I had to think about this question. I came to the conclusion that it would be a mistake to list what I think the false beliefs are. This is because I'd be talking about other people's subjective state of which I'm unaware, so I'd probably be wrong and I'd also run the risk of offending people.
Having said that, I still haven't changed my belief that false beliefs were the cause of the ban. If I'm right then the moderators would need to examine their beliefs themselves, and network with each other in order to rectify them.
Archaea, you might stop and consider for a moment the larger context of this forum and its aims as a whole. Consider those people who choose to invest their time and energy here as part of a collective shared experience/effort, consider their aims and what best serves them and the forum as a whole.
I recently started reading
Meetings with remarkable men, which I'm enjoying and I think
Bringers of the dawn provides an interesting context for the book. Gurdjieff calls it preparatory material for creating a new world, and if Gurdjieff were a member of "the family of light" then his mission of creating a new world could be like what the P's call creating a new reality.
So could we say that the aim of this forum is to create a new reality through working on ourselves?
That is plain silly. Sedenion has the free will to listen, to be open, to adapt, to change, to even give up his "suffering" if he so chooses – people sometimes do.
What about the free will of other members here to not be manipulated, pity hooked, and/or have their energy wasted by those who do not share co-linear aims?
Is being considerate of other people's internal considerations being externally considerate?
Forumites here look for common ground for productive discussions. When someone new joins the forum, he is asked to read certain material so that there can be enough of common ground for discussions. Sedenion refused this offer and instead continued trolling. Granted his version of trolling was more intellectual and sophisticated, but it was trolling nonetheless as far as I could see. Trolling gets people banned from Internet forums and Sedenion was apparently quite familiar with being banned from other places. In this forum, we ban trolls quickly.
I certainly agree that common ground is a good thing as it can save a lot of time. I didn't see it the way you saw it, like I said I think it was a reaction cycle, I don't think Sedenion would have continued posting if others stopped, I could be wrong, but that's how I saw it.
Ultimately I think if he was interested in new ideas like he said he was, and he continued interacting on here, then he would've eventually become interested in books. But he might be one of those people who can't be pushed, the more you push him to read books the more he'll push back and refuse to read them, IMO once he said he didn't want to read books, he should have been reassured that it's okay to change his mind and left alone.
With Sedenion more patience was shown to see if some common ground could be found despite his obviously off-putting ways. And it was during this effort people here tried to empathize with Sedenion which sometimes leads to projections. Many here have suffered from "authority" figures or institutions and the resulting emotional wounds can make people reflexively distrustful and rebellious. So the idea that Sedenion may be wounded emotionally was entertained by people and spelled out. Sedenion rejected this idea and claimed others were projecting their brokenness on him.
So the first two steps which you suggested were already implemented and results observed. Then the decision was taken to ban to conserve energy. When somebody does not wish to find common ground for fruitful communication then continued attempts to do so is unnecessary energy drainage.
Well that's good, I guess the third step would be to understand where sedenion was coming from, put yourself in his shoes so to speak. I agree with you that the continued attempts were an energy drain, that's what I've been saying, I think it was a reaction cycle. If what I think is correct then it would have been an energy drain for sedenion as well. As I see it system 1 was operating above system 2.
Archaea, this is a sort of déjà vu as you have raised similar concerns in the past when someone got banned, if I remember correctly. Maybe you can revisit some of those discussions?
One of my posts got deleted which prompted me to start this thread:
I'm feeling unwelcome here, post deleted
I came to the conclusion that if I didn't agree with something I would say something, otherwise it could lead to suppressed emotions and projections.
Although I confess that I'm battling apathy on this particular issue, I'm only doing this because it's what I understand is the right thing to do.
There could be a confusion as to what "judgement" is.
Judgement as objective and open analysis, VS judgement of a closed reactionary kind - religion/societal rules, etc.
I think discernment is a good word, to be STO I think we need to understand the truth about others. Judgment is permanent, sedenion was judged to never be worth any time or energy, whereas I think discernment would have lead to the discussion not being worth the time or the energy.
Perhaps you should revisit Jordan Peterson's thread, to see how misguided this notion of "allowing free expression". Besides, it is a bit silly, indeed, because people get banned all over internet all the time, and most of them don't initiate "justice for the banned" campaigns. There is also something very strange about insisting on being allowed back to the place where they are not wanted for whatever reason. It shows lack of self-respect.
I'm unaware of Jordan Peterson's thread, but allowing free expression is a good thing, as denying it can lead to projections and suppressed emotions. It seems logical to me that most other forums would be subjugated by automatic reactions, but I don't know this for a fact.
Personally that was not the approach i took, instead i was trying to meet him half way, i personally liked what he explained about the projection matrix which is very similar to what i was terming the belief system contruct, or at least on that level, unfortunatelly he brought it up as a means to argue,
I was trying to have a conversation with him, he has problems and so do I, so that isn't a dealbreaker on the personal level,
I think it's possible that some of sedenion's emotions towards other people were transferring onto you. He may have lumped everything that was said to him as coming from the same source, the text of the computer screen. If he was reacting then he could have been reacting to the computer in front of him instead of the people themselves.
I did not like how he stated deffinites for everything, certain assumptions were plain wrong, where i even wondered if he was purposfully doing this for fun, or just the plan B is the first attempt is unsuccessful.
I don't like definitive statements either. I like to own my statements because then I know for a fact that they are correct and truthful, whereas if I made definitive statements then they would be less than truthful if I happened to be wrong.
So i was actually invested in him because i wanted to know and understand him, but that doesn't mean i or anyone has to meet his every expectation at every second just because free will, as it was stated by alada, i consider my energy and time valuable to me, and i will pay attention to him as much as i can but if he is going to toy with it, my knowledge small or big amount , what i have earned for the time i've been investigating, well then no, i value it and im offering it, if he does not see the value i am within my choice to preserve energy that, as the C's say, can be better spent elsewhere, just a middle ground i was asking
The STO aspect is not equivalent to letting everyone do their free will with you from what i explained before, it is respect his choice and excersice ours in accordance to the aim, preserving the network IS part of the aim, or should any guest in your house is to be allowed to make a party out of your favor ,and break your valuables?
I don't think it's fair to hold sedenion responsible for how you use your energy. It seems to me that he was given a great deal of authority for someone who hadn't been here very long, he had the command of many members time and energy. He then used it in a way that the investors disagreed with, and having committed this crime, was condemned to be unworthy of receiving any time or energy ever again.
Sedenion could have given the forum authority of his time and energy as well, if so, then that could be the other half of the reaction cycle. The solution which I think would've been in accord with the aim of the forum of increasing STO polarity would have been for a least some members (ideally the moderators) to have taken responsibility for how they use their time and energy and withheld it in the discussion instead of expending it.
After some time a pattern of behavior could have been established for sedenion in order to determine with some objective degree of probability whether or not he was trolling or being intentionally disruptive. But one conversation, in which the moderators were not neutral, is not enough data to establish a pattern. He just wasn't here long enough IMO.
