on this forum. For you to suggest that it is not "subjective" but objective to conclude that because he changed his physical appearance he had serious psychological issues, is in my opinion, 3d thinking and not at all objective. I request that you document where you got this very public information specifically, about his self-hatred. I agree he has been subjected to a very tortured existence but for anyone to say how he himself felt about it or acted on it, is quite a stretch. And further, yes his surgery was expensive but again, where do you get your information that it was destructive and deforming in his or others beside your opinion? His drug abuse, which lead to his death is well documented. However, does that mean he hated himself or that he was just in a tremendous amount of physical and/or emotional pain?

Let's try this again - is there a reason you're reacting this way to a discussion that could not, by definition, be completely objective? You are displaying rigidity of thought and extreme black and white thinking in this instance. A discussion on Michael Jackson is not a discussion on Ponerology. This is the 'sandbox' section - and it's called that for a reason. Do you object so strenuously to the 'what am I listening to' section? Perhaps lightening up a little would be in your best interest?

 

[lara4unow]

Why I reacted is an easy answer. I am not a Michael Jackson die hard, what so ever. I reacted because these kinds of statements have not been made about others like him on this forum. For you to suggest that it is not "subjective" but objective to conclude that because he changed his physical appearance he had serious psychological issues, is in my opinion, 3d thinking and not at all objective. I request that you document where you got this very public information specifically, about his self-hatred. I agree he has been subjected to a very tortured existence but for anyone to say how he himself felt about it or acted on it, is quite a stretch. And further, yes his surgery was expensive but again, where do you get your information that it was destructive and deforming in his or others beside your opinion? His drug abuse, which lead to his death is well documented. However, does that mean he hated himself or that he was just in a tremendous amount of physical and/or emotional pain?

Let's try this again - is there a reason you're reacting this way to a discussion that could not, by definition, be completely objective? You are displaying rigidity of thought and extreme black and white thinking in this instance. A discussion on Michael Jackson is not a discussion on Ponerology. This is the 'sandbox' section - and it's called that for a reason. Do you object so strenuously to the 'what am I listening to' section? Perhaps lightening up a little would be in your best interest?

Anart, what do you tend to agree with? Why is my post so bizarre? Please explain these comments. Yes it is objective to conclude upon the facts that he changed his appearance and he was robbed of his childhood like many other actors have been. However, to make statements as to deformity, self-hatred and the like, I maintain are purely subjective and not documented by you personally being in his presence or referencing facts to back those statements up.

What is going on here for me is a contradiction and breach in the rules of this forum by you and pepperfritz as moderators. Why I reacted so emotionally is not because of your subjective comments about Michael Jackson but because I, as a novice of the 4th way work, depend on the knowledge and thinking consistency the QF Group leaders and founders.

 

[Beau]

Let's try this again - is there a reason you're reacting this way to a discussion that could not, by definition, be completely objective? You are displaying rigidity of thought and extreme black and white thinking in this instance. A discussion on Michael Jackson is not a discussion on Ponerology. This is the 'sandbox' section - and it's called that for a reason. Do you object so strenuously to the 'what am I listening to' section? Perhaps lightening up a little would be in your best interest?

Anart, what do you tend to agree with? Why is my post so bizarre? Please explain these comments. Yes it is objective to conclude upon the facts that he changed his appearance and he was robbed of his childhood like many other actors have been. However, to make statements as to deformity, self-hatred and the like, I maintain are purely subjective and not documented by you personally being in his presence or referencing facts to back those statements up.

What is going on here for me is a contradiction and breach in the rules of this forum by you and pepperfritz as moderators. Why I reacted so emotionally is not because of your subjective comments about Michael Jackson but because I, as a novice of the 4th way work, depend on the knowledge and thinking consistency the QF Group leaders and founders.

Please explain, and point out where exactly, their was a breach in the rules of the forum. The very nature of this discussion means that people are going to be sharing their own impressions of who Michael Jackson was and what they thought caused him so much suffering. For you to obstinately decry such impressions is not only a sign of your misunderstanding of the spirit of the thread, but also YOU are the one breaching the rules of the forum for attacking the moderators for providing their own impressions in a thread full of them. For you to attack one person's point of view in this affair, you would have to attack all. I don't see you blasting Laura for sharing her impressions, which were also of the same order as anart's. To dogmatically demand proof of each person's view on MJ's life is not only to completely distract the moderators of this forum, but it also shows someone who seems to be using this 'opportunity' to attack a moderator for a perceived slight of which never actually occurred. Sounds to me that your issue isn't at all with what was said in regard to MJ, but rather you seem to have an issue with anart in general, and you are using this thread as a platform for such issues.

Your comments immediately put you on shaky ground. Continue, and you will be looking for somewhere else to attack people for sharing their opinion.

 

[anart]

Anart, what do you tend to agree with? Why is my post so bizarre? Please explain these comments.

First of all, why in the world do you think it is appropriate for you to demand anything of this forum or its moderators? Your self-importance is astounding.

What is going on here for me is a contradiction and breach in the rules of this forum by you and pepperfritz as moderators.

Not at all - not in any way, shape or form is that true.

Why I reacted so emotionally is not because of your subjective comments about Michael Jackson but because I, as a novice of the 4th way work, depend on the knowledge and thinking consistency the QF Group leaders and founders.

Second of all, it is time for you to take a deep breath and get some perspective. This is and should have been a casual discussion. If you cannot see that, then something is seriously amiss with your perception. You are swallowing elephants and straining at flies. You state that you depend on 'knowledge and thinking' of those you now denigrate and make demands of? You are coming across as a demanding child with no concept of the context of the discussion the adults are having - it would be humorous were you not so deadly serious about it.

If one is unable to grasp context, if one places the same constraints and definitions on all aspects of life and interaction, then one has become obsessed and is no longer learning. The Law of Three dictates that there is right and there is wrong and there is the specific situation that determines which is which.

It is time for you to stop demanding what should and should not be done on this forum, or to move along to a forum that welcomes such behavior.

 

[lara4unow]

Fine I give up you win

 

[lara4unow]

Finally, I have no beef with anyone in particular. I just have a hard time with opinions that suggest someone is a pedophile or a psychopath without including facts or references. I get the rules now. Opinions based on subjective emotions are OK, here. Thanks for the threat of banning me Pinkerton, very kind of you.

 

[Bo]

Fine I give up you win

Lara..this is not a game, it's a way of trying to see oneself in different ways, try to read your own post and your post toward anart from a different eye, without your emotions clouding your intellect. You can clearly not do that right now, because you feel offended in every possible way.

Perhaps try tomorrow with a clear mind, maybe?

 

[kenlee]

Why I reacted so emotionally is not because of your subjective comments about Michael Jackson but because I, as a novice of the 4th way work, depend on the knowledge and thinking consistency the QF Group leaders and founders.

Is this really about Michael Jackson at all? Maybe It’s more about your reaction more then anything else and your using this Michael Jackson thread as a screen to project something within yourself that you are unconscious of onto the outside world? In other words, if we are unconscious of something within ourselves, then this unknown part of ourselves is gonna get projected so it can be seen. The unknown within ourselves then gets projected onto the outside so that what is seen and 'believed to be known' in another person (as if our projection belonged to them), is in reality that very thing within ourselves that is not seen.

 

[PepperFritz]

I just have a hard time with opinions that suggest someone is a pedophile or a psychopath without including facts or references....

I suspect that you are confusing the concept of Objectivity, in relation to Gurdjieff, the Work and this forum, with the academic concept of "accuracy". When, in practice and actuality, the "fact"-based concept of "accuracy" that academia equates with "truth" may or may not be "objective" in nature, depending on the subjectivity of the individual observing and evaluating such "facts". There is also the tendency of some academics to become absorbed in specialized minutae to the exclusion of the "big picture" -- also known around here as "nitpicking", "legalistic thinking" and "not seeing the forest for the trees". I detect some of that happening here, in how you have been perceiving the discussion in this thread.

In other words, a step back to consider the big picture more objectively would be helpful. As would an examination of the degree of identification you have with being an "academic", and how that might be clouding your ability to grasp the aims of this forum (as opposed to your own personal aims). The following essay/thread by Laura's husband Ark (who shares your academic background) may be helpful in that regard: What is Truth?

I, as a novice of the 4th way work, depend on the knowledge and thinking consistency the QF Group leaders and founders.

And you are receiving that "knowledge and thinking consistency". The question now is are you prepared to drop your defences, agendas, and preconceptions long enough to consider it? Remember: It is not up to the student to become the architect of the school.

 

[genero81]

Insert Quote
Finally, I have no beef with anyone in particular. I just have a hard time with opinions that suggest someone is a pedophile or a psychopath without including facts or references. I get the rules now. Opinions based on subjective emotions are OK, here. Thanks for the threat of banning me Pinkerton, very kind of you.

I agree that we can't know for sure how deviant Michael Jackson may have been. I tend to think along the lines of Laura, that he simply wished to remain a child and his relations with these other kids may have been no more than "sleep overs." But who knows for sure.

Sarcasm is not necessary. Being aggressive with a moderator will bring attention to the one who is provoking it. Personally, I find it interesting that this particular discussion would trigger such emotional responses. I tend to think that it ties into programs about ourselves and the false beliefs we held dear about the world around us. Michael Jackson has certainly been part of our culture and therefore identification with his music has touched almost all of us in one way or another.

But, we also had time to adjust our perceptions during his many eccentricities through the years. That something was amiss, couldn't be missed.

Seeing things objectively is the goal. We hope to achieve that by expressing our perceptions as well as considering others perceptions. We are after all, still human.

Take a deep breath, and relax. ;)

 

[anart]

Fine I give up, you win.

Finally, I have no beef with anyone in particular. I just have a hard time with opinions that suggest someone is a pedophile or a psychopath without including facts or references. I get the rules now. Opinions based on subjective emotions are OK, here. Thanks for the threat of banning me Pinkerton, very kind of you.

Lara4unow, you appear to be an intelligent woman. What do you think the above two posts indicate about your state of mind? If someone else on this forum wrote what is written above, what would you think?

I'm asking these questions under the assumption that you will, at some point, be able to consider and answer them. If you are unable to do that, after a bit of a break; if you are unable to control your horses in order to self-observe, and analyze your statements with some distance, then there is little more to say since anything said will not be heard.

I hope that is not where this ends up.

 

[Nathan]

I found this article to be quite interesting.

_http://www.scientificblogging.com/j_michael_bailey/was_michael_jackson_pedophile

A unique person like Michael Jackson requires a unique explanation. Furthermore, Jackson's weirdness was so multifaceted that it presents both a challenge and an opportunity. An hypothesis that explains only one unusual fact is not so useful. One that can explain several is much more so.

I propose an explanation of Michael Jackson that, if true, can explain several seemingly unrelated things: the molestation accusations and interest in children, the obsession with Peter Pan, and the facial surgeries. I think that Michael Jackson had an erotic identity disorder.

 

[John G]

I just have a hard time with opinions that suggest someone is a pedophile or a psychopath without including facts or references.

Being a pedophile is certainly a possibility that fits with events in Jackson's life. It's not the only possibility and no one said it was. What you are doing kind of reminds me of bringing up Israel in a 9-11 conspiracy discussion, it's like mentioning some possibilities are taboo no matter how logical it is to consider the possibility.