Pan's Labyrinth

[Beau]

But then, in light of the law of 3, what was Faun's purpose to manipulate Ofelia in the tasks other than the last?

The first task saved the dying tree from the toad and get the key needed for the second task. The second task was stinted, but it could be she was tested to see if she would succumb to desire and cravings. Even though she failed at the second test she still was allowed to go on, so that says something about the tests right there. The tests were not binary in that if you failed you could not go on. Typically evil does not allow for failure.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

K you make a good point, I think my program may be that I'm under the impression that the act never justifies the means, because that's what STS does too - do a lot of hurtful stuff and say that it's ultimately for a good cause so it's justified. So it is hard for me to see STO doing this. Then again, we're in an STS world, so in order to accomplish STO goals we do have to lie to the system and stay alive and keep under the radar when necessary, which can mean protect ourselves from being consumed, even if it means a physical fight when it is called for.

Ok so we sometimes have to manipulate the system to be able to accomplish our goal. I also remember G enciting someone's ego and self-importanceand and then laughing when the person was driven over the edge and slapped someone. I guess sometimes one way to help someone deal with their predator is to bring it out to the surface. But then you also have STS doing it - getting someone constantly emotional and angry and yelling all the time, and feeding on all that energy. So in the end STO and STS end up doing a lot of the same stuff, and I guess I may have a program in that regard, where I imagine STO behaving entirely differently, and I guess that program tends to ignore context that might otherwise require an action that is identical to what STS does on the surface. And it's not like I don't know this either, it's just sometimes I "conveniently forget it" if that makes sense?

I gotta think about all this for a while. It's not all entirely clear in my head, a lot of fuzziness. Maybe another thing too is that in order to get rid of the general fuzziness and lack of clarity on some of these issues with a lot of gray areas, I might have a tendency to form a syllogism or two and it might create impression of clarity and simplicity, and put to rest the otherwise really annoying thought clutter. But that's probably a really bad way to resolve this stuff, it just sucks when it happens without me even realizing it. Cuz then I think I am making sense and there is logic in what I say, but I could be unknowingly filtering, it is just subjective/programmed logic hampered by this syllogistic program that my mind sneakily decided to adapt, etc.

So thanks for pointing this out guys, and yay for networking. :)

 

[Beau]

Let me add that killing people, which the Jedis do, is not an STO act at all. My feeling is that a lot of the Jedi philosophy is STO, and maybe I also deemed that the people they were fighting against were, if anyone, worth getting rid of.

But as I talked this over with a friend, the reality is that STO is limited in their actions, and STS is not. In that respect I can understand why you would see the Jedi's actions as STS.

 

[Adaryn]

Yet, I did find the Faun's behaviour manipulative and ambiguous.

This may be, but the Faun had a power over Ofelia which made his actions quite less than what he really could have done to her. He could have killed her at any time - in fact I expected him to try, though he never did. He could have never came back a second time after she ate in the monster's lair (which was a directive in order to help Ofelia survive). All these things defy him being evil.

True. I think in that case the appearance of the ugly and frightening faun and the general assumption we have about fauns ("they're evil") made my opinion more biased than if the faun had lookd like, say, Galadriel. One more thing that points to the fact that appearances are illusionary, and a lot of times darkness passes as light and vice versa, light can look like darkness.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

True. I think in that case the appearance of the ugly and frightening faun and the general assumption we have about fauns ("they're evil") made my opinion more biased than if the faun had lookd like, say, Galadriel. One more thing that points to the fact that appearances are illusionary, and a lot of times darkness passes as light and vice versa, light can look like darkness.

I think when light wakes up in the morning, you'd be hard pressed to tell just what kind of hole it crawled out of, and judging by the trail of cracked mirrors it leaves behind, you may wonder what possessed it to crawl out of that hole to begin with. But darkness is quick to put on its best glow and go out to charm and amaze. Light just hangs around scratching itself till about 1pm, and after a couple dozen caffeine shots and a cold shower you might see it stumble out of its house into public view, grumbling something indiscernible.

But when it comes to that Faun, I'm still on the bench. But I guess there may not be enough data to make a conclusion one way or another. There's definite manipulation, but also there's evidence that may suggest that the manipulation could've been designed to help Ofelia learn, and to see if she's susceptible to it - sort of a trial by fire. And then there's the king and queen which on Earth have never been a good thing. And I still see no reason for a government in a truly STO civilization. But there are also lots of levels of STS. Here we have the pathocracy that just takes STS as far as it can be taken. But I'm sure there can be a government that can be as close to STO as a government can get. I guess that would mean something like no state secrets, and truly just doing everything they can to help everyone in the world, which would really make the government more like public servants, with the majority of decisions made by the public itself, and so the role of the government would be much less about control and much more about carrying out the will of the public, with no manipulation of public opinion, or something along those lines I'd think.

Edit: For the record, I was totally creeped out by Galadriel. I'm not sure what it was, if it was that sudden transformation she undertook in the presence of the ring, or that unnatural looking smirk she carries everywhere, but I was relieved when Frodo got out of there. Although it's interesting to say that light can look like darkness, and darkness can look like light. I mean, I don't think either one has a "typical" appearance, how do know what either one is supposed to "look like"? It seems popular culture (religion, Hollywood) shapes those preconceptions. Angels are white, gentle, live in white shiny heaven. Demons are black/red, rough, live in black/red hell covered in filth, slime, and all that. But is there any objectivity to such representations, where do such ideas come from? I mean, are they completely fictitious, or is there any element of truth in terms of the "typical" or "preferred" appearance and surroundings of different polarities? I mean, I'm sure the white house is a lot nicer looking than most houses, everybody wears suits, it's perfectly clean, beautiful lawn, etc. You have all the rich people buying up huge beautiful beachfront property, laced with white curtains and covered in grape vines, etc. And of course after all those nose jobs and weight watching and toning, they all look like a new penny too! Unless they overdo it and look like Michael Jackson, then it's a lot closer to the Grays. Hmm... maybe that's how they came to look like they do! :P

Perhaps on 4th density external appearance could reflect inner essence, I dunno. But here on earth it seems to be the opposite, that the more evil, the better and brighter you and your surroundings look.

 

[Beau]

I mean, are they completely fictitious, or is there any element of truth in terms of the "typical" or "preferred" appearance and surroundings of different polarities? I mean, I'm sure the white house is a lot nicer looking than most houses, everybody wears suits, it's perfectly clean, beautiful lawn, etc. You have all the rich people buying up huge beautiful beachfront property, laced with white curtains and covered in grape vines, etc.

I would recommend watching some David Lynch if you haven't yet. Particularly the TV series Twin Peaks or the movie Blue Velvet. Also American Beauty comes to mind (not a Lynch creation). These are stories about "the perfect neighborhood in Anytown USA" but underneath the seemingly quaint atmosphere you find all kinds of nasty things going on with the people that live there.

A book by Theodore Illion, Darkness in Tibet, also is a good one which presents a case where appearances were very deceitful. He enters the sacred underground city of "Light Workers", which has all these nice looking appearances but turns out to be the home of straight up Evil. Then, after he escapes, he is dying and crawling along trying to make it to his hermit friend when some friendly people find him, take him to his hermit friend, and in these utterly drab and meager surroundings he finds the true light workers who save his life.

In all these examples the lesson for me was that appearances are definitely deceitful, and that actions count more than anything.

 

[zoobiedoo]

Although it's interesting to say that light can look like darkness, and darkness can look like light. I mean, I don't think either one has a "typical" appearance, how do know what either one is supposed to "look like"? It seems popular culture (religion, Hollywood) shapes those preconceptions. Angels are white, gentle, live in white shiny heaven. Demons are black/red, rough, live in black/red hell covered in filth, slime, and all that. But is there any objectivity to such representations, where do such ideas come from? I mean, are they completely fictitious, or is there any element of truth in terms of the "typical" or "preferred" appearance and surroundings of different polarities?

I think the preconceptions about appearances you mention, Scio, are no accident. Evil/psychopaths want to project into our minds the idea that light/white is *always* good and dark/rough is *always* bad. It is the honey trap that appeals to an existing psychological factor present in "normal" people who, for the most part, naturally want to associate with what they perceive as "good". Since the inner nature of evil/psychopaths are repugnant to most "normal" people (and they know this), they resort to deception by associating a particular inner nature with a particular outer nature which is easy to simulate and control. I think truly "good" and wise people understand the difference between inner nature and outer nature, and they realize that outer appearances are simply not that important. Evil wants to confuse the two as being the same in our minds so they can avoid detection and distract us away from those who might be truly wise.

In Theodore Illion's other popular book, In Secret Tibet, he describes a situation where the Tibetan Buddhist monks would tell the common people who came to worship at the temples what traits a truly wise and enlightened monk should possess, such as living alone in the desert and being capable of great feats of fasting and other deprivations. Naturally, there were monks who had large enough egoes to dedicate themselves to performing such ridiculous feats so that people would revere them as wise and enlightened. They created cults of personality for themselves in this way in order to garner attention and aggrandizement. And this gave the common person a very simple way to identify who was "enlightened" and who was not.

In contrast, Illion described the truly wise as people who lived among the people and were not readily identifiable as wise, except by others who were also wise and then only in terms of inner nature. From an outer perspective, they were no different than the rest of the people. Yet they acted within their community for the greater good and created a unique influence on the people around them simply by their presence and their (usually small but meaningful from an inner perspective) actions.

My guess is that the "appearance" of the STO polarity in general is truly diverse and multi-colored. There may be light/white STO and there may be dark/rough STO and there may be grey STO and there may be purple with green diamond pattern STO, etc. etc. etc. It's the inner nature that counts, not the outer appearance. To throw people off the track altogether, evil has framed the question as a (false) dichotomy of external appearances instead of a polarity of inner natures.

 

[Cyre2067]

It's kinda funny, @ work there are always foodstuffs, donuts, cookies, bagel's sometimes free pizza lunches, sometimes sandwiches, reminds me of the second task big time. This was also a pattern at my last job - anyone else notice a daily attempt to kill you food-wise @ work?

Also - just watched Pan's for the 2nd time. Really enjoyed it, again. Can't help but notice the creepy vibe i get from that faun though.

I also really admire the Doctor, and esp how he stands up to the psychopathic commander and explains to him 'to follow an order, without question, is something i cannot do.'

 

[Z...]

anyone else notice a daily attempt to kill you food-wise @ work?

you bet, in fact these days I am devising the strategy to fight this conspiracy

but I think we r slightly off topic :)

 

[alberto]

I saw the Pan's Labyrinth 3 days ago and I thought it was excellent.
The ending is very subjective,meaning the story was a dream or it was true.
From my own point of view I thought the story was real.
It reminded me of a soul ascending to 4th density.
She wanted to experience the outside world and she experienced pain and suffering.
In order to be able to comeback,she had to proof that her soul was pure,and the ultimate proof was that she would be willing to give up to return to the kindom in order to save an innocent life.
The story has some grusome scenes but the world we live in is that way.
Some people thought it was a sad ending but for me it ment that in order to return she had to die.-in other words,she had to get rid of the "human" or the "mundane" form for her to be able to return again.