SilverJeep
Padawan Learner
ark said:
I think Ark nailed it on the head. The original post is like a kid throwing a rock at a hornets nest just to see what happens. With a little "I told them!" thrown in there.
several questions about validity
- Thread starter walkingon
- Start date
I think Ark nailed it on the head. The original post is like a kid throwing a rock at a hornets nest just to see what happens. With a little "I told them!" thrown in there.
SilverJeep said:
True. I understand from correspondence from a reader that the GLP crowd are going bananas over FOTCM and reiterating and reiterating and reiterating the same, tired old crap. It was suggested to me that it is probably only four or five individuals total though they have "sock puppets" to try and make it look like more. If that is the case, that again suggests 1) pathology; 2) paid agents; or 3) both.
And the beat goes on.
shijing
The Living Force
SilverJeep said:
Just as an aside, I think the reason this was taken the wrong way in some cases is that it was ambiguous who the intended audience was. If it was perceived by the reader that SilverJeep was addressing this to walkingon (as in "you tell'em, walkingon!"), then it appeared to be egging him on, thus the negative reactions. If, on the other hand, it was perceived that the intended audience was the rest of the forum, then it was indeed humorous. It involves the same kind of double-take you have to do with sentences like "The man saw the boy with the binoculars." I had originally read SilverJeep's comment the first way, but now I see it was intended the second way.
celtic
Jedi Master
The first thing that pops in my head after reading this persons post is why tell us this what is the purpose and why would he even get on the forum with two post and make ignorant assumptions about Laura & Ark and the people on the forum. He could simply ask about what we do here our purpose and reason or read it himself and discuss it with the members of the forum instead of making random assumptions. No body said Ark and Laura are superior beings they are very wise and humble and hard workers but everybody is there own person. I am not mad at this person even though it disturbes me that a grown person makes silly assumptions and attack a forum like that I think we have an agenda.
knowledge_of_self
The Living Force
I hear you Gaurdian-Guardian said:walkingon said:
Oh would you trolls PLEASEEEE just knock it off with the "cult" crap?? Here's a cluebrick for ya sunshine....if there's a little "X" in the upper right hand corner, it's not a "cult" ... it's a COMPUTER! Anything you can turn off with less effort than it takes to pick your nose does not even remotely qualify as a "cult"
I really can’t understand people who come here and compare this site to cults. Do these people even know what cults are??
Recently, I had to switch my phone # and received a new #. But this new # caused me to receive several unwanted phone calls from some credit burials and from some Evangelical Church looking for the person who had that # listed. Anyway, I ended up reading up about this church and found out that once you become a member, you are required to pay 5-10% of your yearly salary to the church by all means. Even if you don’t attend anything- just by being a member!
Here, there is no such thing as you MUST give us money. You are FREE to do what you want. You can give money or not- you are FREE to CHOOSE to read this site or not. There are NO obligations!
Laura, Ark or ANYONE here do not see themselves better or above anyone else or more “evolved”. They are respected by everyone because they have earned that respect due to their hard work and their willingness to stand up to tyranny of all sorts. Respect does NOT equal worship.
G
Gertrudes
Guest
Deedlet said:
I think that this is something that many people that come here to attack the forum are unable to distinguish: the difference between respect and worship.
I also think there is a common pattern of wishing to "awake" the forum members to some sort of brain wash the poster assumes we are going through. It reminds me of what outsiders often thought when being confronted with Gurdjieff and his group of pupils. It is as if there is a strong fear in the poster, or the outsiders in Gurdjieff's group, of a group striving for a common view, in other words, for objective reality. And they seem to equate that striving with loosing one's individuality. The concept of individuality is, I think, fundamentally wrong in both cases.
walkingon said:
In my understanding, their philosophy talks about building true strength of Being. Not reinforcing the layers and layers of egocentric I's we have residing within. It is an important difference to distinguish, or so I think.
And as Deedlet said, Laura and Ark EARNED their respect.
Gertrudes said:
I do not like the term "respect"". Respect is not a good thing - when you have respect to someone, to some extent you will hesitate to pay a critical attention to what the respected party is doing or saying. You will tend to forgive what you will consider to be "small errors". It would be better if it was just "l like it", "I like the values", or "It suits my purpose". Or, "I like the idea and I want to participate, because it seems to me that when I participate here I am gaining, and I am contributing to the realization of some ideas that I consider as valuable". Anything like this is much better than "respect", also because it promotes an active participation rather than just a passive one.
And please, do no accept what I wrote above out of respect alone :) We should always strive at accepting things owing to our understanding, rather than owing to our to respect.
Stevie Argyl
Jedi Master
ark said:
Very well explained. 'Respect' can be a first step towards thralldom.
I don't know you, I cannot therefore 'respect' you. But I like the cut of your gib in your answer :)
Stevie Argyll said:
On the other hand lack of respect (for the Law, for instance) can be a first step towards you know where. Therefore a moderation and paying attention to the details is needed. Nothing comes easy. The devil is always in the details.
celtic
Jedi Master
I agree respect is more so being popular or receiving more attention then you or that group should receive and focus less on the accomplishment and what that group have done for others and the main purpose. It basically says that the group is base around rank and status and that would draw attention to a certain person and the person observing the respected person focus less on himself and the main purpose of the group and others. But I do think Ark/Laura should be recognize for there hard work and dedication for there accomplishment and success on the forum and the websites.
G
Gertrudes
Guest
ark said:
Yes, I "see" what you are saying.
On the one hand there seems to be a fine line between respecting someone or simply liking or choosing to align according to that someone's ideas. On the other hand there seems to be a world of difference between what respect can bring, which is a partial (or in some cases complete) blindness to that person's errors; or understanding, which comes from a deeper place. I suppose we tend to respect what we can't completely understand, but once understanding is in place, we have freedom for much more fruitful interactions because our critical antennas are active.
Ark said:
I didn't, it makes sense :)
Stevie Argyll said:
I understand.
As I see it, the idea is to be able to acknowledge differences without subservience, which would imply some sort of hierarchy.
Gertrudes said:
Right. Perhaps it will be of some use if I explain how I understand "respect". Right now I am at a final stage of writing a long scientific article about "conformal infinity" - whatever it means. In this article I am exposing misrepresentations in several well known monographs written by well known scientists. These misrepresentations have their origin in misleading made by most famous scientists such as Roger Penrose and Steven Hawking. Other scientists somehow relied on what Penrose and Hawking were saying, but did not take care to check carefully themselves, probably because of "respect". Errors have been propagated in the scientific literature. In my article I analyze these errors, point them explicitly, and provide the correct solutions. I do have respect for those who wrote these erroneous statements because these authors have done also a lot of good and error free work. In fact almost all their work is good. But errors are errors and should be exposed as such.
Because I am also lightly criticizing Penrose and Hawking as well, I have sent the preliminary version of my paper to them as well. No reply. My respect for them is somewhat lesser now. But, on the other hand, I am thankful, because finding errors in such difficult matters was a challenge for me and I have learned a lot myself during the work on my article.
anart said:
Overlooking your seemingly erroneous "original poster" interpretation...
Assuming you do not know the poster (since you and sott adopt other pseudonyms) it may not be erroneous to label him/her as such. It might have been however, unwise, judgemental, ignorant and certainly STS to do so in this context, osit.
